Proceedings of the 1987 Exclusive 

Economic Zone Symposium on 

Mapping and Research: Planning 

for the Next 10 Years 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 1018 

Proceedings of the 1987 Exclusive 

Economic Zone Symposium on 

Mapping and Research: Planning 

for the Next 10 Years 

MILLINGTON LOCKWOOD, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and 

BONNIE A. McGREGOR, U.S. Geological Survey, EDITORS 

Sponsored by the USGS-NOAA joint Office 

for Mapping and Research in the EEZ 

Meetings held at the USGS National 

Center, Reston, Virginia, 

November 17-19, 1987 

Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 1018 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Dallas L. Peck, Director 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1988 

Free on application to the Books and Open-File Reports Section, 

U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225 

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 

Exclusive Economic Zone Symposium on Mapping and Research (1987: USGS 

National Center) 

Proceedings of the 1987 Exclusive Economic Zone Symposium on Mapping and 

Research. 

(U.S. Geololgical Survey circular; 1018) 

Sponsored by USGS-NOAA Joint Office for Mapping and Research in the EEZ; 

held Nov. 17-19, 1987. 

Bibliography: p. 

1. Mineral resources in submerged lands-United States-Congresses. 

2. Mineral resources in submerged lands-United States-MapsCongresses. 3. Marine resources and state-United States-Congresses. 

I. Lockwood, Millington. II. McGregor, Bonnie A. Ill. USGS-NOAA Joint 

Office for Mapping and Research in the EEZ. IV. Title. V. Series. 

TN264.E94 1987 553'.09162 88-600246 

The use of brand names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. 
CONTENTS 

Introduction and symposium summary, by Gary W. Hill and Millington Lockwood 1 

Part 1: Invited Speakers 5 

The need for mapping and research of the seabed-subsoil of the EEZ, by James W. 

Ziglar 5 

The Exclusive Economic Zone: Resources for the future, by D. James Baker 7 

The needs of users of EEZ mapping and research, by J. Steven Griles 11 

Ocean science and engineering, by M. Grant Gross 13 

Technology, competitiveness, and the Federal role in the Exclusive Economic Zone, 

by James W. Curlin 15 

Mapping of the seafloor-Progress and the plan, by Paul M. Wolff 21 

Information needs to develop technology to recover the mineral resources of the EEZ, 

by David S. Brown 25 

The Outer Continental Shelf program: Status, prospects, and information needs, by 

William D. Bettenberg 27 

Information needs and multiple-use decisions: An environmental perspective, by 

Clifton E. Curtis 31 

The face of the deep-Road maps of discovery, by Dallas L. Peck 35 

Part 2: Workshop results 39 

Workshop 1: Scientific mapping and research to characterize the EEZ-Alaska, 

Michael S. Marlow and Douglas A. Wolfe, panel co-chairpersons 39 

Workshop 2: Scientific mapping and research to characterize the EEZ-West coast, 

William R. Normark and Donald A. Hull, panel co-chairpersons 59 

Workshop 3: Scientific mapping and research to characterize the EEZ-East coast, 

John S. Schlee and David B. Duane, panel co-chairpersons 65 

Workshop 4: Scientific mapping and research to characterize the EEZ-Gulf coast, 

James M. Coleman and Chacko J. John, panel co-chairpersons 75 

Workshop 5: Scientific mapping and research to characterize the EEZ-Islands, 

Bruce M. Richmond and Charles L. Morgan, panel co-chairpersons 89 

Workshop 6: Technology needs to characterize the EEZ, Robert C. Tyee and 

Donald E. Pryor, panel co-chairpersons 101 

Workshop 7: Information needs and availability for oil and gas leasing, exploration, 

and development of the EEZ, Carolita L. Kallaur and Carl H. Savit, panel 

co-chairpersons 115 

Workshop 8: Information availability and utilization for hard mineral leasing, 

exploration, and development of the EEZ, ReidT. Stone, John B. Smith, and 

D. S. Cotten, panel co-chairpersons 125 

Workshop 9: Information needs for seafloor-seabed utilization, Armand J. Silva, 

Charles N. Ehler, and Joseph R. Vadus, panel co-chairpersons 133 

Appendix 1: 1987 Exclusive Economic Zone Symposium program agenda 151 

Appendix 2: Alphabetical list of symposium participants 159 

Appendix 3: Guidance for 1987 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Symposium 

Workshops 173 

Contents Ill 

Proceedings of the 1987 Exclusive Economic 

Zone Symposium on Mapping and Research: 

Planning for the Next 10 Years 

Millington Lockwood and Bonnie A. McGregor, editors 

Introduction and Symposium Summary 

1987 EEZ Symposium Co-chairpersons: 

Gary W. Hill, U.S. Geological Survey 

Millington Lockwood, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

This was the third in a series of biennial symposia 

dedicated to the implementation of a National program of 

research and mapping in the Exclusive Economic Zone 

(EEZ). It was held November 17-19, 1987, at the U.S. 

Geological Survey's National Center in Reston, Virginia. 

The meeting was convened under the auspices of the 

USGS-NOAA Joint Office for Mapping and Research in the 

EEZ. This Joint Office was formed in 1986 to establish a 

means of coordination and communication among the 

various entities-Federal, State, academic institutions, and 

the private sector-who have a responsibility or a need for 

mapping and research in the Exclusive Economic Zone. 

Sponsors of the meeting were the U.S. Geological Survey, 

Minerals Management Service, and the Bureau of Mines in 

the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration in the Department of Commerce. Appendix 1 is a copy of the symposium program and 

agenda. 

BACKGROUND-NEED FOR A NATIONAL 

PLAN 

Mapping and research on the seafloor adjacent to the 

United States has been a National effort, involving primarily 

the Department of Defense, the U.S. Geological Survey, 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

certain academic institutions, and private industry, the latter 

primarily for the exploration for oil and gas on the continental shelf. Within the USGS and NOAA these activities 

were accelerated in 1983, following the issuance of the EEZ 

Manuscript approved for publication, May 17, 1988 

Proclamation by President Reagan. The intent was to 

expand the exploration already begun on the continental 

shelf to the frontier regions of the EEZ. Only through 

increased exploration will the Nation realize the benefits 

this new territory has to offer. 

The ocean has played a key role in our Nation's 

history. Fisheries, transportation, and defense are examples 

of national issues where the ocean has been a major factor. 

Energy and mineral resources, the disposal of wastes, 

multiple use opportunities, international boundary determinations, technology, and national defense applications are 

issues (or opportunities) that will continue to play an 

increasingly important role in our efforts to secure and 

maintain the quality of the American lifestyle and our 

international leadership. A well-developed comprehensive 

mapping and research program will provide much of the 

knowledge essential to meet this challenge. Advancements 

in technology, for example, high-speed computers, satellites, and new measurement systems, coupled with an 

awareness of the "earth system," allow us to build on past 

efforts in the EEZ. From this technology information base 

we can design and conduct a National EEZ program consisting of studies involving the geologic framework, seafloor processes, and nonliving resources of an area as large 

and as complex as the EEZ in a relatively short time frame. 

To be successful the program must combine the 

expertise and technology found in government, academia, 

and the private sector. The program should have clearly 

defined goals and be coordinated with other ongoing activities in the ocean. It cannot be accomplished in a haphazard 

or isolated manner, and it must be based upon a carefully 

Introduction and Symposium Summary 
thought out long-range plan. The main purpose of the 1987 

EEZ symposium was to determine the essential elements of 

this plan. 

GOALS OF THE 10-VEAR PROGRAM 

The goal of the National EEZ Mapping and Research 

Program is to describe the framework and understand the 

processes-geological, geochemical, and geophysicalthat interact at and within the seafloor of the EEZ and that 

contribute to the development of the seafloor and continental margins and to the formation of the various nonliving 

marine resources on and within the seafloor. Specific 

objectives are to characterize and evaluate the seabed and 

subsoil of the EEZ in a timely manner by understanding the 

geological framework and processes related to this frontier; 

identifying marine energy, mineral, and other nonliving 

resources; understanding causes of seafloor geological hazards; determining sedimentary basin evolution; defining 

geomorphic and sedimentologic processes; and developing 

baseline information, which would allow activities involving use of the EEZ to be carried out in a timely, efficient, 

and environmentally sound manner. 

The strategy for developing the program is based on 

the identification of scientific objectives, within the context 

of national issues, in order to focus the direction toward a 

10-year goal. Previous symposia, workshops, and studies 

by national advisory groups suggested that the program be 

structured around regional areas (Alaska, West Coast, Gulf 

of Mexico, East Coast, and Islands) and three ocean 

resource categories (oil and gas, hard minerals, and other 

seafloor uses). Additionally, one element of the program 

will concentrate on technology for seafloor exploration. 

STRUCTURING THE NATIONAL PROGRAMCONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS 

To be successful in meeting the program's goals we 

must, of necessity, limit the activity to those which can be 

clearly identified as relevant to the program's objectives. To 

accomplish this, certain limits or constraints have been 

placed on the design of the program. These limiting factors 

include: 

1. Geographical area defined as coast to 200 mi offshore 

with the primary emphasis on the outer shelf, slope, 

and continental rise. Areas of special interest are those 

not extensively studied in the past. 

2. Program goals and objectives that have been established so as to be accomplished within a 10-year time 

frame, generally restricting the program to current 

(available) technology with limited operational 

improvements. 

3. Emphasis is on the seafloor relative to geologic framework, processes, and resources. Much of the water 

column and biological aspects have been eliminated 

from consideration except as they relate specifically to 

the seabed or can be conducted as ancillary projects in 

conjunction with the primary mission. 

4. Mapping and research should stress exploration, scientific interpretations, and investigation of the unknown 

frontier regions of the EEZ, utilizing the "telescope" 

approach-reconnaissance-scale efforts (regional), 

focusing down to site-specific studies of individual 

(local) features. 

5. Wide involvement of user groups in program design, 

rapid turnaround of results, cooperative (government, 

academia, industry) projects, preparation of products 

and data bases for multiple uses (maps, atlases, and 

interpretative reports). 

6. Program management philosophy is one of coordination, cooperation, and communications, rather than 

centralized control. 

1987 EEZ SYMPOSIUM 

The meeting began with overview presentations by 

spokesmen for ongoing national activities in the EEZ. 

These included the Department of the Interior, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National 

Science Foundation, the Oceanic Society, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and the Amoco 

Oil Corporation. The keynote speaker for the meeting was 

Dr. James Baker, President of Joint Oceanographic Institutions, Inc., and President of the Marine Technology Society. The second day of the symposium consisted of nine 

individual (concurrent) workshops dealing with regional 

issues and specific ocean use activities (oil and gas, hard 

minerals, and seafloor uses), and one workshop panel dealt 

exclusively with exploration and mapping technology. During the final day of the symposium, workshop chairmen 

presented the major findings from their sessions during a 

3-hour summary session. 

Approximately 300 people attended all or some of the 

sessions of the meeting. Attendees represented the Federal 

sector (57%), private sector (23% ), universities (10% ), 

State agencies (8% ), and foreign countries (2% ). A complete listing of symposium attendees is included in appendix 

2. Exhibits showed (1) the results from USGS surveys 

utilizing the GLORIA wide-swath side-scan sonar system, 

(2) an extensive display of NOAA's strategic assessments 

capabilities, (3) results of Minerals Management Service's 

regional State/Federal task forces in Hawaii and Washington/Oregon, and (4) seafloor surveys from private industry 

and academic researchers. 

The primary purpose of the EEZ symposium was to 

provide scientific and technical advice from national experts 

2 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
in order to identify and analyze the currently available data 

and review program goals. In order to keep the meeting 

focused and to have attendees properly prepared, each 

workshop participant was given written guidance (see 

appendix 3). Workshops were asked to identify gaps 

between current knowledge and the program's goals. The 

topics each workshop dealt with were ( 1) geologic framework, (2) geologic processes, and (3) seafloor resources, 

hazards, and uses. 

Each of the workshop panels was asked to address the 

following: 

1. Analyze current programs and data relating to the state 

of knowledge in each topic area. 

2. Identify gaps between current knowledge and program 

goals through the following procedure: 

a. Develop specific objectives for each program component in a region or ocean use category. 

b. Enumerate gaps between current knowledge and 

10-year objectives for each component. 

c. Answer the following questions as they relate to 

the geological framework, processes, or seafloor 

uses: 

( 1) What specific information do we need and for 

what purposes? 

(2) What are the attributes of these data and 

information sets? 

(3) What are the constraints to acquiring these 

data? 

( 4) What is a viable strategy to acquiring and 

managing these data and information sets? 

(5) What are the consequences of not gathering 

these data? 

SUMMARY OF SYMPOSIUM RESULTS 

Each of the panels met for a day to discuss the above 

questions and developed a consensus from the individuals 

within each workshop. The full panel reports are contained 

in their entirety in this volume; however, a few of the more 

pertinent findings, issues, and recommendations are summarized generically below. 

Mapping and Research 

1. Reconnaissance-scale data sets and maps are an essential element of ocean exploration. These include bathymetry, morphology, seismic reflection profiles, gravity, magnetics, and bottom samples. Improved maps 

utilizing modem technology are needed for most areas 

of the EEZ. Except for areas of the continental shelf, in 

studies for oil and gas exploration, reconnaissancescale data sets for the EEZ do not exist. 

2. On the basis of available reconnaissance data, we should 

begin to expand our understanding of the seafloor into 

the third dimension by using a "corridor" approach (for 

example, identify a 30- by 200-mi corridor across an 

island arc to define, in detail, the framework, processes, and resources). 

3. Although the deep water of the EEZ is a frontier area, 

the nearshore and coastal zones are an integral part of 

the EEZ and are important economically and also are 

the areas most likely to have resource potential in the 

immediate future. Nearshore areas must be part of a 

national research and mapping program. 

4. Selected "spot," or ground truth, surveys should be 

carried out as a way to calibrate existing GLORIA, 

SeaMARC, and other seafloor imagery data and to 

begin to identify specific resources. 

Technology Development and 

Implementation 

1. The high cost of ship support requires that maximum 

use be made of underway platforms. Additional sensors 

(for example, gravity), especially those operating in a 

passive mode, should be standard on all EEZ survey 

ships. 

2. An intermediate-scale reconnaissance survey technique 

should be evaluated for use in certain frontier areas 

following the GLORIA surveys as a means of further 

delimiting the geological framework prior to sitespecific investigations or surveys by the multibeam 

swath-survey systems. 

3. Further development should be undertaken to determine the feasibility of developing a cost-effective 

unmanned (robotic) rock drill suitable for use in water 

depths of 4,000 m on hard, irregular substrate like 

cobalt crusts. 

4. Full implementation of the Global Positioning System 

and subsequent use by all investigators in the EEZ will 

ensure that positional accuracy is adequate for registration of all data sets and subsequent detailed investigations and studies. 

Information Management 

1. The vast amount of data that are being and will be 

collected in the EEZ require that as much as possible be 

digital. This digitization will facilitate the use, distribution, and permanent archiving of the data. 

2. The accessibility of bathymetric data to all users is 

critically important. The restriction on the dissemination of NOAA's swath mapping data and maps should 

be reexamined in light of economic security and 

national independence, in addition to national security 

considerations. 

3. An examination should be made of the data held by the 

Minerals Management Service and the geophysical 

Introduction and Symposium Summary 3 
exploration industry to determine a way whereby certain aspects of these data (for example, the upper 1 

second of multichannel seismic reflection data, or 

bathymetric, gravity, and magnetic data at reduced 

resolution) could be made available to the public. 

Coordination and Policy Considerations 

1. A comprehensive plan including design, implementation, and coordination options is critical to the success 

of a national program. 

2. Advice of other Federal agencies, State Governments, 

academic institutions, and private industry should be 

sought to assure that the information needs of all users 

of the EEZ are incorporated into the plan. 

3. Communications and coordination between Federal, 

State, and local agencies, academic institutions, and 

industry should continue to be encouraged and fostered 

within a national plan. 

ROLE OF THE USGs-NOAA JOINT OFFICE 

FOR MAPPING AND RESEARCH IN THE 

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE (JOMAR) 

The results of the symposium will serve as the main 

elements of the 10-year national plan. The individual 

workshop reports include details of mapping and research 

needs by geographical region and by specific ocean use 

category. The proceedings, along with other relevant 

sources of information (for example, National Academy of 

Engineering Marine Board's study on seafloor utilization, 

National Science Foundation's Engineering Directorate proposals, Coastal States Organization's recommendations 

regarding States' activities in the EEZ), will serve as the 

source material for a 10-year mapping and research plan. 

This plan, which will be prepared by the staff of the 

JOMAR (see illustration in appendix 1) in cooperation with 

the user community and other governmental agencies and 

organizations will serve as guidance for activities in the 

EEZ over the next decade. 

SELECTED REFERENCES 

Compass Publications, 1987, Special Issue-Ocean engineering 

and resource development in the Exclusive Economic Zone: 

Sea Technology, v. 28, no. 6, 77 p. 

Hill, Gary, and Lockwood, Millington, 1987, Seafloor exploration and characterization: Prerequisite to ocean space utilization: Oceans 87 Conference Proceedings, Institute of 

Electronics and Electrical Engineers/Marine Technology 

Society, Washington, D.C., p. 724-729. 

McGregor, B.A., and Lockwood, Millington, 1985, Mapping and 

research in the Exclusive Economic Zone: U.S. Geological 

Survey General Information Publication, 40 p. 

National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, 1986. 

The need for a national plan of scientific exploration for the 

Exclusive Economic Zone: Final Panel Report, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 62 p. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1986, Proceedings: The Exclusive Economic Zone Symposium, 

Exploring the New Ocean Frontier, October 2-3, 1985: 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Ocean Service, Charting and Geodetic Services, 

Rockville, Maryland, 270 p. 

---1987, Plan for mapping the seafloor of the United States 

Exclusive Economic Zone 1988-1992: National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, 

Charting and Geodetic Services, Rockville, Maryland, 52 

p. 

U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 1987, Marine 

minerals: Exploring our new ocean frontier: OT A-0-342, 

Washington, D.C., 349 p. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1984, Symposium Proceedings: A 

national program for the assessment and development of the 

mineral resources of the United States Exclusive Economic 

Zone: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 929, 308 p. 

4 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
PART 1: INVITED SPEAKERS 

The Need for Mapping and Research of the 

Seabed-Subsoil of the EEZ 

James W. Ziglar 

Department of the Interior 

It is a pleasure for me to welcome all of you to this 

symposium on the Exclusive Economic Zone. As Assistant 

Secretary for Water and Science, I'm usually known as the 

Department of the Interior's water development advocate. I 

do, indeed, spend a significant amount of my time on such 

issues as financing water projects or ground water research. 

But the other half of my title, "Science," i.e., the geology 

and mining and minerals research being carried out at the 

Survey and the Bureau of Mines, is the part of my job I find 

most stimulating. In fact, the opportunity to direct part of 

the Federal Government's overall strategic and critical 

minerals program was one of the greatest attractions the 

Water and Science post held for me. I have always believed 

that America needs a strong defense capability, as well as 

a stable economy, and you simply can't have either of them 

without a strong minerals industry. There is no question in 

my mind that the EEZ will be playing an important role in 

providing the minerals and materials our Nation will need in 

the future. 

When I was confirmed as Assistant Secretary for 

Water and Science, I spent a good deal of time being briefed 

by the scientists at the USGS and Mines on all of the 

different minerals programs they were working on. I must 

admit that up until that time, most of my knowledge about 

mining and mineral resources was based on what I had 

learned in the 1960's while working on the Hill and what I 

personally had seen in southern Africa and minerals producing areas in the U.S. When I thought of minerals, I 

thought of underground mines or large open pits. I hadn't 

really considered the potentials which the newly declared 

Exclusive Economic Zone might offer. The briefings I 

received opened a whole new arena for me. The researchers 

I heard were convinced that the ocean offered great potential. Their enthusiasm was contagious. 

It was not long after those briefings that I had an 

opportunity to see first hand why these people were so 

excited about what they are doing. The British ship Parnella docked not far south of here for a few days during its 

mapping mission of the East Coast EEZ in cooperation with 

the USGS. When 50 people are willing to make it out to 

Reston at 6 a.m. on a Saturday morning to take a 6-hour 

round-trip bus ride to Norfolk to visit a research ship, that 

tells you something. Most of you are probably conversant 

with the sonar process used by the Parnella and its crew, 

and the resulting mosaics from the Parnella which are 

printed and bound. The EEZ atlases are impressive. But, if 

you really want to be impressed, I'd recommend a visit to 

the Parnella. Actually seeing how the information is 

gathered and taking a look at all the data in raw form help 

you appreciate how much work goes into processing these 

maps of America's newest frontier. 

We do know a lot about a few select areas of our 

ocean territory. The Minerals Management Service and 

others have done great work gathering geological and 

environmental data around the sites that are proposed and 

ultimately selected for offshore drilling. Still, until the 

results from the USGS sonar mapping process began 

pouring in, we knew very little about the geography of the 

deep-water ocean floor. With the help of the Parnella, 

we've discovered that a lot we thought we knew about the 

ocean floor was not quite right. 

I've taken a quick look at some of the scientific 

highlights that have come out of this mapping work. We've 

found new volcanoes, canyons, and fields of sand and 

mudwaves. For a policy maker and nonscientist like myself, 

the response to all of those discoveries might be "so what?" 

While this information might make fascinating reading in 

Scientific American or National Geographic, why should 

the Federal Government be out trying to figure out what the 

ocean looks like when "everybody knows" it's empty? 

Although we're in the initial phases of this exploration, 

we've already found some very good answers to the 

question of "so what?" 

Last year, for example, the USGS announced that 

initial analyses of mineral samples collected from the 

seafloor off the Pacific coast indicated the potential for what 

could be a world-class polymetallic sulfide deposit of zinc, 

lead, copper, silver, and gold. The ore concentrations in 

initial samples demonstrate that the EEZ can indeed provide 

minerals that may be necessary in the future. 

Polymetallic sulfide deposits that were formed in 

some prehistoric oceans are being mined on dry land today. 

It is the understanding we have been able to gain from those 

deposits that led us to the Gorda Ridge in search of "fresh" 

sulfide deposits. Now, the knowledge we gain offshore may 

help us better understand how these deposits are formed and 

Need for Mapping and· Research 5 
provide new knowledge about minerals exploration on land. 

The benefits of ocean exploration are not limited to discovering new finds offshore. 

One of the members of my personal staff has also 

spent time on a multiagency research vessel in the South 

Pacific investigating the cobalt-enriched crusts that have 

been located as a result of our increased emphasis on 

exploration of the EEZ. Besides coming back with a terrific 

tan, he also returned with a collection of mineralized crusts 

that are rich in cobalt. Because the manganese crusts appear 

to be easily removed, and because they lie in fairly shallow 

water, they seem to offer greater potential for recovery than 

the well-known manganese nodules from the deep ocean 

floor. Also, because these crusts lie within our EEZ, rather 

than in international waters, the legal, political, and policy 

problems should be less complex. 

I guess an average American would be excited to hear 

that we've found gold offshore California. For me, a 

domestic find of cobalt and manganese is much more 

exciting. 

As I earlier said, I am particularly interested in the 

national security issues that are associated with our 

country's supply of minerals. Cobalt and manganese are 

both essential ingredients in many of our Nation's defense 

systems- not to mention the role they play in the overall 

economy. But, because we have only low-grade deposits of 

these minerals on land, we've had to rely on overseas 

sources for them. Some of those sources are unstable, and 

some of them are unfriendly. Locating domestic sources, 

even if we currently do not have the technology to develop 

those resources, is an important step in improving our 

security situation. For this reason alone, I believe our EEZ 

program has already made substantial contributions to the 

good of the Nation. 

I might mention, our current lack of technology is not 

being ignored. I've seen some fascinating research being 

done by the Bureau of Mines in Salt Lake City involving 

relatively new technology that appears to offer some promise for ocean minerals. The Bureau of Mines is increasing 

its efforts to investigate innovative, high-tech mining potentials, and I'm pleased to see that the Acting Director, Dave 

Brown, will be speaking on your program. 

I am confident that our offshore minerals programs 

will contribute to a strong future. One of the reasons for my 

confidence is the successful offshore energy recovery programs that are currently being conducted. I've already 

mentioned MMS's offshore leasing program. It's definitely 

been a success for this country. A reasoned look at the full 

record will show that both economically and environmentally, our nation's offshore energy program is sound. 

Energy resources are not all that are being developed 

offshore today. Construction materials, such as sand and 

gravel, already are being mined offshore. Land resources 

for these materials are being depleted, especially near some 

of our growing coastal cities. Other resources, such as 

sulfur, and, of course, salt, also are being produced from 

our ocean territory. 

Ocean mineral resources are a reality today. They 

will be a necessity tomorrow. The USGS has estimated that, 

in the next 50 years, we will need to produce as much raw 

fuel and nonfuel mineral resources as we produced in the 

first 200 years of our history. Many of those resources will 

come from offshore waters. 

Much of the progress we have made in understanding 

the ocean and its resources has come as the result of 

cooperation between industry, academia, and government 

agencies. This is certainly true of the EEZ mapping program. The joint office recently formed between NOAA and 

USGS is a major and practical step forward in ensuring the 

maximum possible cooperation in the basic research and 

mapping efforts on the EEZ. The recommendations of past 

conferences like this one have shaped the success we have 

had so far. I hope your commitment to contribute to our 

nation's future EEZ programs remains strong. With the 

continued dedication of our citizens, I believe we can 

indeed provide the resources that will be required to meet 

the challenges of a new century. 

6 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
The Exclusive Economic Zone: 

D. James Baker 

Joint Oceanographic Institutions, Inc. 

INTRODUCTION 

I would like to thank Gary Hill and the USGS-NOAA 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Coordination Office for 

inviting me to talk to you. Secretary Ziglar has given us an 

eloquent statement of the need for mapping and research on 

the seabed and subsoil of the EEZ, and he has nicely set the 

stage for the rest of the afternoon's talks. The agenda 

reflects the complexity of the issues, and I'm looking 

forward to hearing the afternoon's talks. 

BACKGROUND 

In March 1983 President Reagan proclaimed the 

sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the United States and 

confirmed the rights and freedoms of all States, within an 

EEZ. Within the Zone, the United States is to have 

sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, 

conserving, and managing natural resources, both living 

and nonliving, of the seabed and subsoil and the superjacent 

waters and with regard to other activities for the economic 

exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the 

production of energy from the water, currents, and winds, 

and jurisdiction with regard to the establishment and use of 

artificial islands, and installations and structures having 

economic purposes, and the protection and preservation of 

the marine environment. 

What is the background to the Reagan Proclamation? 

Forty-two years ago President Truman proclaimed U.S. 

jurisdiction over the natural resources of the seabed and the 

subsoil of the continental shelf adjoining the United States. 

Honduras, in 1951, established a 200-mi "resource protection zone," the first such EEZ. The United States implemented the Truman Proclamation by passage of the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act under President Eisenhower in 

1953. This unilateral action led to an international agreement in 1958 whereby all coastal nations acquired the rights 

to explore and exploit natural resources within their continental shelves. Of course, the question of the difference 

between the jurisdictional outer continental shelf and the 

geologically defined continental shelf has never been fully 

resolved. When the geologic continental shelf extends more 

Resources for the Future 

than 200 mi from the coast, interesting problems can arise. 

The Law of the Sea Conference, concluded in 1982, 

established yet another definition of the continental shelf, 

which helps to resolve ambiguities, but since we and a few 

others are not signatories, problems remain. 

The Ocean Drilling Program ran into such a problem 

recently when requesting clearance off Sri Lanka. There the 

site was more than 500 mi offshore, but this is territory that 

Sri Lanka claims. We protested in tum to our own State 

Department, who refused to help on the basis that we are 

trying to make a similar claim off Alaska and hence did not 

want to set a precedent! So the Law of the Sea Conference 

complexities continue. 

Not only has mineral leasing on our Outer Continental Shelf been authorized since 1953, but fisheries have 

been managed within a 200-mi Conservation and Management Zone since 1976 under the Magnuson Act. Thus only 

the mineral deposits in areas within 200 mi of the coast but 

beyond the continental shelf edge-the least accessible part 

of the EEZ-have been added to the resource base of the 

United States with the establishment of the new EEZ. 

But although the proclamation was primarily a codification of existing agreements and laws, it focused interest 

and attention on the offshore ocean. The Federal Agencies, 

industry, the scientific community, and the public have all 

been involved in defining that focus during the past 4 years. 

The most recent summaries come from three key reports: 

• July 1987 OT A Ocean Frontier Project and Report on 

Marine Minerals: Exploring our New Ocean Frontier 

• April 1987 Coastal States Organization and Report on 

Coastal States and the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 

• June 1986 NACOA report on The Need for a National 

Plan of Scientific Exploration for the Exclusive Economic Zone 

RESOURCES HELD IN TRUST 

In defining the focus, the OT A report put it best: the 

most important aspect of the Reagan Proclamation is that 

the resources within the EEZ, whether on the seafloor or in 

the water column, whether living or nonliving, whether 

The Exclusive Economic Zone: Resources for the Future 7 
hydrocarbons or hard minerals, are declared to be held in 

trust by the U.S. Government for the American people. The 

Coastal States Organization report summarizes these 

resources: the 200-mi EEZ encompasses roughly 80 percent 

of the world's fisheries resources, most of the offshore 

hydrocarbon deposits, and many potential hard mineral 

resources, and describes the role of the coastal States. The 

NACOA report addresses specific elements and issues of a 

national scientific exploration plan for the EEZ. We will be 

hearing more about each of these from later speakers. The 

point I want to make here is that the U.S. EEZ is the largest 

and probably most valuable in the world. 

GLOBAL CHANGE AND THE EEZ 

Today we hear much about global change and the 

need for understanding and predicting the effects of mankind on our environment. Increasing carbon dioxide in the 

atmosphere, the hole in the ozone, and acid rain are all 

examples of problems that must be studied on a global 

scale. Grant Gross will present the science of the EEZ in a 

global context to us shortly. 

I submit that exploring, understanding, and using the 

EEZ present another, equally important, but even more 

difficult set of issues. Moreover, the practical consequences 

make the need for a national program even more urgent. As 

with the national and international efforts to understand 

global change, we need a strong national and international 

effort to describe the EEZ's of the world. And we need to 

understand the connections between the EEZ and the global 

marine environment. For example, the distribution of 

marine phosphate deposits in the EEZ depends on oceanographic events of global extent. The extraction of energy 

from the Gulf Stream near Florida could have significant 

effects on the climate of Europe, by changing the global 

heat flux. 

What is the urgency? We hold in trust, in the EEZ, 

the resources that we will need in the future. Petroleum, 

fisheries, hard minerals, pharmaceuticals, and renewable 

energy resources are all there. As our population grows and 

as we try to maintain a high standard of living for all our 

people, and as we try to maintain a competitive posture 

economically with the rest of the world, we will tum 

increasingly to this new resource base. Will we be ready to 

exploit it in a way that is consistent with long-term use and 

health of our environment? This can only be answered if we 

have a long-term plan that involves all the players. These 

include scientists, resource developers, and the public. We 

need to plan ahead- a lesson we can learn from the 

Japanese. The plan must recognize new developments, the 

most obvious of which is high technology. 

HIGH TECHNOLOGY 

High technology will play a key role in the exploration and development of the EEZ. We have already seen an 

enormous explosion in the detail and amount of data that 

can come from modem multibeam echosounding systems 

linked with high-speed computers. We can resolve details 

below the seafloor with new seismic techniques. Acoustic 

technology allows us to measure ocean currents and to 

monitor fish populations. New mooring technology allows 

us to directly monitor chemical and particle fluxes in the 

ocean. But high technology should not be applied simply to 

exploration and development. There are opportunities to 

apply high technology to the reduction of pollution, one of 

the major problems of use of the EEZ. 

SATELLITES 

The technology is not limited to in-situ measurements. Satellites, although widely known for their ability to 

provide instruments with a platform for a global view of 

ocean processes, also are revolutionizing the regional and 

coastal view of the ocean. Operational satellite data on 

sea-surface temperature are being used to monitor river 

discharge in the Gulf of Mexico and to prepare eddy 

forecasts for offshore oil exploration and production. The 

Coastal Zone Color Scanner has given us a whole new view 

of the complexity of coastal processes and the ability to 

measure and monitor biological and sediment concentrations simply not possible before. Coastal El Nino effects on 

biological production have been beautifully delineated. 

Part of our EEZ is ice covered seasonally, and part of 

it, north of Alaska, is covered year-round. The motion, 

structure, and age of the ice data will be a regular operational product of several satellites operated by the United 

States, Canada, Europe, and Japan. This will be an important input to the exploration of the EEZ. 

DATA MANAGEMENT 

Data management is another issue that must be 

considered. The new seismic, acoustic, and satellite techniques generate far more data than we have ever seen 

before. We see rapidly increasing computing needs for data 

manipulation. Yet at the same time, we have seen a tenfold 

improvement every 7 years in computing power. Data 

storage with optical disks is becoming a reality: two 

compact disks can store a complete description of the entire 

2 billion acres of the EEZ with one measurement every 300 

m, or 1,000 ft. Or a long time series for a smaller regional 

area could be easily accessible. 

THE INTERNATIONAL ASPECT 

Resource management in the U.S. EEZ is now a 

domestic issue. But the way in which we handle the 

8 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
exploration raises many international issues. As exploration 

for mineral resources, particularly petroleum, extends seaward, the United States will face more confrontations with 

countries whose borders are contiguous. We are currently 

involved in disputes with Mexico and Canada over fishing 

and mineral rights. The U.S. efforts to classify EEZ 

information, although justified on a national security basis, 

tend to lead other countries to deny scientific access to their 

EEZ's. There is an international trend now to classify EEZ 

data regardless of its usefulness for economic or defenserelated purposes. For example, India has classified all of its 

sea-level data, simply because the Soviet Union does the 

same thing. Since the United States is the major player in 

international waters in ocean science, this is an issue that 

needs resolution. 

A second point is that with new remote sensing 

techniques it is now becoming possible to map certain 

aspects of the EEZ, such as surface biology, and the gravity 

and magnetic field, without requiring permission of the host 

country. As these techniques become more precise, it will 

be more and more difficult to justify the classification of 

data. This is a problem that will be upon us soon. 

CONCLUSION 

In summary, the effective management of the EEZ is 

essential to the future economic growth and security of the 

United States. We hold these resources in trust for the 

future, but we must know what is there and how it can be 

exploited. We must learn how we can exploit mineral 

resources without affecting fisheries. We must also learn 

how to conserve these natural resources. 

We are making a start in the assessment of the EEZ. 

But the problems that are identified come back to an old 

issue in the United States: the need for national ocean policy 

leadership. In spite of many reports, and many attempts to 

develop this leadership, we still lack a clear national ocean 

policy adequately coordinated with Stat~ policy. We need to 

develop a government/industry/academic coalition to provide this leadership and to handle our ocean programs in a 

cost-effective way. It is possible to do this. The United 

States needs a comprehensive plan for management of the 

EEZ and clear guidelines for national leadership and authority. This workshop will be an important step in this 

direction. 

The Exclusive Economic Zone: Resources for the Future 9 

The Needs of Users of EEZ Mapping and Research 

J. Steven Griles 

Department of the Interior 

When the President signed the Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ) Proclamation in 1983, he nearly doubled the 

area of U.S. jurisdiction. Vast new areas were made 

available for exploring, developing, conserving, and managing living and nonliving marine resources. That was a 

tremendous day for America. Now we must look forward 

from that impetus. Under the Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) Lands Act, the Department of the Interior (DOl) has 

a mandate to move forward in an expeditious manner to 

explore and develop marine mineral resources. We, as a 

Nation, need these resources to improve our national 

security, to reduce our trade deficit, and to reduce our 

reliance on foreign energy supplies. In today's political 

atmosphere, that mandate could not be more important. Our 

dependency, as a Nation, on imported oil imposes great 

risks not only to our national security but also to our 

economy. Recent events in the Persian Gulf should remind 

all Americans of the tenuous status of oil supplies from that 

area. It is vitally important for this Nation to increase its 

domestic oil and gas production and to begin to exploit the 

mineral resources of the EEZ. 

I would like to digress from the EEZ for just a 

moment to a related issue that we in the DOl know as 

ANWR. ANWR is the acronym for an area on Alaska's 

North Slope designated as the Alaska National Wildlife 

Refuge. According to geologists from the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 

Minerals Management Service (MMS), ANWR has the 

potential to be our largest remaining domestic oil and gas 

reserve. The DOl, including the Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS), is very excited about this potential and is working 

diligently on plans to open this area to exploration and 

hopefully production while protecting its sensitive wildlife 

for future generations. If you have an interest in America's 

future, you should learn more about ANWR. We in the DOl 

hope to make the critical oil and gas resources of this remote 

area available to all Americans. I mention ANWR because 

that area and the EEZ currently offer this Nation its greatest 

hope of discovering secure supplies of oil and gas and other 

minerals in the future. 

We believe that Federal lands are a critical source of 

oil and gas and minerals for this country. Federal lands 

administered by MMS and BLM currently account for more 

than 30 percent of our domestic supply of natural gas, more 

than 16 percent of our oil, 20 percent of our coal, 80 percent 

of our lead, 60 percent of our potash, and 45 percent of our 

sulfur. Many other critical minerals are mined on public 

lands managed by agencies of the DOL Under the OCS oil 

and gas program, the DOl has offered more than 89,000 

tracts (approximately 482 million acres) on the Outer 

Continental Shelf for lease. Approximately 10 percent of 

the area offered has been leased for use by America to 

reduce its dependency on foreign oil. At the end of 1986, 

active oil and gas leases on the OCS occupied 26 million 

acres. About 7.4 million barrels of crude oil and condensate 

and 73.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas have been 

produced from Federal OCS leases. Revenues from these 

leases have totaled $84.8 billion. The DOl is, in fact, a 

rna jor component of the U.S. energy and mineral economy, 

and a major, major environmental regulator. The DOl 

Bureaus under the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management (MMS, BLM, and Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE)) are 

responsible for all of the appropriate goals of good stewardship: 

• making energy and mineral resources available 

• achieving fair market value for the resources 

• assuring the maintenance of environmental quality 

As I mentioned earlier, our efforts on the EEZ under 

the OCS Lands Act have been substantial. In addition to our 

oil and gas leasing, we have also issued leases for phosphate 

and sulfur and salt. We anticipate sales in the near future for 

sulfur and salt and sand and gravel. 

With the help of some of the people in this audience 

and the advice of some of the agencies represented here, 

Bureau of Mines, USGS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and others, we can make 

our EEZ programs work in a cooperative manner. That is 

the purpose of this symposium-to find better ways to 

cooperate in the exploration, development, conservation, 

and management of resources in the EEZ. The DOl has a 

responsibility to obtain and use the information necessary to 

ensure that it fulfilled the goals of good stewardship on the 

EEZ. We need the geological information to ensure that we 

The Needs of Users of EEZ Mapping and Research 11 
manage the mineral resources for the benefit of all Americans. We need environmental information to ensure that 

exploration and development activities do not significantly 

damage the ecosystems of the EEZ. It is the responsibility 

of all concerned parties to ensure that the best information 

is available to decision makers as we move forward with our 

efforts. 

In the spirit of the President's declaration on federalism, the MMS is working closely with several coastal States 

to study the potential for leasing and mining marine 

minerals off their shores. To date, the MMS has established 

five Federal/State task forces involving eight coastal States. 

Participating coastal States are Hawaii, California, Oregon, 

Georgia, North Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, and 

Texas. We expect to announce a new task force soon. We 

are aware of increasing interest in the mining of offshore 

resources such as sand and gravel and cobalt-rich crusts. 

We believe that our cooperative effort with the coastal 

States is the first step-a mandatory step-to assure that the 

principals of federalism are incorporated into the process. 

The MMS' s offshore hard minerals program is being 

developed on a case-by-case basis. In our current approach, 

we focus on specific mineral commodities and geographical 

areas. We study in detail with representatives of the affected 

States and interested industries the commercial development potential. We have only begun the process, and there 

is a need for steady progress within the program to ensure 

that we can have safe and environmentally acceptable 

development. 

One of the major issues at this early stage of the 

program is how to best invest the public's financial 

resources. I believe that these resources are best used for 

site- and commodity-specific analyses rather than broadscale inventories of baseline studies of resources across 

large areas of the EEZ. The development of these specific 

analyses should be a cooperative government/industry 

effort. State and Federal agencies should be involved in 

requiring and evaluating all available information on leasing 

and development opportunities. We need to develop a 

cooperative effort. We should realize that we are initiating 

a program which has available to it a vast amount of 

geological and environmental information. Much of this 

information was developed to support oil and gas leasing 

efforts on the OCS and can be used in analyses for offshore 

minerals development. 

Since the President's EEZ Proclamation, interest in 

the EEZ has grown. This symposium is an indication of a 

growing interest in developing our offshore minerals leasing 

program. I'm certain that the future offers many challenges 

to such an effort. I believe that such a program must 

continue to satisfy a substantial share of this Nation's oil 

and natural gas requirements, as it does today. I also believe 

that we can take this infant marine minerals program and 

through the site- and commodity-specific analysis and 

Federal/State cooperation develop a mature and productive 

program. 

In closing, I have some questions that should be 

addressed by the panels of this symposium. I hope the 

panels can focus some attention on these questions: 

• How do we manage effectively this added jurisdiction 

given to us by the President? 

• What is the most cost-effective use of Federal Government, private sector, and economic resources to achieve 

the maximum benefit both short and long term to the 

Nation? 

• How do we encourage and ensure that user needs are 

addressed by the research programs? 

• How do we educate the public to the real benefits and 

costs of a marine minerals program? 

This symposium has an opportunity to initiate some 

strategic planning for the long-term future of this country. I 

wish you all the best of luck with your symposium and your 

subsequent activities. It was my pleasure to be with you this 

afternoon. 

12 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Ocean Science and Engineering 

M. Grant Gross 

National Science Foundation 

In 1987, the National Science Foundation (NSF) 

began the Global Geosciences Program to support research 

on the processes which regulate the habitability of our 

planet. Such research cuts across all the earth sciences, 

involving the solid Earth, the ocean, the atmosphere, and 

especially the polar regions. One of the principal benefits of 

this activity will be an improved ability to predict and assess 

changes affecting the Earth. Such predictions are likely to 

be developed and used first in the coastal ocean, which 

includes the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). 

Let me begin by discussing NSF's research support. 

NSF provides about two-thirds of the support available to 

university-based oceanographers, geologists, and meteorologists for basic research. NSF-supported projects are not 

directed at solving specific problems. Instead our support 

focuses on improving our understanding of the ocean, its 

life, and the marine environment. However, many of the 

results of these projects contribute to answering practical 

questions, as resource identification and development. 

Indeed, many argue that such investments in basic research 

are necessary to maintain and improve the Nation's growth 

and productivity. 

Second, NSF support does not focus specifically on 

the EEZ. But we do support many projects that deal with the 

margins of the ocean basins. We refer to this ill-defined 

region as the coastal ocean. Unlike the legally defined EEZ, 

the coastal ocean has very indefinite boundaries. 

Research activities necessary to provide this level of 

understanding and predictive capability extend across traditional disciplinary boundaries. Physical oceanographers 

must work closely with biologists, chemists with geologists. Otherwise we will never be able to understand how 

the coastal ocean works. 

The reason NSF instituted the Global Geosciences 

Program is because of the availability of new capabilities 

afforded by satellite observations of the Earth and the ability 

of supercomputers to process the vast amount of data 

involved. NSF, together with National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration and Office of Naval Research, has 

been working to insure that these new capabilities are 

available to university-based scientists and to train scientists 

and engineers in their use. 

While the focus of Global Geoscience is worldwide, 

much of the research will be done in the U.S. coastal ocean. 

Here are some examples. 

• One of the recent exciting discoveries has been the 

improved understanding of the role of the mid-ocean 

ridges. They are the site of processes involved with 

plate movements, a major area of heat release from the 

Earth's interior, and an area of mineral formation. As 

you all know, one of the most accessible mid-ocean 

ridge provinces lies off Washington and Oregon. A 

National Research Council-sponsored workshop has 

recommended research on mid-ocean ridges in the 

1990's. Some of the work recommended will likely be 

done in this area. If so, university-based scientists will 

be joining work under way by scientists from National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and USGS. 

• An international effort involving scientists from the 

United States and France is planned to investigate 

mid-ocean ridges in the Atlantic and the Pacific. This 

project is an outgrowth of FAMOUS (French-American 

Mid Ocean Undersea Study) of the 1970's, which first 

demonstrated the utility of using research submersibles 

to study mid-ocean ridges. 

• Submerged continental margins are yet another example 

of studies that will likely be carried out largely in the 

coastal ocean. This activity has not yet matured to the 

level of the RIDGE study. A workshop will be necessary to formulate the major science questions in this 

area. 

Some of the needed research instruments and techniques are available. Others must be developed. This topic 

will require joint planning and implementation by two 

traditionally separate scientific communities-sea-going 

geophysicists and land-based geologists. 

Let me tum to ocean drilling. The new drilling 

vessel-the JOIDES RESOLUTION-has nearly completed a circumnavigation of the world ocean. It is now 

drilling in the western Pacific. Ocean drilling has involved 

many scientists. Some are in this room: some from the 

USGS, and many from other countries. We have had 

international participation in ocean drilling since the midOcean Science and Engineering 13 
1970's. Our international partners include Britain, France, 

Germany, Japan, Canada, and the European Science Foundation, a consortium of 12 European nations. 

The Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) involves extensive long-range planning. The first agenda for ocean drilling 

was established by the Conference on Scientific Ocean 

Drilling (COSOD), held in 1981. Many of the objectives set 

forth by COSOD-I, as it was called, have been drilled in the 

past 4 years. To prepare for possible future ocean drilling, 

COSOD-II was held in Strasburg in August 1987. The 

report is expected to be available early in 1988. 

An important area highlighted in COSOD-II is the 

study of submerged continental margins. This has long been 

realized by scientific drilling ships that did not have the 

ability to drill and control a well if it encountered oil and 

gas. New approaches are being developed by ODP that will 

make it feasible to drill on submerged continental margins. 

It is still too early to identify targets for such drilling. But it 

is obvious that many will lie within the coastal ocean. 

Global Geosciences emphasizes large initiatives. 

Large-scale processes necessarily involve large projects. 

Among these are the study of ocean circulation, called the 

World Ocean Circulation Experiment. This study will use 

ocean-sensing satellites to study the shallow-ocean currents. 

In addition, it will use more than 7 years of ship time to 

observe the deep ocean. From this will emerge the first 

complete description of the ocean currents. This new map 

will be comparable to the weather maps you see every day 

in your newspaper or on your television. Finally we will be 

able to replace the current maps compiled by Maury in the 

19th century from logbooks of sailing ships. 

Another project is the Global Ocean Flux Study. 

Satellites provide a wealth of information about distributions and growth of marine organisms in surface waters. 

When these organisms die and sink to the bottom, they 

transport organic matter. They also cause other chemical 

processes in the deep ocean. Up to this time we know little 

about their distribution. Widespread deployments of sediment traps to collect falling particles will be combined with 

knowledge of the production in surface waters to decipher 

how primary production and particle interactions control the 

chemical composition of ocean waters. These projects 

require more organization and coordination than singleinvestigator-initiated activities. About one-third of the support for these initiatives will provide the core activities that 

insure that appropriate collections and analyses are made. 

The remaining two-thirds supports projects that have traditionally been the backbone of NSF-supported projects in 

U.S. universities. 

Other areas that have been identified as possible 

future initiatives include: 

• Coastal ocean dynamics and fluxes, 

• Land/sea interface, and 

• Global ecosystem dynamics. 

Let me close with a brief look at the efforts that NSF 

is making to improve the capabilities of the Nation's ocean 

science community in technology and engineering. The 

Ocean Drilling Program includes support to develop new 

instruments for electric logging of the boreholes to provide 

data between the sampled intervals and to develop drilling 

techniques needed for drilling on the continental margins. 

Another new component of NSF's support activities 

is expanding support for ocean engineering. The traditional 

areas of support for ocean technology are combining with 

the new Ocean Engineering component of the Engineering 

Directorate to announce expanded opportunities for work in 

ocean engineering in the Nation's universities. This 

announcement should be available within the next few 

months, after this year's budget situation is clarified. 

In summary, NSF funds a wide variety of activities in 

the Nation's coastal waters. In addition, it is also supporting 

developments in ocean engineering and technology. This is 

a big job and involves many agencies and individuals. 

14 Proceedings, 1987 E!Z Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Technology, Competitiveness, and the Federal Role 

in the Exclusive Economic Zone 

James W. Curlin 

U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment 

INTRODUCTION 

Technology is considered to be the key to exploration 

and exploitation of minerals within the EEZ. While this 

axiom is generally irrefutable, seldom is the feasibility of 

developing new technology or deploying existing technology a barrier to ocean exploration or development. Rather, 

the limiting factors tend to be whether the capital and 

operating costs of developing a seabed mineral deposit or a 

potential petroleum discovery can be offset by the value of 

the extracted resource and still allow a financial margin for 

profit, risk, debt service, and the recovery of capital costs. 

Many factors can affect the profitability of seabed mining 

operations, including the size of the initial capital investment for the mining system, operating costs and other fixed 

and variable costs, rate of mineral recovery, extent and 

quality of the mineral deposit, market value of the mineral 

commodities, stability of minerals markets, and long-term 

trends in consumption and demand for the commodities. 

The establishment of the U.S. EEZ in 1983 generated 

enthusiasm and curiosity about the prospects for discovering minerals on the seafloor within this newly acquired 

public domain. This enthusiasm was shared by academicians, exploration geologists, government agencies, entrepreneurs, and politicians alike. Like the similar hysteria that 

surrounded the mid-Pacific deep seabed ferromanganese 

nodules in the 1960's and the 1970's when speculation 

about fortunes to be made in seabed mining were rife, soon 

after issuance of the EEZ Proclamation, special interests 

made exaggerated claims of the potential for vast mineral 

wealth lying on the ocean floor. 

Blame for such exaggerations is shared by academic 

researchers seeking more Federal research funds; Federal 

agencies hoping for larger budgets and expanded programs; 

politicians putting a political twist on EEZ programs to fight 

a "resource war"; and some in the private sector looking for 

a safe haven after the economic prospects for deep seabed 

nodule mining collapsed. Consideration of national needs 

and a balanced public policy to deal with EEZ took a 

quantum leap from an innocent curiosity and enthusiasm 

about the minerals that may lie in the seafloor, to selfserving assumptions about certainty of the potential for 

mining commercial minerals. Consequently, during the past 

4 years important public policy questions have been overlooked in a premature rush to establish mineral leasing 

regulations, interspersed with bickering over agency turf. 

OPPORTUNITY FORGONE 

Almost 5 years after laying claim to this new offshore 

province the United States has neither a national strategic 

plan and program for systematically exploring and assessing 

EEZ resources nor yet any manifestation of intent to make 

a financial or intellectual commitment to do so. Neither the 

Executive Branch nor the Congress has objectively considered the extent of the national interest in seabed minerals 

and what the roles and responsibilities should be among the 

private, public, al)d academic institutions regarding exploration and development of the EEZ. After the political 

assets for proclaiming the EEZ were realized, politicians 

and the Federal agencies returned to "business-as-usual" 

with only minor, incremental efforts to explore the EEZ 

added to existing agency programs. Even those modest 

initiatives have suffered in the face of budget cuts and fiscal 

austerity. A poorly conceived and flawed initiative to 

establish a Federal mineral leasing program remains the 

major thrust in the EEZ. 

Until more is understood about the location, extent, 

and characteristics of offshore minerals within the EEZ, the 

economic future of seabed mining is mere conjecture. It is 

apparent from the literature that our knowledge of the 

location, extent, and quality of seabed minerals is sketchy at 

best. Because so little is known about the volume in place 

and the mineral content of seabed deposits, most of those 

that have been discovered thus far should be more properly 

considered "mineral occurrences" rather than "resources," 

since the latter is considered to be potentially economically 

recoverable. Thus, the evaluation of the commercial potential of U.S. EEZ hard minerals faces a dilemma. 

Before the economic potential of seabed mineral 

deposits can be evaluated, the capital cost and operating 

costs of a mining venture must be determined. Before the 

private sector will undertake an expensive feasibility study 

Technology, Competitiveness, and the Federal Role in the EEZ 15 
and develop seabed mining technologies, it must know a 

great deal about the areal extent, depth, tenor, amount of 

overburden, topographical, and physical characteristics of 

the mineral deposit. Before underwriting an expensive 

prospecting and delineation project, the industry must have 

sufficient exploration data to identify potential mining sites 

worthy of future consideration. 

Faced with this "chicken and egg" situation, it is clear 

that the Federal Government must assume the major responsibility for minerals exploration in the EEZ, and certainly 

more than it has been willing to shoulder thus far. It is 

unlikely that the private sector will invest in extensive 

exploration because of the depressed economic condition of 

the minerals industry, the absence of government assurances that successful exploration will lead to an exclusive 

property right to minerals that are discovered, and the 

extremely high cost of offshore exploration and prospecting. For practical purposes, there is no U.S. ocean mining 

industry, and market forces cannot be relied on to stimulate 

reconnaissance, exploration, and prospecting by private 

investors at this time. 

Several factors make analysis of the commercial 

potential of seabed minerals difficult: ( 1) little is known 

about the extent and grade of the mineral occurrences that 

have been identified thus far in the EEZ; (2) without actual 

experience or pilot operations, mining costs and the unforeseen operational problems that affect costs cannot be 

assessed accurately; (3) unpredictable performance of 

domestic and global economies add uncertainty to forecasts 

of minerals demand; ( 4) changing technologies can cause 

unforeseen demand for minerals and materials; and (5) past 

experience indicates that methods for projecting or forecasting mineral demand fall short of perfection and are sometimes incorrect or misleading. 

WORLD MINERAL ECONOMY: 

A HOUSE OF CARDS 

There is nothing unique about minerals recovered 

from the seabed that sets them apart from land-based 

minerals, whether foreign or domestic. Mineral commodities are traded in international markets; thus, seabed minerals must compete with both foreign and domestic onshore 

producers, and possibly with foreign offshore mines in the 

future as well. 

Demand for mineral commodities is related to the 

demand for goods and agricultural products. These markets 

are tied directly or indirectly to general economic trends and 

are notably unstable. With economic growth as the 

"common denominator" for determining materials consumption and hence minerals demand, the economic uncertainties facing the United States and the world at large make 

it difficult to forecast future demands from which to gauge 

the economic potential of seabed minerals. 

Downturn in the world minerals industry began in the 

early 1980's as a result of a long-term trend toward 

miniaturization, consumption of less metal-intensive goods, 

slackened growth in the consumption of consumer goods 

and capital expenditures, a sluggish world economy suffering from the after-effects of high petroleum prices, and 

expanded mining and processing capacity in both the 

developing and industrialized nations as a result of materials 

demand projections in the 1970's that proved wrong. As a 

result, minerals prices have remained low during the 1980's 

and will probably remain so until demand absorbs the 

unused mineral production capacity. 

The U.S. industry, in particular, has found it difficult 

to compete with foreign producers. Until recently, production costs in the United States have been well above the 

world average. Overvalued currency (high value of the 

dollar) during 1981-86 also may have contributed to making U.S. production less competitive. However, even with 

the current lower valued dollar with respect to other 

currency, the minerals industry has shown little real evidence of recovery. Among the minerals commodities 

known to occur in the EEZ, domestic producers of copper, 

phosphate rock, and zinc have been particularly hard 

pressed by foreign competition. 

To survive the low mineral commodity prices of the 

1980's, the domestic industry has undergone a significant 

shakedown and restructuring. While the surviving firms 

may emerge as stronger competitors, their ability and 

willingness to invest in risky ventures such as seabed 

mining are likely to be limited. 

STATE OF THE U.S. MINERALS INDUSTRY: 

LITTLE STOMACH FOR RISK 

Apart from the impact that the depressed state of the 

domestic minerals industry may have on investment in risky 

seabed mining ventures, capacity for processing minerals in 

the United States has been severely reduced through plant 

closings. This could affect the economic feasibility of 

seabed mining if plant capacity for processing the recovered 

minerals is not available in the future. 

For example, the U.S. ferroalloys industry is now 

nearly extinct. There are no domestic reserves of either 

manganese or chromium for producing ferromanganese and 

ferrochromium that are used in steel; therefore, the United 

States must import all of these alloying elements. U.S. 

ferroalloy producers have lost domestic markets to cheaper 

foreign sources. Ore-producing countries find it advantageous to manufacture finished ferroalloy for export to the 

United States rather than ship ore, thereby gaining the value 

added. As a result, the form of U.S. chromium and 

manganese imports has changed during the last decade from 

predominantly chromite and manganese ore to mostly 

ferroalloys and finished steel. 

16 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
In 1973, the United States ferrochromium capacity 

was about 400,000 short tons (contained chromium); by 

1984, domestic capacity had shrunk to about 187,000 short 

tons- a decrease of about 54 percent. U.S. capacity is 

expected to shrink further, to perhaps 150,000 short tons by 

1990. In 1984, only two of the six domestic ferrochromium 

firms were operating plants, and those only at low production levels or intermittently. 

Decline of domestic ferroalloy production capacity 

will likely make the United States nearly totally dependent 

on foreign processing capacity in the future. This means 

that even if chromite or manganese ore could be successfully recovered from the seabed within the EEZ, the ore 

would have to be shipped abroad for processing. It is 

unlikely that a new domestic ferrochromium plant would be 

built to process seabed chromite, since it is doubtful that it 

could compete with existing producers. 

Competitiveness problems are also developing in the 

phosphate industry. Although the United States has historically led the world in phosphate rock production (30 

percent of world production in 1986), its leadership is 

currently being threatened by cheaper North African 

sources of phosphate, principally from Morocco. Some 

industry analysts consider it nearly a certainty that Morocco 

will displace the United States as world leader in the near 

future. 

The domestic phosphate industry is facing significant 

land use and environmental problems and diminishing ore 

grades that have resulted in increased production costs, thus 

exacerbating the problems of meeting low-cost foreign 

competition. While offshore phosphorite deposits may 

show promise for competing with the beleaguered U.S. 

onshore producers, it is highly unlikely that a seabed mining 

firm could successfully compete in the world phosphate 

rock market. 

Attention has been focused recently on the demise of 

the U.S. manufacturing sector and the loss of its competitive position to foreign producers. The economic and 

technologic linkages between manufacturing and mining 

suggest that domestic producers in both sectors are in for 

even more serious problems in the future. The domestic 

minerals industry has not benefited significantly from the 

periodic upturns in the economy between the recessionary 

trends that have marked the Nation's economic pattern since 

1981. The lag in the mineral industry's response to general 

economic trends raises questions concerning its ability to 

recover and flourish in the future, much less its potential for 

expanding into new ventures in seabed mining. 

STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS: 

IS THE SEA A POTENTIAL SOURCE? 

Several minerals used widely in manufactured goods 

that are considered to be vital to the U.S. economy and 

national security are known to occur or may occur in the 

EEZ. Included among these are chromium, cobalt, manganese, and the platinum-group metals for which the United 

States is nearly wholly dependent on foreign sources of 

supply. These materials are considered strategically important because of their use in high-technology and military 

applications. Originating mainly from sources in southern 

and central Africa, chromium, cobalt, manganese, and the 

platinum-group metals are vulnerable to supply interruptions, and therefore are stockpiled by the Federal Government in the National Defense Stockpile. Other critical 

materials derived from minerals in the EEZ, although not 

considered as vulnerable to supply interruptions as the 

first-tier strategic materials, are also stockpiled. These 

include titanium, copper, nickel, silver, lead, and zinc. 

Some observers have speculated that seabed minerals 

within the EEZ might provide a more secure source of 

supply for some of the critical and strategic materials for 

which the United States now relies on foreign producers. 

While EEZ minerals might provide a cushion in the event of 

an interruption of normal supplies, mining and processing 

facilities would have to be subsidized or operated by the 

government to ensure the availability of standby production 

in such an emergency. Such would be the case for heavymineral chromite sands in the Pacific Northwest and cobaltrich ferromanganese crusts on the flanks of the Pacific 

Islands. 

The absence of domestic production facilities for 

ferrochromium and ferromanganese discussed previously 

adds to the difficulty of using EEZ minerals as an emergency source of supply for chromium and manganese. 

Low-grade, subeconomic chromite and cobalt deposits that 

occur onshore in the United States also might be considered 

an emergency source of these strategic materials. No 

significant occurrences of the platinum-group metals have 

yet been identified in the EEZ, although onshore deposits 

are known to exist adjacent to Goodnews Bay in Alaska. In 

the event of hostilities, reliance on seabed minerals for a 

secure supply of critical materials, such as cobalt or 

manganese, would require the protection and defense of 

at-sea mining activities on the open ocean, and the projection of sea power to protect shipping lanes. 

NEEDED: COMMITMENT TO A FEDERAL 

ACTION PROGRAM 

At this time in the evolution of an EEZ exploration 

program to learn more about the public assets that may lie 

in the seafloor, what is needed is more Government 

involvement and more Government investment rather than 

less, as some have argued on ideological grounds. Reconnaissance and exploration for EEZ hard minerals is as much 

the responsibility of the Government today as was the 

exploration of the western territories in the 1800's, or more 

Technology, Competitiveness, and the Federal Role in the EEZ 17 
recently in outer space. It is improbable that any major 

private commercial initiatives will be launched to explore 

the EEZ for its mineral potential, although some commercial interest may focus on certain nearshore shallow-water 

placer deposits. Exploration costs are immense, results have 

little market value, and there are no assurances that the 

value of the knowledge gained by a private firm will be 

recovered through the exercise of private property rights in 

the mineral resources it may discover. It is not an activity 

likely to be undertaken in response to market forces. 

Furthermore, much of the information obtained about seabed minerals through exploration will have academic value 

and should be made generally available to the public 

without proprietary restrictions. 

Both the Department of the Interior's promulgation of 

regulations under the authority of the Outer Continental 

Shelf Lands Act and the legislative proposals for establishing an EEZ hard-minerals mining regime are, in my 

estimation, premature for several reasons. First, the economic condition of the domestic minerals industry, coupled 

with chronically depressed world markets for mineral commodities, makes the prospects for development of EEZ 

minerals remote indeed. Second, too little is known about 

the nature and extent of the resources and the technologies 

necessary to recover them to formulate a rational leasing 

and regulatory regime. Third, the remoteness of likely 

serious industry initiatives in developing seabed minerals 

will allow sufficient time for further evaluation of elements 

of seabed mining legislation to ensure that once formulated, 

the EEZ seabed mining legislation will provide a sound and 

fair leasing system for both the industry and the public. 

Fourth, Federal and State mineral leasing regimes must be 

developed concurrently and consistently to ensure a degree 

of uniformity and predictability for mining ventures that 

span State and Federal waters. 

Instead of frittering away time and resources on 

attempts to formulate EEZ seabed mining legislation and 

regulations based on inadequate knowledge with little need 

or demand for such a mining regime, the Congress and the 

Executive Branch could better direct their efforts to devising and implementing a systematic mineral research, reconnaissance, and exploration program aimed at improving our 

knowledge about seabed minerals and the environment in 

which they exist. 

While there is little question that either new standalone seabed mining legislation or an additional title 

amended to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act is 

ultimately needed to encourage exploration and possible 

minerals development by the private sector in the EEZ, 

expansion and improvements in the government reconnaissance and exploration programs are more important and 

more urgent than mineral leasing legislation at this time. 

Credit is due where credit is deserved. The creation of 

the joint U.S. Geological Survey-National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Office for Coordination of 

Mapping and Research in the EEZ is an exceptional 

example of interagency cooperation between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce that 

has the potential for improving the mutual effectiveness and 

productivity of EEZ programs. The Minerals Management 

Service's several State-Federal task forces aimed at coordinating EEZ hard minerals activities is another seemingly 

worthwhile initiative to the extent that task forces foster 

cooperation between the coastal States and Federal agencies. 

Such efforts to coordinate Federal EEZ activities are 

good as far as they go, but they fall woefully short of 

providing the comprehensive focus needed to integrate the 

full range of government activities with those of the States, 

academic institutions, and the seabed mining industry. With 

the large number of actors involved in collecting EEZ 

information (both inside and outside the government), it is 

important that their efforts be focused and coordinated 

through a national exploration plan-yet no such planning 

process currently exists. 

Faced with a similar planning and coordination problem in Arctic research, Congress enacted the Arctic 

Research and Policy Act of 1984. The act established an 

Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee composed 

of the ten key agencies involved in Arctic research. A 

parallel organization, the Arctic Research Commission, was 

concurrently established to represent the academic community, State and private interests, and the residents of the 

Arctic and to advise the Federal Government. 

The Federal Interagency Arctic Research Policy 

Committee and the Arctic Research Commission are 

charged with developing a 5-year Arctic research plan 

which includes goals and priorities. Budget requests for 

funding of Arctic research for each Federal agency under 

the plan are to be considered by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) as a single "integrated, coherent, and 

multi-agency request." The Arctic Research and Policy Act 

does not authorize additional funding for Arctic research. 

Each Federal agency designates a portion of its proposed 

budget for "Arctic research" for the purpose of OMB 

review. 

Congress has opted for a similar solution to coordinate multiagency research activities in acid precipitation. 

Title VII of the Energy Security Act of 1980 established an 

Acid Precipitation Task Force, consisting of responsible 

Federal agencies, national laboratories, and public members. The Task Force was assigned responsibility for 

developing and managing a 10-year research plan. 

Research funds requested by the Federal agencies 

(comprising each agency's acid precipitation research budgets) are combined annually into a National Acid Precipitation Program that is submitted to OMB as a unit. 

Both the Arctic Research and Policy Act and Title VII 

of the Energy Security Act may serve as prototypes for 

focusing, planning, budgeting, and coordinating Federal 

18 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
exploration and research activities in the EEZ. Neither act 

has proved too expensive, nor has either unduly encroached 

on the economy, jurisdiction, or missions of the individual 

agencies. Both approaches include participation from the 

general public and the private sector in developing research 

plans. 

Although long-range plans and broad-based cooperation among those with a stake in EEZ minerals would 

likely improve the performance of the current research, 

reconnaissance, and exploration program, an additional 

long-term commitment of government funds and resources 

is needed to ensure timely exploration of the EEZ. EEZ 

mapping activities conducted by the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey have received modest but fairly consistent funding in 

the past. However, geological and geophysical exploration 

is pathetically underfunded and current programs are well 

below critical levels. Both mapping and geological exploration are needed to assess seabed minerals resources, and 

these activities must be brought into parity if a balanced 

EEZ exploration program is to be realized. 

Under the current atmosphere of budget brinksmanship that prevails in the Congress and the White House, the 

prospects for long-term financial commitments and program 

continuity is probably a will-o' -the-wisp. But if the pursuit 

of an effective EEZ exploration program is to amount to 

anything more than high-flown political rhetoric, substantial commitments to additional government expenditures 

must come forth. 

SELECTED REFERENCES 

Broadus, J.M., 1987, Seabed materials: Science, v. 235, p. 

853-860. 

Brown, R.E., and Murphy, G.F., 1986, Ferroalloys, in U.S. 

Bureau of Mines staff, Mineral facts and problems, 1985 

ed.: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 265. 

Curlin, J.W., 1983, Whither American ocean policy-1983? 

Effective use of the sea, in Proceedings, OCEANS '83, 

Effective use of the sea: An update, Volume III, Summary 

and update: Washington, D.C., Marine Technology Society, Oceanic Engineering Society, and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, p. 1133-1135. 

Dresler, W., 1986, A feasibility study of ferrochromium extraction from Bird River concentrates in a submerged-arc 

furnace: Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgical 

Bulletin, v. 79, p. 98-105. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986, Stockpile report 

to the Congress: Washington D.C., Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, p. 30-31. 

Guenther, G., 1986, Ferroalloys, The competitiveness of American metal mining and processing, Chap. VIII: Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, House Committee on 

Energy and Commerce Committee Print 99-FF, U.S. 

Government Printing Office, p. 127. 

Harvey, W.W., and Brown, F.C., 1986, Offshore phosphorite 

deposits: Processing and related considerations: Contract 

study for the Office of Technology Assessment, Arlington 

Technical Services, Arlington, Massachusetts, p. A-3. 

Laver, W., 1986, Phosphate rock: Regional supply and changing 

pattern of world trade: Transactions of the Institution of 

Mining and Metallurgy, Section A-Mining Industry, v. 

95, p. A119. 

Papp, J.F., 1986, Chromium, in U.S. Bureau of Mines staff, 

Mineral facts and problems, 1985 ed.: U.S. Bureau of 

Mines Bulletin 675, p. 139. 

Pendley, W.P., 1984, America's Exclusive Economic Zone: The 

whys and wherefores, Exclusive Economic Zone Papers, 

OCEANS '84: Washington, D.C., September 10-12, 

Marine Technology Society, Oceanic Engineering Society, 

and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, p. 34 

et seq. 

Public Law 96-294. 

Public Law 98-373. 

Technology, Competitiveness, and the Federal Role in the EEZ 19 

Mapping of the Seafloor-Progress and the Plan 

Paul M. Wolff 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Good afternoon. Today I'm going to talk about 

NOAA's EEZ seafloor mapping program. First, I'll outline 

NOAA's cooperative efforts with the Department of the 

Interior (DOl), including the development of an interagency 

agreement between NOAA and DOl's U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), and the establishment of a joint office to 

coordinate mapping activities, develop joint products and 

long-range plans, and conduct workshops and symposia 

related to EEZ mapping and research. Then I will discuss 

the bathymetric survey systems and associated hardware 

now in use and planned for the near future, and plans for 

operation of the NOAA fleet of research vessels in support 

of EEZ mapping. Next I will discuss the data archival, 

processing, and dissemination systems in use and future 

plans. Finally, I will review the geographic coverage of our 

mapping activities since the 1983 Proclamation and our 

plans for the next few years. 

Of course, seafloor mapping is only one of several 

ways NOAA responds to the EEZ Proclamation. Others 

include: 

• Conducting a wide variety of environmental analyses 

and assessments; 

• Producing specialized data atlases and inventories in 

support of management planning and decision making; 

• Conducting or supporting research through the Sea 

Grant and Undersea Research offices; 

• Conducting fisheries research and management programs; and 

• Managing and distributing data and information products through the National Geophysical Data Center. 

If you care to learn more about NOAA's programs 

other than mapping, I encourage you to visit the exhibit area 

where a number of NOAA products and services are 

displayed. NOAA employees will be there to answer your 

questions and explain our display. 

COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES WITH THE 

INTERIOR DEPARTMENT 

NOAA's bathymetric mapping program has been 

coordinated closely with the programs and requirements of 

DOl for a number of years, starting well before the 1983 

EEZ Proclamation. Priorities for new survey and map 

coverage are developed in conjunction with USGS and the 

Minerals Management Service (MMS) to support DO I' s 

minerals leasing programs with geologic and hazard assessment information and to support the complementary 

research and mapping efforts of both DOl and NOAA. This 

cooperative relationship has continued and become stronger 

since the EEZ Proclamation. 

After a period of interagency planning based on the 

1983 EEZ Proclamation, in 1984 NOAA and USGS developed a Memorandum of Understanding establishing the 

responsibilities of each agency for mapping of the EEZ. 

USGS works closely with NOAA to establish priorities for 

EEZ survey coverage, and the two agencies annually review 

those priorities. 

To further facilitate interagency cooperation, USGS 

and NOAA recently established a joint EEZ program office 

located here in Reston with the marine offices of USGS. 

That office coordinates periodic assessments of survey 

priorities, develops long-range plans, and conducts workshops and symposia such as the program we are participating in today. A primary function of the joint office will be 

to coordinate USGS and NOAA activities with the needs of 

other agencies, academia, and the private sector. Also 

through the medium of the joint office, USGS and NOAA 

are working on joint product development, to take maximum advantage of the capabilities and equipment of both 

agencies. 

NOAA's SURVEY SYSTEMS AND FLEET 

OPERATION PLANS 

In 1984, after having developed a coordinated program plan in cooperation with USGS, NOAA started the 

field work needed to systematically map the EEZ from the 

150-m-depth contour seaward. The mapping plan developed with USGS combines the capabilities of the two 

agencies, taking advantage of two types of survey equipment-the GLORIA long-range side-scan system being 

operated by USGS, and multi beam swath bathymetric 

survey equipment on NOAA ships. 

Mapping of the Seafloor-Progress and the Plan 21 
Since the EEZ Proclamation, GLORIA surveys have 

been completed for the west coast, east coast, Gulf of 

Mexico and Caribbean EEZ, and parts of the EEZ off 

Hawaii and Alaska. The GLORIA system provides excellent images of broad areas, while NOAA's multibeam 

swath systems provide exceptionally good bathymetric 

data. The two capabilities, taken together, permit rapid, 

broad reconnaissance coverage to identify areas of potential 

interest, and much more precise bathymetry for those areas. 

Also, by using data from both systems, remarkable topographic depictions of the seafloor can be generated. 

Since 1984, NOAA has conducted multibeam bathymetric surveys covering about 40,000 nautical mi2 of the 

seabed of the EEZ (of a total area of about 3 .4 million 

nautical mi2

), largely off the west coast and the coast of 

Hawaii. Most of the surveying has been conducted by using 

the NOAA ships Surveyor and Davidson. A multibeam 

system was added to the Discoverer in 1985, but, due to 

commitments to other projects, the Discoverer has only 

surveyed about 5,000 nautical mi 2 of the EEZ. 

Two types of bathymetric survey systems are in use 

on NOAA ships. The Davidson, based in Seattle, is 

equipped with the Bathymetric Swath Survey System 

(BSSS), built from the Hydrochart system. BSSS is 

designed for use in waters of up to 650 min depth, with a 

swath width of 2.5 times water depth. However, to conform 

to IHO standards of accuracy, which call for soundings 

accurate to within 1 percent of water depth, data are used 

only from an effective swath width of 1.5 times water depth 

for most surveys. A new system accurate to about 1,000 m 

is to be installed on the Whiting in September 1988. The 

Surveyor and Discoverer are equipped with Sea Beam, a 

12-kHz deep-water system with an effective swath width of 

about 75 percent of the water depth. A third Sea Beam was 

installed on the Mt. Mitchell this year and has recently been 

certified as operational. The tables below outline general 

information on NOAA's multibeam ships: 

Multi beam 

Length system design 

(LOA) depth 

Ship name Normal survey area (in ft) (in meters) 

Discoverer . .... Pacific, Bering Sea 303 600-11,000 

Surveyor ....... Pacific, Bering Sea 292 600-11,000 

Davidson ...... Pacific 175 150-600 

Mt. Mitchell ... Atlantic, Gulf of 231 600-11,000 

Mexico, Caribbean 

Whiting ........ Atlantic, Gulf of 163 150-1,000 

Mexico, Caribbean 

Other equipment on, or soon to be added to, the 

multibeam ships is shown in the following table: 

Discoverer Surveyor Davidson Mt. Mitchell Whiting 

3.5kHz 

seismic 

system ...... X X X 

Satellite 

commun ..... X X X 

GPS ......... X X X 

CTD system .. X X X 

XBT system .. X X X X X 

SEAS ........ X X X X X 

Rosette 

sampler ..... X X X X 

Gravity meter. X 

Also important to sounding data quality and usefulness is the accuracy of associated navigation systems. The 

goal is to achieve better than a 50-m circular error in 

positioning. All of the NOAA survey fleet is equipped with 

either Raydist or ARGO, calibrated by Mini-Ranger or by 

the Global Positioning System (GPS) when available. When 

GPS is available on an around-the-clock basis, it is expected 

to become the major navigation system. The use of GPS 

also will allow operations with more precise navigation 

farther from shore and in more remote areas of the EEZ. 

Projections for operation of NOAA ships for survey 

coverage over the next 5 years are based on the assumption 

that about 25,000 nautical mi2 per year can be mapped if the 

five NOAA ships equipped with multibeam systems work a 

total of about 600 days per year on EEZ mapping. It also is 

assumed that the Discoverer, now assigned to operations 

with the U.S. Navy for about 100 days per year, will be 

available to NOAA for about 100 days per year of EEZ 

survey work starting in 1989. If other ships with multi beam 

systems were available from sources such as the UNOLS 

fleet, greater coverage would of course be possible. 

Before leaving this topic, I would like to point out 

that NOAA actively seeks to maximize use of its fleet by 

combining multiple tasks or projects on a single cruise. We 

regularly support other projects on a not-to-interfere basis as 

related to the primary mission, including ancillary projects 

conducted by our ships' personnel, piggyback projects 

conducted by additional scientific personnel from other 

agencies and organizations, and cooperative projects with 

other organizations (often funded partly or fully by the 

cooperating organization and performed on the basis of 

availability of NOAA resources). Types of projects which 

can be performed in conjunction with multibeam surveying 

include collection of various kinds of data (for example, 

meteorological, XBT, CTD, magnetic data, or water samples using Nansen or Nisken casts), marine mammal and 

bird observations, bottom sampling or coring, and others. 

22 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
DATA MANAGEMENT AND PRODUCT 

PREPARATION AND DISSEMINATION 

All of NOAA's swath mapping systems are set up to 

acquire data and conduct preliminary data processing in the 

field, at 1:50,000 scale, with the output being a set of 

selected, corrected soundings. With Sea Beam, a swath-byswath contour plot can be produced, although present 

computer capacity does not allow a large map area of 

adjoining swaths to be gridded and contoured in the field. 

BSSS produces a more conventional field sheet with soundings, but no contours. Plans call for upgrade of shipboard 

computer systems to allow gridding and contouring of entire 

field sheets in the field. Final gridding and contouring of all 

data now are done at the EEZ Project Office in Rockville, 

Maryland. 

Present shipboard data acquisition and processing 

equipment includes the PDP 11134 and PDP 11/84 computers. Plans call for this equipment to be upgraded to VAX or 

equivalent in the near future, as funds become available. 

After data and reports have been sent to the EEZ 

Project Office in Rockville, 1:50,000-contour plots are 

generated from a fixed x-y grid using the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection. Data are processed on a 

CYBER 170-815 super minicomputer. Peripherals consist 

of two mass-storage units capable of handling 474 million 

bytes, five terminals, and one 4125 Tektronix graphic 

terminal with plotter. Development of a DEC Micro VAX II 

computer system continues, with the objective of complementing and, if feasible, replacing the CYBER 170-815. 

Contours suspected to be anomalies are inspected and 

compared to associated real-time graphic profiles for 

authenticity. Data anomalies are identified and removed. 

When more powerful shipboard computers are available, 

1:50 ,000-scale contouring will be done aboard ship and 

resolution of anomalies will occur in the field. A processing 

report is submitted along with contour plots for review and 

acceptance, and several sheets are merged into a 1:100,000-

scale base map produced as both digital and hard copy 

products. Selected contours from the digital data set are 

used to prepare depth curves for NOAA's nautical charts. 

Development of color-filled bathymetric contour 

maps and preparation of other specialized products are 

under way. 

The primary data products to be produced from the 

digital data base of soundings, on a referenced geographical 

grid, will be survey sheets at 1:50,000 and bathymetric base 

maps at 1: 100,000 scales, high-resolution analog 3. 5-kHz 

records, digital data sets on a fixed geographic grid, selected 

contours for nautical charts and bathymetric fishing maps, 

and limited geographical area large-scale maps and threedimensional views of the seafloor. 

Additional specialized products and services could 

include customized surveys and maps of specific sites and 

bottom features; special surveys for navigation safety; 

technical papers and presentations related to the EEZ 

program, surveying and processing methods, instrumentation, and data interpretation; cooperative investigations and 

research projects; gridding and contouring programs; customized data bases; and others. 

Data archives presently are maintained at the EEZ 

Project Office in Rockville and include digital archives 

("original" raw data tapes and "modified" parameter table 

and survey summary files) as well as printed copy ( electronic control calibration, position plot, selected sounding 

plot, 3.5-kHz profile analog record, 12.0-kHz center beam 

record, single swath contour plot, and descriptive report). 

Data are archived by 1/z-degree blocks constituting individual 1: 100 ,000-scale map areas. In northern latitudes off 

Alaska, map size will be adjusted to encompass 11/z-degree 

blocks due to convergence of meridians, but digital data 

will be archived by 1/z-degree blocks. Selected data also will 

be incorporated into the Navigation Information Data Base 

of the new Automated Nautical Charting System II. 

Eventually, as classification is removed, it is intended 

that raw data be archived at NOAA's National Geophysical 

Data Center (NGDC) in Boulder, Colorado, to permit users 

to have access to unprocessed data. In the interim, plans are 

under way to microfilm original hard copy records, convert 

digital data to a denser and more compact medium, and 

develop procedures for optical storage using either the 

WORM (write once, read many) or CD-ROM (compact 

disk-read only memory) technology. Procedures are being 

developed to extract the trackline and centerbeam data to be 

forwarded to the NGDC and for use in future editions of the 

GEBCO bathymetric map series. 

The final aspect of the data management process will 

be to adopt an international data exchange format. Survey 

area locations are being incorporated into the NGDC 

GEODAS data base so the locations of existing multibeam 

survey coverage will be known. 

GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE OF NOAA's 

MAPPING ACTIVITIES 

As I mentioned earlier, the EEZ covers about 3 .4 

million nautical mi2

• So far, since 1984, NOAA has 

surveyed about 40,000 nautical mi2 of the EEZ, off the 

Pacific coast of the contiguous United States, and off the 

coasts of Alaska and Hawaii. 

In the relatively near term, specifically from now 

through 1992, our program plan calls for mapping of about 

25,000 nautical m? per year and assumes that the five 

Mapping of the Seafloor-Progress and the Plan 23 
NOAA ships with multibeam equipment will conduct survey operations a total of about 600 days each year. Areas 

identified for mapping during this period are off the west 

coast, Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, and east coast. Of course, if 

additional multibeam-equipped ships become available, the 

rate of mapping can be increased. 

The long-range goal of NOAA's program is to map 

the entire area of the EEZ from the 150-m-depth contour to 

the 200-mi limit. Needless to say, the pace of the process 

will be driven by needs and demands of data users, and at 

the same time limited by competing demands for NOAA's 

resources. 

24 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Information Needs to Develop Technology to Recover 

the Mineral Resources of the EEZ 

DavidS. Brown 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

The EEZ is one of the last great mining frontiers in 

the world. Exploration and development is the lifeblood of 

the mining industry. Its health in the country in large 

measure will determine the quality of life for the generation 

and succeeding generations and how safe we will be in an 

increasingly hostile world. The range of products that come 

from the crust of the Earth including the EEZ is enormous, 

and their uses and values are dramatically altered and 

changing as we move into a high-tech world economy. 

The products we extract from the Earth give us the 

power to sustain and enrich our lives. There are risk and 

cost associated with finding resources, extracting them and 

processing them, fabricating them into useful products, and 

disposing of the wastes. Because of rapidly advancing and 

changing technologies, we are also experiencing changing 

material requirements- a dynamic and exciting type of 

change. We have moved from a metals economy to a 

materials economy. We are increasingly driven by the 

design requirements of the manufacturing rather than the 

availability of resources. It is important that we understand 

these changes-to meet the information and research 

requirements that they impose. We need to inventory the 

mineral values of our public lands including the EEZ with 

not only the near term in mind but also the long-pull 

requirements that are going to drive the high technology of 

the future. 

The minerals industry in the United States has gone 

through depressionlike conditions in recent years and is now 

hanging on by its fingernails. All of the advantages that the 

industry has enjoyed over the generation are no longer 

there. Increasingly we go up against State enterprises, and 

higher qualities than are those that remain in the country. 

But the industry is adapting to the global market: the 

restructuring, the nationalization, the cost cutting are producing results. 

The reorganization of the Bureau also responds to the 

change. The structure is simplified and more streamlined. 

Program coordination and integration will be better. 

The Bureau has had a longstanding interest in offshore mining. We have embarked on major new initiatives, 

innovative mining and processing techniques. The nearterm information needs for development of recovery technologies in the EEZ include physical characterization of 

ores for mining and the chemical and mineralogical characterization for purposes of improvements in processing. 

We are gathering detailed information on those sites that 

appear to have great promise, and we are characterizing 

crustal samples. We are looking to improve the sampling 

techniques through use of dredges, chain bags, and other 

devices. We are evaluating processing techniques to recover 

cobalt, manganese, and nickel from the crustal deposits. 

We are encouraged by the work done on onboard flotation 

separation processing. Our economists have conducted 

reconnaissance studies of sands and gravels which are 

showing significant potential for near-term development. 

We have studied platinum-group metals and gold recovery 

from Alaskan placers. 

The EEZ holds promise but also presents economic 

and technological hurdles. We plan to continue to work 

with our sister agencies to supply them with information 

and research data and to expand our cooperation with the 

private sector to better understand the technology gaps for 

the recovery of onshore and offshore minerals. 

Recovery Technology for Mineral Resources of the EEZ 25 

The Outer Continental Shelf Program: 

Status, Prospects, and Information Needs 

William D. Bettenberg 

Minerals Management Service 

Good afternoon. I am pleased to be here today to talk 

about the Minerals Management Service's (MMS 's) current 

activities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and to 

discuss our concerns, plans, and goals for future activities 

and how they relate to our changing information requirements. This symposium provides an opportunity to pause, 

look ahead, and ask ourselves "where are we now, where do 

we go from here, and what do we need to know to get 

there?" 

The first step in planning for the future of OCS 

activities requires an assessment of our current programs. 

The MMS is responsible for managing the minerals estate of 

the OCS for the Department of the Interior. This activity 

includes the geologic, environmental, and economic evaluation and leasing of these mineral resources; regulation of 

their exploration, development, and production; and management of the revenues obtained from such leases. 

Reliable supplies of oil and gas are crucially important to a stable economy and to national security, and the 

OCS provides and has the potential to continue to provide 

the United States with significant and dependable quantities 

of domestic oil and gas. Over time, the OCS will begin to 

meet a portion of our solid minerals needs as well, including 

some that are of strategic importance. The OCS contribution to domestic oil and gas reserves has markedly increased 

from 14 percent of the Nation's available supply in 1960 (or 

8.5 BBOE) to 22 percent in 1985 (or 14.0 BBOE). 

Currently, OCS production accounts for about one-fourth of 

our country's natural gas production and one-eighth of our 

oil production. Benefits accrued to the country in terms of 

revenues from bonuses and royalties paid amount to over 

$80 billion over the past 35 years. But, our dependence on 

imported oil and gas continues to grow and impose economic costs. This growing import dependence diminishes 

our international strategic position. Imports of crude oil and 

petroleum products alone cost the United States $38 billion 

in 1986 and currently account for about 44 percent of our 

national supply. This nearly matches the all time high of 48 

percent in 1977. 

To help meet future requirements for oil and gas, we 

developed the Department's 5-year OCS leasing program 

for mid-1987 through mid-1992. The plan includes 38 lease 

sales scheduled in 21 of 26 OCS planning areas. We have 

already held the first of these sales in the Gulf of Mexico 

and have five scheduled next year in the Gulf of Mexico and 

north of Alaska. We are also well along in doing the 

environmental and other work necessary for sales offshore 

California, the Atlantic coast, and other Alaskan areas 

scheduled in 1989 and beyond. These sales will lead to 

exploration examining new areas or using new theories in 

our continuing quest to inventory the Nation's offshore oil 

and gas resources in the hopes that the cupboard of 

previously unexplored areas is not bare. 

In order for the Nation to accrue major benefits under 

the 5-year plan, the MMS relies heavily on the wealth of 

information gained over the years and which continues to be 

gained by industry and the Federal Government. 

Industry collects and owns vast amounts of proprietary data and information that are used for oil and gas 

leasing, exploration, and development. We obtain much of 

this information under prelease geological and geophysical 

permits and postlease drilling permits. Over the last 30 

years, we have acquired nearly 1 million miles of Common 

Depth Point seismic reflection data for resource assessment 

and mapping. In addition, we have data on over 25,000 

wells drilled in the OCS off the continental United States 

and Alaska. This amounts to the largest library of seismic 

and geologic data by far from the total OCS. The information is used in the identification and evaluation of areas 

having potential for oil, gas, and solid mineral resources, in 

developing scenarios to assess the potential impacts of 

exploration and development, and to aid in economic 

valuation of bids for fair market evaluation purposes. 

Current trends in exploration in the Gulf of Mexico 

have moved to waters of the continental slope and even 

abyssal depths of the OCS (a legal term defined by the 

Congress). Conoco, for example, has begun production 

drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in 1 , 7 60 ft of water. At least 

seven of the blocks receiving bids in this past August's Gulf 

of Mexico sale were in water approximately 2 mi deep, 

suggesting new water depth drilling records are in store. 

Shell has just spudded a well in 7,500 ft of water in the 

Mississippi Canyon area offshore Louisiana which will set 

a new world water depth record. The MMS resource 

The Outer Continental Shelf Program 27 
evaluation geologists characterize these tracts as containing 

large unexplored salt dome and ridge structures with complex features such as salt tongue overthrusts visible deep 

below the seafloor, on seismic lines. These giant structures 

in very deep water are in one of the few areas of the United 

States where many giant fields are still expected to be 

found. 

Another area of the OCS with substantial potential is 

a continuation of the Monterey fractured shale trend northward from the Santa Maria Basin into central and northern 

California. Just with existing discoveries offshore California, we are in the process of tripling production there within 

about the next 5 or 6 years. The Atlantic and Alaska OCS 

remain frontier exploration areas which have had generally 

poor commercial results so far. However, we remain 

particularly optimistic about the potential of the Beaufort 

and Chukchi Seas north of Alaska, both of which will be 

offered next year. At this point, we have five producible 

wells discovered in the Beaufort Sea within 28 mi of Pump 

Station # 1 at Prudhoe Bay. With these exploration results 

and the production start in the Endicott field in State waters 

last month, the prospect that the Beaufort Sea will play an 

important future role in helping meet the Nation's oil 

requirements looks reasonable. These represent the most 

important areas for information gathering for the current 

OCS program and likely the next. 

Changing trends in information used in both our 

prelease and postlease activities are evident in results 

obtained through the MMS Environmental Studies Program. In the early years of the program, OCS environmental studies consisted primarily of baseline, general biological and physical oceanography studies, and regional studies 

of shallow geologic hazards. Prior to 1984, the MMS spent 

over $50 million each on baseline studies and on regional 

shallow hazards work. Since then the program has been 

restructured towards a more focused investigation of processes that influence oceanographic and biologic systems 

and issue-oriented topics. For instance, our expenditures for 

air-quality studies quadrupled in 1986, and we are devoting 

an increasing share of our resources ·to discerning the 

long-term cumulative effects of OCS oil and gas activities 

since we have been unable to detect much in the way of 

short-term adverse effects. 

Overall, I would have to say that we are comfortable 

with the information we are obtaining and the combination 

of private and public sector processes for developing that 

information to meet our future requirements. 

Since the President's Exclusive Economic Zone 

(EEZ) Proclamation on March 10, 1983, there has been a 

growing interest by the private sector in OCS mineral 

resources. In response to this interest, the MMS currently 

has activities in a number of offshore areas. To date, a total 

of five joint Federal/State task forces involving nine coastal 

States have been established to cooperatively study offshore 

mineral resource potential. These task forces include 

Hawaii for cobalt-rich manganese crusts, Oregon and California for polymetallic sulfides, Georgia for heavy minerals, North Carolina for phosphorites,' and the Gulf of 

Mexico coastal States for sand and gravel as well as heavy 

minerals. The MMS is working closely with the States to 

study the potential for leasing and mining of these marine 

minerals. Since overspending on the Gorda Ridge projectwhich is scientifically but not commercially interesting at 

this time-we have shifted our focus to start these efforts 

with a close examination of commercial viability before 

being willing to proceed further. 

An offshore hard minerals industry is expected to 

develop on a gradual, incremental basis, with the more 

easily accessible and identifiable resources likely to be the 

first to be developed. On the United States OCS, industry 

interest is currently focused on sulfur, sand and gravel, 

heavy-metal placers, and phosphorites. Recently, we have 

also had private sector geologic and geophysical permittees 

operating on four discrete areas for four separate sets of 

minerals. We have a sulfur and salt sale scheduled in the 

Gulf of Mexico early next year which will be the first OCS 

solid minerals sale in nearly two decades. Over the next 

10-20 years, we can expect that a fledgling ocean mining 

industry will develop and that only a minute fraction ofthe 

EEZ will be developed. This is similar to the pace of 

onshore mining development, where, over the past several 

centuries, only a small percentage, less than one quarter of 

1 percent, of the land area of the continental United States 

and Alaska has been mined. In a similar vein, only 1.3 

percent of the acreage considered for oil and gas leasing has 

ever been drilled. 

To assure that we wisely manage Federal resources, 

the MMS marine minerals program is being developed on a 

case-by-case basis. Using this approach, we hope to ensure 

that only specific mineral commodities with economic 

potential and within defined geographic areas are targeted 

for detailed study. With present recovery technology, most 

deposits of interest are typically on or close to the surface 

and are either deposited on the surface, bedded, or placers 

entrained in bedded material. As such, they are generally 

easy to characterize and not particularly difficult to find. 

Commercial viability is an entirely different matter. As a 

result, the longer term MMS effort will be focused on 

collecting key mineral resource information from the private sector. 

In terms of broad information requirements for the 

OCS/EEZ, geological and environmental information gathered from oil and gas activities often can be transferred and 

used in the hard minerals program. This gives us a good 

base of information on which to build in some areas, but 

much less in other areas. 

Our immediate requirements for site specificity coupled with the anticipated slow pace of development do not 

indicate a critical need or urgency to understand all or even 

much of the EEZ thoroughly in the near term. As in the case 

28 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
of onshore mining activities, only a tiny fraction of the U.S. 

area will need to be studied in depth the next few years. The 

entire country was not mapped, inventoried, or investigated 

before mining activities were undertaken or could proceed 

onshore. Instead, early geological surveys focused on the 

most promising mineral districts identified by prospectors 

seeking to make or hold claims. As district-specific basic 

research into mineral genesis was published, it relied 

heavily on the results of commercial endeavors, and, in 

turn, scientific information was used by private industry to 

expand their search for minerals at their own expense. 

Certainly, research and mapping efforts can contribute to our understanding in a way that will lead to the 

discovery of additional resources both onshore and offshore. Attention, however, should be focused on those 

areas where development is more likely to occur. Ample 

lead time should be available to address studies in other 

areas of the EEZ in the future. This time should be used 

wisely to scope the research to be done and maximize the 

information that can be gained, optimizing on the use of 

scarce ship time and other research resources. Such an 

approach would maximize the return for the dollars 

expended. Generally, we should expect industry to lead the 

way. Our leasing and study interests and efforts should be 

largely based on a demand/pull approach of industry interest 

and commercial viability rather than a supply/push effort on 

the part of government to create an industry-absent commercial interest and viability. This should be a guiding 

principle in managing the scientific resources that will be 

used to investigate the EEZ. 

In addition, there has been a steady evolution in 

technology and with it an improvement in the costeffectiveness of obtaining, characterizing, and understanding the significance of information for use in offshore 

mineral development. There should be no expectation of a 

decline in this pattern. As a result, future technological 

developments should be expected to lead to significant cost 

reductions in exploration, research, and mapping efforts 

that can be accomplished when the information is really 

needed. I would recommend at this stage in the process that 

research on tools for improving our knowledge in a more 

cost-effective manner be given more emphasis. 

The role of the Federal Government in research and 

mapping activities on the EEZ must also be addressed in the 

context of existing fiscal constraints. One place the Federal 

Government has a clear leadership role is in the preservation 

of appropriate roles for the private and public sectors. The 

Federal Government should encourage this fledgling industry but should not get into the business of subsidizing it, 

either directly or indirectly through massive exploration 

endeavors. Private companies currently maintain this 

responsibility for oil and gas, and in this sense, the same 

should be true for solid minerals. There is a need for 

understanding environmental and geologic processes of the 

OCS/EEZ, and the government has a role to play here, but 

the more appropriate course typically is for companies to 

finance the necessary exploration and site-specific studies. 

The Outer Continental Shelf Program 29 

Information Needs and Multiple-Use Decisions: 

An Environmental Perspective 

Clifton E. Curtis 

The Oceanic Society 

It is a privilege to participate, today, in this third 

Biennial Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Symposium. 

This Symposium's focus on mapping and research-looking towards the next 10 years-is of special interest to me 

and to the Oceanic Society. As one of my organization's 

guiding principles, we seek to promote scientific research, 

on many fronts, that advances our understanding of oceans 

and coastal areas, and the complex connections between 

people, other living creatures, and our surroundings. 

Before turning to the specific topic of my presentation, I'd like to provide a broader context for my remarksmy bias, if you will. Today our oceans and coastal areas are 

threatened as never before. In the United States, and around 

the world, abuse, mismanagement, and destruction of 

coastal and marine resources are far too evident. And they 

are growing. We have seriously damaged some of our 

coastal waters, where marine life is most plentiful. Much 

less is known about long-term threats to the deeper oceans, 

but there are signs of damage there, too. New uses of the 

ocean-such as seabed mining in the EEZ and beyond, or 

deep-water oil and gas exploitation in the Arctic-need to 

be developed to ensure a nondestructive relationship 

between human and marine life. For such uses, our actions 

need to be grounded in a perspective of the oceans as a 

resource requiring respect, caution, and careful management. 

While providing this broader context, however, I 

hasten to add that when I participate in a meeting like this 

that is dominated by marine scientists, I feel as though I'm 

"carrying coals to New Castle." You are the ones leading 

the charge in our efforts to better understand and use wisely 

our vital marine and coastal resources. Environmentalists, 

policy makers, and others are absolutely dependent on you 

to provide information and analyses that will help us make 

informed, wise decisions about how best to use-or not 

use-the oceans. 

Information needs and multiple-use decisions-these 

are important, related components of sound marine policy 

making. Other speakers today, and the workshop discussions to follow, will focus in detail on information needs 

that are pertinent to a 10-year plan for research and 

mapping. At the same time, the realities of multiple-use 

decisions constantly underpin and impinge on all our views 

as to what information is needed. From my "environmental 

perspective," I'd like to offer a few brief comments and 

examples concerning these two components of marine 

policy making, as well as some suggestions for how these 

needs and decisions might best be met. 

INFORMATION NEEDS 

Despite the important discoveries and advances of 

recent years, in many important respects we are still at the 

front end of developing technologies for exploration and 

exploitation of hard-rock minerals in the EEZ and for oil 

and gas recovery in frontier areas of the EEZ such as the 

deep-water Arctic. Our intervention by exploitation, and 

even vigorous exploration, will disrupt the marine environment. Decisions to proceed with those activities must be 

accompanied by actions that will minimize the environmental risk and provide for suspension of operations where 

unacceptable harm appears. 

As part of the basis for sound decisions, I'd like to list 

a few examples of information needs that are of special 

interest to the environmental community-needs that I have 

grouped in five different categories: 

A. Oceanographic/physical information 

1. Nature and magnitude of seafloor currents. 

2. Upwelling systems-how will mining affect these 

systems and the life they support? 

3. What is the importance of the different kinds of 

seafloor alteration that will result from mining on 

coastline evolution? 

4. Ice flow velocity/dynamics. 

5. Effects of seafloor alteration on bottom currents. 

6. What is the role of hydrothermal vents in driving 

bottom currents and how will mining affect these 

systems? 

B. Mineral/oil and gas resource assessments 

1. Resource assessment/geochemical properties of 

mineral deposits. 

C. Sediment characteristics 

Information Needs and Multiple-Use Decisions 31 
1. Studies of seafloor geologic processes-landsliding, turbidity currents, erosion/scour, faulting, 

and sediment collapse. (The distribution and 

intensity of the processes are not known and 

cannot presently be predicted from available 

regional geological information. These processes, 

for example, could cause problems for the stability of oil and gas platforms.) 

2. Settling characteristics of disturbed bottom sediments. 

D. Marine organisms 

1. Ecology of deep-sea environments. (Deep-sea 

biota need to be identified and scientifically classified. Up to 80 percent of the animals obtained 

from the few samples recovered have never been 

seen before. It will be impossible to monitor 

change in the animal communities without a 

systematic survey of these populations.) 

2. An assessment of important breeding and nursery 

areas. What effects would mining/oil and gas 

recovery/waste disposal have on these areas of the 

benthic environment? 

3. Potential adverse effects of oil spills on icecovered areas, and the problems of blowouts or 

tanker spills in hostile environments. 

4. Recolonization rates of benthic organisms. 

5. Studies of biota-primary and secondary production, life histories, reproductive behavior, limiting factors, feeding habits and habitats (for example, submarine canyons, hydrothermal vents, and 

seamounts have been shown to be very important 

deepwater habitats). 

6. Spatial and temporal characteristics of oceanic 

processes that affect the distribution of living 

marine resources. 

E. Socio-economic factors (Although this is not considered "hard" science for characterizing the seabed of the 

EEZ, it is an essential component of multiple-use 

decisions.) 

1. For waste disposal uses, a determination of 

"need" as part of an objective evaluation of all 

waste management options. 

2. Effects of coastal staging grounds/support facilities/processing facilities on the social and economic systems of affected coastal communities. 

3. Risk assessment, including both risk estimation 

and risk acceptability analysis. 

4. State-level/public participation (effective opportunities for early and substantive involvement of 

the public in the decision making process). 

Efforts to address these kinds of information needs 

will involve the panoply of interests and expertise that 

resides within the oceans community, at large. It is fairly 

obvious that DOl and NOAA have a special role to play, 

especially through such offices as the USGS/NOAA Office 

of Oceanography and Marine Assessments (OMA), and 

NOAA's Ocean Minerals and Energy Division. In addition, 

the academic community/scientific centers of excellence 

(including Sea Grant-supported institutions), the private 

sector/industry (such as Deep Sea Ventures), coastal States 

(including those that have participated in the Federal/State 

"task forces" established by MMS in relation to seabed 

mining), and the environmental community (such as the 

Oceanic Society and Natural Resources Defense Council) 

can contribute, with their respective strengths and interests, 

in gathering and (or) making available information that will 

enable us to better understand the EEZ. 

MULTIPLE-USE DECISIONS 

Seldom, if ever, do decision makers have the luxury 

of considering one proposed project or action in isolation. 

That situation may have existed a decade or two ago, but for 

any significant activity being considered today, there are a 

host of conflicting, competing considerations that must be 

weighed in the balance. Moreover, as we look towards the 

future, resource use conflicts will continue to increase. 

For existing and contemplated EEZ ocean uses, there 

exists a mix of State, national, and international measures 

that are required as decisions are made regarding the 

protection, sustained use, and development of marine and 

coastal resources. Despite the significant improvement in 

environmental laws and regulatory requirements since the 

1960's, and special mention of the importance of environmental concerns in the President's March 1983 EEZ Proclamation, as a general statement it is still the case that EEZ 

policies continue to deal with environmental considerations 

in an ad hoc, fragmented manner. 

In a related vein, few opportunities exist for examining the effects of decisions in one marine-related sector on 

others. Intersectoral considerations are almost nonexistent, 

and long-range cumulative assessments of multiple activities are impossible. 

Having expressed these concerns, however, I do 

believe that there are two Federal statutes, in particular, that 

have played an important role (and are likely to play an even 

more important role in the future) in resolving multiple-use 

concerns. These statutes are the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEP A) and the Coastal Zone Management Act 

(CZMA). 

The NEPA underscores the importance of thoroughly 

analyzing the environmental consequences of Federal 

actions, and alternatives, well before a final decision is 

made. As formulated by the courts over the past 17 years, 

the purposes to be served by environmental impact statements under NEPA are: 

1. To provide the decision makers and the public with 

environmental information to help them make choices, 

32 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
2. To allow courts to evaluate agencies' efforts to take 

into account the environmental values protected by 

NEPA, 

3. To provide information to the public, encourage public 

participation, and require decision makers to consider 

public input, and 

4. To insure the integrity of the decision-making process. 

In order to serve these purposes, an agency must 

present enough information about its proposed action to 

allow for balancing of expected benefits versus environmental risks. If done in an adequate fashion, the NEPA 

process helps engender significant information and analyses 

underlying sound multiple-use decisions. 

The CZMA established an important federal mechanism enabling coastal States to balance national needs for 

economic growth and resource protection with the demand 

for energy development, resolve multiple land-use conflicts 

in coastal areas, and devise protective measures for particularly vulnerable, valuable coastal resources throughout the 

country. 

In this regard, there are numerous examples of 

multiple-use-related concerns imbedded in State coastal 

programs. These relate to activities or programs like hazard 

reduction and safety improvements, ports and waterfronts, 

fisheries and wildlife, public access, and tourism. 

I'd like to briefly highlight three examples of mechanisms that have been used (or that should be used) in order 

to enhance the likelihood that effective, acceptable multipleuse decisions are made in relation to our EEZ. Each of these 

examples offers constructive ways to resolve important 

EEZ-related issues. 

Waste Disposal 

In July 1987 the Keystone Center in Keystone, Colorado, published a 200-page report titled "A Decisionmaking Process for Evaluating the Use of the Oceans in 

Hazardous Waste Management." The report was the result 

of a 2-year "policy dialogue" involving a core group of 

about 20 individuals who held a series of informal, 

consensus-oriented meetings. 

The group devoted substantial time to developing two 

decision-making matrices for evaluating the potential use of 

the ocean: one for scientific-technical factors, the other for 

the social-economic factors. In important ways, the group 

felt that these two sets of evaluations should be carried out 

in parallel, rather than following the traditional approach of 

doing the scientific-technical work first. The socialeconomic factors addressed in that report-a "needs" determination, legal/regulatory constraints, cost/benefit analyses, and risk assessments-offer valuable tools for 

achieving sound multiple-use decisions. 

EEZ Seabed Mining 

In early 1986, an informal "Working Group" of 

private individuals from the mining industry, environmental 

organizations (including the Oceanic Society), and coastal 

States was created. The main goal of that group was and is 

to examine the DO I' s regulatory efforts for EEZ hardminerals mining and to assess the statutory framework 

needed for the mining of hard minerals in the United States 

EEZ. 

These individuals decided to come together because 

of their belief that negotiations and discussions at the 

earliest possible stage will result in fewer problems and less 

confrontations further on down the road. The driving force 

behind the working group has been the shared view that the 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act is not the proper vehicle 

for the development of the hard-mineral resources of the 

EEZ. Because of the statute's emphasis on OCS oil and gas 

resources, it does not address the very great differences 

between offshore oil and gas development and hard-mineral 

mining, does not provide adequate environmental safeguards, nor does it ensure effective public and coastal State 

participation, or revenue sharing with affected States. 

During the past 2 years, the Working Group has 

found substantial common ground in its views on EEZ 

hard-minerals mining. The group has documented its agreements, in part, through a ten-point list of consensus concepts which have been presented at congressional hearings. 

Those concepts include the following: 

1. A new, stand-alone EEZ hard-minerals statute separate 

from the oil and gas regime of the Outer Continental 

Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) must precede the issuance 

of any EEZ hard-minerals regulations; 

2. The new statute should govern all mineral deposits on 

or below the seabed of the EEZ other than oil, gas, 

sulfur, sand, and gravel; 

3. The new statute should apply to all geographic areas 

covered by the EEZ Proclamation; 

4. The mining and environmental provisions and practices 

of the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act 

should be the point of departure for the new statute; 

5. The Federal Government should ensure the early preparation and implementation of a comprehensive and 

systematic research plan; and 

6. The new statute should provide an effective Federal/ 

State/local consultation process based on the consistency provisions of the CZMA, and should provide an 

equitable system of sharing EEZ hard-mineral revenues 

with coastal States. 

Building on these consensus points, the Working 

Group has expressed its general support for legislation 

(H.R. 1260) which Rep. Lowry introduced earlier this year, 

while offering more detailed comments on recommended 

improvements to that bill to congressional staffers in recent 

Information Needs and Multiple-Use Decisions 33 
months. While our group has addressed a number of issues, 

our top priority has been to stress the importance of 

developing a comprehensive research program. In this 

regard, the work product of this symposium can provide 

invaluable assistance in meeting that objective. 

Oil and Gas Exploitation 

As those of you involved with oil and gas exploitation 

well know, each of DOl's 5-year plans for offshore exploration and development has been challenged in the courts. 

Moreover, the U.S. Congress has established so-called 

"moratoriums" for some specific sites, prohibiting exploration and development that was otherwise authorized by 

DOL A key factor in these judicial challenges and congressional actions has been the differing views as to how to best 

interpret Section 19 of the OCSLA, which provides for 

balancing of interests-including national energy, security, 

environmental, and coastal State interests (especially in 

relation to "consistency" of proposed Federal activities with 

those of the coastal States). 

In an effort to overcome some of these differences, a 

special consensus dialogue or dispute resolution group was 

established to consider oil and gas drilling in certain 

offshore Alaska areas. Sponsored by the Institute for 

Resource Management, the group included several oil 

companies (Sohio, Texaco, and Chevron), Alaskan officials, fishermen, and environmentalists. As a result of their 

meetings, agreement was reached on what areas should be 

included, and those areas that should be excluded-including sensitive areas in or near the Bering Sea, such as the 

Pribiloff Islands and the Aleutian Chain. Unfortunately, the 

group's agreement was rejected by DOl Secretary Hodel 

earlier this year, and the jury is still out on whether leasing 

will occur in a manner that is consistent with the group's 

recommendations. More broadly, Secretary Hodel's rejection of that agreement puts a damper on similar negotiations 

for the North Atlantic, for example, that could help avoid 

the adversarial nature of interest group relationships there. 

As each of these examples suggests, in varying ways, 

conflict-resolution mechanisms such as those I've 

described, and others, are being used more, rather than less, 

these days. Interest group differences will always exist, but 

my motive in choosing these three different, but similar, 

EEZ-related initiatives is to highlight the important role that 

nonconfrontational measures can play as we seek to better 

understand, protect, and wisely use this Nation's EEZ. 

CONCLUSION 

It is fairly obvious that, in many cases, we are lacking 

sufficient information to make informed decisions on the 

wise use of the marine environment. The information needs 

I listed previously, and others, should be met in order to 

provide decision makers with the necessary tools to avoid 

multiple-use conflicts. Towards this end, we can discuss ad 

infinitum the types and quantities of information that are 

needed. However, without the political will, the necessary 

funding to generate the information will not be provided. 

Perhaps one of the greatest contributions a gathering of 

marine scientists and other specialists, such as yourselves, 

can make is to communicate the importance and necessity 

of this type of research to the public and to the politicians. 

The Oceanic Society is, in its special way, trying to do this, 

and we look forward to working with you to achieve this 

and other objectives that will ensure the protection and wise 

use of this Nation's EEZ. 

34 Proceedlrigs, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
The Face of the Deep- Road Maps of Discovery 

Dallas L. Peck 

U.S. Geological Survey 

The first international symposium on Geographic 

Information Systems is also taking place this week in 

Washington, and it has important implications for all of us 

here. 

For those of you who are not familiar with Geographic Information Systems-or GIS-this technology at 

its elemental level is an effort to bring all of us and all of our 

divergent data together. And from that convergence we will 

not only be talking to each other, but we will be able to use 

each other's data to create better, more useful products and 

solve many complex and vexing earth-science problems. 

In the area of marine geology, GIS technology is 

beginning to make its inevitable, indelible mark improving 

the way that data is captured, kept, manipulated, used, and 

reused. All of our GLORIA data are in digital format. We 

are experimenting with making these data available on 

compact disks, and distributing these compact disks in 

cooperation with NOAA. 

NOAA is also helping us to develop software to index 

this massive file of data, and we are working with NASA's 

Jet Propulsion Lab to develop the software to handle the 

many manipulations that can be made of this vast data base. 

We will describe this work in detail Thursday afternoon for 

those of you that are interested and can stay. Our new 

continental margin map series is being prepared in a 

computerized format that allows us to literally create maps 

inside a computer, that are then ready to be printed. We 

have a terminal set up in the exhibits area to show you this 

capability. 

The frontier efforts in GIS technology fit in well with 

the frontier aspects of the marine realm and, more critically, 

the realm of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). We 

knew from the time of the Proclamation of the EEZ that we 

had our work cut out for us to map and explore that 

3-million nautical mi2 extension of our national domain. 

Setting priorities and getting on with that important 

task of mapping and research in the EEZ has been an 

important function of these biennial symposia. And we 

listen very carefully to what is said in these forums. From 

the first symposium came two critical recommendations: (1) 

we tackle the task of mapping the seafloor, and (2) we 

develop an effective mechanism for cooperation in EEZ 

mapping and research. And we have done just that. The 

USGS began its vigorous program to map the seafloorusing the side-scan sonar mapping device GLORIA-based 

on the recommendation from the first symposium. And this 

year, we have formed a joint office with NOAA to 

coordinate mapping and research in the EEZ- again a 

recommendation from the first symposium that we provide 

a means to coordinate Federal efforts in this area. 

We plan on listening carefully again during this 

symposium-to hear your views and plans for where we go 

from here. The most important outcome from this symposium will be the framework for a 10-year plan for seabed 

and subsoil mapping and research in the EEZ. Together, I 

think we can develop that plan. And together, we can all 

benefit. 

We have made exciting and stunning progress in 

discovering the face of the deep and in providing the first 

road maps that will point the· way to the structures, 

resources, and dynamics of this great frontier. I'd like to 

highlight for you our accomplishments in mapping the EEZ. 

When we began the GLORIA mapping effort 4 years ago, 

we were facing a task of mapping- and discovering the 

resource secrets-of the unseen seafloor of more than 

3-million nautical mi2 of unknown territory-a third larger 

than the land area of the United States (see figure). The 

long-range side-scan sonar system, GLORIA, developed by 

the British Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, was 

selected as the mapping tool. The system is able to map a 

swath of seafloor 37 mi wide and can cover an area the size 

of New Jersey in a single day under optimum conditions. 

We began our GLORIA mapping effort in the late 

spring of 1984 on the west coast-completing 250,000 m? 

of sonar mapping by 1984. The atlas for the west coast, the 

first of the series, was printed in 1986 and showed us many 

surprising pictures of the seafloor. Dozens of previously 

unmapped volcanoes, many with well-formed craters, were 

discovered. We also accurately identified previously 

unmapped major faults, some on the order of 50 mi long. 

Giant submarine landslides and submarine channels that 

look like rivers hundreds of miles long crossing the seafloor 

were also identified. Cascadia Channel can be traced 

winding its way across the seafloor for over 350 mi from the 

The Face of the Deep-Road Maps of Discovery 35 
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE 

,7., 

I .\ 

~"'_;) 

Wake 

Island 

, ...... ') 

I.'· I 

("':""'\ 

~1./ 

")"Palmyra Atoll/Kingman Reef 

/ ,., Howland and 

Baker Islands 

.. C> 

<L t0 

r: ....... \. ... _ ·~ Jarvis Island •· 

.. American 

.· Samoa 

coast of Washington, through the Blanco Fracture zone, and 

on to the west, outside the EEZ. 

Our side-scan sonar mapping program is providing 

the regional perspective of the Juan de Fuca Ridge, to assess 

not only the geology but also the resource potential of the 

ridge and of the EEZ in general. We focused our research 

on the southern Juan de Fuca Ridge, looking at the 

submarine volcanic hot springs associated with the ridge's 

spreading center, where newly forming metallic sulfide 

deposits contain anomalously high quantities of copper, 

zinc, silver, and to a lesser extent, gold, iron, cadmium, 

and germanium. The hydrothermal vents that occur along 

the floor of such actively spreading ridge crests as the Juan 

de Fuca are an exciting resource frontier-where new 

mineral deposits are continually being formed. We are 

really just beginning to explore how many sulfide vents and 

determining how many mineral deposits exist along the 

25,000 mi of the worldwide network of ocean spreading 

centers. This summer our geologists returned to a vast field 

on the Juan de Fuca Ridge and observed measurable growth 

on some sulfide chimneys. 

With the completion of the west coast mapping, we 

moved on to the Gulf of Mexico and in 8 short weeks- and 

despite the winds and rains of two hurricanes-we mapped 

150,000 m?. The atlas of the Gulf of Mexico was just 

released to the public 2 weeks ago. One of the most 

stunning features from the collection of mosaics from the 

western gulf is that of the Sigsbee Escarpment, the seaward 

Photo credit: U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

edge of the salt-deformation province. The piles of debris 

that can be seen along the base of the Sigsbee Escarpment 

suggest that it is actively being eroded, in response to uplift 

of the sediments by salt intrusion. The extensively 

deformed continental slope in the northern Gulf of Mexico 

is an important deepwater frontier for oil and gas resources. 

The dominant feature in the central Gulf of Mexico is 

the Mississippi Fan, constructed by sediments from the 

Mississippi River. In nearly 10,000 ft of water, we can trace 

the submarine channel that is the conduit for fan meandering over 250 mi across the seafloor. Evidence of dynamic 

debris-flow events transporting slurries of sediments vast 

distances are also obvious. The fan of the Mississippi is a 

modern analog as we develop oil and gas fields in ancient 

fans. 

During the fall of 1985, we completed a survey of 

nearly 30,000 mi 2 of the EEZ territory off Puerto Rico and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands-bringing our total mapped miles 

of the EEZ to a little over 430,000 mi2

. The Puerto Rico 

Trench, the deepest point in the Atlantic Ocean, with a 

depth of over 24,000 ft, is within the EEZ. The north wall 

of the trench is broken into ridges and scarps, which may be 

caused by fracturing of the North American plate as it is 

bent going into the trench. 

During a 4-month cruise in the spring of 1986, we 

completed 160,000 mi2 of EEZ off the east coast from 

Maine to Florida. We found that from Cape Hatteras to 

Long Island, the continental margin is cut by several large 

36 Proceedings; 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
submarine canyons and channels that cross the EEZ for over 

100 mi. A vast dendritic pattern of canyons seaward of New 

Jersey merges on the continental rise to form a single large 

channel that extends across the EEZ. We thought that we 

already knew a lot about the Blake Plateau, but our sonar 

mapping showed us many new things. The seaward edge of 

the Blake Plateau is marked by an escarpment with over 

12,000 ft of relief, which has been curved by ocean 

currents, aided by biological and chemical erosion. 

Cretaceous-age limestones crop out at the seafloor, forming 

the vertical escarpment. This limestone is part of the 

continuous reef trend that extends all the way from Mexico 

around the gulf coast and up the Eastern Seaboard, exposed 

here at the seafloor, but buried north of Cape Hatteras. 

After 112 icy days in the Bering Sea, we had 

completed mapping of the EEZ around Alaska and north of 

the Aleutian Islands. Here we found that some of the largest 

submarine canyons in the world incise the continental 

margin of the Bering Sea. The Bering Canyon was found to 

have a channel that extends over 350 mi onto the abyssal 

plain on the floor of the Bering Sea. The submarine fan 

associated with Bering Canyon is believed now to be 

formed by sheet flow rather than channelized flow, which 

spreads sediments over a large region of the floor of the 

Bering Sea. The submarine fan of Bering Canyon has a 

different style of sediment distribution than the Mississippi 

Fan that we saw earlier. 

The mapping effort around the Hawaiian Islands 

during 1987 added another 75,000 mi2 to our growing total. 

Hawaii, too, had its share of surprises. We discovered two 

areas west of Hawaii with the thickest ferromanganese 

crusts ever reported-5 and 6 in thick. We found fluid lava 

flows covering over 400 mi2 of seafloor, which confirms 

our supposed correlation between summit caldera filling 

and collapse with voluminous outpouring of lava on the 

adjacent seafloor. The side-scan images allow us to study 

the subaerial and submarine portion of the islands as a 

whole. 

In just a little over 500 days at sea, the USGS mapped 

over 1 million nautical mi2 of the seafloor of the EEZ-this 

represents about one-third of the total area of the U.S. EEZ. 

By 1991, with our present schedule, we will have GLORIA 

coverage in the EEZ around all 50 States. 

The work accomplished thus far has been impressive. 

But there is more yet to be done. We will soon begin the 

verification studies, using the basic road maps of the EEZ 

that GLORIA provides to understand the mechanisms and 

the rates at which sediments are transported through submarine channels far from land. We will also be studying 

mineralization processes on the seafloor to learn more about 

how and where mineral resources are formed. From the 

GLORIA data, as presented in the atlas volumes that are 

being prepared for each region, and from the followup 

studies of that data, we will be able to provide other Federal 

and State agencies, as well as industry and the academic 

communities, with the information that they will need to 

move from the regional reconnaissance perspective of the 

GLORIA road maps to site-specific studies of areas of the 

EEZ. 

The work that is being carried out now in the EEZ in 

the Federal Government, by private industry, and by State 

agencies and universities represents a massive effort that is 

of paramount importance to our Nation. Much as Lewis and 

Clark mapped and set the forces in motion for development 

of the West more than 180 years ago, the EEZ, which 

remains as the last terrestrial resource frontier, is being 

mapped, and the forces are now being set in motion for its 

development from the work in which we are all now 

engaged. 

As I mentioned earlier, one of the important tasks that 

will be carried out during this symposium is the guidance by 

which we will reshape and direct our program in the EEZ 

for the next 10 years. Tomorrow's workshops will be the 

forum in which that guidance is provided. I am looking 

forward to those sessions, both as Director of the USGS and 

as a scientist who understands the value of our joint 

exploration of the EEZ. 

I would like to thank our keynote speaker, Dr. Baker 

of the Joint Oceanographic Institutions, for his presentation 

today; and also to thank Steve Griles and Jim Ziglar from 

the Department of the Interior for their participation as well. 

And, of course, a special thank you to the Survey's 

co-sponsors for this symposium, the U.S. Bureau of Mines, 

the Minerals Management Service, and NOAA. 

The EEZ Proclamation opened up the frontier of the 

EEZ for discovery. It also opened up new opportunities for 

cooperative exchange among the various agencies involved 

in the exploration of the EEZ. The presence of our speakers 

here this afternoon and the prestigious list of participants in 

our workshops tomorrow and on Thursday all point to the 

importance in which we hold the promises of the EEZ and 

the importance of our cooperation in unlocking the resource 

treasures of this, our Nation's last, great frontier. 

The Face of the Deep-Road Maps-of Discovery ·37 

PART 2: WORKSHOP RESULTS 

Workshop 1: Scientific Mapping and Research 

to Characterize the EEZ-Aiaska 

Panel Co-chairpersons: 

Michael S. Marlow, U.S. Geological Survey 

Douglas A. Wolfe, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

INTRODUCTION 

The Alaskan Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) has an 

enormous area of approximately 4.8 x 106 km2

, or about 

60 percent of the total EEZ area that is associated with the 

contiguous United States and Alaska. The Alaskan EEZ is 

composed of diverse geologic elements and supports a rich 

and productive assemblage of biological resources. For 

purposes of mapping in the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) Continental Margin Map Series (Peck and Hill, 

1986), the Alaskan EEZ is divided into 8 areas (of the 20 for 

the entire United States, including Hawaii). The Minerals 

Management Service (MMS) has further divided these areas 

into a current total of 14 planning areas for exploration and 

potential development of oil and gas reserves on the 

Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) (fig. 1). For this 

presentation, however, the offshore Alaskan EEZ will be 

discussed as three regions: the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian 

Island Arc, the Bering Sea, and the Arctic region north of 

the Bering Strait. The tectonic elements of these regions are 

diverse, ranging from the actively subducting margin in the 

western Gulf of Alaska and the eastern and central Aleutian 

Arc, through the actively transforming margins of the 

eastern Gulf of Alaska and western Aleutian Arc, to the 

formerly active margin of the Bering Sea as well as the 

rifted and totally passive Arctic margin. 

A large number of major sedimentary basins occur 

within the Alaskan EEZ (fig. 2). In the Bering Sea the EEZ 

extends to the 1867 U.S.-U.S.S.R. Convention Line and 

includes the deepwater Aleutian and Bowers Basins. 

The purposes of this report are: 

1. To outline scientific objectives for characterizing and 

evaluating the mineral, energy, and other nonliving 

resources of the seabed and subsoil of the Alaskan EEZ 

and for understanding the geological framework and 

processes in which and by which those resources are 

formed and 

2. To identify the consequent research and mapping 

activities needed to support effective development and 

use of those resources. 

Although the research program developed in this 

report focuses primarily on nonliving resources, it is recognized that any eventual development of those resources 

must be carried out in an environmentally sound manner, 

with due regard for resource-use conflicts that may arise, 

for example, with interests such as transportation, commercial and subsistence fisheries, or threatened and endangered 

species. These concerns are being addressed by the Information Needs for Seafloor-Seabed Utilization Panel (Silva 

and others, this volume) and will not be discussed here. 

This report presents a brief introduction to the diverse 

environmental characteristics and major geological and 

structural features within each Alaskan region. Existing 

programs and data coverage in each area are discussed 

relative to the outstanding problems and needs in each 

region. Programs are then outlined and recommended for 

acquiring and managing additional information needed for 

effective exploration of the Alaskan EEZ. 

AREA DESCRIPTIONS 

The Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Island Arc 

The Gulf of Alaska region is geologically very 

dynamic. Located at the juncture of the North American and 

subducting Pacific crystal plates, the region exhibits a large 

amount of seismotectonic activity, manifested by ground 

shaking, tsunamis, and submarine slumping. The Gulf of 

Alaska is bounded by the south coast of Alaska, which is 

arcuate and extends for hundreds of kilometers, from the 

Alaska panhandle on the east side of the Gulf to the Alaska 

Peninsula on the west. To the west of the Alaska Peninsula, 

the North Pacific Ocean is bounded by the Aleutian Arc. 

Altogether this EEZ area is about 2. 2 x 106 km2 • This 

coastline is the most complex in the State and contains a 

large variety of geomorphological features, dominated by 

the presence of rugged mountains. Many of the volcanic 

mountains in the Alaska and Aleutian ranges are active and 

have erupted in historical times, including Augustine in 

lower Cook Inlet, Katmai at the base of the Alaska 

Peninsula, and Pavlof on the southwest end of the 

peninsula. 

Workshop 1 : Alaska 39 
~ 

., 

a 

i 

s· 

cc 

~ 

.... 

~ ....... 

m 

m 

N 

!I 

3 

"'C 

0 

tn 

c:· 

3 

0 

:I 

s:: 

I» 

"'C 

"'C 

s· 

cc 

I» 

:I 

c. 

::rJ 

CD 

~ I» 

... 

0 

:::r 

1SO• 14 4~-----\--·- I ~o· 138° 

Figure 1. Planning areas under consideration by the U.S. Minerals Management Service for potential oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf of Alaska. 
=e 

0 

;. 

fl) 

=r 

0 

"g 

)> 

i" 

~ 

m 

~ ... 

160°E 180° 160° 

U.S.S.R. 

160°E 

50°N 

SANAK BASIN 

LIMIT OF E E Z 

40°N 

180° 160 

140° w 

PRESENT INDUSTRY INTEREST 

Thick Sedimentary Basins 

PRESENT U.S.G.S. INTEREST 

~ 

Thick Sedimentary Basins ~:::: : j 

Oeapar Parts ol Basin Framework ~ 

Old11 Paleozoic and Masozoic Framework (::sl 

140~ w 

Figure 2. Locations of major basins within the EEZ of Alaska and adjacent areas (modified from Klitgord and Watkins, 1984). 
Coastal plains are few in the Gulf of Alaska region. 

The only flatlands of any significant extent occur on the east 

side of Cook Inlet and between Dry Bay and Yakutat. The 

coastal segment extending from Cross Sound in southeastem Alaska westward to Prince William Sound is typified by 

unprotected shorelines and has only three embayments of 

consequence: Lituya, Yakutat, and Icy Bays. Prince William Sound is in essence an inland sea, being a complex of 

islands and fjords relatively sheltered from the open gulf. 

The rocky coastlines of the Kenai Peninsula and Kodiak 

Archipelago are indented by numerous fjords and embayments. Cook Inlet is a large, shallow estuary, some 250 km 

long and from 25 to 100 km wide. The south coast of the 

Alaska Peninsula is steep and rugged. Bays are numerous 

along the peninsula, as are islands along its western half. 

The continental shelf in the Gulf of Alaska is narrow 

in comparison to the shelf in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. 

Some 100 km wide in the vicinity of the Fairweather 

Ground south of Yakutat, the shelf narrows to about 10 km 

off Bering Glacier, then widens to about 150 km in .the 

vicinity of Kodiak before progressively decreasing in width 

toward the tip of the Alaska Peninsula. The shelf is 

dissected by numerous sea valleys and troughs, a number of 

which appear to be glacial in origin. Major topographic 

highs include the Fairweather Ground southeast of Yakutat, 

Portlock and Albatross banks off Kodiak Island, and emergent features such as Middleton Island in the northern gulf 

and the many islands in the western gulf. 

The climate in the Gulf of Alaska is maritime, 

characterized by heavy precipitation, cool summers, and 

relatively warm winters. Due to the mild climate prevalent 

in the outer Gulf of Alaska, sea ice does not form in winter. 

However, the more rigorous climatic conditions and shallow water in parts of Cook Inlet promote ice formation, 

typically north of the Forelands and along the west side of 

the inlet, for about 2 months during the winter. Much of the 

snowfall deposited on the mountains along the Gulf coast 

feeds icefields, piedmont glaciers, and valley glaciers. 

Many glaciers and icefields extend to near the coast and 

some enter tidewater and are localized sources of icebergs, 

for example in Icy Bay and near Columbia Glacier in Prince 

William Sound. 

Major storms are commonplace in the Gulf of Alaska. 

They are most intense in winter, when the storm tracks 

frequently lie along and south of the Aleutian Islands and 

Alaska Peninsula. Storms generally move eastward through 

the region and stagnate in the eastern gulf. In late summer 

and fall, by contrast, many storms move into the Bering 

Sea. High coastal winds also occur as episodic, katabatic 

events, flowing downward through mountain passes and 

river valleys and sometimes extending 30 km offshore. 

They are commonplace at the Copper River Delta and Dry 

Bay in the eastern gulf and near Cape Douglas on the west 

side of Cook Inlet. 

Streams associated with the coastal mountains are 

mainly short and often of the glacial outwash type: typically 

of steep gradient, braided, and carrying high sediment 

loads. Only the Alsek and Copper Rivers penetrate through 

the coastal mountains from the interior and enter the Gulf of 

Alaska. Coastal waters turbid with glacial rock flour prevail 

in the eastern gulfwestward to Prince William Sound, and 

in much of Cook Inlet. Elsewhere in the gulf the waters are 

relatively free of sediment. Tides in the gulf of Alaska are 

mixed, predominantly semidiumal, with amplitudes averaging 3 to 5 m but attaining as much as 10 m at the head of 

Cook Inlet. 

The Gulf of Alaska is rich in biotic resources. Diverse 

fish communities and marine mammals such as sea otters 

and harbor seals are associated with widespread kelp beds. 

Salmon, crab, herring, and halibut form the basis for 

domestic fisheries in the region, while foreign fisheries 

target on ground fish. Coastal and shelf waters also support 

large populations of birds and marine mammals. 

Major goals of geologic studies in the Gulf of Alaska 

have included detailed investigation into the tectonic processes and geologic history of both convergent and transform margins or the transition between these margin types. 

Past research in the gulf has focused on the regional 

geologic framework, the processes active in subduction 

zones, and hydrocarbon generation along transform and 

convergent margins. In the western half of the Gulf of 

Alaska (west of 148°W.) no exploratory wells have been 

drilled for petroleum. Development of possible hydrocarbon resources may be adversely affected by the high 

seismicity of the margin beneath the gulf. The allochthonous Yakutat block is colliding with the continent below the 

eastern Gulf of Alaska, and investigations are continuing 

into the processes within this collision zone and into the 

structural transition that connects the collision zone with the 

adjacent subduction zone. Marine geologic and geophysical 

data show the structure of the Yakutat block, and in the 

future, these data may suggest the location boundaries of 

other tectonostratigraphic terranes. 

To the west of the Gulf of Alaska, the Aleutian Ridge 

forms much of the northern rim of the Pacific Ocean. The 

island-crested ridge extends roughly 2,200 km westward 

from the tip of the Alaska Peninsula to near Kamchatka, 

1, 700 km of this length being part of the United States EEZ 

(fig. 3). The ridge, which divides the Pacific Basin from the 

Bering Sea Basin, defines an areal expanse of the EEZ of 

about 800 km x 1,700 km, or 1.4 x 106 km2 (400,000 

nautical me). Geomorphically the ridge averages 160 km in 

width, and the ridge relief is a spectacular 9,300 m, 

measured from the floor of the Aleutian Trench at 7,300 m 

below sea level to the volcanic summits of Umnak Island. 

The vast bulk and diverse geomorphic form of the 

Aleutian Ridge record important North Pacific tectonic 

events and crust-forming processes. Volumetrically large 

masses of sedimentary deposits have accumulated over the 

42 Proceedings; 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
' ' ' 

----- \ 

\ ' 

' 

~ 0 

l· 

~ 

-..... - ... 

\ 

I ' 

so.oo 

40.00 

Figure 3. Tracklines for existing geophysical information avail~ble from the U.S. Geological Survey for the west coast 

of North America and Alaska. 

Workshop 1 : Alaska 43 
submerged flanks of the ridge and in crestal or summit 

basins. However, only a limited amount of reconnaissance 

seismic reflection data are available to study these deposits 

and their resource potential. The combined line-mileage of 

multichannel seismic reflection (MCS) profiles collected 

over the Aleutian Ridge is roughly 3,000 km. Eighty-five 

percent of these tracks are confined to the ridge's 300-kmlong Adak-Amlia sector (172°-176°W. long~ fig. 4). 

Single-channel reflection profiles are also mostly confined 

to this ridge sector, as are samples of submerged outcrops. 

Thus, for the remaining 1,400 km of ridge length, only 400 

km of MCS data and a few hundred pounds of rocks are 

available for study. Owing to this paucity of researchquality MCS and other related geophysical data, and offshore rock samples, the geologic history of the Aleutian 

Ridge is poorly known and the resource potential of the 

Aleutian Island Arc region is, accordingly, even less 

understood. 

Bering Sea 

The eastern Bering Sea, with about 2 x 106 km2 of 

EEZ area, borders the western coast of Alaska and extends 

approximately 1 ,500 km from the Aleutian Islands to the 

Bering Strait. Seasonal contrasts are extreme: during winter 

over half of the sea surface is covered with ice; during 

summer, sea surface temperatures may become almost 

temperate, exceeding 16°C in the eastern portion of Norton 

Sound. 

The strong westward flow of the Alaska Stream 

provides the waters that penetrate into the Bering Sea 

through deep passes in the Aleutian Islands. In the eastern 

part of the sea, three fronts (regions of enhanced horizontal 

gradients of properties) separate the water overlying the 

shelf into distinguishable domains with distinctive hydrographic and stratification properties. Shelf circulation is 

generally sluggish and characterized by the presence of 

nonstationary eddies. 

Advances and retreats of the ice edge are correlated 

with fluctuations in sea and air temperatures, surface winds, 

and regional meteorological events. Ice formation usually 

begins in mid-October and may persist in some areas 

through June, although the retreat of the ice edge begins in 

April. In extreme years ice may extend as far south as 

Unimak Island; generally the southern limit is from northern 

Bristol Bay to the vicinity of St. George Island in the 

Pribilof Islands. 

The continental shelf in the eastern Bering Sea is very 

broad, extending over 640 km offshore in the northeastern 

sector. More than 44 percent of the Bering Sea is covered 

by the shelf, with the 200-m isobath approximately dividing 

the sea in half. This extensive shelf area supports high 

abundances of commercially valuable fish and shellfish and 

large populations of marine mammals and seabirds. 

North of Bristol Bay the coastline flattens out into the 

broad, deltaic lowlands of the Yukon and Kuskokwim 

Rivers. Here, intertidal areas are often wide and storm 

surges extend as far as 40 km inland. Although this section 

of the Bering Sea is dominated by the sediment-laden 

waters of the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers, so-called 

clearwater areas occur between the major distributaries. The 

clearwater areas have recently been pinpointed as being 

among the most biologically productive areas in the central 

portion of the eastern Bering Sea coast. 

Norton Sound, in the northeastern Bering Sea, is a 

rather isolated body of water~ its hydrography and circulation are dominated by local wind and atmospheric patterns. 

Recent evidence indicates that the outer part of Norton 

Sound is distinguishable from the inner by persistent oceanographic features. The water of the outer sound is dominated by a northerly flow between the sound and St. 

Lawrence Island. Nearshore regions of Norton Sound are 

subjected to regular scouring by seasonal ice. 

The eastern Bering Sea supports a rich and diverse 

biota. The bulk of the commercial fishery resources, principally king crab, snow crab, and salmon, occurs in the 

southern portion of the region. Nineteen species of cetaceans and eight species of pinnipeds occur in the eastern 

Bering Sea. The Pribilof Islands are the primary breeding 

ground for most of the world population of northern fur 

seals, while the northern Bering Sea and southern Chukchi 

Sea are the feeding grounds for about 95 percent of the 

world population of gray whales. Several species of seals 

and walrus are commonly associated with sea ice and 

depend upon it as a substrate for their breeding and molting. 

Bowhead and beluga whales also winter along the ice edge 

or in ice-infested areas. In addition, the bird populations in 

the eastern Bering Sea compose one of the richest avian 

faunas on Earth. These birds depend upon the exceptionally 

high productivity of the Bering Sea waters for maintenance 

of their dense populations. 

The Beringian continental margin extends about 

1,500 km northwest from the Alaska Peninsula to the 

U.S.S.R. (fig. 2). The outer part of the margin is underlain 

by a series of linear basement ridges and extensional 

sedimentary basins, which contain up to 15 km of Cenozoic 

and possibly late Mesozoic strata. Oceanic crust of Cretaceous age and 3 to 10 km of overlying Cenozoic sedimentary rocks are believed to lie beneath the Aleutian Basin, 

adjacent to the margin. 

The assessment of the resource potential of the 

Beringian margin is predicated on the understanding of the 

geologic processes that formed hydrocarbons and other 

minerals along the margin. Possible commodities on the 

margin and Bering shelf include oil and gas, heavy metals 

such as platinum and gold, and sand and gravel. Many other 

minerals may exist offshore, but they await exploration and 

discovery. Appraisal of the resource potential of the margin 

requires interdisciplinary studies of terrane accretion, basin 

44 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
:e 

0 

~ =r 

0 

'D 

!: 

I» 

(I) 

,.... 

I» 

ol::o 

en 

62a00 

155a00 -154a00 

tse.oo,7o \66·oo ·DOJ7e.ool?'4 t70 oe\6S.OG-. _1... 52 Q Q oOOJ7S,QQJ79,QQJ8Q,QQ-J7Q,QG17G,Q&\7~,QG\72oOG 0 

I ~\ D 

- { I I I I I \ \- sz.oo 

ss.oo 

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ·~ <) 

+ + + + + + + 

S?.oo 

+ + + + ~ + + 

ss.oo ~ 

~ + 

5J.oo 

sz.oo 

+ + + 

49a00 

1 6 6 a 0 ry.oo 170•00 l?e.oo 

4 

J?a.oo tao.oo -t?a.oo -t7s.oo -11~.oo 

BERING SEA AREAl LECOCQ PRO~ECTION AT 1:11000000 

Figure 4. Tracklines for GLORIA data in the deep portion of the Bering Sea. 
formation, deep crustal structure, and margin collapse to 

assess the tectonic history of this portion of western North 

America. The deepwater region beyond the margin (the 

Aleutian Basin) is unexplored with respect to resource 

potential. Only reconnaissance single-channel seismic 

reflection and GLORIA surveys have systematically covered the basin, except for a couple of widely spaced 

multichannel seismic reflection lines. 

Arctic 

The American sector of the Arctic Ocean extends 

from the Bering Strait (66°N., 168°W.) to Demarcation Bay 

(69°N., 141°W.). This region of the EEZ, about 660 X 103 

km2 in area, comprises portions of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas and is bounded by over 1,000 km of coastline. 

The Chukchi Sea is a shallow marine basin with water 

depths of less than 100 m extending several hundred 

kilometers offshore. Its circulation is influenced by ocean 

currents flowing predominantly northward and carrying 

relatively warm Alaskan coastal water into the region. 

These northward coastal currents combine with a westward 

drift along the southern margin of the Arctic ice pack to 

establish a broad counterclockwise summer circulation in 

the Chukchi Sea. 

The Beaufort Sea has a relatively narrow continental 

shelf extending 50 to 100 km offshore. The adjoining 

Canada abyssal plain is more than 3,000 m deep. Circulation patterns in the Beaufort Sea are generally dominated by 

the circulation patterns of the Arctic Ocean. Ocean currents 

flow westward between Mackenzie Bay and Point Barrow 

under the influence of the clockwise Arctic gyre. These 

waters are generally colder than those in the Chukchi Sea, 

although recent studies have indicated that a narrow band of 

warm, brackish water flows along the coast with the 

prevailing westward currents. This band is usually 1 to 4 km 

wide and periodically attains temperatures up to 10° to 

12°C, as compared to offshore water temperatures of well 

below 5°C. 

In both the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas lunar tides are 

very small, reaching a maximum of 1.3 m at Kotzebue. 

Wave heights and storm surges pose more severe hazards in 

the Chukchi than in the Beaufort Sea, primarily due to the 

longer reaches of open water in summer and fall. 

The Beaufort Sea coast is predominantly low-lying 

wetland tundra dotted by numerous thaw lakes. Offshore 

islands determine the nature of much of the nearshore 

physical and biological environment along the Beaufort 

coast. These islands effectively moderate the influence of 

polar pack ice where they occur, and in the few weeks of 

summer, partially separate the cold, saline waters of the 

open Beaufort from the warmer, brackish waters near shore. 

Some of these islands are true barrier islands, bounding 

shallow lagoons (for example, Jones Islands and Simpson 

Lagoon), while others lie farther offshore, with deeper 

waters between them and the mainland (for example, 

Narwhal Island and Stefansson Sound). The islands themselves, and the mainland coast, where unprotected by these 

islands, are subject to considerable erosion by wave action. 

The coast of the Chukchi Sea is more complex than 

the Beaufort coast. It has sections of higher relief, such as 

dry tundra meeting the sea at a bluff, and occasional cliff 

faces, as at Skull Cliffs and Cape Lisburne. In these bluff 

and cliff face regions there are no barrier or other offshore 

islands. Elsewhere, however, extensive lagoon and semiprotected embayment systems exist in association with 

islands, spits, and bars. 

Ice dominates the entire Arctic OCS area. Sea ice 

cover is close to 100 percent for 9 to 10 months each year 

and freezes up to 2.4 m thick in one season. Multiyear ice, 

up to 4 m thick, and icebergs with drafts of as much as 50 

m are present. Landfast ice forms during the winter, 

extending from less than 1 km to as much as 50 km 

offshore. The ice pack moving westward past the Alaskan 

coast shears against the landfast ice, forming an extensive 

pressure ridge system. Pressure ridges and hummocks may 

exceed 10 m in height and are matched on the underside by 

ice keels several tens of meters deep. The sea floor of the 

continental shelf is scoured by dragging ice keels that form 

deep gouges. Ice gouges of indeterminate age have been 

found as far out as the 50-m isobath, though they are more 

numerous in shallower waters, especially along the ice 

shear zone. The ice season is somewhat shorter in the 

Chukchi Sea than in the Beaufort Sea, but ice conditions 

and ice hazards are more severe in the Chukchi. The extent 

of landfast ice along the Chukchi coast between Barrow and 

Cape Lisburne is much narrower than along the Beaufort 

coast. Thus, with the exception of Kotzebue Sound, severe 

ice conditions are encountered much closer to the coast. 

The presence or absence of ice profoundly affects the 

occurrence of fish, birds, marine mammals, and other biota 

in the Arctic. During the period when ice cover is minimal, 

most of the annual primary production occurs and biological 

utilization of the area is high. Anadromous fish move 

seaward from their overwintering areas in rivers and are 

joined by large populations of waterfowl and shorebirds that 

also feed heavily in the barrier island areas and the band of 

warmer, brackish water along the coast. During the ice-free 

period, bowhead whales, beluga whales, and several 

species of seals also frequent the nearshore areas of the 

Arctic Ocean. In ice-covered periods, by contrast, primary 

production virtually ceases and the large populations of 

fish, birds, and marine mammals generally disappear. 

The Chukchi Shelf is a broad, flat, shallow, submerged portion of northern Alaska's Arctic coastal plain 

that is equal in area to all of Alaska north of the Brooks 

Range. A reconnaissance grid of USGS MCS data (line 

spacing on average about 50 km) has been obtained in 

seasonally ice-free waters, but the data are of variable 

quality. Data quality and spacing, and the limits imposed by 

46 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
working only in ice-free waters, have left major regional 

geologic, tectonic, and economic questions unanswered in 

the Arctic region. 

ACTIVITIES-PAST AND FUTURE 

Much of the explorational work in the Alaskan EEZ 

has focused on the identification and evaluation of potential 

reserves of recoverable oil and gas in Outer Continental 

Shelf areas and on assessment of the potential environmental impacts of developing those resources. Geophysical 

survey work has been carried out primarily by the USGS 

and by private industry. NOAA's Outer Continental Shelf 

Environmental Assessment Program (OCSEAP), with funding primarily from the Minerals Management Service, has 

supported major research efforts on ( 1) geological and 

ice-related hazards to OCS oil and gas development, (2) the 

physical oceanographic and circulation regimes of Alaskan 

OCS areas, and (3) the distributions and sensitivities of 

living marine resources, including endangered species, 

potentially vulnerable to impacts that might result from oil 

and gas development. These programs and other related 

efforts are described briefly below. 

Geological Framework and Environmental 

Studies by the USGS 

Since 1965 the USGS has conducted numerous 

oceanographic expeditions to the Alaskan EEZ, often in 

cooperation with other Federal Agencies such as NOAA, 

the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 

Tracklines of many of these cruises are summarized on 

figure 3. Many of the data sets are available from the 

NOAA National Geophysical Data Center in Boulder, 

Colorado. Several of the USGS cruises have been cooperative endeavors with Canada and Great Britain. An extensive bibliography of USGS reports and publications on 

Alaskan work is appended. 

Gulf of Alaska.-Seafloor geologic hazards studies of 

the continental shelf in the Gulf of Alaska between Prince 

William Sound and Dixon Entrance were conducted 

between 1974 and 1980. The high-resolution seismic reflection data and seafloor sediment samples allowed delineation 

of large areas of seafloor instability in areas of rapid 

sediment accumulation. These areas are largely on the inner 

shelf seaward of important sediment sources such as the 

Copper and Alsek Rivers and the Malaspina and Bering 

Glaciers. 

The triggering mechanisms of the seafloor slides and 

slumps, which were mapped on the shelf and slope and in 

the adjacent bays and fjords, include large storm waves and 

frequent strong earthquakes. Several earthquake faults have 

surface or near-surface offset, suggesting recent movement. 

The seaward extension of the Fairweather Fault extends 

from Cross Sound to Dixon Entrance and connects with the 

Queen Charlotte Fault. Together these faults form the 

boundary between the Pacific and North American plates. 

GLORIA imagery plus acoustic, magnetic, and gravity profiles were collected across a small segment (TACT 

area) of the continental margin in the northern Gulf of 

Alaska in 1986. The remainder of the deepwater portion of 

the EEZ in the Gulf of Alaska will be insonified by 

GLORIA in 1988, 1989, and if necessary, 1990. Follow-up 

"ground-truth" cruises are also planned and include sampling, bottom camera and TV, and more detailed seismic 

reflection profiles plus high-resolution side-scan and submersible dives. 

The current research program in the gulf is divided 

into four overlapping categories: hydrocarbon resources; 

neotectonics, including geohazards and sea-floor utilization 

studies; geologic framework; and crustal structure. Studies 

of neotectonics will be based heavily on swath-mapping 

bathymetry and partly on MCS data, whereas studies in the 

hydrocarbon and geologic framework categories will 

require mainly MCS data and results from geologic sampling, which may include shallow drilling. Crustal studies 

can be accomplished by using MCS, large-airgun refraction, as well as gravity and geoidal and possibly two-ship 

seismic data. 

Bering Sea. -Geologic hazards in the southern half 

of the Beringian continental margin in the Bering Sea were 

investigated in the 1970's and the northern half of the 

margin in the 1980's. The main seafloor hazards mapped on 

the outer shelf of this frontier petroleum area are shallow 

(less than 250 m subsea depth) acoustic anomalies interpreted to be caused by gas in the sediment. Biogenic 

methane was dominant, but thermogenic hydrocarbons 

were detected. Hydrocarbon anomalies observed on seismic 

reflection profiles obtained on the lower slope and rise are 

attributed to gas hydrates. 

Evidence for seafloor instability was observed on 

nearly all seismic-reflection records collected on the 

Beringian continental slope. The types of mass movement 

mapped ranged from small debris flows and slides a few 

meters thick and tens of meters wide to massive slide or 

slump blocks hundreds of meters thick and several kilometers in areal dimension. 

Newly collected GLORIA imagery (1986 and 1987) 

shows the ubiquitous nature of sediment instability on the 

slopes surrounding the Aleutian Plain. The Beringian margin, Aleutian Arc, and Bowers Ridge slopes all show 

abundant evidence of erosion and transport by massmovement phenomena. Sheet flow is prevalent in the 

northern part of the Aleutian abyssal plain, whereas GLORIA imagery of the southern half of the plain shows 

domination by turbidite sedimentation. 

GLORIA imagery has been obtained for the entire 

deepwater portion of the Bering Sea. The data are being 

Workshop 1: Alaska 47 
processed for inclusion in an atlas. Follow-up cruises are 

needed to the Bering Sea to "ground-truth" the GLORIA 

and associated geophysical data. 

Arctic.-The USGS has worked on environmental 

problems of the Alaskan Arctic since 1970, supported for 

several years by NASA's ERTS-1 project and for 10 years 

under the sponsorship of NOAA's OCSEAP. Except for 

several cruises on coast guard ice breakers and on NOAA 

vessels, most of the work has been done from small USGS 

vessels or from the winter ice cover. The main research 

tools employed over the years include high resolution 

seismic systems, fathometer, side-scan sonar, underwater 

TV, vibrocorers and box corers, grab samplers, scuba 

equipment, and remote sensing. 

Maps prepared by the USGS for the Arctic region 

include those for sediment distribution and thicknesses, ice 

gouges, strudel scours, and ice movement and zonation. 

Much of the USGS research has been on unique ice-related 

processes and hazards. The Arctic shelf is shallow, has little 

relief out to the break at 60 m, is blanketed by a very thin 

cover of sandy Holocene sediment, and everywhere is 

impacted and plowed at different repetition rates by massive 

. ice keels. Although not sediment starved, ice-related processes seem to prevent sediment accretion and even lead to 

erosion. In the Beaufort Sea, relict ice-bonded sediment 

occurs at shallow depths out to at least the middle shelf. 

Very little is known about offshore permafrost in the 

Chukchi Sea, but it apparently is not widespread. 

Future environmental work in the Arctic should 

attempt to define precisely how, and how fast, ice is moving 

sediment as a key to understanding the future dispersal of 

pollutants in ice-covered waters. Electric resistivity techniques should be developed for mapping the top and the 

bottom of ice-bonded sediment, and such techniques should 

be applied to better define offshore permafrost. This in tum 

would provide a better understanding of the distribution of 

gas hydrates known to occur on the shelf and slope. Future 

work should also deal with the problem of extensive 

slumping on the continental slope. Studies of slumping, 

diapirs, possible pingos, and canyons would best be accomplished by the use of Sea Beam and by developing an 

under-ice GLORIA capability. 

Additional MCS data are also required to define the 

deep structure of the North Chukchi Basin, which is 

interesting for both the basin tectonics and petroleum 

potential, and the character of the almost unexplored 

Chukchi continental borderland. These investigations 

require an icebreaker, and a jointly sponsored U.S. NavyUSGS investigation of the borderland is planned for 1988 

using a Coast Guard Polar-class icebreaker. In addition, 

selected conventional and deep-penetration MCS profiles 

should be acquired to supplement existing data in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. 

Industry Studies 

Private industry has been actively collecting geophysical and sample data from the Alaskan EEZ since the 

1960's. Initially, this activity anticipated lease sales held in 

the 1970's and 1980's, and it is ongoing. Several Continental Offshore Stratigraphic Test (COST) and exploratory 

wells have been drilled, but except for the North Slope, no 

significant hydrocarbon discoveries have resulted from 

exploration to date. Except for the COST well data, the 

industry data are generally proprietary and not available to 

the public. 

GLORIA Surveys 

In 1986, the U.S. Geological Survey began systematically collecting GLORIA and other geophysical data 

from the Alaskan EEZ as part of a cooperative program with 

Institute for Oceanographic Sciences (lOS) of Great Britain. 

At the end of 1987, some 50,000 km of trackline data had 

been collected (fig. 4). GLORIA images are being digitally 

processed for those EEZ areas deeper than 200 m in the 

whole Bering Sea and along the western Aleutian Arc. The 

eastern Aleutian Arc and the Gulf of Alaska will be covered 

in 1988 and beyond. The Arctic will not be covered because 

of shallow water and ice cover. 

OCSEAP Studies (NOAA and MMS) 

In 1972, the Minerals Management Service (then 

BLM) began a greatly expanded program of marine environmental studies in support of exploration and development of OCS oil and gas nationwide. In Alaska the MMS 

program was initiated in 1974, through an interagency 

effort with NOAA, as the Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program. From 1975 to 1984 the 

OCSEAP included major geological and geophysical study 

components, carried out largely by the USGS and the 

Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska. These 

studies focused primarily on potential geohazards associated with OCS oil and gas development, including ( 1) 

definition of the seismicity of the Alaskan OCS regions, 

especially in the northern Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian areas 

and in the vicinity of the Seward Peninsula, (2) identification of areas with unconsolidated or gas-charged sediments 

and potential for sediment instability or slumping, (3) 

mapping of submarine permafrost distributions, (4) identification of areas susceptible to ice scouring, and (5) 

mapping the distribution of near-surface sediment types. 

Additional data on surficial sediments have also been 

gathered in conjunction with distributional studies on benthic fauna. 

In addition to the geohazards studies, OCSEAP has 

supported major efforts in meteorology, physical oceanography, and ice motion throughout the Alaskan OCS and has 

48 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
acquired extensive data on the seasonal distributions of 

living marine resources potentially vulnerable to impacts 

from the development of OCS oil and gas reserves. These 

data will be invaluable also for estimating the potential 

environmental risks associated with development of other 

categories of mineral resources from Alaskan EEZ regions. 

Nearly all OCSEAP studies are well documented, 

both by original reports from the Principal Investigators 

(table 1) and by regional synthesis reports. In addition, 

OCSEAP has produced major regional environmental summaries for the Bering Sea (Hood and Calder, 1981) and for 

the Gulf of Alaska (Hood and Zimmerman, 1986). A 

complete bibliography of all OCSEAP publications and 

reports is also available (U.S. Department of Commerce, 

1986). Geological and geophysical data from OCSEAP 

studies are available from NOAA's National Geophysical 

Data Center, while other data types (oceanographic, chemical, biological) are available from NOAA's National 

Oceanographic Data Center. These latter data types can be 

accessed also through the Alaska Office of NOAA's Ocean 

Assessments Division in Anchorage. 

Strategic Assessment Program (NOAA) 

The Strategic Assessment Branch (SAB) of NOAA's 

Ocean Assessments Division conducts comprehensive, 

interdisciplinary assessments of multiple resource use 

throughout the Nation's EEZ and adjacent coastal areas. 

One major SAB product is a series of regional data atlases 

of the EEZ. The atlases contain regional thematic maps that 

present interdisciplinary technical information to policy 

makers in a consistent and comprehensible form. The 

Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas Data Atlas will be 

published in early 1988; and the West Coast and Gulf of 

Alaska Data Atlas is scheduled for late 1988. Each data 

atlas brings together four general types of information 

relevant to decision making: (1) physical and chemical 

characteristics of resources and their surrounding environment; (2) biological characteristics, including species distribution, abundance, life history, and habitat; (3) economic 

characteristics, including resource extraction and production activities; and ( 4) environmental quality, including 

pollutant discharges and hazardous materials disposal. The 

Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas Data Atlas will contain 

108 maps. These maps synthesize and present the best 

available information on important characteristics of the 

Arctic region. This regional atlas emphasizes living marine 

resources with over 80 maps in this category. In addition to 

maps on biological, physical, and economic aspects, this 

atlas also contains thematic maps depicting Native subsistence activities in a variety of Alaska coastal habitats. An 

explicit assessment of the content and quality of the 

information underlying each map is portrayed in the atlas. 

A national atlas folio series, also under development 

by SAB, presents comprehensive information on the use 

Table 1. A sampling of recent Principal Investigator final 

reports from NOAA's Outer Continental Shelf Environmental 

Assessment Program (OCSEAP) 

OCSEAP Final Reports 

47: Molnia, B.F., 1982, Erosion, deposition, faulting and 

instability of shelf sediments: Eastern Gulf of Alaska, 

638 p. 

48: Hampton, M.A., 1983, Geotechnical framework 

study of the Kodiak Shelf, Alaska, 94 p. 

Lee, H.J., and Schwab, W.C., 1983, Geotechnical 

framework, Northeast Gulf of Alaska, 452 p. 

49: Latham, G.V., Dorman, H.J., and Ibrahim, A.B.K., 

1980, Coordinated ocean bottom seismograph measurements in the Kodiak Shelf area, 28 p. 

Lahr, J.C., and Stephens, C.D., 1983, Earthquake 

activity and ground shaking in and along the eastern 

Gulf of Alaska, 54 p. 

Frohlich, C., and Donoho, P., 1982, Measurement 

and location of earthquakes in western Alaska, the 

Gulf of Alaska, and the Bering Sea, 48 p. 

Jacob, K.H., and Hauksson, E., 1983, A seismotectonic analysis of the seismic and volcanic hazards in 

the Pribilof Islands-Eastern Aleutian Islands region of 

the Bering Sea, 232 p. 

Pulpan, H., and Kienle, J., 1984, Seismic risk studies, western Gulf of Alaska, 65 p. 

Kienle, J., and Swanson, S.E., 1980, Volcanic hazards from future eruptions of Augustine volcano, 

Alaska, 139 p. 

52: ERTEC Western, Inc., 1983, Seafloor geologic hazards on the northern Aleutian Shelf, 342 p. 

Phillips, L., Barnes, P., Reimnitz, E., and Hunter, 

R., 1985, Geologic processes and hazards of the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Sea shelf and coastal regions, 

477 p. 

and health of the coastal waters of the United States. This 

series presents a national coastal and oceanic perspective 

and framework for environmental quality research, assessment, and monitoring. The first 5 of the 20 themes to be 

mapped are currently available: (1) estuarine systems, (2) 

NOAA's National Status and Trends Program, (3) dredging 

activities, (4) ocean disposal sites, and (5) oil production. 

Subsequent maps will include hazardous waste sites, commercial ports and shipping routes, operational discharges of 

petroleum hydrocarbons from ships, harvest-limited shellfishing areas, Federally funded marine pollution research, 

marine mammals, and fisheries management areas. 

U.S. Arctic Research Planning Activities 

Under the mandate of the Arctic Research and Policy 

Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-373), the Interagency Arctic Research 

Policy Committee (IARPC) has prepared a U.S. Arctic 

Research Plan (IARPC, 1987) that outlines and discusses 

Workshop 1: Alaska 49 
major research needs for the U.S. Arctic region (defined for 

purposes of the plan to include the entire Alaskan EEZ area 

north of the Aleutian Chain). One aspect of stated U.S. 

Arctic policy is to support sound and rational development 

in the Arctic region while minimizing adverse effects on the 

environment. Research needs identified by the IARPC 

(1987) to support this policy goal include mapping of 

energy and mineral resources both onshore and offshore and 

understanding the basic structural and functional aspects of 

marine ecosystems in terms of both productivity of renewable resources and their potential vulnerability to impact 

from development activities. The purpose of mentioning 

this Arctic planning activity here is merely to note the 

obvious parallels with the EEZ planning effort as it pertains 

to Alaska and to call for appropriate coordination between 

the two activities. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

In each of the five regions within the Alaskan EEZ, 

we suggest a series of studies and measurements made 

along area transects, or swaths. These transects would be 

corridors some 20 to 30 km wide and extending at right 

angles across the major structural elements in each region. 

Although specific locations have not been formulated, for 

these swaths in each area, they should extend from beyond 

the edge of the EEZ to the beach, where they would connect 

with existing onshore geologic data or cross sections. 

Along each transect, the objectives are to derive: 

1. A three-dimensional cross section of the regional 

framework (more than one transect may be necessary in 

each of the regional subdivisions of the Alaskan EEZ); 

2. The characteristics of geologic processes and hazards 

within the corridor that are representative of the region; 

and 

3. A reconnaissance estimate of the resource potential of 

the region. 

Each transect would require the use of two ships 

working together to obtain three-dimensional deep crustal 

structure from seismic reflection and refraction data including Expanding Spread Profiles (ESP). Both ships would 

then operate separately to obtain the following data: 

1. Geopotential: gravity and magnetic profiles; 

2. High-resolution seismic reflection profiles (0-1 ,000 m 

subbottom); 

3. Bathymetry; 

4. Sample information involving: 

a. Coring (20 m) 

b. Dredging 

c. Grab sampling; and 

5. Bottom photographs and sonographs. 

Following the collection and analysis of the transects, 

a systematic drilling program should commence to provide 

"ground-truthing" of the geophysical data. At least one hole 

should be drilled in each transect and should collect the 

following: 

1. Continuous cores; 

2. Basement samples if possible; and 

3. A series of down-hole logs. 

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 

M. Marlowe, Co-chairperson 

D.A. Wolfe, Co-chairperson 

J. Goll, Steering Committee Representative 

D. Basta 

D. Braden 

E.G. Valdez 

REFERENCES CITED 

Hood, D.W., and Calder, J.A., eds., 1981, The eastern Bering 

Sea shelf: Oceanography and Resources, two volumes: 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office 

of Marine Pollution Assessment, 1339 p. 

Hood, D.W., and Zimmerman, S.T., eds., 1986, The Gulf of 

Alaska: Physical environment and biological resources: 

United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 

D.C., 655 p. 

Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC), 1987, 

United States Arctic Research Plan: IARPC, Washington, 

D.C., 334 p. 

Klitgord, K.D., and Watkins, J.S., 1984, Panel lA, Geologic 

studies related to oil and gas development in the EEZ, in 

Symposium proceedings: A national program for the 

assessment and development of the mineral resources of the 

United States Exclusive Economic Zone, November 15, 

16, 17, 1983: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 929, p. 

107-184. 

Peck, D.L., and Hill, G.W., 1986, The United States Geological 

Survey's program in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), 

in Lockwood, Millington, and Hill, Gary, eds., Proceedings: Exclusive Economic Zone Symposium, Exploring the 

new ocean frontier: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Ocean Service, Charting and 

Geodetic Services, Rockville, Maryland, p. 21-30. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1986, Outer Continental Shelf 

Environmental Assessment Program (OCSEAP): Comprehensive bibliography: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Ocean Assessments Division, Alaska 

Office, Anchorage, 705 p. 

50 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF USGS PUBLICATIONS PERTINENT TO THE ALASKA EEZ 

[AA, Aleutian Arc; AR, North Slope; BS, Bering Sea; GA, Gulf of Alaska] 

Barnes, P.W., Jeffery L. Asbury, Douglas M. Rearic and C.Robin Ross, 1987, Ice erosion 

of a sea-floor knickpoint at the inner edge of the stamukhi zone, Beaufort 

Sea, Alaska; Marine Geology, v 76, p. 207-222 . (AR) 

Barnes, P.W., McDowell, D.M., and Reimnitz, Erk, 1978, Ice gouging characteristics: 

their changing patterns from 1975-1977, Beaufort Sea, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 78-730, 42 p. (AR) 

Barnes, P.W., D.M. Rearic and Reimnitz, E., 1984, Ice gouge characteristics and their 

relation to ice gouging and ice dynamics, in P .W. Barnes, D.M. ScheU, and 

E. Reimnitz ( eds.), The Alaskan Beaufort Sea - Ecosystems and Environment: Academic Press, San Francisco, California, p. 466. (AR) 

Barnes, P.W., and Reimnitz, Erk, 1974, Sedimentary processes on arctic shelves off the 

northern coast of Alaska, in, Reed, J.C., and Sater, J.E., eds., The Coast and 

Shelf of the Beaufort Sea, The Arctic Institute of North America, Arlington, 

Virginia, p. 439-576. (AR) 

Barnes, P.W., Reimnitz, E., and Fox, D., 1982, Ice Rafting of fine- grained sediment, 

a sorting and transport mechanism, Beaufort Sea, Alaska: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 52, p. 493-502. (AR) 

Boucher, Gary, Reimnitz, Erk, and Kempema, E.W., 1981, Seismic evidence for an 

extensive gas-bearing layer at shallow depth offshore from P(udhoe Bay, 

Alaska: Cold Regions Science and Technology, no. 4, p. 63-71. (AR) 

Carlson, P.R., Molnia, B.F., Bruns, T.R. and Page, R., 1975, Preliminary report on geologic hazards in the outer continental shelf of the eastern Gulf of Alaska, submitted to BLM up request for hazards data pertaining to lease sale 39, 11 p. 

(GA) 

Carlson, P.R. and Molnia, B.F., 1976, Faulting and instability of shelf sediment: eastern 

Gulf of Alaska: Annual progress report, R.U. #216, Alaskan continental 

shelf, Principal Investigators reports for year ending March 1976, NOAA, v. 

13, (Geology Report), p. 107-124. (GA) 

Carlson, P.R. and Molnia, B.F., 1977, Submarine faults and slides on the continental 

shelf, northern Gulf of Alaska: Marine Geotechnology, v. 2, no. 1, p. 275-290. 

(GA) 

Carlson, P.R., Molnia, B.F., Kittelson, S.C. and Hampson, J.C., Jr., 1977, Distribution of 

bottom sediments on the continental shelf, northern Gulf of Alaska: U.S. 

Geological Survey Miscellaneous field studies maps and text, MF 876, 2 map 

sheets and 13 p. pamphlet. (GA) 

Carlson, P.R., 1978, Holocene slump on continental shelf off Malaspina Glacier, Gulf of 

Alaska, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 62, p. 

2412-2426. (GA) 

Carlson, P.R., Molnia, B.F., and Wheeler, M.C., 1980, Seafloor geologic hazards in OCS 

lease area 55, eastern Gulf of Alaska: 12th Offshore Technology Conference, 

Houston, Texas, Proceedings, v. 1, p. 583-603. (GA) 

Carlson, P.R., and Karl, H.A., 1981, Seafloor geologic hazards, sedimentology, and 

bathymetry. Navarin Basin province, northwestern Bering Sea: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 81-1217, 149 p. (BS) 

Workshop 1: Alaska 51 
Carlson, P.R., Bruns, T.R., Molnia, B.F., and Schwab, W.C., 1982, Submarine valleys in 

the northeastern Gulf of Alaska: characteristics and probable origin: Marine 

Geology, v. 47, p. 217-242. (GA) 

Carlson, P.R., Karl, H.A., Fischer, J.M., and Edwards, B.D., 1982, Geologic hazards in 

Navarin Basin province, northern Bering Sea: 14th Offshore Technology 

Conference, Houston, Texas, Proceedings, v. 1, p. 73-87. (BS) 

Carlson, P.R. and Schwab, W.C., 1982, Northern Gulf of Alaska environmental geology, 

in T.R. Bruns (ed.), Hydrocarbon resource report for proposed OCS lease sale 

88: sou the astern Alaska, northern Gulf of Alaska, Cook Inlet, and Shelikof 

Strait, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-928, p. 73-86. 

(GA) 

Carlson, P.R., Karl, H.A., and Edwards, B.D., 1982, Puzzling mass movement features in 

the Navarinsky Canyon head, Bering Sea: Ceo-Marine letters, v. 2, p. 123-

127. (BS) 

Carlson, P.R., Plafker, G., and Bruns, T.R., 1985, Selected seismic profiles and m~p of 

the seaward extension of the Fairweather fault, eastern Gulf of Alaska: U.S. 

Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1722, 2 sheets, scale 

1:500,000. (GA) 

Carlson, P.R. and Karl, H.A., 1984, Discovery of two new large submarine canyons in 

the Bering Sea: Marine Geology, v. 56, p. 159-179. (BS) 

Carlson, P.R., and Marlow, M.S., 1984, Discovery of a gas plume in Navarin Basin: Oil 

and Gas Journal, v. 82, no. 14, p. 157-158. (BS) 

Carlson, P.R. and Karl, H.A, 1984-1985, Mass movement of fine-grained sediment to the 

basin floor, Bering Sea, Alaska: Ceo-Marine Letters, v. 4, p. 221-225. (BS) 

Carlson, P.R., Golan-Bac, M., Karl, H.A., and Kvenvolden, K.A., 1985, Seismic and geochemical evidence for shallow gas in the sediment on the Navarin continental 

margin, Bering Sea: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 

v. 69, p. 422-436. (BS) 

Carlson, P.R., and Karl, H.A., in press, Morophologic, seismic, and sedimentologic 

characteristics of the world's largest submarine canyons, Bering Sea: Geological Society of America Bulletin, 93 msp. (BS) 

Childs, J. R., Cooper, A. K., and Wright, A. W., 1981, Residual magnetic map of Umnak 

Plateau region, southeastern Bering Sea: U.S. Geological Survey Geophysical 

Investigations Map GP-939 , 1 sheet. (BS) 

Childs, J.R., Magistrate, H. W., and Cooper, A. K., Cooper, A. K., Marlow, M. S., and 

Scholl, D. W., 1976a, Mesozoic magnetic lineations in the Bering Sea marginal 

basin: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 81, p. 1916-1934. (BS) 

Cooper, A. K., Scholl, D. W., and Marlow, M. S., 1976, Plate tectonic model for the evolution of the eastern Bering Sea basin: GSA Bulletin, v. 87, p. 1119-1126. 

(BS) 

Cooper, A. K., Bailey, K. A., Howell, J. I., Marlow, M. S., and Scholl, D. W., 1976, Preliminary residual magnetic map of the Bering Sea basin and Kamchatka Peninsula: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-715, 

scale 1:2,500,000. (BS) 

52 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Cooper, A. K., Marlow, M.S., and Scholl, D. W., 1977, Bering Sea: a multifarious marginal basin, in Island arcs, deep sea trenches and back-arc basins: v. 1, American Geophysical Union, p. 437-450. (BS) 

Cooper, A. K., 1978, Heat flow and organic gas measurements from the Aleutian Basin, 

Bering Sea: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 772-B, p. 92-93. {BS) 

Cooper, A. K., Marlow, M. S., Parker, A. W., and Childs, J. R., 1979a, Structure contour map on acoustic basement in the Bering Sea: U.S. Geological Survey 

Miscellaneous Field Investigations MF-1165. (BS) 

Cooper, A. K., Scholl, D. W., Marlow, M.S., Childs, J. R., Redden, G. D., Kvenvolden, 

K. A., and Stevenson, A. J., 1979b, Hydrocarbon potential of Aleutian Basin, 

Bering Sea: AAPG Bulletin, v. 63, p. 2070-2087. {BS) 

Cooper, A. K., Marlow, M. S., and Scholl, D. W., 1979, Thick sediment accumulations 

beneath continental margin of outer Bering Sea: AAPG Bulletin, v. 63, p. 

436. {BS) 

Cooper, A. K., Scholl, D. W., Vallier, T. L., and Scott, E. W., 1980, Resource report for 

the deep-water areas of proposed OCS lease sale #70, St George basin, 

Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 80-246, p. 90. (BS) 

Cooper, A. K., Marlow, M. S., and Ben-Avraham, Z., 1981, Multichannel seismic evidence bearing on the origin of Bowers Ridge, Bering Sea: GSA Bulletin, v. 92, 

p. 47 4-484. (BS) 

Cooper, A. K. and Marlow, M. S., 1984, Geologic and geophysical studies of the inner 

Bering Sea shelf during 1982: U. S. Geological Survey in Alaska: accomplishments in 1982, U.S. Geological Survey circular 939, p. 123-126. (BS) 

Cooper, A. K., Marlow, M. S., and Vallier, T. L., 1984, Summary Geologic Report for 

the St. George Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Planning Area Bering Sea, 

Alaska: U.S. Geological Open-File Report 84-418, p. 81. (BS) 

Cooper, A. K., Marlow, M. S., and Childs, J. R., 1985b, Digital shipboard gravity and 

magnetic data collected in 1976 in the southern Bering Sea: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 85-237. (BS) 

Cooper, A.K., Scholl, D.W., and Marlow, M.S., 1986, Structural framework, sedimentary 

sequences, and hydrocarbon potential of the Aleutian and Bowers basins, Bering Sea, in D.W. Scholl, A. Grantz, J. Vedder, eds., Geology and resource 

potential of the continental margin of western North America and adjacent 

ocean basins -- Beaufort Sea to Baja California: v. Memoir ?, Tulsa, Ok, 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists, p. ?. (BS) 

Cooper, A.K., Marlow, M.S., and Scholl, D.W., 1986, Geologic framework of the Bering 

Sea crust, in D.W. Scholl, A. Grantz, J. Vedder, eds., Geology and resource 

potential of the continental margin of western North America and adjacent 

ocean basins -- Beaufort Sea to Baja California: v. Memoir ? , Tulsa, OK, 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists, p. ?. (BS) 

Field, M.E., Carlson, P.R., and Hall, R.K., 1983, Seismic facies of shelf edge deposits, 

U.S. Pacific continental margin, in D.J. Stanley and G. Moore (eds.), the 

Shelfbreak: critical interface on continental margins, Soc. Econ. Paleont. and 

Mineralogists, Special Publication, p. 299-313. (GA) 

Workshop 1 : Alaska 53 
Hampton, M.A., Bouma, A.H., Carlson, P.R., Molnia, B.F., Clukey, and Sangrey, D.A., 

1978, Quantitative study of slope instability in the Gulf of Alaska, lOth_ 

Offshore Technology Conference, Houston; Texas, Proceedings, v. 4, p. 2307-

2318. {GA) . 

Jones, D. M., Kingston, M. J., Marlow, M. S., Cooper, A. K., Barron, J. A., Wingate, F. 

H., and Arnal, R. E., 1981, Age, mineralogy, physical properties, and geochemistry of dredge samples from the Bering Sea continental margin: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 81-1297, 68p. {BS) 

Karl, H.A. and Carlson, P.R., 1982, Large sand waves in Navarinsky Canyon head, Bering Sea: Geo-Marine Letters, v. 2, p. 157-162. (BS) 

Karl, H.A., Carlson, P.R., and Cacchione, D.A., 1983, Factors influencing sediment transport at the shelf break, in D.J. Stan ely and G. Moore, { eds.), The shelfbreak: 

critical interface on continental margins, Soc. Econ. Paleont. and Mineralogists, Special Publication, p. 219-231. {BS) 

Karl, H.A. and Carlson, P.R., 1984, Surface and near-surface geology, Navarin Basin 

province: results of the 1980-1981 field seasons: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 84-89, 118 p. (BS) 

Karl, H.A., Cacchione, D.A., and Carlson, P.R., 1986, Internal-wave currents as a 

mechanism to account for large sand waves in Navarinsky Canyon head, Bering Sea: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, p. 706-714. (BS) 

Karl, H.A. and Carlson, P.R., 1987, Surface current patterns suggest by suspended sediment distribution over continental margin, Bering Sea: Marine Geology, v. 

47 I p. 1-8. (BS) 

Marlow, M. S., Alpha, T. R., Scholl, D. W., and Buffington, E. C., 1975, Physiographic 

diagrams of the Bering Sea shelf, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 75-1, 2 sheets. (BS) 

Marlow, M. S., Scholl, D. W., Cooper, A. K., and Buffington, E. C., 1976, Structure and 

evolution of Bering Sea shelf south of St. Lawrence Island: AAPG Bulletin, v. 

60, p. 161-183. (BS) 

Marlow, M. S., McLean, H., Vallier, T. L., Scholl, D. W., Gardner, J. V., and Powers, R. 

B., 1976, Prenomination report on the regional geology, oil and gas potential 

and environmental hazards of the Bering Sea shelf south of St. Lawrence 

Island, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 76-785, 60 p. (BS) 

Marlow, M. S., Scholl, D. W., and Cooper, A. K., 1977, St. George basin, Bering Sea 

shelf: a collapsed Mesozoic margin, in M. Talwani and W. C. Pitman III, 

eds., Island Arcs, Deep Sea Trenches and Back-Arc Basins, Maurice Ewing 

Series, V. I: American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., p. 211-219. (BS) 

Marlow, M. S., Cooper, A. K., Parker, A. W., and Childs, J. R., 1979, Isopach map of 

strata above acoustic basement in the Bering Sea, scale 1:2,500,000: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 1164. (BS) 

Marlow, M.~S., 1979, Hydrocarbon prospects in the Navarin basin province, northwest 

Bering sea shelf: Oil and Gas Journal, October 29, p. 190-196. (BS) 

54 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Marlow, M. S., Scholl, D. W., Cooper, A. K., and Jones, D. L., 1979, Mesozoic rocks from 

the Bering Sea: The Alaska-Siberia connection: GSA Abstracts with Programs, v. 11, p. 90. (BS) 

Marlow, M. S., Cooper, A. K., Scholl, D. W., Vallier, T. L., and McLean, H., 1979, 

Description of dredge samples from the Bering Sea continental margin: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open- File Report OF 79-1139, 5p. (BS) 

Marlow, M. S. and Cooper, A. K., 1980b, Multichannel seismic- reflection profiles collected in 1976 in the southern Bering Sea shelf: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 80-389, 2p. (BS) 

Marlow, M. S. and Cooper, A. K., 1980, Mesozoic and Cenozoic structural trends under 

southern Bering Sea shelf: AAPG Bulletin, v. 64, p. 2139-2155. (BS) 

Marlow, M. S., Carlson, P., Cooper, A. K., Karl, H., McLean, H., McMullin, R., and 

Lynch, M. B., 1981, Hydrocarbon resource report for proposed OCS sale no. 

83, Navarin basin, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 81-252. 

(BS) 

Marlow, M.S., Cooper, A. K., Scholl, D. W., and McLean, H., 1982, Ancient plate boundaries in the Bering Sea region, in J. K. Leggett, ed., Trench-forearc geology: 

sedimentation and tectonics on modern and ancient active plate margins: 

Geological Society of London Special Publication No. 10, p. 201-211. (BS) 

Marlow, M. S. and Cooper, A. K., 1983, Wandering terranes in southern Alaska: The 

Aleutia microplate and implications for the Bering Sea: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 88, p. 3439-3446. (BS) 

Marlow, M. S., Vallier, T. L., Cooper, A. K., Barron, J. A., and Wingate, F. H., 1983, A 

description of dredge samples collected in 1982 from the Bering Sea continental margin west of Navarin basin: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

83-325, 4p. (BS) 

Marlow, M. S., Cooper, A. K., and Childs, J. R., 1983, Tectonic evolution of Gulf of 

Anadyr and formation of Anadyr and Navarin basins: AAPG Bulletin, v. 67, 

p. 646-665. (BS) 

Marlow, M. S. and Cooper, A. K., 1985, Regional geology of the Beringian margin, in N. 

Nasu et al., eds., Formation of Active Ocean Margins: Tokyo, Terra Scientific 

Publishing Company (TERRAPUB), p. 497-515. (BS) 

Marlow, M. S., Cooper, A. K., and Fisher, M. A., 1985, Framework geology of the 

eastern Bering Sea continental shelf: DNAG volume. (BS) 

Marlow, M.S., Cooper, A.K., and Fisher, M.A., 1986, Petroleum geology of the Beringian 

continental shelf, in D.W. Scholl, A. Grantz, J. Vedder, eds., Geology and 

re~urce potential of the continental margin of western North America and 

adjacent ocean basins-- Beaufort Sea to Baja California: v. Memoir?, Tulsa, 

OK, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, p. 1. (BS) 

McCarthy, J., Stevenson, A. J., Scholl, D. W., and Vallier, T. L., 1984, Speculations on 

the petroleum geology of the accretionary body: an example from the central 

Aleutians: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 1, p. 151-167. (AA) 

Workshop 1 : Alaska 55 
McCarthy, J. and Scholl, D. W., 1985, Mechanism of subduction accretion along the central Aleutian Trench: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 96, p. 691-

701. (AA} 

Molnia, B.F., Carlson, P.R. and Bruns, T.R., 1975, U.S. Geological Survey, NEGOA, 

Geology project FY 75 year end report, 53 p. (GA) 

Molnia, B.F., Carlson, P.R. and Burns, T.R., 1977, Large submarine slide in Kayak 

Trough, Gulf of Alaska, in D. Coates, Ed., Landslides: Engineering Geology 

Reviews, Geol. Soc. Am., v. III, p. 137-148. (GA} 

Molnia, B.F., and Carlson, P.R., 1978, Surface sedimentary units of the northern Gulf of 

Alaska continental shelf: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 62, no. 4, p. 633-643. (GA) 

Molnia, B.F., and Carlson, P.R., 1980, Quaternary sedimentary facies on the continental 

shelf of the northeast Gulf of Alaska, in M.E. Field and others (ed.,) Quaternary depositional environments of the Pacific Coast: Pacific Coast Paleogeographic Symposium 4: Soc. Econ. Paleontol. and Mineral., Los Angeles, California, p. 157-168. (GA} 

Reimnitz, Erk, and Barnes, P.W., 1974, Sea ice as a geologic agent on the Beaufort 

Alaska, in, Reed, J.C., and Sater, J.E., eds., The Coast and Shelf of the 

Beaufort Sea, The Arctic Institute of North America, Arlington, Virginia p. 

301-351. {AR) 

Reimnitz, Erk, and Barnes, P.W, 1987, Sea-ice influence on arctic coastal retreat, in, 

N.E. Kraus {ed.), Proceedings, Coastal Sediments '87, New Orleans. L.A., 

Amer. Soc. Civ. Eng., New York, v. 2, p. 1578-1591. 

{AR) 

Reimnitz, Erk, Barnes, P.W., Forgatsch, T.C., and Rodeick, C.A., 1973, Influence of 

grounding ice on the Arctic shelf of Alaska: Marine Geology v. 13, p. 323-

334. {AR) 

Reimnitz, Erk, Barnes, P.W., Toimil, L.J., and Melchoir, John, 1977, Ice gouge 

recurrence and rates of sediment reworking, Beaufort Sea, Alaska: Geology, 

v. 5, p. 405-408. {AR) 

Reimnitz, Erk, Kempema, E.W., 1982, Dynamic ice-wallow relief of northern 

Alaska's nearshore - a dynamic bed- form: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 

v. 52, n. 2, p. 451-462. {AR) 

Reimnitz, Erk and Kempema, E.W., 1983, High rates of bedload transport measured 

from infilling rate of large strudel-scour craters in the Beaufort Sea, 

Alaska: Continental Shelf Research, v. 1, no. 3, p. 237-151.. (AR) 

Reimnitz, Erk and Kempema, E.W., 1984, Pack ice interaction with Stamukhi Shoal, 

Beaufort Sea, Alaska, in P.W. Barnes, D.M. Schell, and Erk Reimnitz 

( eds.), The Alaskan Beaufort S, - Ecosystem and Environment: 

Academic Press, San Francisco, CA, p. 159-184. (AR) 

Reimnitz, Erk, and E.W. Kempema, 1987, Field observations of slush ice generated during freeze-up in arctic coastal waters; Marine Geology, v. 77, p 219-231. {AR} 

56 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Reimnitz, Erk, Rodeick, C.A., and Wolf, S.C., 1974, Strudel scour: A unique arctic 

marine geologic phenomenon: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 44, no. 2, 

p. 409-420. (AR) 

Reimnitz, Erk, Toimil, L.J., and Barnes, P.W., 1978, Arctic continental shelf morphology 

related to sea-ice zonation, Beaufort Sea, Alaska: Marine Geology, v. 28, p. 

179-210. (AR) 

Scholl, D. W., Buffington, E. C., and Hopkins, D. M., 1966, Exposure of basement rock 

on the continental slope of the Bering Sea: Science, v. 153, p. 992-994. (BS) 

Scholl, D. W., Buffington, E. C., and Hopkins, D. M., 1968, Geologic history of the continental margin of North America in Bering Sea: Marine Geology, v. 6, p. 

297-330. (BS) 

Scholl, D. W. and Hopkins, D. M., 1969, Newly discovered Cenozoic basins, Bering Sea 

shelf, Alaska: AAPG Bulletin, v. 53, p. 2067-2078. (BS) 

Scholl, D. W. and Buffington, E. C., 1970, Structural evolution of Bering continental 

margin, Cretaceous to Holocene (abs.): AAPG Bulletin, v. 54, no. 2503. (BS) 

Scholl, D. W., Buffington, E. C., Hopkins, D. M., and Alpha, T. R., 1970, The structure 

and origin of the large submarine canyons of the Bering Sea: Marine Geology, 

v. 8, p. 187-210. 

(BS) 

Scholl, D. W. and Creager, J. S., 1973, Geologic synthesis of Leg 19 (DSDP) results: far 

North Pacific, Aleutian Ridge and Bering Sea, in Deep Sea Drilling Project 

Initial Reports: v. 19, Washington D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 

897-913. (BS) (AA) 

Scholl, D. W., Buffington, E. C., and Marlow, M. S., 1975, Plate tectonics and the structural evolution of the Aleutian- Bering Sea region, in R. B. Forbes, ed., Contributions to the geology of the Bering Sea basin and adjacent regions: GSA 

Special Paper 151, p. 1-32. (BS) (AA) 

Scholl, D. W., Buffington, E. C., and Marlow, M. S., 1976, Aleutian-Bering Sea region 

seismic reflection profiles: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 76-748. 

(BS) (AA) 

Scholl, D. W. and Cooper, A. K., 1978, V .A11Ps: possible hydrocarbon-bearing structures 

in the Bering Sea basin: AAPG Bulletin, v. 62, p. 2481-2488. (BS) 

Scholl, D. W., Vallier, T. L., and Stevenson, A. J., 1983, Geologic evolution of the Aleutian Ridge- Implications for petroleum resources: Journal of the Alaska Geological Society, v. 3, p. 33-46. (AA) 

Scholl, D.W., T.L.Vallier, and Stevenson, A.J., 1986, Terrane accretion, production, and 

continental growth - a perspective based on the origin and tectonic fate of 

the Aleutian-Bering Sea region: Geology, v. 14, p. 43-47. (BS) (AA) 

Workshop 1 : Alaska 57 
Scholl, D.W., Vallier, T.L., and Stevenson, A.J., 1986, Geologic evolution and petroleum 

geology of the Aleutian Ridge, in D.W. Scholl, A. Grantz, J. Vedder, eds., 

Geology and resource potential of the continental margin of western North 

America and adjacent ocean basins -- Beaufort Sea to Baja California: v. 

Memoir ?, Tulsa, OK, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, p. ?. 

(AA) 

Weeks, W.F., Barnes, P.W., Rearic, D.M., and Reimnitz, Erk, 1984, Some probabilistic 

aspects of ice gouging on the Alaskan shelf of the Beaufort Sea, in, P.W. 

Barnes, D.M. Schell, and Erk Reimnitz ( eds), The Alaskan Beaufort Sea -

Ecosystem and Environment: Academic Press, San Francisco, CA, p. 213-

236. (BS) 

Wolf, S.C., Reimnitz, Erk, and Barnes, P.W., 1985, Pleistocene and Holocene Seismic 

Stratigraphy between the Canning River and Prudhoe Bay, Beaufort Sea, 

Alaska, Canning River to Prudhoe Bay; U.S. Geological Survey Open file 

Report, 85-549, 50 p. (AR) 

Wolf, S.C., Barnes, P.W., Rearic, D.M, and Reimnitz, Erk, 1987, Quaternary seismic 

stratigraphy of the inner continental shelf north of ANWR; U. S. Geological 

Survey Bulletin 1778, ed. K.J. Bird and L.B. Magoon, p. 61-78. (AR) 

58 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Workshop 2: Scientific Mapping and Research 

to Characterize the EEZ-West Coast 

Panel C9-chairpersons: 

William R. Normark, U.S. Geological Survey 

Donald A. Hull, State Geologist, Oregon 

INTRODUCTION 

The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the west 

coast of the United States has complex geology and rugged 

topography with a relatively narrow continental shelf and a 

steep slope. The geologic framework of the continental 

margin zone of the West Coast EEZ is divided into three 

basic types, each with characteristic morphology, tectonic 

style, sedimentary cover, and, to a lesser extent, associated 

mineral deposits. These types are the actively deforming 

continental borderland of southern California, the transform 

margin of central California, and the active subduction zone 

from northern California to Washington. In addition, this 

EEZ sector is the only one around the 50 States that also 

includes an oceanic spreading-ridge environment. The West 

Coast EEZ is an area of significant and increasing oil and 

gas production and recent hard-mineral discoveries. It is 

also a zone of upwelling where ocean currents bring 

nutrients to especially productive fisheries. 

The West Coast EEZ is currently characterized by 

relatively limited mapping coverage and incomplete knowledge of the basic geologic framework, especially in deeper 

water areas west of the continental shelf. The limited 

knowledge of geology is a serious impediment to meaningful appraisal of mineral resources and geologic hazards. It is 

clear that the geologic processes in this portion of the EEZ 

have resulted in the formation of important mineral 

resources; however, a meaningful quantitative appraisal of 

the resources is not possible given the state of current 

knowledge. 

A recent report entitled "International Role of U.S. 

Geoscience" issued by the National Research Council 

( 1987) notes that there are three major problems with 

respect to seabed resources. First, many of the accumulated 

data have not been adequately synthesized, compiled, and 

interpreted. Second, more detailed studies of selected areas 

within the EEZ and in other areas are needed to provide a 

base for resource assessment. Third, more cooperative 

research programs are needed to develop better relationships with other countries. The NRC report noted that 

foreign seabed-research programs are more directly related 

to their particular resource interests than are U.S. 

Government-supported activities. Much of the U.S.-

sponsored oceanographic research is directed at broad 

scientific problems rather than being focused on the more 

practical aspects of EEZ exploration and resource evaluation. 

DESCRIPTION OF AREA 

Certain sectors of the West Coast EEZ have been 

relatively well surveyed as a result of the proximity to major 

oceanographic research laboratories rather than through 

coordinated mapping programs. In addition, parts of the 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) are very well known, 

specifically those areas that have been leased for oil and gas 

exploration. Although many of the industry data from the 

OCS activities are proprietary, some of the OCS regions 

were studied systematically as part of geologic framework 

and environmental studies for the U.S. Government. Federal Government-funded studies are publicly available, for 

example, as Environmental Impact Statements and OpenFile Reports. Government agencies, together with university researchers, provided the bulk of the publicly available 

geologic framework and hazard assessment data now available (only for selected OCS areas) within the EEZ. The 

deeper water parts of the West Coast EEZ, most of the total 

area under consideration, have been the objective of two 

systematic, regional mapping efforts. In 1984, the U.S. 

Geological Survey surveyed the entire EEZ area by using 

the GLORIA side-scanning sonar system (EEZ SCAN 84 

Scientific Staff, 1986). This imagery provided for the first 

time a map of all geomorphic features within the EEZ. In 

1984, NOAA began a coordinated program to map the EEZ 

using the Sea Beam and other swath-mapping sonar systems 

to provide detailed bathymetric maps (10-m contour interval 

maps are achievable with these systems). Both these programs were in response to the President's Proclamation of 

the EEZ in March 1983. The rate at which the West Coast 

EEZ can be mapped is such that several decades of effort 

will be required. 

Workshop 2: West Coast 59 
NOAA and the USGS have established a cooperative 

mapping program to help direct the choice of areas surveyed 

to regions of national interests and agency program priorities. The West Coast EEZ is the locus of a variety of recent 

and current scientific studies specifically directed to 

resource questions. An example is the coordinated investigation of biologic and geologic resources on Gorda Ridge, 

an oceanic spreading center offshore of northern California 

and southern Oregon. A Federal-State technical task force 

has directed the expenditure of $1.2 million from 1984 to 

date to investigate polymetallic sulfide deposits and associated biologic communities. The Gorda Ridge studies program will continue, and a dive program is planned for 1988 

with support from the U.S. Navy. 

A second example of specific investigations in the 

West Coast EEZ is a preliminary review by Oregon State 

University oceanographers of the marine placer occurrences 

that contain variable amounts of chromium, titanium, and 

other strategic metals. 

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE 

The current state of knowledge for the West Coast 

EEZ should be examined in two steps before specifying any 

10-year program goals. The first concern is whether the data 

exist to define the geologic framework and processes 

affecting the EEZ and to evaluate both resource potential 

and environmental hazards of the EEZ. Although we may 

understand the geologic framework at a "plate-tectonicprocesses" scale, we clearly do not have bathymetric or 

geologic maps at a scale useful for resource exploration or 

definition of potential hazards. The second step is to 

determine how well we understand any particular sector of 

the EEZ in light of a desire to map and recover mineral 

resources. We are asking whether certain resource areas 

may be well enough known to propose site-specific efforts 

(the highest "magnification" in a telescope approach) that 

can be carried out simultaneously with EEZ characterization 

studies elsewhere. Except for certain areas of the continental shelf, the answer is clearly that we do not. 

Data must be compiled before an efficient 10-year 

mapping program can be defined. For much of the West 

Coast EEZ area, nonbiologic oceanographic data and comprehensive bibliographies were assembled for all but the 

southern California sector about 10 years ago (Chase and 

others, 1975; Wilde and others, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979). 

These data compilations, completed before any EEZ proclamation, cover most of the West Coast EEZ but are not 

specific to it. They represent the cooperative efforts of the 

USGS, Department of Energy, University of California. 

and all oceanographic institutions along the west coast. 

Obviously, these (or similar) data compilations would have 

to be updated before defining extensive resource mapping 

programs for the West Coast EEZ. 

The data compilations noted above were not intended 

to provide interpretations. A more detailed review of the 

data available, along with limited geologic framework 

interpretations, is available for the Washington and Oregon 

continental margin (Kulm and others, 1984). This atlas is 

not specific to the EEZ but includes all of the EEZ area 

offshore of the two States. Publication of a compilation of 

the entire California continental margin geology for the 

offshore area only has begun and will include a series of 

seven sets of maps (four map sheets to each area to show 

geology, geologic hazards, gravity, magnetics, earthquake 

epicenters, fault plane solutions, and data sources) (Kennedy and others, in press; Greene and Kennedy, in press). 

These maps, unfortunately, do not cover the entire EEZ but 

the map series is a good approach for basic framework 

studies that need to be completed for the entire West Coast 

EEZ. 

An example of mineral resource inventory is a map of 

offshore mineral resources prepared by the College of 

Oceanography at Oregon State University and the Oregon 

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (Gray and 

Kulm, 1985). A geologic bibliography and a map index also 

have been prepared for the area offshore of Oregon 

(Peterson and others, 1985). 

A publication due out by the end of 1987 provides 

both a review of the geologic framework and sedimentary 

processes within the West Coast EEZ and also an evaluation 

of the mineral resource potential of the area (Carlson and 

Nelson, 1987; Clague and Holmes, 1987; Clarke, 1987; 

Clifton and Luepke, 1987; Embley and others, 1987; 

Howell and others, 1987; Koski and others, 1987; Kvenvolden, 1987; Lister, 1987; Loebner and others. 1987; 

McCulloch, 1987; McLean and Wiley, 1987; Morton and 

others, 1987; Snavely, 1987; Vedder, 1987). 

The definition of a 10-year program for the West 

Coast EEZ must await geologic evaluations of this and other 

reports due to be released by early 1988. The most 

significant of these later publications expected is Volume N 

of the Decade of North American Geology from the 

Geological Society of America. 

These two major syntheses of the geology of the West 

Coast EEZ should be considered only as flagships of a 

series of reports now in production that bear directly on the 

questions of EEZ exploration and possible exploitation. 

(Many of the individual reports of these volumes are known 

to this panel's co-chairs by title only, so we could not utilize 

the information for this workshop report.) 

The Strategic Assessment Branch of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is currently developing the West Coast of North America Strategic Assessment Data Atlas. It is the fourth in a series of data 

atlases synthesizing the best available information on 

important characteristics of the Exclusive Economic Zone 

and adjacent coastal areas of the United States. The data 

atlas will contain approximately 150 maps at a scale of 

60 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
1:5,000,000, with accompanying text, organized into six 

chapters: physical environments (15 maps); biotic environments (7 maps); living marine resources (70 maps); economic activities (20 maps); environmental quality (20 

maps); and jurisdictions (7 maps). The atlas will reflect 

extensive collaboration with regional experts in government, universities, and private institutions. A preliminary 

edition consisting of 50 of the 150 thematic maps that will 

appear in the final atlas will be available in early 1988. 

In summary, the current state of knowledge of the 

West Coast EEZ is inadequate to identify the extent of 

mineral resources or define geologic hazards. Within the 

next year, however, syntheses of existing data and (as a 

minimum) reconnaissance-level evaluations of the geologic 

processes and mineral resource potential will be available to 

help focus a 10-year program. The exciting discoveries of 

cold methane vents on the slope offshore of Oregon and 

extensive sulfide deposits in Escanaba Trough on Gorda 

Ridge, both in 1986, are two examples that should help 

emphasize that long-term program goals defined in this 

workshop need to be reevaluated on a regular (frequent) 

interval. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDED 

A variety of additional data is needed to define the 

basic geology of the West Coast EEZ. During the next 10 

years, it will be important to focus available funds on 

selected segments of this large area in order to characterize 

the geologic framework and processes. We prefer an 

approach that is based initially on the selection of segments 

of this broad EEZ for initial investigations. The segments 

would be 100 to 200 km wide and extend from the onshore 

coastal region to the seaward limit of the EEZ. The 

segments could be selected to be representative of various 

distinctive tectonic regimes such as the California continental borderland, the area of active subduction off Oregon and 

Washington, and the transform margin of central California. Areas within the West Coast EEZ outside the selected 

segments could be mapped in a systematic fashion guided 

by need for resource, geologic hazard, or geologic framework data. 

Bathymetric Mapping 

Bathymetric mapping is fundamental and necessary. 

The need for such maps was recently evaluated for the area 

offshore of Oregon (Ireland, 1985). Specifically, for the 

Oregon continental margin for water depths greater than 

200m, maps at a scale of 1:250,000 with a contour interval 

of 50 m were judged to be necessary. Areas with a water 

depth less than 200 m should be mapped at a scale of 

1:100,000 and a contour interval of 10 m, except for the 

nearshore areas extending west from the coast a few miles, 

which should be mapped at a scale of 1:24,000 with a 

contour interval of 2 m. Thus, the scales and map boundaries for bathymetric maps would be a logical extension of 

onshore topographic mapping programs. The selection of 

map projections and scales needs to be coordinated with 

users and suppliers of data; for example, U.S. Geological 

Survey interests will require 10m in contour intervals for all 

of the EEZ. The relative priority of completing bathymetric 

map coverage versus various types of imagery (for example, side-scan sonar such as the SeaMARC systems) needs 

to be reevaluated as the surveying tools evolve. 

A 10-year program for mapping the West Coast EEZ 

will require improved bathymetric compilations, preferably 

produced by using multibeam swath-mapping sonar systems 

capable of providing 10-m contour intervals. The highest 

priority will be for the edge of the continent itself, where 

mineral exploration is likely to occur first. Thus, the 

continent and shelf/slope areas should be mapped at a scale 

of 1 :250,000. Mapping of the deeper water parts of the EEZ 

generally will not be required within the 10-year time frame 

and map compilation at 1:500,000 will probably, suffice. 

Compilation of geologic data including seafloor substrate, engineering properties, and seismic activity is 

needed to provide base maps for resource studies and 

geohazard evaluation. These maps should be at the same 

scales used for the bathymetric maps noted above, with 

1:250,000 scale being used for the shelf to base of slope 

areas. These geologic data compilations could be patterned 

upon the set currently being constructed for the California 

margin (Greene and Kennedy, in press). 

The maps developed in the program will provide 

information that is useful to biologists and scientists studying the living marine resources of the region. Knowledge of 

the distribution of bottom sediments, for example, is 

valuable in examining the seasonal migrations and movements of a variety of fish, invertebrates, and mammals 

along the west coast. 

In looking ahead to future detailed exploration and 

commercial development of seabed mineral deposits in the 

EEZ, it seems reasonable to suggest that permanent geodetic monuments be implaced on the seabed at widely 

separated sites. The monuments would be useful for accurate locations of lease boundaries for exploration or exploitation. 

The geologic framework of the EEZ can best be 

understood by selecting segments for concerted investigations. These segments, as a minimum, should be selected to 

characterize the three main types of West Coast EEZ 

provinces: subduction (northern California to Canadian 

border), transform-simple (central California), and 

transform-complex (continental borderland off southern 

California). Each segment should have a finite width, 

perhaps one degree of latitude, and be subjected to a variety 

of coordinated and systematic geologic and geophysical 

surveys. The segments would extend from the westward 

Workshop 2: West Coast 61 
limit of the EEZ and be continued onshore to tie into the 

landward extension of similar geologic environments. 

Constraints 

The primary constraints to availability of these data 

sets are funding, classification due to defense sensitivities, 

technology limitations, and the proprietary nature of much 

of the information collected by the private sector. 

The funding limitations relate principally to the high 

cost of operating vessels for the extended periods needed to 

systematically map, sample, and survey the large areal 

extent of the EEZ. Other costs related to data processing 

and distribution are significant. The major portion of the 

Federal mapping budget in the United States, however, has 

been directed towards defense and space agencies; thus, 

civilian mapping needs suffer as a result. 

In recent years, the National Security Council has 

required detailed bathymetric data to be classified because 

of the possibility that the data could be used by a foreign 

government for submarine navigation. 

There are additional constraints resulting from limited 

availability of technology. A recent Office of Technology 

Assessment (OTA) report has described the need for technological advances (U.S. Congress, OTA, 1987). 

The direct sampling of some seabed minerals is an 

available technology; however, utilization is constrained by 

the small number of available research submersibles such as 

ALVIN and SEA CLIFF. Other sampling technologies, for 

example, drilling of hard-rock mineral deposits, have not 

yet been adapted to routine use on the seafloor in deep 

waters. 

A principal reason for limited availability of necessary data sets in the EEZ is the current national system of 

selecting oceanographic projects based on scientific priorities rather than national needs in the EEZ. 

The understanding of the geology of the West Coast 

EEZ can be enhanced by an improved mechanism for 

cooperation between the private sector and research organizations. For example, the exploration for petroleum and 

natural gas resources has generated voluminous seismic 

data; however, these data are treated as proprietary for an 

extended period of time. Similarly, there are limited mechanisms for sharing of cuttings and cores from offshore oil 

and gas wells. A period of between 2 and 5 years for 

proprietary treatment of data and samples should be implemented to balance the national interest in understanding the 

EEZ while protecting private-sector investment. 

Long-Term Consequences 

Serious long-term consequences will result from failure to adequately map and study_ the West Coast EEZ. The 

primary result will be reduced exploration for mineral 

resources. The unexplored and less explored sedimentary 

basins in the United States lie principally offshore. The 

major portions of these unexplored offshore sedimentary 

rocks that may contain potential for petroleum and natural 

gas are within the EEZ. Thus, the national dependence on 

imported energy minerals may be accelerated by any failure 

to understand the geology of the EEZ. 

A second consequence will be the continued dependence on ... imported strategic minerals at a time when 

supplies from traditional suppliers in southern Africa may 

be in jeopardy. 

A third result may be a lesser understanding of 

tectonic processes and the attendant seismic hazards. For 

example, the active subduction zone under Oregon and 

Washington requires study within the EEZ as well as 

onshore. In excess of 80 percent of the population of these 

States resides within 100 mi of the coast. The fundamental 

nature of the subduction process in this area is the key to 

appraisal of seismic hazards in the northwest States. 

Strategy 

The preferred strategy for acquisition, interpretation, 

and dissemination of data from the EEZ is a coordinated 

national program with a single lead agency for individual 

work elements; for example, the responsibility for preparation of bathymetric maps might best reside in a single 

agency, in this case, NOAA. 

A common Geographic Information System (GIS) 

framework should be established which will allow overlay 

of bathymetric, geologic, and mineral information developed by DOl and cooperating agencies with living marine 

resource and oceanographic/atmospheric information developed by NOAA. Original data sets, as well as data synthesis 

and analysis, should be made readily available to States and 

to State-Federal task forces established to coordinate 

research and management. A GIS for the west coast should 

be oriented to management of ocean activities by State and 

Federal agencies as well as to collection, maintenance, and 

update of information. 

A State-Federal task force should be the mechanism 

for investigation and management of specific mineral 

deposits in the EEZ. These task forces have proven effective for coordination of exploration and should provide for 

continued joint management of actual development activities. Where necessary, these task forces should ensure 

coordination between research and exploration related to 

mineral deposits and exploration and environmental studies 

related to oil and gas. Thus, States should be encouraged to 

initiate formation of a task force and enter into cooperative 

agreements with appropriate Federal agencies to ensure that 

State management needs are met. 

The preparation of a complete set of bathymetric 

maps for the West Coast EEZ should be undertaken as the 

initial step in a 10-year program. The next sequential step 

62 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
would be preparation of a set of geological and geophysical 

maps along segments of the EEZ using a variety of existing 

and newly collected data. These maps could be prepared 

jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey and State geological 

organizations as a logical extension of the current cooperative program for onshore geological and geophysical 

mapping (COGEOMAP). This work can be tied to the 

existing GLORIA side-scan imagery, which not only 

reflects morphology of the seafloor but also, through the 

character of the backscattered acoustic data, indicates differences in seafloor substrate. The 10-year period will likely 

be insufficient for the mapping much more than segments of 

the West Coast EEZ. A final step in the 10-year program 

would be a crustal-drilling program based on previous 

mapping along the selected segments. The scientific drilling 

would be designed to add a third dimension to the geologic 

mapping and constrain interpretations based on geological 

and geophysical data. 

A logical strategy for EEZ data development involves 

improved cooperation between the military and civilian 

organizations. The excellent cooperation in the Gorda 

Ridge minerals program, during which the Navy's Submarine Development Group One supported Gorda Ridge Technical Task Force efforts with the SEA CLIFF submersible 

and deep-towed side-scan sonar system, is a notable recent 

example of the benefits to be realized from joint militarycivilian research. 

Another strategy to address the lack of funding is a 

direct reinvestment of a modest portion of EEZ revenues 

back into the research and development activities so as to 

enhance the data development that will likely result in 

further resource definition. 

Finally, enhanced international cooperation will help 

to accelerate EEZ-data development. In recent years, German, Russian, and Japanese vessels and scientists have 

begun to explore the U.S. EEZ. The coordination of these 

efforts will lead to improved knowledge. 

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 

William R. Normark, Co-chairperson 

Donald A. Hull, Co-chairperson 

Richard B. Perry, Steering Committee Representative 

Robert J. Bailey 

Thomas J. Culliton 

Patty Debenham 

Ronald K. Sorem 

REFERENCES CITED 

Carlson, P.R., and Nelson, H.C., 1987, Marine geology and 

resource potential of Cascadia Basin, in Scholl, D.W., 

Grantz, A. , and Vedder, J. G. , eds. , Geology and resource 

potential of the continental margin of western North America and adjacent ocean basins-Beaufort Sea to Baja 

California: Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and Mineral 

Resources, Earth Science Series, v. 6, p. 523-535. 

Chase, T.E., Normark, W.R., and Wilde, P., 1975, Oceanographic data of Monterey deep-sea fan: IMR Technical 

Report Series TR-58, Scripps Institution of Oceanography. 

Clague, D.A., and Holmes, M.L., 1987, Geology, petrology, and 

mineral potential of the Gorda Ridge, in Scholl, D.W., 

Grantz, A., and Vedder, J.G., eds., Geology and resource 

potential of the continental margin of western North America and adjacent ocean basins-Beaufort Sea to Baja 

California: Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and Mineral 

Resources, Earth Science Series, v. 6, p. 563-580. 

Clarke, S.H., 1987, Geology of the California margin north of 

Cape Mendocino, in Scholl, D.W., Grantz, A., and 

Vedder, J.G., eds., Geology and resource potential of the 

continental margin of western North America and adjacent 

ocean basins-Beaufort Sea to Baja California: CircumPacific Council for Energy and Mineral Resources, Earth 

Science Series, v. 6, p. 337-351. 

Clifton, H.E., and Luepke, G., 1987, Heavy-mineral placer 

deposits of the continental margin of Alaska and the Pacific 

coast States, in Scholl, D. W. , Grantz, A. , and Vedder, 

J .G., eds., Geology and resource potential of the continental margin of western North America and adjacent ocean 

basins-Beaufort Sea to Baja California: Circum-Pacific 

Council for Energy and Mineral Resources, Earth Science 

Series, v. 6, p. 691-738. 

EEZ SCAN 84 Scientific Staff, 1986, Atlas of the Exclusive 

Economic Zone, western conterminous United States: U.S. 

Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series 

Map 1-1792, 152 p., scale 1:500,000. 

Embley, R.W., Kulm, L.D., Massoth, G., Abbot, D., and 

Holmes, M.L., 1987, Morphology, structure, and resource 

potential of the Blanco Fracture Zone, in Scholl, D.W., 

Grantz, A. , and Vedder, J. G. , eds. , Geology and resource 

potential of the continental margin of western North America and adjacent ocean basins-Beaufort Sea to Baja 

California: Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and Mineral 

Resources, Earth Science Series, v. 6, p. 549-561. 

Gray, J.J., and Kulm, L.D., 1985, Mineral resources map, 

offshore Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and 

Mineral Industries, Geological Map Series 37. 

Greene, H.G., and Kennedy, M.P., eds., in press, California 

continental margin map series: California Division of 

Mines and Geology and U.S. Geological Survey, scale 

1:250:000. 

Howell, D.H., Moore, G.W., and Wiley, T.J., 1987, Tectonics 

and basin evolution of western North America-An overview, in Scholl, D.W., Grantz, A., and Vedder, J.G., eds., 

Geology and resource potential of the continental margin of 

western North America and adjacent ocean basins-Beaufort Sea to Baja California: Circum-Pacific Council for 

Energy and Mineral Resources, Earth Science Series, v. 6, 

p. 1-15. 

Ireland, G., 1985, Survey of Oregon offshore mapping: Oregon 

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Open-File 

Report 0-85-3. 

Workshop 2: West Coast 63 
Kennedy, M.P., Greene, H.G., and Clarke, S.H., in press, 

Geology of the California continental margin: California 

Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 207. 

Koski, R.A., Scott, S., Hannington, M., Delaney, J., and Tivey, 

M., 1987, Hydrothermal processes and massive sulfide 

deposits on the Juan de Fuca Ridge and other northeast 

Pacific spreading axes, in Scholl, D.W., Grantz, A., and 

Vedder, J.G., eds., Geology and resource potential of the 

continental margin of western North America and adjacent 

ocean basins-Beaufort Sea to Baja California: CircumPacific Council for Energy and Mineral Resources, Earth 

Science Series, v. 6, p. 621-638. 

Kulm, L.D., and others, 1984, Western North American continental margin and adjacent ocean floor off Oregon and 

Washington, Atlas 1, Ocean Margin Drilling Program, 

Regional Atlas Series: Marine Science International, 

Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 32 sheets. 

Kvenvolden, K.A., 1987, Gas hydrate offshore Alaska and 

western continental United States, in Scholl, D.W., 

Grantz, A., and Vedder, J.G., eds., Geology and resource 

potential of the continental margin of western North America and adjacent ocean basins-Beaufort Sea to Baja 

California: Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and Mineral 

Resources, Earth Science Series, v. 6, p. 581-593. 

Lister, C.R.B., 1987, Geothermal resources, in Scholl, D.W., 

Grantz, A., and Vedder, J.G., eds., Geology and resource 

potential of the continental margin of western North America and adjacent ocean basins-Beaufort Sea to Baja 

California: Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and Mineral 

Resources, Earth Science Series, v. 6, p. 739-751. 

Loebner, B.J., Piper, D.Z., and Vedder, J.G., 1987, Phosphorite 

deposits along the western North American continental 

margin, in Scholl, D.W., Grantz, A., and Vedder, J.G., 

eds., Geology and resource potential of the continental 

margin of western North America and adjacent ocean 

basins-Beaufort Sea to Baja California: Circum-Pacific 

Council for Energy and Mineral Resources, Earth Science 

Series, v. 6, p. 773-791. 

McCulloch, D. S., 1987, Geology and resource potential of the 

central California offshore, in Scholl, D.W., Grantz, A., 

and Vedder, J.G., eds., Geology and resource potential of 

the continental margin of western North America and 

adjacent ocean basins-Beaufort Sea to Baja California: 

Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and Mineral Resources, 

Earth Science Series, v. 6, p. 353-401. 

McLean, H., and Wiley, T.J., 1987, Geologic potential for 

hydrocarbons in unexplored offshore basins of western 

North America, in Scholl, D.W., Grantz, A., and Vedder, 

J .G., eds., Geology and resource potential of the continental margin of western North America and adjacent ocean 

basins-Beaufort Sea to Baja California: Circum-Pacific 

Council for Energy and Mineral Resources, Earth Science 

Series, v. 6, p. 595-619. 

Morton, J.L., Normark, W.R., Mann, D.M., and Tompkins, D., 

1987, Geology, evolution, and mineral potential of the Juan 

de Fuca Ridge, in Scholl, D.W., Grantz, A., and Vedder, 

J. G., eds., Geology and resource potential of the continental margin of western North America and adjacent ocean 

basins-Beaufort Sea to Baja California: Circum-Pacific 

Council for Energy and Mineral Resources, Earth Science 

Series, v. 6, p. 537-547. 

National Research Council, 1987, International Role of U.S. 

Geoscience: National Research Council, 95 p. 

Peterson, C.P., Kulm, L.D., and Gray, J.J., 1985, Geologic 

bibliography and index maps of the ocean floor off Oregon 

and the adjacent continental margin: Oregon Department of 

Geology and Mineral Industries, Geological Map Series 39. 

Snavely, P .D., 1987, Tertiary geologic framework, neotectonics, 

and petroleum potential of the Oregon-Washington margin, 

in Scholl, D.W., Grantz, A., and Vedder, J.G., eds., 

Geology and resource potential of the continental margin of 

western North America and adjacent ocean basins-Beaufort Sea to Baja California: Circum-Pacific Council for 

Energy and Mineral Resources, Earth Science Series, v. 6, 

p. 305-335. 

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1987, Marine 

minerals: Exploring our ocean frontier: OTA-0-342, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Vedder, J .G., 1987, Regional geology and petroleum potential of 

the southern California borderland, in Scholl, D.W., 

Grantz, A., and Vedder, J.G., eds., Geology and resource 

potential of the continental margin of western North America and adjacent ocean basins-Beaufort Sea to Baja 

California: Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and Mineral 

Resources, Earth Science Series, v. 6, p. 403-447. 

Wilde, P., Normark, W .R., and Chase, T .E., 1976, Oceanographic data off central California-37 to 40 north including 

the Delgada deep-sea fan: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 

Publication 92. 

Wilde, P., Chase, T.E., Holmes, M.L., Normark, W.R., and 

Thomas, J. A. , 1977, Oceanographic data off Washington 

46 to 49 north including the Nitinat deep-sea fan: Lawrence 

Berkeley Laboratory Publication 223. 

Wilde, P., Holmes, M.L., Normark, W.R., Thomas, J.A., 

McCulloch, D.S., and Kulm, L.D., 1978, Oceanographic 

data off northern California-southern Oregon 40 to 43 north 

including the Gorda deep-sea fan: Lawrence Berkeley 

Laboratory Publication 251. 

Wilde, P., Chase, T.E., Holmes, M.L., Normark, W.R., 

Thomas, J.A., McCulloch, D.S., Carlson, P.R., Kulm, 

L.D., and Young, J.D., 1979, Oceanographic data off 

Oregon-43 to 46 north including the Astoria deep-sea fan: 

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Publication 253. 

64 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Workshop 3: Scientific Mapping and Research to Characterize 

the EEZ-East Coast 

Panel Co-chairpersons: 

John S. Schlee, U.S. Geological Survey 

David B. Duane, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

The Atlantic EEZ area consists of the continental 

shelf, slope, and rise (Uchupi, 1968; Emery and Uchupi, 

1972, 1984). The continental shelf is essentially the submerged part of the continent, underlain by sedimentary 

basins and less dense continental crust. The slope marks the 

topographic transition to the North American deep ocean 

basin. The rise and adjacent abyssal plains at 3,000-4,000 

m water depth are underlain by denser oceanic crust formed 

over the past 140 million years as a part of the separation of 

Africa-Europe and North America. The shelf shows variation in form based on its past history. On the Gulf of 

Maine-Georges Bank region off New England, the area has 

been extensively sculpted by glaciers during the last ice age. 

The gulf is veneered with till and outwash in a series of 

swells and depressions that cover the area. Georges Bank is 

covered on its northern third by extensive sand shoals, 

formed of glacial outwash and shaped by vigorous tidal 

currents. Southwest of the Georges Bank-Nantucket Shoals 

area, and continuing to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, the 

shelf is mostly flat, is sand covered, and characterized 

inshore by extensive fields of sand ridges. Relict river 

channelways are preserved crossing the shelf off major 

rivers like the Hudson or estuary mouths such as the 

Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay. Most of the sedimentary cover is reworked detrital debris originally carried to 

the shelf by an extensive system of rivers when sea level 

was much lower and the shelf was exposed. 

South of Cape Hatteras, though the shelf is still flat, 

the character of the sediment type changes as carbonate 

detritus becomes dominant in the warmer water. Interrupting the transition to the deep sea off Florida and Georgia is 

the Blake Plateau, a deepwater plateau in water depth of 

700-1 ,000 m that extends north of the Bahama Banks. The 

plateau has been eroded by the Gulf Stream to create a 

broad series of swales and drifts along the western side of 

the plateau. In effect the plateau is an extensive submerged 

carbonate platform that had reefs along its eastern side in 

the Early Cretaceous. Its eastern boundary is a steep 

(near-vertical) escarpment, which drops to over 5,000 m, 

and the Blake basin. 

Other deepwater features on the Atlantic slope and 

rise include the New England Seamounts, an easterly 

trending chain of extinct submerged volcanoes that extend 

1 ,000 km to the east off southwest Georges Bank. Also 

built across the rise are the Hudson fan and the extension of 

the Hudson submarine canyon. North of the Blake Plateau 

is Blake Outer Ridge, a constructional feature that extends 

out from the northern Blake Plateau to 4,000 m. Farther 

north, the continental slope is indented by numerous submarine canyons that formed when the sea level was lower 

and sediment input from rivers was closer to the shelf edge. 

STATUS OF RESEARCH ON THE ATLANTIC 

EEZ 

Bathymetry 

The abundance of soundings in the Atlantic EEZ 

(Uchupi, 1968, fig. 2) ranges from more than 40 soundings 

per 10 km2 (for inshore and coastal areas) to less than 5 

soundings per 10 km2 (for offshore outer shelf and deepwater areas). These soundings, mainly collected on smooth 

sheets by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (now 

NOAA-National Ocean Service), plus surveys collected 

by oil companies, have been issued in small-scale bathymetric maps (Uchupi, 1968; Belding and Holland, 1970; 

Emery and Uchupi, 1984) to cover the entire Atlantic EEZ. 

Larger scale, more detailed bathymetric sheets exist for 

selected parts of the continental margin as issued by NOAA 

at a scale of 1:250,000 with a bathymetric contour interval 

of 2 m and by coastal institutions for selected areas of the 

shelf-slope-rise (McGregor, 1987, unpub. data; Newton 

and Pilkey, 1969). The bathymetric data used in these maps 

vary from lead line soundings and sonic profiles that came 

into widespread use before World War II to limited Sea 

Beam surveys using an array of transducers of the 1970's 

and 1980's (McGregor, 1987, unpub. data). The swathlike 

imaging of the seafloor by a Sea Beam survey gives us our 

first real portrayal of deep sea topography, an important 

Workshop 3: East Coast 65 
first key to the origin of the seafloor. The means of locating 

survey lines have also changed in a major way, from celestial 

navigation prior to World War II through Loran to the 

satellite navigation system of the present. Contour intervals 

have varied, depending on the scale of the map, from 1- to 

2-m contour intervals at a scale 1:250,000 to 20- and 200-m 

contour intervals at a scale of 1:1,000,000 (Uchupi, 1968) 

to a 400-m contour interval (scale 1:4,000,000) for the 

entire Atlantic (Emery and Uchupi, 1984). A small-scale 

(1:50,000) bathymetric map at a 10-m contour interval was 

published by Kirby and others (1982) for the Toms Canyon 

area of the continental slope seaward of southern New 

Jersey. 

Sampling of Seafloor Sediment 

Sampling of the seafloor in the Atlantic margin out to 

2,000 m was summarized by Uchupi (1963). He reviewed 

prior sediment studies over the previous century and emphasized the relict nature of the sedimentary cover north of 

Cape Hatteras and the low rate of deposition on the 

continental shelf. Authigenic and calcareous sediment prevail south of Cape Hatteras. Beginning in 1962, the USGS 

began a cooperative study with Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institution (WHOI) under K.O. Emery. As a result of this 

10-year program, several thousand grab samples of the 

seafloor were collected out to 3,800 m water depth and up 

to 300 mi seaward of the coast. The results of the cooperation are mainly chronicled in the USGS Professional Paper 

529 (see Schlee and Pratt, 1970; Schlee, 1973; Hollister, 

1973; Milliman and others, 1972). Maps from this series 

extend out to 4,000 m water depth, though the coverage of 

samples in extreme deep water is sparse (coverage of 1 

sample per 100 km2 , Hathaway, 1971). 

These maps show a sand-covered shelf veneered 

sporadically with gravel in the northern latitudes that gives 

way in deeper water to finer grained, more calcareous 

(planktonic-benthonic foraminifera) sediment with rafted 

coarser debris. As with bathymetry, far fewer samples have 

been collected in deep water. For the sample collection 

scheme of the USGS-WHOI program up to 1971 see 

Hathaway (1971, figs. 2-4). 

Several notable data compilations have been made, 

mainly in shelf areas. The New York Bight series published 

by the Sea Grant program of New York State is a 32-chapter 

monograph on all aspects of the New York Bight Shelf area, 

edited by D.F. Squires. The Coastal Engineering Research 

Center (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) published an 

extensive set of reports that assessed the sand resources of 

the inner Atlantic shelf between New England and Florida. 

(Duane and Stubblefield, 1988, and references cited 

therein). 

Small-scale studies of deepwater areas have been 

carried out by observations from submersibles coupled to 

closely spaced sonic profiles and corehole data in the Toms 

Canyon area off New Jersey (Hampson and Robb, 1985) 

and in Oceanographer Canyon off Georges Bank (Valentine 

and others, 1984). Inshore surveys were made of coastal 

New England to provide more detailed bathymetry and 

sediment textural patterns (Schlee and others, 1973; Folger 

and others, 1975). 

Coring and Drilling in the East Coast EEZ 

Shallow and deep drillhole data in the Atlantic margin 

were summarized as of 1972 by Emery and Uchupi (1972, 

chapter 3) and still later by Ewing and Rabinowitz (1984), 

by Uchupi and Shor (1984), and by Bryan and Heirtzler 

( 1984) as a part of the Ocean Margin Drilling Program-Regional Atlas Series and by Emery and Uchupi (1984, chart 

4) for the entire Atlantic Ocean. For exploratory holes on 

the U.S. Atlantic margin, drilled in the 1970's and 1980's, 

Wiese ( 1986) summarized the drilling activity mainly on the 

New Jersey shelf (34 wells) and other Atlantic shelf areas 

up to 1986 for the Minerals Management Service. Except 

for several DSDP (Deep Sea Drilling Program) legs (11, 93, 

95) and one ODP (Ocean Drilling Program) leg (102), holes 

in the deep seafloor are very few. The deep sea stratigraphy 

is based on drillhole results (approximately 31 DSDP 

holes- all off the middle Atlantic and the Southeastern 

United States) in the deepwater areas. These wells (Poag, 

1985; Jansa and others, 1979) have provided the basis for 

North American basin stratigraphy. Several key seismic 

horizons have been identified and mapped (by using seismic 

reflection profiles), and a detailed history has been constructed from the drillhole results (Jansa and others, 1979; 

Poag, 1985; Dillon and others, 1985; Tucholke, 1987). 

In the slope-outer shelf areas, more emphasis has 

been on dredging to sample rock outcrops to work out a 

shelf-slope stratigraphy (Weed and others, 1974). In this 

area, the section is abbreviated with pronounced unconformities and sequences of rocks as old as Early Cretaceous 

exposed in the bottoms of submarine canyons. In a few 

areas, correlations have been attempted through the slope 

area based on core and submersible samples (Valentine, 

1981; Poag, 1985; Hampson and Robb, 1981) tied to 

seismic sections in the area. 

Geophysical Profiling 

The most comprehensive stratigraphic record for the 

Atlantic EEZ is based on seismic reflection profiles collected over the past two decades. Distinctive reflectors can 

be traced over several tens of thousands of kilometers on 

these profiles. The pre-Cretaceous stratigraphy of the continental rise was best defined by Klitgord and Grow (1980), 

and for younger seismic stratigraphy (Cretaceous and 

younger) Tucholke and Mountain (1979), Poag (1985), 

Schlee and others (1985), Schlee and Hinz (1987), and 

· 66 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Tucholke (1987). Sufficient studies have been performed in 

the North American basin to define a deep sea stratigraphy 

and name units (Jansa and others, 1979), on the basis of 

DSDP drilling results and seismic reflection profiles so as to 

provide continuity among widely scattered drill sites. A 

compilation of the seismic reflection profile coverage for 

the Atlantic shelf-slope-rise area is given by Uchupi and 

Shor ( 1984), by Ewing and Rabinowitz ( 1984), and by 

Bryan and Heirtzler ( 1984) for the Ocean Margin Drilling 

Atlas and by Emery and Uchupi (1984, Chart III-A) for the 

entire North Atlantic. Though we have emphasized reflection stratigraphy in this review of geophysical data, it is 

important to realize that many studies have focused on deep 

crustal structure through the Atlantic margin (Hutchinson 

and others, 1982; Grow and others, 1983; Grow, 1981) 

based on gravity and magnetics as well as multichannel 

seismic reflection profiles. In addition, a multishipmultichannel line has been run across the mid-Atlantic 

continental margin off New Jersey as a part of the LASE 

(Large Aperture Seismic Experiment) (Gamboa and others, 

1985) to look at the detailed velocity structure associated 

with a buried paleoshelf edge- a feature of considerable 

economic-resource interest. 

Direct Imaging 

A new method of direct imaging of the deep North 

Atlantic seafloor was first used in 1979 and again in 1987 

in the form of GLORIA (Geologic Long Range Inclined 

Asdic) sonographs. The results of the first survey have been 

published as part of a larger survey (Dillon and others, 1985) 

or as surveys of the continental slope off the mid-Atlantic 

(Twichell and Roberts, 1982) or Georges Bank (Scanlon, 

1984) or off North Carolina (Cashman and Popenoe, 1985). 

The GLORIA system allowed viewing of the major depositional systems (fans, areas of slumping, major distribution 

channelways) covering over thousands of square kilometers 

of the seafloor. The GLORIA EEZ surveys are being 

published as atlases (for example, EEZ SCAN 84 Scientific 

Staff (1986) and the EEZ SCAN 85 Scientific Staff (1987) 

for the Pacific and Gulf of Mexico, respectively). The 

atlases show the seafloor images and interpretations of the 

features plus seismic sections along the traverses. These 

mosaics are a basic building block of the study of the EEZ 

because they provide broad areal coverage of the depositional fabric of the seafloor. The mosaics are basic to 

understanding seafloor sediment distribution and associated 

processes active during the Pleistocene and Holocene. In 

addition, more limited area surveys have been made of the 

upper Mississippi fan (Kastens and Shor, 1985) and of the 

Wilmington Canyon area (McGregor and others, 1982). 

The Sea MARC I system used by McGregor and others is a 

mid-range side-scan sonar device that can survey a swath up 

to 5 km wide, depending on the distance the fish is towed 

above the bottom. 

Detailed Bathymetry 

As is true for land exploration and research, a 

necessary first-level tool for marine studies is a high-quality 

bathymetric map. There are two commercial swath mapping 

systems manufactured in the United States: one for deep 

water (more than 300 m), called Sea Beam, and one for 

shallow water (30--650 m), called BS3 (Glenn, 1970; Perry, 

1985). The Sea Beam system acoustically surveys a swath 

0.8 x water depth, and the BS3 surveys a swath 2.5 x 

water depth. Depth accuracy is stated to be 1 percent of 

depth for both systems. Little of the Atlantic shelf and EEZ 

has been mapped with swath systems. 

Commodity Review 

Hard Minerals: Over time, there have been varying 

levels of research or commercial-driven studies directed at 

several commodities on the U.S . east coast continental shelf 

and EEZ. These commodities are sand and gravel, heavy 

minerals, manganese nodules, and phosphates. 

Sand and, to a much lesser extent, gravel seem to be 

nearly ubiquitous on the continental shelf north of Cape 

Hatteras (for example, Schlee, 1964; Duane and Stubblefield, 1988, and references cited therein). While much less 

plentiful and more calcareous in nature south of Hatteras to 

the Florida Keys, sand does occur intermittently and in 

sometimes significant volumes (Duane and Stubblefield, 

1988). Density of data on which estimates of character and 

volume are made is very much greater inshore than offshore, beyond 3 nautical mi. Much of this information has 

been developed as a consequence of research projects 

carried out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. 

Geological Survey, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The U.S. Bureau of Mines (1987) 

did some preliminary economic studies, concluding that 

sites off Boston and New York City have the highest 

commercial potential. This conclusion echoes that of De 

Lois and Wallace ( 1982) that mining of sand offshore of the 

greater New York metropolitan area would be profitable. 

De Lois and Wallace (1982) point out that economies of 

scale are key to profitable marine mining. 

Identified resources of phosphorite are large, and one 

of the major provinces is within the U.S. EEZ, from 

offshore North Carolina south to Florida (Riggs, 1984). In 

a detailed study of the North Carolina continental shelf, 

Riggs and others (1985) estimate 4.5 x 109 metric tons of 

concentrate could be recovered. Broadus (1987), estimating 

that marine phosphorite resources represent less than 10 

percent of total world onshore resources, concludes that 

there is little near-term need to exploit the marine deposits. 

Research relating to the occurrence and character of 

manganese nodules and crusts on the Blake Plateau began in 

the 1950's and continues (Manheim and others, 1980). 

Results of research have been well summarized in a report 

Workshop 3: East Coast 67 
to the USGS by the Charles River Group. The concentration 

of copper, nickel, and cobalt is low in these nodules and 

crusts. Nevertheless, the Blake Plateau occurrence is a 

potential resource for manganese. In fact, the Blake Plateau 

was the site of the first successful mining of manganese 

nodules when, in 1970, the R/V Deep-Sea Miner dredged 

nodules from approximately 800 m of water (Siapno, 

1987). 

Heavy-mineral placers have been the focus of a 

variety of studies of differing scope. Analyzing samples 

obtained on a 10-km grid on the continental shelf from 

Nova Scotia to Florida, Ross (1970a,b) and Milliman and 

others (1972) noted some samples with anomalously high 

heavy-mineral content. Presently, Berquist and Hobbs 

(1986), in an assessment of heavy minerals in the inner 

continental shelf offshore of Cape Charles, Virginia, concluded the concentrations were sufficient to justify further 

research. Their research, with the target species titanium, is 

now being extended south toward the border with North 

Carolina. Many of the samples used in these studies are 

surficial, although recent studies make use of vibratory 

coring devices. The U.S. Geological Survey is also conducting research on heavy minerals on the Virginia shelf 

(Escowitz, 1987, personal commun.). In 1974, Noakes and 

others reported on possible heavy-mineral deposits on the 

inner continental shelf off Georgia. Recently, the Minerals 

Management Service granted an exploration permit to 

DuPont and Associated Minerals, USA, for heavy minerals 

beneath waters in Federal jurisdiction offshore of Georgia 

(Woolsey, 1987, personal commun.). Titanium-bearing 

sands offshore Virginia and Georgia were in the subject of 

a study on economic potential by the Bureau of Mines 

( 1987). In this report, the Bureau identified conditions 

necessary for economically feasible mining. 

Presently, there are no commercial marine mining 

operations off the U.S. east coast, in either State or Federal 

waters. 

Process Studies 

The last phase concerns process studies in the East 

Coast EEZ. Most of these have taken place on the continental shelf (inshore areas), much less so in the deep ocean. 

Many inferences on the types of processes thought to have 

acted in an area over the past few hundred or thousand years 

have been made by study of the character of acoustic 

profiles (Emery and others 1970; Emery and Uchupi, 1984; 

Schlee, 1973 ). The trouble with this approach is that the 

profile is a composite picture of events that have shaped the 

seafloor over an undefined length of time. Mainly through 

an inspection of the physiography, Emery and Uchupi 

(1984, Chapter 2, Chart XA) list the processes they think 

are shaping the continental margin. 

Actual observational studies are rare but have been 

made by Butman (in press; 1986a,b) for the southern part of 

Georges Bank, Lydonia Canyon, and Oceanographer Canyon. These studies show currents strong enough in the 

submarine canyons to resuspend fine-grained sediments at 

the canyon heads. Similiar studies of the mid-Atlantic Bight 

and slope areas southwest of Georges Bank have been made 

by Hamilton (1984), Csanady and others (in press), and 

Butman (in press) as part of the Continental Shelf Research 

SEEP volume to be published soon. The SEEP studies 

showed that near-bottom currents faster than 20 em/sec (0.4 

kt) occur frequently over the Outer Continental Shelf but are 

rare at depths of 500 m and 2 km over the slope. A 

descriptive compilation of marine processes has been made 

by Stanley and Swift (1976) for the shelf-slope-rise. Except 

for coastal areas, the studies mainly focus on offshore 

morphology, sediment texture, and bedform geometry. 

These and other studies suggest that internal waves of tidal, 

or shorter, period formed along thermoclines and warm core 

eddies may generate localized, elevated, near-bottom velocities at the shelf break. 

For deepwater areas, a good summary of what we 

know of dynamic sedimentary processes has been given by 

Tucholke (1987) in a published summary of the U.S. 

Atlantic continental slope and rise compiled for MMS by 

Milliman and Wright (1987). Tucholke discusses the importance of debris flows, mass movements, and turbidity 

currents in the Atlantic slope-rise area but is mainly 

descriptive. No one has really documented any of these 

processes in situ, except for the 1929 Grand Banks slump, 

which progressively broke transatlantic cables (Heezen and 

Ewing, 1952) well north of the U.S. EEZ. The Wilmington 

deep sea fan has been described by Cleary and others 

(1985), and Cacchione and others (1978) have described the 

Hudson Canyon. On the basis of four submersible dives, 

Cacchione and others found evidence of current scour and 

sediment movement in 2,900-3,000 m in water depth in 

Hudson Canyon. 

The paucity of actual measured current-meter observations and the dearth of morphology, core, and sediment 

textural studies over limited areas of the deep seafloor point 

up the essential first step-namely to overlay the maps and 

partial maps from inferred process studies on to the GLORIA mosaics for the East Coast EEZ and see what processes 

correlate with what mosaic patterns and what the interplay 

of geostrophic current deposits and mass wastage debris is. 

How much of an imprint do earlier active episodes of 

sedimentation (for example, the Pleistocene) make on the 

seafloor? 

GAPS IN OUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE 

EAST COAST EEZ 

Geologic Framework 

The broad geologic framework for large-scale features like the Baltimore Canyon trough (Grow and others, 

68 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
1983) and the continental rise wedge (Tucholke, 1987) are 

fairly well known mainly because of the large number of 

seismic reflection profiles collected over the shelf area and 

because of the intense interest in the trough by oil companies and by academic institutions (Tucholke and others, 

1982). The continental rise wedge has not been subdivided 

areally to the degree the shelf has. Only two DSDP holes 

(105 and 536) have been drilled through the entire section to 

the basement. Hence, knowledge about the deep-sea stratigraphic section is severely limited, a condition ODP at one 

time hoped to remedy by drilling ODP hole 603, due east of 

Cape Hatteras. The site was eventually cancelled because of 

time constraints. But a complete section is still needed, as is 

more detailed mapping of the buried paleoshelf edge. It is in 

this area that the pinch-out of organic-rich black shales of 

Cretaceous age takes place. What is the nature of the 

pinch-out, and have these units acted as source beds to any 

of the flanking structures of the buried paleoshelf edge 

complex? Shell Oil Company drilled this structure in 

1983-84 and encountered minor noncommercial gas shows. 

Their drilling program revealed much about the complex 

(Karlo, 1986) but only a limited amount about the seaward 

flanking facies. Most knowledge comes from DSDP hole 

603, in 4,633 m water depth, 270 mi east of Cape Hatteras 

where Legs 93 and 95 encountered 268 m of deep-sea 

turbidite sands of Early Cretaceous age. Again, what are the 

areal distribution and source rock potential of these units? 

The bathymetry in the Atlantic rise area is only 

partially known through widely spaced surveys on smallscale maps. A published complete Sea Beam survey of the 

area is needed to see the morphology of fans, deep-sea 

channelways, lower rise hills, sediment drifts, and debris 

aprons. We hope that the current negotiations between the 

Navy and NOAA will result in free and open release of this 

type of survey. It seems ironic that we are willing to sell 

such devices to friendly nations like France, who can 

publish the results of their surveys but seek to restrict use 

of this high-technology system in our own waters. 

Also needed for the slope-rise area is a sampling 

program keyed to the main depositional features seen on the 

newly acquired GLORIA mosaic. As a start, the existing 

samples should be plotted on the mosiac so that gaps in 

coverage can be spotted and additional samples can be 

obtained. With this type of correlation we should be able to 

construct for the first time a process-oriented sediment map. 

The followup to this type of map will be a compilation of 

the high resolution seismic profiles to see how the major 

depositional features (fans, slumps, sediment drifts) show 

up on the profiles. There are a number of questions 

associated with this topic: Are they only ephemeral surface 

features, or have they been around for a while? If so, what 

is their definition by seismic characteristic? 

Small-Scale Features Under the Continental 

Shelf 

These features (folds, faults, grabens, horsts, reefs, 

rollover structures) have been mapped in most detail by the 

oil companies or by MMS staff. Here the profiles are 

closely spaced and gridded to bring out potential exploratory structures as they relate to particular lease blocks. In 

the deep sea, small-scale structures need to be detected and 

mapped, but these are more likely to be the interest of oil 

and mining companies intent on leasing an economically 

important area. Smaller features like the Charleston Bump, 

Blake Outer Ridge, or New England Seamounts will probably continue to be of interest to academic and to individual 

government scientists just as could separate ODP drilling 

transects. 

Study of smaller sedlm.entologic features like the 

Hudson fan or the Carolina trough salt domes may be more 

likely the cooperative effort of academic and governmental 

scientists as the interest arises. Shallow structure of offshore 

sedimentary deposits again will likely be a cooperative 

effort between university and governmental investigators. 

Much will depend on whether the deposit is a potential 

sand-gravel or placer deposit or a mineable manganese 

pavement. 

The deepwater studies for economic deposits will 

likely be done by the companies who hold the leases, as in 

the past. On the continental rise there has been an almost 

complete lack of the type of detailed surveys that usually 

precede leasing. Doubtless, we and academic institutions 

will continue to map major depositional structures of 

research interest. Perhaps some of the topical studies of a 

fan, a field of salt diapirs, or a sediment drift will kindle 

interest by companies in their search for exploitable structures. 

Geologic Processes 

Though most of the actual bottom-current observations have come from the shelf, these studies have been 

widely spaced and targeted at specific lease tract areas 

(Knebel and others, 1976) or estuaries and major segments 

of the shelf (New York Bight). Many of the studies 

attempted to focus on circulation and sediment budgets and 

shallow stratigraphy for selected inshore areas (O'Hara and 

Oldale, 1980; Meade, 1969). 

On the slope, a few studies have been made in widely 

spaced canyons and a few canyon dives in submersibles. 

But, the lack of milestone studies is on the continental rise. 

As already pointed out, inferences about the forces acting 

there have been made on the basis of sediment patterns, 

bottom photographs, and shallow seismic stratigraphy. 

HEBBLE (High Energy Benthic Boundary Layer Experiment) studies are lacking, such as were made off Nova 

Scotia (Hollister and McCave, 1984). Laine (1978) studied 

Workshop 3: East Coast 69 
abyssal circulation in the North American basin by using 

acoustic profiles, cores, and DSDP drill sites. Through 

intense study of a 2 km x 4 km rectangle of the seafloor, 

the HEBBLE study showed that the deep seafloor is 

impacted periodically by abyssal storms which stir up the 

bottom and· groove mud beds. We strongly recommend 

similar type studies in specific areas selected in part on the 

GLORIA mosaic, to get at the strength, duration, and type 

of bottom currents acting there. This type of a process study 

is an important precursor to any exploitation of the rise area 

in order to gain an idea of the forces acting there-forces 

which could adversely affect a mining process and disperse 

unwanted pollutants. 

PROCESSES AND FRAMEWORK AS THEY 

PERTAIN TO NONLIVING RESOURCES 

A combination of academic, governmental, and 

industry studies is needed to gain a detailed understanding 

of the areas of thickest sediment accumulation under the 

rise, the position of pinch-outs of organic-rich stratigraphic 

units, locations of folds, diapirs, faults, and buried channel 

systems, and heat-flow values adjacent to buried and 

exposed seamounts. 

Except for the Shell Oil Company efforts on the lower 

Atlantic continental slope (1 ,527 to 2,116 m water depth) 

petroleum exploration has never been attempted in water as 

deep as that on the continental rise. Obviously, the price of 

the commodity will need to rise before interest is again 

evident in the Atlantic continental margin. For hard-mineral 

exploration, again, the price for the commodity will need to 

rise and a clear set of regulations to cover the offshore areas 

will need to be promulgated in response to an interest in the 

selected areas by the mining companies. Government and 

university scientists can continue to do broad-gauged studies in the deep sea, which will in a general way address the 

objectives mentioned above, but the companies will need to 

focus more narrowly on economic targets for future leasing. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ATLANTIC 

EEZ PANEL 

The 17 members of the Atlantic panel represented a 

broad cross section of governmental, academic, and industry views on the Atlantic margin. Basically we considered 

future study of the continental shelf from a commodity 

(sand and gravel) use viewpoint and future study of the 

slope and rise (deepwater part of the EEZ) from a research 

view, realizihg that the deepwater areas probably do have 

resource and multiple use potential, though exploration 

would be farther in the future and dependent upon results of 

research. We have not formulated a detailed step-by-step 

plan for EEZ study but instead offer recommendations to 

focus on the next series of steps needed to promote 

development of the area. This will provide the kind of data 

needed for Federal and State planners in the regulation and 

study of offshore areas. 

1. To continue the issuance of high-quality bathymetric, 

geologic, and environmental maps at varying scales 

and for varying purposes of selected areas of the 

continental shelf. The main driving force for the maps 

is the anticipated development of offshore sand, gravel, 

phosphorite, and heavy-mineral placer deposits. Obviously, such an undertaking will need to be cooperative 

between governments, industry, and academic institutions to provide the many-faceted types of maps each is 

best able to produce and will find most useful. The 

scales of such maps would range from 1:24,000 to 

1:100,000 and could be contoured at as low as a 1-m 

interval. Environmental studies should seek to measure 

the direction and strength of bottom currents on the 

shelf floor plus the magnitude of impact from extreme 

events, either seismically or atmospherically driven, 

such as winter storms and hurricanes that move through 

the area. We want (1) to see in advance how these 

currents act when a water column or benthic plume is 

created as a part of shelf floor dredging for sand and 

gravel and (2) to verify any change, or lack thereof, as 

a consequence of dredging. 

In the slope-rise area the emphasis shifts more to 

one of basic research, specifically the "ground truthing" of the recently collected GLORIA data. The 

sand, gravel, phosphorite, and heavy-mineral placer 

deposits, their areal distribution, and deposits from the 

many different kinds of processes evident on the 

GLORIA mosaic need to be checked and the examination and description of core and spot samples keyed to 

textural changes apparent on the mosaic. From such a 

project could come much more realistic geologic and 

environmental/processes maps for the floor of the deep 

sea, such as much improved maps and interpretive 

views of the type of processes moving sediment into the 

deep sea, their relative importance, and their geometry. 

From such a process emphasis on the GLORIA mosaic 

we can pick the best areas to locate Sea Beam bathymetric map requirements and process type studies in the 

deep sea that highlight downslope mass-wastage sediment transport, slump, geostrophic sediment movement, and Gulf Stream bottom transport. By focusing 

on processes studies, future projects should be able to 

determine the best locations for waste disposal in the 

deep ocean, depending in part on whether the objective 

is for dispersal or for burial. The evaluation of the type 

of processes acting there should also aid in assessing 

the possibility of resource extraction, such as manganese nodule (pavement) mining or oil and gas drilling. 

70 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
2. The panel recommended development of a task force 

among Federal, State, industry, and appropriate special 

interest groups to facilitate development of offshore 

placer-sand-gravel mining in the coastal area between 

Virginia and Massachusetts. The task force would 

promote regulations in order to encourage development 

and would identify and locate the kinds of data needed 

by State planners charged with leasing in State waters. 

These data include, but are not limited to, geologic 

maps to portray shallow stratigraphy (less than 0. 1 

second) and outcrop and environmentally sensitive 

data. 

3. The panel recommended wider use of existing data 

storage systems and libraries. In assessing any part of 

the shelf, one inevitably needs to know what types of 

data are in one of several central repositories, such as 

the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC-NOAABoulder) or the National Oceanographic Data Center 

(NODC-NOAA-Washington, D.C.) to evaluate a specific problem (for example, impact of mining on a 

certain subsurface aquifer system). A more widespread 

effort is needed to get investigators (State, Federal, 

academic) to file data from their surveys in a central 

repository, where it can be used by other nonconflicting investigators interested in the same area. NGDC 

currently serves such a function for geophysical profiles of varying types for Federal-academic data. Planning for similar repositories covering a broader range 

of user groups and encompassing a wider variety of 

data types is strongly recommended for the Atlantic 

area. 

4. A higher priority should be given to coastal studies by 

Federal programs in the EEZ than presently exists. The 

National Science Foundation currently is placing the 

emphasis of its oceanographic programs on past climate changes as reflected in deep sea sediment. NOAA 

is collecting bathymetric data in selected areas of the 

deep sea and on the continental shelf. More effort is 

recommended for State, academic, and Federal scientists to chart the multi-use impacts of storms, coastal 

development, dumping of toxic and nontoxic wastes, 

and siting of offshore structures for the inner coastal 

shelf. Because of its proximity to large population 

centers along the east coast, this is the area that will 

need more study in the future to ensure adequate 

information for potential users and regulators. 

Constraints 

In line with instructions for future plans in the 

Atlantic EEZ, the panel discussed and was concerned about 

the following potential problems. 

1. Declining numbers of skilled/educated personnel to 

study the East Coast EEZ. 

2. Classification of swath-type bathymetric data by the 

U.S. Navy. A main effort by NOAA in the EEZ is in 

the collection of Sea Beam data by four ships dedicated 

to this effort. To have most of this data classified 

thwarts the effort to chart the bathymetry by a new, 

improved technique. Ways have to be found to "sanitize" the data sufficiently to satisfy the Navy's objections yet adequately portray the morphology of the 

seafloor. 

3. Several members of the group expressed concern about 

the impact of a recently issued proposal permitting 

research of academic institutions (Texas A & M) for 

the continental shelf area by MMS. The concern deals 

with a possible constraint to future research if the rules 

are put into effect. 

4. Data collection limitations: an incomplete system of 

Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites for precise 

navigation, the low towing speeds by certain geophysical gear, and need for large-volume samplers to 

sample selected suites of heavy minerals in placer 

investigations. 

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 

John S. Schlee, Co-chairperson 

David B. Duane, Co-chairperson 

John Rowland, Steering Committee Representative 

George Banino 

Christy Bell 

Rick Berquist 

Bill Curtis 

Gary Edson 

Stephen J. Gawarecki 

Andrew E. Grosz 

Carl Hobbs 

Curt Mason 

Donna Moffitt 

Richard Pascucci 

Buck Redman 

Hal Wanless 

Jeffress Williams 

SELECTED REFERENCES 

Belding, H.F., and Holland, W.C., 1970, Bathymetric maps, 

eastern continental margin, USA: American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists, scale 1:1,000,000, 3 sheets. 

Berquist, C.R., and Hobbs, C.H., 1986, Assessment of economic 

heavy minerals offshore the Virginia inner continental 

shelf: Virginia Division of Mineral Resources. 

Broadus, J.M., 1987, Seabed materials: Science, v. 235, p. 

853-860. 

Bryan, G.M., and Heirtzler, J.R., 1984, Eastern North American 

continental margin and adjacent ocean floor, 28° to 36°N. 

Workshop 3: East Coast 71 
and 70° to 82°W.: Ocean Margin Drilling Program 

Regional Atlas 5, Woods Hole, Marine Science International, 41 p. 

Butman, B., 1986a, North Atlantic slope and canyon studyExecutive summary, v. 1: OCS study MMS 86--0086,40 p. 

-ed., 1986b, North Atlantic slope and canyon study: v. 2: 

OCS study MMS 86--0086. 

---in press, Downslope Eulerian mean flow associated with 

high-frequency current fluctuations observed on the outer 

continental shelf and upper-slope along the northeastern 

U.S. continental margin: Implications for sediment transport: Continental Shelf Research SEEP Volume. 

Cacchione, D.A., Rowe, G.T., and Malahoff, A., 1978, Submersible investigation of outer Hudson submarine canyon, 

in Stanley, D.J., and Kelling, G., eds., Sedimentation in 

submarine canyons, fans, and trenches: Stroudsburg, 

Dowden-Huchinson and Ross, p. 42-50. 

Cashman, K.V., and Popenoe, P., 1985, Slumping and shallow 

faulting related to the presence of salt on the continental 

slope and rise off North Carolina: Marine and Petroleum 

Geology, v. 2, p. 260-271. 

Charles River Associates, 1979, Economic feasibility of mining 

Blake Plateau manganese nodules: OCS Mining Policy 

Phase II Task Force, Department of Interior, 17 v. 

Cleary, W.J., Pilkey, O.H., and Nelson, J.C., 1985, Wilmington 

fan, Atlantic Ocean, in Bourma, A.H., Normark, W.R., 

and Barnes, N.E., eds., Submarine fans and related turbidite systems: New York, Springer-Verlag, p. 157-164. 

Csanady, G.T., Churchill, J.H., and Butman, B., in press, 

Near-bottom currents over the continental slope in the 

mid-Atlantic Bight: Continental Shelf Research. 

DeLois, J., and Wallace, W.A., 1982, The economics of offshore 

mining of fine mineral aggregates: Transactions of the 

Society of Mining Engineers, v. 270, p. 1936-1940. 

Dillon, W.P., Paull, C.K., and Gillbert, L.E., 1985, History of 

the Atlantic continental margin off Florida: The Blake 

Plateau Basin, in Poag, C.W., ed., Geologic evolution of 

the United States Atlantic margin: New York, Van 

Nostrand Reinhold Company, p. 189-215. 

Duane, D.B., and Stubblefield, W.L., 1988, Sand and gravel 

resources: U.S. Atlantic continental shelf, in Sheridan, 

R.E., and Grow, J.A., eds., The geology of North America, v. I-2, The Atlantic continental margin: U.S.: Geological Society of America. 

Edson, G.M., 1986, Morphology and evolution of the Mesozoic 

Carbonate Paleoshelf edge [abs.]: American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 70, p. 586. 

EEZ SCAN 84 Scientific Staff, 1986, Atlas of the Exclusive 

Economic Zone, western conterminous United States: U.S. 

Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series 

Map I-1792, 152 p. 

EEZ SCAN 85 Scientific Staff, 1987, Atlas of the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone, Gulf of Mexico and eastern Caribbean 

areas: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1864--A-B, 162 p. 

Emery, K.O., and Uchupi, E., 1972, Western North Atlantic 

Ocean: Topography, rocks, structure, water, life, and 

sediments: American Association of Petroleum Geologists 

Memoir 17, 532 p. 

---1984, The geology of the Atlantic Ocean: New York, 

Springer-Verlag, 1050 p. and 12 charts. 

Emery, K.O., Uchupi, E., Philips, J.D., Bowin, C.O., Bunce, 

E. T. , and Knott, S. T. , 1970, Continental rise of eastern 

North America: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 54, no. 1 , p. 44--108. 

Ewing, J.I., and Rabinowitz, P.D., 1984, Eastern North America 

continental margin and adjacent ocean floor, 34 o to 41 °N. 

and 68° to 78°W.: Ocean Margin Drilling Program 

Regional Atlas 4, Woods Hole, Marine Science International, 32 p. 

Folger, D.W., O'Hara, C.J., and Robb, J.M., 1975, Maps 

showing bottom sediments on the continental shelf off the 

northeastern United States-Cape Ann, Massachusetts, to 

Casco Bay, Maine: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous 

Investigations Series Map I-839, 2 sheets with text. 

Gamboa, L.A., Truchan, M. and Stoffa, P.L., 1985, Middle and 

Upper Jurassic depositional environments at outer shelf and 

slope of Baltimore Canyon Trough: American Association 

of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 69, p. 610-621. 

Glenn, M.F., 1970, Introducing an operational multibeam sonar: 

International Hydrographic Review, v. 47, p. 35-39. 

Grow, J.A., 1981, The Atlantic margin of the United States, in 

Bally, A.W., ed., Geology of passive continental margins: 

History, structure, and sedimentologic record (with special 

emphasis on the Atlantic margin): American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists Education Course Note Series # 19, 

p. 3-1 to 3--41. 

Grow, J.A., Hutchinson, D.R., Klitgord, K.D., Dillon, W.P., 

and Schlee, J.S., 1983, Representative multichannel seismic profiles over the U.S. Atlantic margin, in Bally, A.W., 

ed., Seismic expression of structural styles: American 

Associaton of Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology 

Series #15, v. 2, p 2.2.3-1 to 2.2.3-19. 

Hamilton, P., 1984, Topographic and inertial waves on continental rise of the mid-Atlantic Bight: Journal of Geophysical 

Research, v. 89, no. C1, p. 695-710. 

Hampson, J.C., and Robb, J.M., 1985, A geologic map of the 

continental slope off New Jersey: Lindenkohl Canyon to 

Toms Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous 

Investigations Series Map I-608, scale 1:50,000, 1 sheet. 

Hathaway, J.C., 1971, Data file continental margin program, 

Atlantic coast of the United States, v. 2, Sample collection 

and analytical data: WHOI Reference No. 71-15, 496 p. 

Heezen, B.C., and Ewing, M., 1952, Turbidity currents and 

submarine slumps and the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake: 

American Journal of Science, v. 250, p. 849-873. 

Hollister, C.D., 1973, Atlantic continental shelf and slope of the 

United States-texture of surface sediments from New 

Jersey to southern Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 529-M, 23 p. 

Hollister, C. A., and McCave, I.N., 1984, Sedimentation under 

deep-sea storms: Nature, v. 309, p. 220-225. 

Hutchinson, D.R., Grow, J.A., Klitgord, K.D., and Swift, B.A., 

1982, Deep structure and evolution of the Carolina Trough, 

in Watkins, J.S., and Drake, C.L., eds., Studies in 

Continental Margin Geology: American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists Memoir 34, p. 129-152. 

Jansa, L.F., Enos, P., Tucholke, B.E., Gradstein, F.M., and 

Sheridan, R. E. , 1979, Mesozoic-Cenozoic sedimentary 

72 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
formations of the North Atlantic basin: Western North 

Atlantic. in Talwani, M., Hay, W., and Ryan, W.B.F., 

eds., Deep drilling results in the Atlantic Ocean, continental margins and paleoenvironments: Maurice Ewing Series 

3, American Geophysical Union, p. 1-57. 

Karlo, J.P., 1986, Results of exploration in Mesozoic shelf-edge 

carbonates, Baltimore Canyon Basin [abs.]: American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 70, no. 5, 

p. 605-606. 

Kastens, K.A., and Shor, A.N., 1985, Depositional processes of 

a meandering channel on Mississippi Fan: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 69, no. 2, p. 

190-202. 

Kirby, J.R., Robb, J.M., and Hampson, J.C., 1982, Detailed 

bathymetric map of the United States continental slope 

between Lindenkohl Canyon and Toms Canyon, offshore 

New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field 

Studies \1ap MF-1443, scale 1:50,000, 1 sheet. 

Klitgord, K. D. , and Grow, J. A. , 1980, Jurassic seismic stratigraphy and basement structure of western Atlantic magnetic 

quiet zone: American Association of Petroleum Geologists 

Bulletin, v. 64, p. 1658-1680. 

Knebel, H.J., Butman, B., Folger, D.W., Cousins, P.W., and 

McGirr, R.R., 1976, Maps and graphic data related to 

geologic hazards in the Baltimore Canyon trough area: U.S. 

Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 

MF-828, 3 sheets. 

Laine, E.P., 1978, Geological effects of the Gulf Stream system in 

the North American basin: Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 

Joint WHOI-MIT Program, 164 p. 

Manheim, F.T., Popenoe, P., Siapno, W.D., and Lane, C., 1982, 

Manganese-phosphorous deposits of the Blake Plateau, in 

Halbach, P., and Winter, P., eds., Marine mineral deposits, proceedings of the CLAUSTHALER Workshop, September 1982: Hessen, West Germany, Verlag gluckauf 

GmH., p. 9-44. 

McGregor, B., Stubblefield, W.L., Ryan, W.B., and Twichell, 

D.C., 1982, Wilmington submarine canyon-a marine 

fluvial-Eke system: Geology, v. 10, p. 27-30. 

Meade, R.H., 1969, Landward transport of bottom sediments in 

estuaries of the Atlantic coastal plain: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 39, p. 222-234. 

Milliman, J.D., Pilkey, O.H., and Ross, D.A., 1972, Sediments 

of the continental margin off the eastern United States: 

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 83, p. 

1315-1334. 

Milliman, J.D., and Wright, W.R., 1987, The marine environment of the U.S. Atlantic Continental Slope and Rise: 

Boston/Woods Hole, Jones and Bartlett, 275 p. 

Newton, J.G .. and Pilkey, O.H., 1969, Topography of the 

continental margin of the Carolinas: Southeastern Geology, 

v. 10, p. 87-92. 

Noakes, J.E., Harding, J.L., and Spaulding, J.D., 1974, Locating 

offshore mineral deposits by natural radioactive measurement: Marine Technology Society Journal, v. 8, p. 36-39. 

O'Hara, C.J., and Oldale, R.N., 1980, Maps showing geology 

and shallow structure of eastern Rhode Island Sound and 

Vineyard Sound, Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey 

Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1186, 5 sheets with 

text. 

Perry, R.B., 1985, Multibeam surveys of the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone: Proceedings of the Canadian Hydrographic Conference-85: Halifax, Nova Scotia. 

Poag, C. W., 1985, Cenozoic and Upper Cretaceous sedimentary 

facies and depositional systems of the New Jersey slope and 

rise. in Poag, C.W., ed., Geologic evolution of the United 

States Atlantic Margin: New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold 

Company, p. 343-365. 

Riggs, S .R., 1984, Paleooceanographic model of Neogene phosphorite deposition, U.S. Atlantic Continental Margin: Science, v. 223, p. 123-131. 

Riggs, S.R., Snyder, S.W.P., Hine, A.C., Snyder, S.W., Ellington, M.D., and Mallette, P.M., 1985, Geologic framework 

of phosphate resources in Onslow Bay, North Carolina 

Continental Shelf: Economic Geology, v. 80, p. 716-738. 

Ross, D.A., 1970a, Atlantic continental shelf and slope of the 

United States-Heavy minerals of the Continental Margin 

from southern Nova Scotia to northern New Jersey: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 529-G, 40 p. 

---197Gb, Source and dispersion of surface sediments in the 

Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank area: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 40, p. 906-920. 

Scanlon, K.M., 1984, The continental slope off New England-A 

long-range side scan sonar perspective: Geo-Marine Letters, v. 4, p. 1-4. 

Schlee, J., 1964, New Jersey offshore gravel deposit: Pit and 

Quarry, v. 57, p. 80-81. 

---1973, Atlantic continental shelf and slope of the United 

States-Sediment texture of the northeastern part: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 529-L, 64 p. 

Schlee, J.S., and Hinz, K., 1987, Seismic stratigraphy and facies 

of continental slope and rise seaward of Baltimore Canyon 

trough: American Association of Petroleum Geologists 

Bulletin, v. 71, no. 9, p. 1046-1067. 

Schlee, J. , and Pratt, R. M. , 1970. Atlantic continental shelf and 

slope of the United States-gravels of the northeastern part: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 529-H, 39 p. 

Schlee, J., Folger, D.W., and O'Hara, C.J., 1973, Bottom 

sediments on the continental shelf of the northeastern 

United States-Cape Cod to Cape Ann, Massachusetts: 

U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations 

Series Map I-746, 2 sheets with text. 

Schlee, J.S., Poag, C.W., and Hinz, K., 1985, Seismic stratigraphy of the continental slope and rise seaward of Georges 

Bank, in Poag, C.W., ed., Geologic evolution of the 

United States Atlantic Margin: New York, Van Nostrand 

Reinhold Company, p. 265-292. 

Siapno, W.D., 1987, Nodule exploration: Accomplishments, 

needs, and problems, in Teleki, P.G., Dobson, M.R., 

Moore, J.R., and von Stackelberg, U., eds., Marine 

minerals: Dorndrecht D. Reidel, p. 247-257. 

Stanley, D.J., and Swift, D.J .P., 1976, Marine sediment transport 

and environmental management: New York, John Wiley 

and Sons, 602 p. 

Stubblefield, W.L., McGregor, B.A., and Pantin, H., 1987, 

Geologic processes inferred from the morphology of submarine canyons outer continental margin, mid-Atlantic 

Bight of the United States: EOS, v. 68, p. 1315. 

Tucholke, B.E., 1987, Submarine geology, Chapter 4, in Milliman, J.D., and Wright, W.R., eds., The marine environWorkshop 3: East Coast 73 
ment of the U.S. Atlantic Continental Slope and Rise: 

Boston, Massachusetts, Jones and Bartlett, p. 56-113. 

Tucholke, B.E., and Mountain, G.S., 1979, Seismic stratigraphy, 

lithostratigraphy, and paleosedimentation patterns in the 

North American basin, in Talwani, M., Hay, W., and 

Ryan, W. B. F. , eds. , Deep drilling results in the Atlantic 

Ocean; continental margins and paleoenvironment: Maurice 

Ewing Series 3, American Geophysical Union, p. 56-86. 

Tucholke, B.E., Houtz, R.E., and Ludwig, W.J., 1982, Sediment 

thickness and depth to basement in the western North 

Atlantic Ocean basin: American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists Bulletin, v. 66, p. 1384-1396. 

Twichell, D.C., and Roberts, D.G., 1982, Morphology distribution and development of submarine canyons on the United 

States Atlantic continental slope between Hudson and 

Baltimore Canyons: Geology, v. 10, p. 408-412. 

Uchupi, E., 1963, Sediments on the continental margin off 

Eastern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 475-C, p. Cl32-C137. 

---1968, Atlantic continental shelf and slope of the United 

States-Physiography: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 529-C, 30 p. and 3 maps. 

Uchupi, E., and Shor, A.N., 1984, Eastern North American 

Continental Margin and adjacent ocean floor 39° to 46°N. 

and 64° to 74°W.: Ocean Margin Drilling Program 

Regional Atlas 3, Woods Hole, Marine Science International, 30 p. 

U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1987, An economic reconnaissance of 

selected sand and gravel deposits in the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone: Open-File Report 3-87, U.S. Department 

of the Interior Library, Washington, D.C. 

Valentine, P. C. , 1981 , Continental margin stratigraphy along the 

U.S. Geological Survey seismic line 5-Long Island Platform and western Georges Bank basin: U.S. Geological 

Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-857, 2 sheets 

with text. 

Valentine, P.C., Uzmann, J.R., and Cooper, R.A., 1984, Submarine topography, surficial geology and fauna of Oceanographer Canyon, northern part: U.S. Geological Survey 

Miscellaneous Map MF-1531, scale 1: 10,000, 5 sheets 

with text. 

Weed, E.G.A., Minard, J.P., Perry, W.J., Rhodehamel, E.C., 

and Robbins, E. I. , 197 4, Generalized pre-Pleistocene geologic map of the northern United States Atlantic Continental Margin: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map 1-861, 2 sheets. 

Wiese, J.D., 1986, Atlantic summary/index: January 1985-June 

1986-0uter Continental Shelf oil and gas activities: OCS 

MMS Report 8~071, 38 p. 

74 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Workshop 4: Scientific Mapping and Research 

to Characterize the EEZ-Gulf Coast 

Panel Co-chairpersons: 

James M. Coleman, Louisiana State University 

Chacko J. John, Louisiana Geological Survey 

INTRODUCTION 

The Gulf of Mexico basin (fig. 1) is the largest 

semi-enclosed depositional basin in the United States and 

has been the site of extensive hydrocarbon exploration and 

exploitation since the 1940's. Since the Late Jurassic, the 

drainage basin of the Mississippi River system has been 

delivering sediments to the Gulf of Mexico (Worzel and 

Burke, 1978). Mesozoic and Cenozoic deposits are estimated to have attained a total thickness in excess of 15 km 

(Martin and Bouma, 1978; Bouma and others, 1978). Thus 

the river system has been operative over relatively long 

periods of time, constantly feeding sediments to the receiving basin and building a thick Tertiary and Quaternary 

sequence of interfingering deltaic, nearshore, coastalbrackish-water, and marine sediments, which have prograded the coastal plain shoreline seaward. Through time, the 

sites of maximum deposition, or depocenters, have shifted 

within the gulf coastal plain, forming a relatively thick 

Tertiary and Quaternary sequence of clastic sediments. The 

zone of maximum thickness trends roughly east-west near 

the present-day coastal plain of Louisiana and Texas. Rapid 

subsidence associated primarily with sediment loading and 

salt and shal<;~ diapirism (fig. 2) has been responsible for 

unusually thick localized sedimentary accumulations. 

The modem depositional pattern in the gulf basin, 

where terrigenous deposits dominate on the northern and 

western shelf areas and carbonates occur on the broad 

platforms of the eastern gulf, has persisted since the Late 

Jurassic-Early Cretaceous (fig. 3). It was then that the 

terrigenous clastic influx from tectonically elevated northem and western continental interiors began to overwhelm 

the mainly carbonate environments that encircled the gulf 

during Jurassic times (Garrison and Martin, 1973). The 

bulk of the sediment was delivered to the northern margin of 

the gulf during the Cenozoic and prograded the shelf as 

much as 300 km from the margin of the Cretaceous platform 

deposits to the present shelf edge. This progradation rate is 

exceptionally high, averaging 5 to 6 km of shelf edge 

progradation per million years (fig. 3). Such rapid progradation contrasts sharply with that of the eastern margin of 

the United States, where the average is measured in 

fractions of a kilometer per million years. 

The Quaternary deposits of the gulf basin are unusually thick: up to 3,600 m have accumulated beneath the 

present shelf in offshore Louisiana and Texas, and up to 

3,000 m have accumulated in the deep gulf basin in the 

vicinity of the present Mississippi Fan. On the continental 

slope, many of the Quaternary sediments have been deposited in salt withdrawal basins (intraslope basins) and sediments often accumulate to considerable thicknesses. Much 

of this thick Quaternary sedimentary sequence has been 

controlled by the relatively high-frequency fluctuations in 

climates associated with glacial advance and retreat within 

the Mississippi River drainage basin. 

DESCRIPTION OF REGION 

Northern Gulf Basin 

The subaqueous late Wisconsin and Holocene sediments of the gulf basin display a high degree of variability 

and record varying process controls. The continental shelf 

off west Florida is primarily carbonate, which gradually 

merges into the relict sand sheet that fronts most of 

peninsular Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi. Studies by 

Gould and Stewart (1956), Doyle and Sparks (1980), and 

Doyle (1981) along the west Florida shelf show that facies 

patterns tend to parallel the adjacent coastline. Coarse 

carbonates (grainstones) mixed with quartz sands are typical 

of the nearshore parts of the shelf, whereas these facies 

grade into carbonate mudstones near the shelf edge. Off the 

Mississippi delta and western Louisiana, the shelf is variable in width and relatively complex in its pattern of 

sedimentation. The broad shelf off Texas displays little 

topographic relief and consists mostly of relict sediments. 

The continental slope of the gulf basin is a region of 

relatively gentle gradients interrupted by a complex series 

of basins and highs (salt and shale diapirs); it is blanketed 

with fine-grained pelagic and hemipelagic sediments that 

Workshop 4: Gulf Coast 75 
...... 

en 

'tJ 

... 

0 

0 

CD 

CD 

Q. 

5" 

cc 

~, 

... 

U) 

0) 

...... 

m 

m 

N 

en 

'< 

3 

"0 

, 

0 

i:' 

3 

0 

::::J 

s:: 

D) 

"0 

"0 

:r 

cc 

D) 

::::J 

Q. 

:a 

, 

CD 

CD 

D) 

... 

0 

:::r 

t- - t--- ---..z."'~~J -~ -'C:fL_ • ~ t :--i t -------+ ..-:::------+---'·····::;:;:;:;:::if!r::::::::::::::::::,. :r:;:;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:!tt::;:;:~:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;::rt.t.J';~:~:~:~:~:::::~:~:~:~:~:~:~t~:~:~:~:;:~:~:~:~t::f. ~~ (.r;~~'~ ·_, ·~v · :;:r-~: ·, ·:·:.: ;.;.· ,:_t:::.:?'i.: ... <· :. t :· •.-:.·.~~- :_.._.-~~ 34 • 

1-----=]\:-=--..J--+"::;;::::::;!I/"" A /[;:i: _,,::··· -+---!,-I l ,(BASIN;::::':':::::::::::::' I ·:;:;:mL~i(";':':'::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:,:,.,.L ....... ---+----f--+ -·~---:-·.:.·.-.,::·--1 32° 

~ERfi}:,:,,: ~ ,:,:,:,f::,:,:,:,:,:,:N,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,,,:,:l:::;!::::;:;!;::::!::t;!l!if::::::::::::~::::::l::~::;:::::;:::::;:;:::::t:::::;:::;:::::::;:;:;:::;:;:::::tJiiit~:ej:&;:;:t:R:::::::;···~--· ~ t t..:;·;;·~nr·i·.-.·.·-~-- .·.·.-.1 , ' ' II ;.,:;:!:.if.:i .. ~~r:::::~:::::::::::::r:;:;::::···· 1~ \ ·-··r····':·. Ill 30• 

28• 

zs• 

too• ga• gs• 94° gz• go• sa• as• 84° az• so• 

Figure 1. Physiographic and geologic provinces and subsea topography of northern Gulf of Mexico. Contour interval, 200m; scale approximately 1 em = 120 km. 

(From Martin, 1982, figure 1-5.) 
== 0 

~ ':::1' 

0 

"C 

~ 

C) 

S; 

0 

0 

D) 

!!1. 

....... 

....... 

~~~~~~~F=J7T---r-11---r---vDTII~~----r:~35. 

A:'>c~4=-=-:::~-l 34" 

---ti?"--- 7--t -----133" 

I k , .. , ;'l ~o~~w:.!OI. I!•~ ~~~~-----t--->T _ . 1· ....._ ... _..G1ii!:~~·~···f··--·::tt:' ~ I : ------t- if' 132" 

1-------'~;fli;·, ·q~_.,,- I /" 7 1i~ i~W • ~-~ ~t' I ..,,_J > I I ltJ 1 · ~ \ I J;! I I 31" 

---f1i 30" 

\II ~-~~"'o7f/":~~j~~-G~Lfco1sf\\1;:~~ ~~~~~~~N'ii ~- ---L -~ __ I"\~_\_ \1 29 ~ • 7'7~7.. I ·• • _ _, -- ~ /_ I \ ~7 ~-~ ~- -i\--------------1 

100" 99" 98" 97" 96" 95° 94" 93" 92" 91" 90" 89" as· 87" 86" 85" 

--+-".-~r------1 28" 

27" 

' -l =+=- I 4=='\i._ I ---ttl 26" 

84" 83" 82" 81" 

EJ a B 1'-h.l 1·.-.·1 I~ I 4 6 

I•· .-,cn•··•''~t' I 7 

D r .. ., ....... ···-..... J l~/--3 I JU I B ( ... -··-s······.--1 

8 9 10 11 12 13 

Figure 2. Tectonic map of northern Gulf of Mexico region. Explanation of 

patterns and symbols: (1) normal fault, (2) reverse fault, (3) fault of undetermined 

movement, (4) broad anticline or arch of regional extent, (5) salt diapirs and 

massifs, (6) salt anticlines and pillows, (7) shale domes and anticlines, 

(8) Mesozoic plutonic and volcanic rocks, (9) updip limits of Louann salt, (1 0) 

known downdip extent of buried Ou~;ichita tectonic belt, (11) exposures of 

Paleozoic strata and Precambrian basement, (12) Lower Cretaceous shelf-edge 

reef system, and (13) inner margin of Cretaceous and Tertiary strata. Bathymetry 

in meters (200-m interval); scale approximately 1 em = 120 km. (From Martin, 

1982, fig. 1-6.) . 
..... 

Q) 

"tt 

0 

n 

m 

c. 

:;· 

cc 

!J 

.... 

~ ..... 

m 

m 

N 

en 

'< 

3 

'C 

0 

(I) 

c:· 

3 

0 

::s 

3: 

I» 

'C 

'C 

:;· 

cc 

I» 

::s 

c. 

J:J 

C1l 

(I) 

m 

c:; 

~ 

AREAS OF MAJOR 

CENOZOIC SEDIMENTATION 

D . 

. 

-

~ 

~ 

Pleistocene and 

Late Pliocene 

Pliocene 

Miocene 

-Oligocene 

f3;~ /;:/] Eocene 

MEXICO 

\ 

TEXAS MISSISSIPPI 

ALABAMA 

Figure 3. Sketch map showing paleoshelf edges in gulf coast basin and distribution of major Tertiary depocenters. (From Martin, 1982, fig. 1-9.) 
are interrupted by carbonate-rich sediments on topographic 

highs such as diapirs. The continental slope off Louisiana is 

characterized by the only major submarine fan in the gulf, 

the Mississippi Fan. 

Morphology and Depositional Patterns 

in the EEZ 

The submerged part of the northern gulf basin can be 

divided into several major regions or provinces (fig. 1): the 

northeastern and eastern gulf (offshore Florida, Alabama, 

and Mississippi), the central gulf (offshore Louisiana and 

Texas), and the western gulf (offshore west Texas and 

Mexico). 

The sedimentation patterns and near-surface structure 

are poorly known for many of these regions; it is only in the 

north-central gulf where abundant data are present because 

of the large number of drill sites acquired for offshore 

petroleum platforms. The modern continental shelf and 

slope, especially in the north-central gulf, have been dominated by huge sediment yields of the Mississippi River and 

its shifting sites of deposition during the late Wisconsin and 

Holocene. Areas in the immediate vicinity of the deltas 

receive large volumes of sediment and seaward building of 

the shelf edge. Rapid subsidence associated with sediment 

loading, and vertical aggradation result. Areas removed 

from the site of active sedimentation accumulate only thin 

veneers of hemipelagic and pelagic sedimentation. In some 

instances, particularly along the eastern and southern margins of the gulf, carbonate deposition dominates. Another 

major factor controlling sedimentation patterns and modern 

shelf morphology has been changing sea levels associated 

with the advance and retreat of continental glaciers during 

the latter part of the Pleistocene and Holocene. When sea 

level is lowered, sites of active nearshore sedimentation 

migrate seaward, causing a rapid buildout of the shelf edge 

in front of the prograding delta lobes or causing exposure to 

subaerial erosional processes in areas removed from the 

sites of active deltaic sedimentation. 

Continental Shelves 

The morphology of modern continental shelves of the 

Gulf basin has been controlled primarily by sea-level 

fluctuations during the Pleistocene, as well as the location 

of the site of active sedimentation of the Mississippi River. 

Depositional environments on the continental shelf can 

generally be categorized as terrigenous in the northern and 

western shelf areas and carbonate on the broad platforms of 

the eastern and southeastern gulf. This pattern has persisted 

since Late Jurassic-Late Cretaceous time, when terrigenous 

clastic influx from tectonically elevated northern and western continental interiors began to overwhelm the mainly 

carbonate environments that encircled the gulf during the 

Late Jurassic (Garrison and Martin, 1973). Most sediment 

was delivered to the northern margin of the gulf during the 

Cenozoic and prograded the shelf as much as 300 km from 

the margin of the Cretaceous platform deposits to the 

present shelf edge. 

Western Florida Shelf 

The continental shelf in this region is extremely 

broad, often exhibiting widths of nearly 200 km. The 

surface is relatively smooth and displays little morphologic 

variability. Most of the sediment zones are oriented parallel 

to the shelf contours and are thus parallel to the present shelf 

edge. The shelf edge is rather abrupt in places, and the 

bottom gradient of the continental slope is extremely steep. 

However, this shelf-slope area is a modern example of a 

nonrimmed carbonate margin, which is much less steep 

than the typical reef-dominated, rimmed margin. The only 

major bathymetric relief on the western Florida shelf is 

formed by bedforms in the mollusk-rich sand and coralline 

algae ridges (Doyle, 1981). 

Northeastern Gulf Shelf 

The shelf break off westernmost Florida, Alabama, 

and Mississippi ranges in depth from 60 to 100 m and is 

characterized by a relict topography covered by a thin sand 

and mud sheet deposited during the last eustatic sea level 

rise. The shelf is rather narrow because of the large 

reentrant referred to as the De Soto Canyon. This large 

reentrant is not a true submarine canyon but is formed at the 

point where Tertiary clastic sediments lap against the 

carbonate facies of the northeastern gulf. The sediments 

underlying the thin Holocene sediment cover consist of 

fluvial sands and gravels deposited during the last low 

sea-level stand. Most of the inner shelf consists of a clean 

quartz-rich sand that was reworked numerous times during 

the changing sea levels associated with the late Pleistocene. 

Linear shoals, probably representing relict nearshore topography (beach and barrier systems), are present within this 

sand sheet. Small bedforms are actively migrating on the 

shelf, indicating modern-day reworking of these relict 

topographic features. The outer rim of the shelf consists of 

a lime-mud facies, a mixture of calcium carbonate, quartz, 

and terrigenous clays. Offshore of Mississippi and Alabama, the same lime-mud facies exists but contains several 

zones of carbonate buildups and inter-carbonate facies. The 

buildups occur in two depth zones, one at 65-80 m and one 

at 97-110 m water depth. The carbonate buildup zone is 

characterized by algal limestone pinnacles, some attaining 

relief in excess of 15 m. In the inner-reef areas, molluscan 

shell debris and other carbonate debris in a muddy matrix 

are the most common lithology. Separating the sand facies 

Workshop 4: Gulf Coast 79 
from the lime-mud facies is a transition zone consisting of 

calcareous muddy sands and silts. 

Louisiana Continental Shelf 

The shelf off Louisiana is highly variable in width, 

generally less than 20 km off the active mouths of the 

Mississippi River delta and in excess of 180 km off the 

western Louisiana coast. The narrow shelf in front of the 

Mississippi River is probably the most dynamic area in the 

submerged coastal plain of the gulf margins. Deltaic sedimentation has dominated the northern Gulf of Mexico basin 

since the Late Jurassic or Late Cretaceous; this sedimentation is the major mode of transport and deposition that has 

been responsible for the huge volume of sediment found in 

this basin. The Mississippi River delta not only is one of the 

most studied but is the most important supplier of sediment 

to the gulf basin. It is one of the world's largest deltas, with 

an area of 28,600 km2

, of which 4,700 km2 (16 percent) is 

subaqueous. 

The present deltaic plain is mainly the result of deltaic 

progradation and shifting delta lobes occurring since relative stillstand was reached in the Holocene. During the last 

low sea level (15,000 to 18,000 years ago), the Mississippi 

River was delivering sediment and forming deltas near the 

present-day shelf edge (Suter and Berryhill, 1985). As sea 

level began to rise, sediment yield to the coastline diminished, as most of the sediment was being deposited within 

the rapidly aggrading alluvial valley that had been deeply 

eroded during low sea levels. Alluvial valley infilling 

continued as sea level rose. By approximately 12,000 years 

ago, valley infilling was nearly complete, and deltas began 

to actively prograde. During the period of 18,000 to 12,000 

years ago, the Louisiana shelf deposits record a relatively 

thin pelagic clay and a thin sandy shell horizon that mark 

this hiatus in deltaic development. 

The subaqueous part of the Mississippi River deltaic 

plain consists of that area of the Gulf of Mexico, off the 

Mississippi River delta, that is below low tide level and 

actively receiving riverborne sediments. Major subenvironments generally radiate from the mouths of the distributary 

channels. Three major depositional environments are 

present: the distributary mouth bar, the delta front, and the 

prodelta. Sediment-laden, fresh river water debouches 

through the distributary mouth, spreading as a buoyant 

plume. Water velocity decelerates with distance from the 

river mouth, and coarser clastics rapidly drop out of 

suspension. Deposition of these coarser sediments produces 

the distributary-mouth bar, which, being in relatively shallow water, is subject to reworking by marine processes. 

These deposits also contain large quantities of transported 

organic matter, commonly referred to as "coffee grounds." 

The distributary-mouth bar deposits display well-developed 

crossbedding and cross-laminations, particularly climbing 

ripples. Farther offshore, deposition of fine sands, silts, and 

minor amounts of clay forms the delta front, or distal bar 

environment. These deposits display well-developed 

reverse-graded and normal-graded laminations. Farthest 

offshore, deposition is characterized only by fine-grained 

clays referred to as prodelta deposits. 

Subaqueous slumping and downslope mass movement of sediments, although only recently recognized as 

normal processes, are very important to subaqueous morphology off the Mississippi River delta. Recent research 

has shown that low-angle slopes at the delta front are 

unstable and that large amounts of sediment are transported 

from shallow to deep water in a variety of ways (Coleman, 

1976). Factors influencing the stability of bottom sediments 

include rapid deposition and sedimentary loading, biochemical degradation of organic material and methane gas 

production, underconsolidation of fine-grained deposits, 

and cyclic loading induced by passage of winter storms and 

hurricanes (Coleman and Prior, 1980). 

Rapid deposition of the coarser distributary-mouth 

bar sands over the weaker prodelta clays leads to diapiric 

intrusions of clay into and through the sands. Such forms 

are usually called mudlumps or mud diapirs. Other instability forms include collapse depressions, peripheral rotational slides, mudflow gullies, depositional lobes, and 

shelf-edge slumps. Detailed descriptions of processes of 

failure, geometry, and distribution of these features can be 

found in Coleman (1976), Coleman and Prior (1980), and 

Prior and Coleman (1978). 

The most common type of instability is the mudflow 

gully. Submarine failures result in a radiating pattern of 

channels, with seafloor relief in excess of 5 m, that crease 

the narrow shelf to the edge of the continental slope. It is 

estimated that as much as 50 percent of the sediment 

annually delivered to the river mouth is displaced seaward 

near the shelf edge by these instability processes. At the 

shelf edge, large-scale shelf-edge failures and growth faults 

control the shelf-edge morphology (Coleman and others, 

1983). 

West of the active Mississippi River delta, the shelf 

is extremely broad and mud covered, displaying little 

topographic relief. Holocene muds, which blanket the shelf, 

vary in thickness from a few meters to 10 m and were 

derived from the Mississippi River by the slow westward 

drift that characterizes this part of the northern gulf. Off 

central Louisiana, there are a few shoals, remnants of 

former deltas that formed during the Holocene transgression 

and are now stranded on the middle and inner shelf. These 

shoals consist of sands reworked from the transgressed delta 

facies. They form relatively low-relief structures and are 

generally thin, less than a few meters thick (Penland and 

Boyd, 1981). Near the shelf edge are a few carbonate 

banks, commonly associated with topographic highs created 

by diapirism, that formed during former low sea-level 

stands. Some of these banks display algal pinnacles that rise 

above the seafloor and display relief of up to 10m. Large 

80 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
areas of the shelf edge are covered with carbonate-cemented 

sediments and shell lags. Beneath the Holocene blanket of 

hemipelagic muds rich in calcareous microfauna! tests are 

eroded channel systems that formed during the last low sea 

level as the channels of both the Mississippi River and 

coastal streams entrenched themselves in response to the 

lowered sea level (Suter and Berryhill, 1985). Offshore 

borings near the outer shelf indicate a considerable volume 

of fluvial and deltaic sands associated with these low sea 

level riverine systems. Sand thicknesses on the order of 70 

to 100 m are present. 

Offshore Texas Shelf 

The shelf offshore of Texas is relatively broad and 

displays only minor topographic relief. Shelf sediments 

contain only a thin cover of Holocene deposits overlying an 

eroded late Pleistocene subaerial fluvial plain; in many 

instances, late Pleistocene sediments crop out on the seafloor. Entrenched stream channels similar to those off the 

Louisiana shelf are common across the shelf but have been 

completely infilled during the Holocene rising sea level 

stage (Suter and Berryhill, 1985). The shelf edge consists of 

a series of prograded late Pleistocene shelf-edge deltas 

(Suter and Berryhill, 1985) that formed in response to the 

lowering of sea level. Little information is available on 

types of sediment composing these delta lobes and the 

thicknesses of the sequences. Much of the shelf edge is 

characterized by crenulated topography, the result of sediment instability processes during the late Pleistocene and 

diapiric intrusion of salt and shale masses. Both deep-seated 

and shallow compaction faults are common across the shelf 

but show little topographic expression because of truncation 

during the last eustatic rise of sea level (Berryhill, 1980, 

1981). Along the outer shelf edge, carbonate banks are 

common, similar to those off the Louisiana shelf. Those off 

Texas, however, do not tend to have much Holocene 

sediment cover. The most prominent of these carbonate 

banks are the West and East Flower Garden Banks off 

Galveston, Texas, which have developed into true coralalgal reefs. These reefs display active carbonate-producing 

faunal and floral growth. The reefs have developed on 

diapiric structures near the shelf edge. Many of the carbonate banks cap diapiric highs and were actively growing 

during the lowered late Pleistocene sea level; today, as a 

result of Holocene sediment cover or lack of sunlight 

penetration because of water depth, only a few display 

active growth. 

Continental Slope 

The continental slope of the gulf basin is a region of 

gently sloping seafloor that extends from the shelf edge, or 

roughly the 200-m isobath, to the upper limit of the 

continental rise, at a depth of 2,800 m. The slope occupies 

more than 500,000 km2 of prominent escarpments, smooth 

and gently sloping surfaces, knolls, small-scale pinnacles, 

intraslope basins, ridge and valley topography, and submarine channels (Martin and Bouma, 1978). Martin and 

Bouma ( 1978) described nine distinctive subprovinces and 

many individual features (fig. 1). The factors that have 

controlled the present-day morphology include reef building 

on the Florida and Yucatan carbonate platforms; erosion, 

nondeposition, and faulting in the Straits of Florida and 

Yucatan Channel; diapirism and differential sedimentation 

on the slopes off Texas and Louisiana; tectonic uplift and 

diapirism in the Golfo de Campeche; rapid accumulation of 

terrigenous sediment of Pliocene and Pleistocene age in 

offshore Louisiana; and the folding of a thick blanket of 

sediment on the slope off eastern Mexico. 

Louisiana-Texas Slope 

The most complex province is the Louisiana-Texas 

slope, comprising a 120,000-km2 area of knoll and basin 

seafloor. The average gradient of the slope is slightly less 

than 1 o, but slopes greater than 20° are not uncommon 

around the many knolls and basins. Steep-sided knolls, 

enclosed intraslope basins, and canyonlike topography 

characterize the eastern two-thirds of the slope, whereas 

occasional knolls and low-relief noses mark the otherwise 

featureless slope of the western sector (Martin and Bouma, 

1978; Bouma and others, 1978). The extreme topographic 

relief of the slope is a product of salt diapirism (fig. 2) and 

salt withdrawal beneath the basins. Intraslope basins, such 

as the Gyre basin, are flanked and commonly surrounded by 

salt domes and contain exceptionally thick sections of 

Tertiary sediments (Bouma and Coleman, 1986). The 

basins are directly related to the growth of adjacent salt 

spines, which blocked active submarine channels or coalesced to create seafloor expression in noncanyon areas. 

The major characteristics of the Louisiana-Texas 

continental slope are shown schematically in figure 4, 

which depicts a typical outer continental shelf-upper 

continental slope setting. The shelf edge is commonly 

marked by a distinctive break in slope, but the geometry and 

gradients are dependent upon the presence or absence of 

several factors: faulting, diapirism, local low sea-level 

sediment accumulations (shelf-edge deltas), fluvial channels, the development of bioherms, or shelf-edge erosion. 

Figure 4 depicts a series of prograding inclined strata 

representing delivery of sediment to the shelf edge during 

lowered sea level. Because of rapid accumulation, these 

sediments show postdepositional and syndepositional features. Typically, growth faults tend to accentuate the 

shelf-edge break. Some of these faults extend through the 

near-surface sediments to the seafloor and have associated 

gas seeps, indicating their deep origin within the sedimentary sequence. Associated with some of the growth-fault 

Workshop 4: Gulf Coast 81 
()C) 

N 

"'tJ 

... 

0 

() 

& :i" 

co 

~ 

.... 

U) 

()C) 

....... 

m 

m 

N 

!I 

3 

"8 

UJ 

r:· 

3 

0 

::::s 

s:: 

I» 

"0 

"0 

:r 

co 

I» 

::::s 

c. 

:::tl 

CD 

UJ 

m 

c:; 

::r 

DIAPIR FlANK 

EROSION 

DIAPIR CREST'WIPEOUTS' 

(EROSION,CARBONATES 

DISTURBED SEDIMENT ) 

BURIED I \ 

SLIDE DEPOSITS 

GAS SEEPS 

SHElF 

ET 

..... ~ 

~· ...... -.. 

I 

/,. ....... 

NEAR-SURFACE 

LANDSliDE DEPOSITS 

Figure 4. Schematic block diagram depicting the principal geologic feature associations on the Outer Continental Shelf and upper continental slope of offshore 

Louisiana and Texas. (After Coleman and Prior, 1987.) 
systems are both large-scale and localized landslides. Sediments overlying such features typically display differential 

compaction or may inherit geometries from underlying 

landslide morphology. 

Because of changes in sea level, banks and bioherms 

are common occurrences at the shelf-edge break and on top 

of upper slope diapiric spines. Their distribution at the 

seafloor depends upon sedimentation and erosion patterns 

during subsequent rise in sea level. Seafloor erosion on the 

shelf and shelf break often represents relict features but in 

some cases may be continuing to the present in response to 

oceanographic factors. 

Diapiric ridges, spines, and intraslope basins are 

common features on the upper and middle continental 

slope. Their relief and surface expression are complex, 

being dominated by faulting associated with differential 

growth of the diapir. Complex fault patterns exist across the 

diapir's crest, often extending into adjacent basins and 

forming intricate and widespread fault systems. Such faulting provides pathways for gas migration, both thermogenic 

and biogenic, into the near-surface sediments. Chemosynthetic organisms, rapid diagenesis and cementation, and 

clathrate development are associated with these gas seeps, 

the latter exclusively with deep-source thermogenic gas. All 

these features can result in acoustic wipeouts on highresolution geophysical data, and interpreting them (together 

with chaotic landslide deposits) is difficult. Erosion across 

the diapir crests often exposes older and more consolidated 

sediments, leading to highly diverse acoustic images. 

Growth of diapirs and associated oversteepening of their 

flanks can promote localized and large-scale, near-surface, 

as well as deeply buried, landslide features. 

The Sigsbee Escarpment (fig. 1) is the most prominent feature at the base of the slope. This escarpment is 

nearly continuous along the entire base of the slope from the 

western gulf to De Soto Canyon. The scarp is the expression 

of the lobate frontal edge of the northern gulf diapiric 

province and is underlain throughout its length by a complex system of salt ridges, overthrust tongues, and steepsided massifs (Humphris, 1978; Martin, 1978, 1984). The 

continuity of the escarpment is broken locally by diapiric 

outliers and large pronounced reentrants of several interlobal canyons such as Alaminos and Keathley Canyons. 

The Mississippi Canyon and Fan mark the eastern 

boundary of the diapiric province and form one of the more 

prominent physiographic features in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico (fig. 1). The Mississippi Canyon and upper Mississippi Fan comprise the continental slope off the present 

shelf seaward of the modern Mississippi delta. The Mississippi Canyon is a broad submarine channel that formed 

by retrogressive slumping during the late Pleistocene and 

has been partially infilled during the Holocene rise in sea 

level (Coleman and others, 1985). The Mississippi Fan is a 

complex of overlapping fan lobes that were deposited 

during low sea level stands during the Pleistocene (Moore 

and others, 1978; Bouma and Coleman, 1985). At the base 

of the slope, in the upper part of the Mississippi Fan, 

sediments 2,400 m thick have been deposited in the past 2.1 

million years. Drilling on the Mississippi Fan during DSDP 

Leg 96 (Bouma and Coleman, 1985; Feeley and others, 

1985; Stelting and others, 1985; Coleman and others, 1985; 

Roberts and Thayer, 1985) indicated that the channel 

system was migratory in nature and contained a considerable quantity of coarse, terrigenous clastic sediment. The 

drilling in the lower fan indicated the presence of sheet 

sands of considerable thickness. 

The Quaternary Mississippi Fan consists of several 

fan lobes, each having an elongate shape. These lobes are 

connected to an incised submarine canyon cut into the 

continental shelf and slope. The fan-lobe complex is basically composed of channel-overbank deposits that can be 

subdivided into four regions: (1) a canyon, probably formed 

by massive slope failure; (2) the upper fan, which terminates near the base of the slope (the main channel acts as a 

conduit for sediments delivered to the more distal parts. of 

the system); (3) the middle fan, which is an aggradational 

unit with a convex upward surface and a sinuous aggradational channel (graveliferous and sand-rich deposits form 

the basal part of the channel and are capped by fine-grained 

sediments of the passive fill); and (4) the lower fan, which 

is also aggradational in nature and shows evidence of 

numerous small channels that have switched through time. 

Near the ends of each channel, broad sand sheets have been 

deposited. Late Pleistocene sedimentation rates were 

extremely high during glacial sea-level low stands and 

minimal during interglacial high sea levels. In the youngest 

fan lobe, during the late Wisconsin glacial stage, accumulation rates ranged from 12 m per thousand years for the 

middle fan to 6 m per thousand years for the lower fan. 

During the interglacial periods, sedimentation rates rarely 

attained a few tens of centimeters per thousand years. 

The De Soto slope lies between the eastern limit of 

the upper Mississippi Fan and the West Florida Terrace. 

This section of the slope is relatively smooth and is 

underlain by a thick sequence of conformably bedded 

sediment that is deformed by minor monoclinal folds and 

isolated small salt domes. The most conspicuous physiographic element in this area is the broad valley formed by 

the depositional convergence of the terrigenous slope with 

the northernmost exposure of the Florida Escarpment. 

Mississippi-Alabama-Florida Slope 

The northern part of the continental slope off Mississippi, Alabama, and western Florida is relatively smooth 

and unbroken. Thick sequences of salt and shale are not 

present in this region, and the clastic wedge overlying the 

carbonate platform is relatively thin and undeformed. Small 

erosional gullies, possibly resulting from the late Wisconsin 

lowering of sea level or relatively minor mass wasting, 

Workshop 4: Gulf Coast 83 
crease this continental slope. The continental slope along 

the eastern margin of the Gulf of Mexico is extremely 

complex and is defined by a double reef trend; the shallower 

reef lies between 130 and 150m, whereas the deeper reef 

trend ranges between 210 and 300 m water depth (Doyle 

and Holmes, 1985). Holocene and late Pleistocene sediments composed of foraminifera-coccolith ooze accumulate 

at an exceedingly rapid rate, averaging 30 em per 1,000 

years (Doyle and Holmes, 1985). At a depth between 1,000 

and 2,000 m, the slope increases significantly, in places 

exceeding 20°, and forms the West Florida Escarpment. 

The escarpment is erosional in nature and is composed of 

sediments deposited in a shallow-water, back-reef, and 

lagoonal facies (Freeman-Lynde, 1983). On the upper 

slope, at a depth of approximately 500 m, a terrace, 

believed to be composed of outcropping Miocene sediments, is a prominent morphologic element. A series of 

gullies and small canyons crease the middle and upper 

slope. One of the most striking features of the west Florida 

upper continental slope is the irregular morphology associated with mass movement processes. The mass wasting 

features range from creep to massive slides to gravityinduced folds tens of kilometers long (Doyle and Holmes, 

1985). 

PAST ACTIVITIES AND RESOURCE 

POTENTIAL 

Mapping in the EEZ 

The Gulf of Mexico basin was a mature hydrocarbonproducing basin. In 1947, a fixed platform/drilling tender 

was spudded in 16 ft of water 12 mi off the Louisiana 

coast. This platform marked the beginning of active exploration and exploitation in Federal waters. As of December 

1985, some 38 years later, 6,192 offshore tracts had been 

leased and 23,569 wells had been drilled. Drilling is now 

being conducted in water depths in excess of 7,000 ft (2, 100 

m). This offshore region is highly productive, and as of 

1985, some 95 percent of the oil and over 99 percent of the 

gas produced from the Outer Continental Shelf came from 

the Gulf of Mexico. 

In such a mature producing basin, a large amount of 

surface and near-surface data has been acquired. Thus, the 

Gulf of Mexico basin can be used as a model with which to 

identify those types of data acquisition that were useful or 

useless to both regulatory agencies and the industrial sector. 

This was the general approach that was used during the Gulf 

of Mexico workshop. The number of participants varied 

from 10 to 17 and included personnel from Federal agencies, State agencies, the private sector, and academia. 

Generally the discussions commenced with a review of 

existing data, followed by an evaluation of resource potential (State by State). The future needs for data acquisition 

were then addressed, and the final task was delimiting a 

series of recommendations. 

Previously Acquired Data 

Past data acquisition has been overwhelming. Federal 

agencies have collected in excess of 198,000 km of regional 

high-resolution seismic and side-scan sonar data (including 

the recent GLORIA survey) and over 12,000 km of mapping data in detailed grids on the leased offshore blocks. 

Industrial concerns, in response to Federal requirements, 

and in an effort to insure safety of their offshore facilities, 

have acquired over 1,500,000 km of high-resolution seismic data on a detailed gridded basis with leased offshore 

tracts. In addition, in excess of 20,250 km of regional 

high-resolution seismic data have been acquired on the 

continental shelf and continental slope. State agencies and 

academic research teams have acquired an additional 

21,000 km of mapping data. Thus, within the EEZ in the 

Gulf of Mexico, in excess of 1,751,500 line km of data 

have been acquired to date. This probably represents the 

largest single collection of data along a continental margin 

in the world. Ground truth (drop cores and shallow foundation borings) has also been collected. In general terms, 

approximately 3, 700 foundation borings have been drilled 

on the continental shelf, 200 borings on the continental 

slope, and in excess of 6,500 drop cores from the shallow 

sedimentary column. Unfortunately, many of these are site 

specific, and many areas of the gulf basin have not been 

sites of shallow subsurface data acquisition. 

It was concluded that a large amount of data has been 

acquired in this mature basin but that a high percentage of 

the total data has been acquired in only a small percentage 

of the basin. Interpretation of this data has resulted in a 

generally good understanding of the sedimentary processes 

and basic geologic structure of the near-surface sediments in 

the gulf basin. The paucity of ground truth (core data) in 

the relatively deep water and complex bathymetric region of 

the continental slope and in certain areas of the continental 

shelf has been a detriment to a better understanding of the 

late Quaternary evolution of the basin and to aiding in the 

interpretation of the large volume of high-resolution seismic 

data. It was pointed out by several panel members that, 

even with this vast collection of data, numerous scientific 

questions remain unanswered. 

Resource Potential 

The panel discussed the potential for future resource 

development in the gulf basin. In terms of oil and gas, the 

continental shelf region of offshore Louisiana and Texas is 

a mature basin, and only deeper drilling offers any significant future resource. Enhanced oil and gas recovery will, 

84 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
however, be required in the future. In Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, the continental shelf has had minimum 

exploration, and a few recent discoveries have been made 

that indicate that this region has some potential for future 

exploitation. The continental slope and deepwater basin in 

the Gulf of Mexico is presently a frontier area. Recent oil 

and gas discoveries in the Neogene sediments on the 

continental slope and in the deepwater basin have indicated 

that there is a considerable potential for future resource 

development. Reservoir sands are abundant within the 

sedimentary section. The area is characterized by extremely 

complex structure, varied surface relief, and deep water. A 

considerable amount of future mapping and ground truth 

data will be required to evaluate the near-surface conditions. 

With regard to nonfuel minerals, the Gulf of Mexico 

can be considered to contain few potential resources of any 

great magnitude. Salt and sulfur have a very high potential 

for extraction from the shallow-seated salt diapirs on the 

continental shelf offshore Louisiana and Texas. Production 

from the caprock of several diapirs is presently being 

undertaken, but within State waters. A greater demand for 

these products would promote development in Federal 

waters. 

Sand and gravel are present in the shallow waters 

offshore Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida but are generally absent or have considerable overburden off Louisiana 

and Texas. The well-developed offshore sands of the 

eastern gulf have considerable potential, but environmental 

problems would be severe because much of the shoreline is 

highly developed and draws a considerable amount of 

tourist trade. Shell and other carbonate resources have fair 

potential in the shallow waters off Louisiana, where shell 

dredging has been operative for a considerable time. Texas, 

Alabama, and Mississippi contain some shell resources in 

shallow Federal waters, but these resources do not appear to 

be of a major economic value. The carbonate reefal system 

of Florida contains vast quantities of commercial carbonates 

that remain a potential resource. In all cases, environmental 

problems are severe and will require considerable study 

before the~e resources can be considered as viable alternatives to similar resources on the mainland. 

The potential for recovery of placer minerals is very 

low in Texas and Louisiana, but it is possible that there are 

minerals of some commercial value offshore of Mississippi, 

Alabama, and Florida. Shoreline deposits contain some 

heavy minerals, but so little is known of the characteristics 

of the offshore sand bodies that it is difficult to evaluate the 

future potential. 

Some atypical resources, fresh water and abandoned 

wrecks, were discussed in general terms. In offshore 

Florida, there is an abundance of fresh-water springs, and 

there have been several inquiries as to the commercial 

development of this resource. Once again, few data are 

available with which to fully evaluate this resource. The 

shallow waters of the continental shelf off all of the coastal 

States have numerous shipwrecks, both of antiquity and 

more modern times. These presently serve as refuges for 

large communities of marine organisms, and future development into artificial reefs could have some commercial 

value. 

ADDITIONAL DATA REQUIRED 

On the basis of the vast quantity of data previously 

acquired in the gulf basin, the panel attempted to identify 

those data that will be required for future assessments. 

High-resolution seismic data are generally abundant in the 

gulf basin, but much of the data is associated with oil and 

gas exploration and concentrated in the offshore regions of 

Louisiana and Texas. There is a need for similar types of 

data on the continental shelves of Mississippi, Alabama, 

and Florida. Regional high-resolution seismic grids are 

generally available along the entire continental slope, but 

detailed data in some critical regions are not available. 

One of the highest priorities of future data acquisition 

is accurate bathymetry in both the shallow and deep waters 

of the Gulf of Mexico. Only 10 to 20 percent of the gulf 

coast is covered by modern bathymetric surveys, and these 

data are primarily from the nearshore zones within State 

waters. These data are extremely important in pre-leasing 

evaluation by industry and for evaluation of potential 

hazards from a regulatory standpoint. In highly developed 

oil and gas regions, accurate bathymetry is required for 

pipeline routing and other offshore support facilities. Continued development of the EEZ in the gulf basin will result 

in an increase in marine traffic across the shallow waters. 

There will be a necessity to assess future navigation 

problems. Accurate contemporary bathymetry will be 

required in this region because it is prone to rapid change. 

Accurate interpretation of the vast amount of highresolution seismic data has been hampered by a lack of 

ground truth, especially in the deep waters of the continental slope and the shallow waters off Mississippi, Alabama, 

and Florida. Cores and shallow drillholes are required in 

order to determine the surface and near-surface lithology, 

chronology, and mass physical properties. The basin is 

highly variable as a result of sediment input from several 

different river systems. The large sediment yield from the 

Mississippi River and the extremely dynamic nature of this 

large clastic supplier have resulted in relatively thick 

sequences of extremely recent sediments that have not 

undergone normal compaction; thus, much of the region is 

highly prone to subaqueous sediment instability. Ground 

truth is required to evaluate potential hazards. This information is important because many regulatory decisions are 

being made solely on the basis of interpretation of highresolution and side-scan sonar data. 

The capability of evaluating lithology, geologic processes, and chronology solely from remotely sensed data is 

Workshop 4: Gulf Coast 85 
poor at best. Studies in areas where abundant ground truth 

data exist indicate that these relationships will require 

considerable improvement. 

The panel recommended that reinstatement of collection of regional seismic grids, especially in the deeper 

waters of the continental slope, would aid in evaluation of 

geologic processes, geohazards, and multiple-use activities. 

The data should be acquired in digital form and properly 

archived so that they will be accessible to all researchers in 

the gulf basin. 

The consequences of not acquiring these data sets are 

as follows: 

1. Future oil and gas development would not be stopped, 

but future development would be impacted in the sense 

of potential regulatory aspects if based on poor data and 

interpretations. 

2. Lack of data acquisition would severely reduce the 

evaluation of other potential economic resources on the 

shelf and slope of several offshore regions in the gulf. 

3. Acquiring the data would significantly clarify and 

improve the regional understanding of the gulf basin 

and provide a solid basis for developing sound regulations and environmental impact evaluations. 

In a discussion concerning the strategy of managing 

existing data, there was a lively debate as to who is the user, 

especially of data acquired by Federal agencies. Panel 

members felt that users of this acquired data should not be 

just the members of the Federal agencies and regulatory 

agencies but that State agencies, private industry, and 

academia should have immediate access to the raw data. 

Many members of the panel indicated definite problems 

with accessibility of raw data and long waiting periods 

before data are available for general distribution. 

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS 

The final panel session revolved around the recommendations that should be considered in a 10-year goal. 

These recommendations are: 

1. Better define the coordination between the Federal 

agencies acquiring the data and the end users (State 

agencies, private industry, and academia). 

2. Give careful consideration to the accessibility of raw 

data and the archiving of previously collected data. The 

time between acquiring the data and its public release is 

far too long at present. 

3. Acquire new data in a digital and standardized format 

so as to allow rapid access to the raw data. A standard 

digital format would be usable by numerous agencies 

rather than just the agency acquiring the data. 

4. Investigate the possibility of setting up an archiving 

facility for ground truth data such as cores, mass 

physical properties measurements, and so on. Many 

data are presently lost because of lack of such a facility. 

5. Recommend that future data acquisition in the Gulf of 

Mexico basin include three aspects: regional highquality bathymetry, ground-truth data (cores and 

borings), and reinstatement of a policy to acquire 

regional 3 x 3-mi grids of high-resolution data, especially in the deepwater areas and on the continental 

shelves offshore Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi. 

Such a plan would insure a good data base on which to 

evaluate future economic potential, develop rational 

regulatory policies, and significantly advance our scientific knowledge on the Gulf of Mexico's continental 

margin. 

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 

James M. Coleman, Co-chairperson 

Chacko J. John, Co-chairperson 

Patricia Pecora, Steering Committee Representative 

Robin Cranton 

Earl H. Doyle 

Stephen J. Gawarecki 

Conrad A. Gazzier 

Richard Hammer 

William E. Hart 

Robert Hunt 

Jim Jones 

Mike Loughridge 

Richard Pascucci 

James B. Rucker 

Melanie Stright 

John R. Suter 

Skip Theberge 

SELECTED REFERENCES 

Berryhill, H. L. , Jr. , 1980, Map showing paleogeography of the 

continental shelf during the low stand of sea level, Wisconsin glacial epoch, Port Isabel quadrangle, Texas: U.S. 

Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series 

Map I-1254-E. 

--1981a, Map showing paleogeography of the continental 

shelf during the low stand of sea level, Wisconsin glacial 

epoch, Beeville quadrangle, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1288-E. 

--1981b, Map showing paleogeography of the continental 

shelf during the low stand of sea level, Wisconsin glacial 

epoch, Corpus Christi quadrangle, Texas: U.S. Geological 

Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1287-E. 

Bloom, A.L., 1983, Sea level and coastal morphology of the 

United States through the Late Wisconsin glacial maximum, in Wright, H.E., Jr., ed., Late-Quaternary environments of the United States: Minneapolis, University of 

Minnesota, v. 1, p. 215-229. 

86 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Bouma, A.H., and Coleman, J.M., 1985, Mississippi Fan: Leg 96 

program and principal results, in Bouma, A.H., Normark, 

W.R., and Barnes, N.E., eds., Submarine fans and related 

turbidite systems: New York, Springer-Verlag, p. 

247-252. 

---1986, Intraslope basin deposits and potential relation to 

continental shelf, northern Gulf of Mexico: Gulf Coast 

Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 36, p. 

419-428. 

Bouma, A.H., Moore, G.T., and Coleman, J.M., 1978, Framework, facies, and oil-trapping characteristics of the upper 

continental margin: Studies in Geology No. 7, American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 

326 p. 

Coleman, J .M., 1976, Deltas: Processes of deposition and models 

for exploration: Champaign, Illinois, Continuing Education 

Publication, 102 p. 

Coleman, J.M., and Prior, D.B., 1980, Deltaic sand bodies: 

Continuing Education Course Note Series #15, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 

171 p. 

Coleman, J.M., Prior, D.B., and Lindsay, J.F., 1983, Deltaic 

influences on shelf edge instability processes, in Stanley, 

D.J., and others, eds., The shelfbreak; critical interface on 

continental margins: Special publication of the Society of 

Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists No. 33, p. 

121-137. 

Coleman, J.M, Bouma, A.H., Roberts, H.H., Thayer, P.A., and 

DSDP Leg 96 Scientific Party, 1985, X-ray radiography of 

Mississippi Fan cores, in Bouma, A.H., Normark, W.R., 

and Barnes, N.E., eds., Submarine fans and related turbidite systems: New York, Springer-Verlag, p. 311-318. 

Doyle, L.J., 1981, Depositional systems of the continental margin 

of the eastern Gulf of Mexico west of peninsular Florida: A 

possible modern analog to some depositional models for the 

Permian Delaware Basin: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 31, p. 279-282. 

Doyle, L.J., and Holmes, C.W., 1985, Shallow structure, stratigraphy, and carbonate sedimentary processes of west Florida upper continental slope: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 69, no. 7, p. 113 3-1144. 

Doyle, L.J., and Sparks, T.N., 1980, Sediments of the Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida (MAFLA) continental shelf: 

Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 50, p. 905-916. 

Feeley, M.H., Buffler, R.T., and Bryant, W.R., 1985, Depositional units and growth patterns of the Mississippi Fan, in 

Bouma, A.H., Normark, W.R., and Barnes, N.E., eds., 

Submarine fans and related turbidite systems: New York, 

Springer-Verlag, p. 253-257. 

Freeman-Lynde, R.P., 1983, Cretaceous and Tertiary samples 

dredged from the Florida escarpment, eastern Gulf of 

Mexico: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 

Transactions, v. 33, p. 91-99. 

Garrison, L.E., and Martin, R.G., 1973, Geologic structures in 

the Gulf of Mexico basin: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 773, 85 p. 

Gould, H.R., and Steward, R.H., 1956, Continental terrace 

sediments in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico: Society of 

Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication No. 3, p. 2-20. 

Humphris, C. C., Jr., 1978, Salt movement on continental slope, 

Northern Gulf of Mexico, in Bouma, A.H., Moore, G.T., 

and Coleman, J.M., eds., Framework, facies, and oiltrapping characteristics of the upper continental margin: 

Studies in Geology No. 7, Tulsa, Oklahoma, American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists, p. 69-85. 

King, P.B., 1977, The evolution of North America: Princeton, 

N.J., Princeton University Press, 197 p. 

Ludwick, J.C., 1964, Sediments in northeastern Gulf of Mexico, 

in Miller, R.L., ed., Papers in marine geology, Shepard 

commemorative volume: New York, Macmillan, p. 

204-238. 

Martin, R.G., 1978, Northern and eastern Gulf of Mexico 

continental margin: Stratigraphic and structural framework, 

in Bouma, A.H., Moore, G.T., and Coleman, J.M., eds., 

Framework, facies, and oil-trapping characteristics of the 

upper continental margin: Studies in Geology No. 7, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 

p. 21-42. 

---1982, Regional geologic framework: Central and western 

Gulf of Mexico OCS regions, in Martin, R.G., Foote, 

R.Q., Garrison, L.E., Berryhill, H.L., Jr., and Khan, 

A.S., eds., Summary report on the regional geology, 

petroleum potential, environmental consideration for development, and estimates of undiscovered recoverable oil and 

gas resources of the United States Gulf of Mexico continental margin in the area of proposed oil and gas lease sales 

no. 81 and 84: U.S. Geological Survey Administrative 

Report, p. 1-1-1-51. 

---1984, Diapiric trends in the deep-water Gulf Basin: Gulf 

Coast Section of Society of Economic Paleontologists and 

Mineralogists Foundation Research Conference, Austin, 

Texas, p. 60-62. 

Martin, R.G., and Bouma, A.H., 1978, Physiography of Gulf of 

Mexico, in Bouma, A.H., Moore, G.T., and Coleman, 

J .M., eds., Framework, facies, and oil-trapping characteristics of the upper continental margin: Studies in Geology 

No. 7, Tulsa, Oklahoma, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, p. 3-19. 

Moore, G.T., Starke, G.W., Bonham, L.C., and Woodbury, 

H.O., 1978, Mississippi Fan, Gulf of Mexico-physiography, stratigraphy, and sedimentation patterns, in Bouma, 

A.H., Moore, G.T., and Coleman, J.M., Framework, 

facies, and oil-trapping characteristics of the upper continental margin: Studies in Geology No. 7, Tulsa, Oklahoma, American Associaton of Petroleum Geologists, p. 

155-191. 

Morner, N-A., 1983, Sea levels, in Gardner, R., and Scoging, H., 

eds., Mega-geomorphology: Oxford, Clarendon Press, p. 

73-91. 

Penland, S. , and Boyd, R. , 1981 , Shoreline changes on the 

Louisiana barrier coast: Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers Oceans, v. dJ, p. 209-219. 

Prior, D.B., and Coleman, J.M., 1978, Disintegrating retrogressive landslides on very-low-angle subaqueous slopes, Mississippi Delta: Marine Geotechnology, v. 3, p. 37-60. 

Roberts, H.H., and Thayer, P.A., 1985, Petrology of Mississippi 

Fan depositional environments, in Bouma, A.H., Normark, 

Workshop 4: Gulf Coast 87 
W.R., and Barnes, N.E., eds., Submarine fans and related 

turbidite systems: New York, Springer-Verlag, p. 

331-339. 

Roberts, H.H., Adams, R.D., and Cunningham, R.W., 1980, 

Evolution of sand-dominant subaerial phase: Atchafalaya 

Delta, Louisiana: American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists, v. 64, p. 264-279. 

Stelting, C.E., and others, 1985, Drilling results on the middle 

Mississippi Fan, in Bouma, A.H., Normark, W.R., and 

Barnes, N.E., eds., Submarine fans and related turbidite 

systems: New York, Springer-Verlag, p. 275-282. 

Suter, J.R., and Berryhill, H.L., Jr., 1985, Late Quaternary 

shelf-margin deltas, northwest Gulf of Mexico: American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 69, no. 1, 

p. 77-91. 

Walker, H.J., and Coleman, J.M., 1987, Atlantic and Gulf 

Coastal Province, in Graf, W.L., ed., Geomorphic systems 

of North America: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society 

of America, Centennial Special Volume 2, p. 51-110. 

Williams, D.P., and Trainor, D., 1986, Application of isotope 

chronostratigraphy in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Gulf 

Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 

36, p. 589-600. 

Worzel, J.L., and Burke, C.A., 1978, Margins of Gulf of Mexico: 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 

62, no. 11, p. 2290-2307. 

88 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Workshop 5: Scientific Mapping and Research to Characterize 

the EEZ-Islands 

Panel Co-chairpersons: 

Bruce M. Richmond, U.S. Geological Survey 

Charles L. Morgan, Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii 

INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE 

REGION 

The region discussed in this section includes more 

than half of the U.S. EEZ and covers a broad range of 

physiographic settings and oceanographic conditions. However, the areas around U.S.-held islands have received only 

a very small percentage of the research and exploration 

effort devoted to date to all of the U.S. EEZ. Summaries of 

the key technical and economic issues of living and nonliving resource management in this region have recently been 

assembled by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology 

Assessment (U.S. Congress, 1987a,b). 

We distinguish two geological classifications of 

islands in this group: island arcs, formed by uplift at 

convergent plate boundaries, and oceanic islands, formed at 

hot spots, spreading centers, or in other mid plate volcanic 

processes. The specific contributions to the U.S. EEZ 

provided by these island regions are presented in table 1. 

Islands of the U.S. EEZ and their approximate EEZ areas 

are presented in table 2. General descriptions of the geological settings of these areas follow. 

Island Arcs 

Island arcs are typically arcuate belts of islands 

formed by volcanic activity and uplift resulting from the 

subduction of oceanic crust at convergent plate boundaries. 

They are commonly associated with back -arc spreading 

centers, zones of rifting, and active volcanism on the 

seafloor. U.S. island arcs of the Pacific, excluding those of 

Alaska, are Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Puerto 

Rico and the Virgin Islands (St. John, St. Croix, and St. 

Thomas) comprise the Caribbean island arcs. 

The Caribbean.- Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands 

form part of the Greater Antilles island chain in the 

northeastern Caribbean. Since the end of the Eocene, the 

tectonics of the region have been dominated by left-lateral 

strike-slip motion between the North American and Caribbean Plates (Burke and others, 1984). The islands lie within 

a complex, 300-km-wide deformation zone which occurs 

along the plate boundary and which is influenced by both 

extensional and compressional elements in addition to the 

dominant strike-slip motion (Sykes and others, 1982; Mann 

and Burke, 1984; Burke and others, 1984; Byrne and 

others, 1985). 

The Pacific.-The Northern Mariana Islands and 

Guam are a classic island arc consisting of trench-forearcvolcanic arc/back -arc basin association and created by 

convergence between the Pacific (oceanic lithosphere) and 

Mariana Plates. The Mariana trough is a slow-rate back-arc 

spreading center. 

Oceanic Islands 

The islands considered in this group include the U.S. 

EEZ areas in the central Pacific region. The islands and 

seamounts in these areas were formed by hot-spot activity, 

as volcanoes at spreading centers, and from poorly understood volcanic episodes that occurred in the middle of the 

Pacific Plate. Brief descriptions of each distinct area are 

provided below. As will be discussed in the third section of 

this report, the principal nonliving resources in the oceanic 

islands group are expected to be associated with island 

flanks and seamounts. Therefore, the geological settings 

outlined in this section focus on island and seamount 

formation processes. 

The Hawaiian Archipelago 

The baseline for this EEZ boundary consists of the 

emergent islands ranging to the northwest some 1 , 800 

nautical miles between the island of Hawaii and Kure Atoll. 

These islands, as well as many seamounts and subsea 

elevations roughly aligned with them, are all believed to 

have been formed by hot-spot volcanism (Morgan, 1972). 

This process continues today on the northeast ridge of the 

Kilauea Volcano on the island of Hawaii and on the 

submarine volcano Loihi, located to the southeast of Hawaii 

Workshop 5: Islands 89 
Table 1. Types of deposits, target resources, and physical settings 

Deposit Type Target Resources Physical Setting 

Gold, tin, platinum, 

Placer chromite, rme earths, Insular shelves 

and construction aggregates 

Phosphorites Phosphorous (fertilizer) Atoll lagoons 

seamounts, islands 

Corallium sp. Island flanks, seamounts, 

Precious coral and black coral and other current swept 

areas 

Polymetallic Silver, zinc, cadmium, Spreading seafloor rift 

sulfides gold, copper, molybdenum, zones (submarine volcanoes) 

lead, vanadium, 

barium, strontium 

Ferromanganese Nickel, copper, Cenual Pacific abyssal 

nodules cobalt, manganese ocean floor between 

latitude 18~ and 20~ 

Cobalt-rich Cobalt, nicke~ manganese, Old seamounts and 

ferromanganese platinum, cerium, titanium, ridges 

crusts lead 

Hydrocarbons Oil, natural gas, Within and behind 

coal island arc systems 

Molybdenum-rich Molybdenum, manganese Within island arcs 

manganese deposits 

Manganiferous Manganese 

sandstone 

(Malahoff and others, 1982). Geological ages for these 

islands and seamounts range from essentially 0 at Loihi to 

about 30 million years old (Ma) at Hancock Seamount on 

the northwest extreme (Jarrard and Clague, 1977; Epp, 

1978). 

Also within this EEZ region are over 50 seamounts 

that are not associated with this northwest-southeast trend 

and that are believed to range in age from 70 to 85 m. y. 

(Johnson and others, 1987). These Cretaceous ages are for 

most of these seamounts only estimates, and the processes 

that led to the formation of these seamounts are generally 

unknown. 

Wake Island 

Wake Island is thought to be a northern extension of 

the Marshall Island group (Clark and others, 1985) of 

Middle Jurassic (160 Ma) age. However, recent geochemical work (B.H. Keating, personal commun., 1987) 

suggests that Wake may actually be associated with the Line 

Island Chain. 

Within island arcs 

Johnston Island 

The EEZ around Johnston Island contains extensive 

seamount areas and may be the best prospect for manganese 

crust deposits of all the oceanic islands. Within this area is 

the apparent intersection of the Mid-Pacific Mountain trend 

and the Line Islands, and the geological ages of the included 

seamounts range from 80 to 120 Ma (Clark and others, 

1985). 

Line Islands (Palmyra Island, Kingman Reef, and Jarvis) 

The formation of the Line Islands appears to be the 

result of at least two episodes of volcanism, one or more in 

the Late Cretaceous (70-100 Ma) and one in the Eocene 

(35-45 Ma; Keating, in press). The Palmyra/Kingman 

seamounts have been dated at greater than 90 Ma. Jarvis 

may be somewhat older (Clark and others, 1985). 

Howland and Baker Islands 

These islands are part of a small seamount chain 

running north-south. They are just to the north of the 

90 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Table 2. Approximate areas of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone for the Pacific and Caribbean Islands 

Political Length oP Total area between• 

Island(s) Status Coastline 0 and 200 Geologic Type 

nautical miles 

American Territory 75 (138) 125,000 (428,800) Oceanic Island 

Samoa• 

Caribbean 373 (690) 61,100 {209,600) 

Puerto Rico Commonwealth Island Arc 

Virgin Islands Territory Island Arc 

Guam Territory 68 (126) 60,600 (207,900) Island Arc 

Hawaii State 653 (1208) 697,000++ (2,390,700) Oceanic Island 

Midway Possession 7 (13) 

Howland Possession 6 (11) 124,100 (425,700) Oceanic Island 

and Baker 

Jarvis Possession 4(7) 94,200 (323,100) Oceanic Island 

Johnston Possession 4(7} 131,000 (449,300) Oceanic Island 

Northern Commonwealth 179 (331) 224,300 (769,300) Island Arc 

Mariarias 

Palmyra Atoll· Possession 8 (15) 104,100 (357 ,100) Oceanic Island 

Kingman Reef 

Wake Possession 10 (19) 120,000 (411,600) Oceanic Island 

TOTAL 1,387 (2,565) 1,741,400 (5,973,100) 

%U.S. Total 12% 51% 

• In nautical miles; values in parentheses are in kilometers. Data from C.E. Harrington, 

National Ocean Survey. 

+Includes Swains Island and Rose Atoll 

++ Includes Midway Island 

equator and were mined in the past for substantial guano 

deposits. Their age has not been determined (Clark and 

others, 1985). 

American Samoa 

The east-west-trending Samoan Islands are a very 

young island chain, mostly less than 5 m.y. in age (Keating, 

1987). Included in the American possession are Tutuila, the 

Manua Islands, Swains Island, and Rose Atoll. 

RECENT ACTIVITIES IN THE AREA 

Island Arcs 

GLORIA imaging of the EEZ of the eastern Caribbean region has been completed (EEZ SCAN 85 Scientific 

Staff, 1987). Accompanying the imagery are bathymetric, 

seismic reflection, and magnetic anomaly data collected 

along tracklines spaced up to 25 nautical mi ( 45 km) apart. 

Earlier studies (Meyerhoff and others, 1983) have identified 

two possible petroleum-bearing basins (North Coast Tertiary basin and the North Mona basin) along the fore-arc 

slope. Insular shelf surveys have located several suitable 

offshore deposits of construction materials. Planned activities include GLORIA ground-truth surveys near areas of 

possible major slumping along the insular slope and placer 

investigations along the northern shelf. 

In the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam region 

there is evidence for mineral-producing hydrothermal activity in the Mariana Trough, a back-arc spreading center. 

Crust sampling on seamounts has recovered ironmanganese crusts with copper and molybdenum. A "Mariana transect" of the Deep Sea Drilling Project (Legs 59 and 

60) drilled ocean plate, trench, fore-arc, arc, back-arc, and 

trough. Drilling may continue in the area during the early 

1990's with the new Ocean Drilling Project (ODP). 

Workshop 5: Islands 91 
Oceanic Islands 

In the last 10 years, significant oceanographic 

research has been carried out by several countries to 

investigate the exploitation potential of marine mineral 

deposits and the general geology of this region. This work 

has included continuing efforts funded by the West German 

government and German industry (Halbach and others, 

1982; Halbach and Manheim, 1984), several field efforts in 

the Hawaiian Islands, Johnston Island, and Line Islands 

area by the University of Hawaii (Dollar 1984; Helsley and 

others, 1985; Malahoff and others, 1985; Sager and Keating 

1984), and extensive work by the USGS in many of the 

island EEZ areas (Hein and others, in press a; Manheim, 

1986). 

The above programs have looked in detail at the 

resource potential, geological setting, and potential environmental impact problems associated with cobalt-rich 

manganese crust deposits. Research on other potential 

nonliving resources in the central Pacific has been completed as well, including work on marine phosphate deposits (Rao and Burnett, unpub. data, 1987), sand and gravel 

resources near Hawaii (Dollar, 1979), and potential marine 

sulfide deposits (Malahoff and others, 1982). 

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE AND 10-YEAR 

OBJECTIVES 

State of Knowledge 

We distinguish four general processes that seem to 

control the formation and distribution of nonliving 

resources and geohazards in the island EEZ areas: volcanic 

island-building processes, hydrogenetic processes that produce sulfide minerals, hydrogenetic processes that produce 

ferromanganese oxide deposits and certain marine phosphate deposits, and sediment transport processes, which 

profoundly affect all of the above as well as geohazard 

potential and the distribution of hydrocarbon resources. 

The state of knowledge about each of these is briefly 

outlined here, with emphasis being given to the current 

limitations in our understanding. 

Volcanic Processes 

At least four kinds of volcanism have created the 

islands and seamounts in these EEZ areas. Island-arc 

volcanism, which is caused by the interactions between 

converging tectonic plates, is believed to be responsible for 

the formation of the Northern Marianas, Guam, Puerto 

Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Hot-spot volcanism, produced 

by relatively stationary mantle sources of magma erupting 

through moving oceanic plates, is probably responsible for 

the Hawaiian Islands and much of the Samoan Island chain. 

Spreading center volcanism, caused by persistent eruptions 

at loci associated with divergent tectonic plates, may be 

responsible for many of the seamounts in these areas. 

Reactivated volcanism, possibly caused by tensile forces 

acting on existing zones of weakness in oceanic plates, may 

be responsible for much of the mass of the Line Islands. 

Detailed studies to understand both these constructional volcanic processes as well as the associated destructional processes (such as mass wasting of submarine flanks 

and volcanic caldera collapse) are needed to understand the 

island-building processes that control the distributions of 

the nonliving resources and geohazards. 

Hydrothermal Systems and Sulfide Mineralization 

The most promising sites within the island EEZ areas 

for sulfide mineralization lie in the Guam and Northern 

Marianas along the Mariana Trough. Hydrothermal systems 

have been identified on and near the back -arc spreading 

center near 18° N. Subsequent mapping, water column 

studies, and submersible dives (Hawkins, 1987) have identified several active sulfide-producing hydrothermal vent 

systems in this area. Analogy with other spreading centers 

suggests that similar mineralization potential should exist 

along the Mariana Trough from southwest of Guam to the 

northern end near 20°, a distance of more than 800 km. 

Except for a few sites where the detailed work has been 

conducted, this large region is essentially not surveyed. 

Hydrogenous Processes and their Relation to Marine 

Ferromanganese and Phosphorite Deposits 

Polymetallic oxides, which include deep-sea ferromanganese nodules and seamount crust accumulations, are 

believed to form primarily from the precipitation of iron and 

manganese oxides in seawater (for example, see Cronan, 

1980). Crusts have been the subject of recent interest more 

so than nodules because of their abundance within the EEZ 

and their relatively high concentrations of the strategically 

important metal cobalt (Helsley and others, 1985; De Carlo 

and others, 1987a; Chave and others, 1986). These deposits 

generally form where metal oxides accrete on sediment-free 

outcrops on the slopes of seamounts. Slopes exposed to 

strong currents are generally devoid of sediments and 

particularly suited to crustal growth, whereas highly sedimented regions such as valleys between topographic highs 

are not (De Carlo and others, 1987b). Metals of potential 

economic value such as Co, Ni, and other trace elements 

including Pt are scavenged by the major metal-oxide surfaces and incorporated possibly by lattice substitution 

(Cronan, 1980). Slow growth rates (1-5 mm per million 

years) enhance the accumulation of certain minor and trace 

constituents by providing extended periods of time during 

which metal ions can be scavenged from the water column. 

An early paper by Cronan ( 1967) suggests an inverse 

correlation between cobalt content and growth rate. 

92 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Although the literature is replete with reports dealing 

with ferromanganese deposits, no quantitative mechanism 

that can satisfactorily account for these complex minerals 

has yet been published. 

In the island EEZ areas, at least two distinct types of 

phosphate deposits have been identified: submerged, 

guano-derived deposits and relatively widespread hydrogenetic deposits, often associated with ferromanganese crusts 

(Cullen and Burnett, 1986). Recent work has shown that 

phosphatic phases are often admixed with the crusts or 

present as discrete layers (Halbach and others, 1983; De 

Carlo and others, 1987b). Very little is known regarding the 

combinations of factors that lead to these deposits. 

Sediment Dynamics 

Generally, the EEZ seafloor off most islands can be 

divided into three provinces: the shelf, the slope, and the 

abyss. More complicated classifications are necessary for 

areas where active tectonic processes, such as subduction 

and seafloor spreading, are occurring. The processes that 

control sedimentation and sediment type can be grouped 

into geological, biological, and oceanographic factors. The 

geological factors include regional tectonism, the morphology of the shelf and slope, sediment supply and type, and 

climate (Karl and others, 1983). Biological factors include 

primary productivity levels, the balance between coralline 

construction and terrigenous sediment inputs, and bioturbation (Rhodes, 1974; Jordan, 1978; Jumars and others, 1981; 

Kennett, 1982). Oceanographic factors include many kinds 

of advective and dispersive processes that mix, transport, 

and deposit sediments (Karl and others, 1983). 

Because of the number of factors and their variable 

influence from site to site, it is pointless to define "typical" 

island environment sedimentary processes. Except for in a 

few specific sites, the relative contributions of these factors 

have not been assessed for the island systems. However, it 

is critical that the dynamics of island sedimentation are 

considered as complete systems, beginning with sediment 

input and coastal processes and culminating with abyssal 

depositional processes. Investigations constrained to only 

one portion of a sediment transport system are thus necessarily incomplete. 

Sand and gravel are ubiquitous on beaches around 

many island shores and traditionally have been used for 

construction purposes. Sand mining has resulted in significant coastal erosion and loss of beaches that are major 

concerns for tourism and residential development. Future 

utilization and increased needs for these relatively shallowwater resources demand a comparable increase in coastal, 

near-shore, and shelf research. 

Two key elements missing from most sedimentological investigations but of great practical interest are the 

geotechnical behavior of the sediment types being studied 

and their susceptibilities to transport by current action. An 

increase in the understanding of these processes is necessary 

in order to allow environmentally and economically sound 

exploitation of existing nonliving resources. 

10-Year Objectives 

Significant progress in the next 10 years toward better 

understanding of the general processes outlined above 

would greatly facilitate our ability to use and conserve our 

enormous island EEZ areas. The workshop group believes 

that such progress could most readily be achieved within the 

context of the following geographically focused objectives: 

Island Arcs 

1. Framework studies with special emphasis on oil and 

gas potential within offshore basins and on the quantification of sediment transport pathways from the coastline to the abyss. 

2. Detailed surveys to obtain ground truth for the existing 

GLORIA images to determine the processes responsible for the formation of this unique structure and 

consequences relative to geohazards. Sedimentological 

and geotechnical studies should be included. 

3. Continued insular shelf studies for placer minerals and 

construction materials. 

Because active volcanism occurs along many of the 

Mariana Islands in areas subject to significant sedimentation, there is the potential for deposits of a number of 

nonliving resources, including oil, gas, Co, Ni, Cu, Au, 

Ag, Pt, Zn, phosphorites, and construction materials (table 

1 , fig. 1). The dynamic tectonic processes involved in all 

island-arc areas create numerous geohazards that need to be 

clearly identified, including faults and earthquake zones, 

volcanic centers, and areas subject to slope failures (fig. 2). 

Island settings are also prone to tsunamis, shoreline erosion, 

landslides, and volcanic ash falls. Research objectives 

needing to be addressed are: 

1. Gathering of adequate data to assess the sediment 

thickness, potential petroleum source rocks, and possible reservoirs within the fore-arc and along the 

arc-axis platform. 

2. Investigating the Mariana Trough, a probable site of 

hydrothermal venting, to determine the occurrence of 

polymetallic sulfide deposits. 

3. Exploring the flanks of older seamounts and guyots, 

which may be favorable sites for cobalt-rich crust 

deposits. 

4. Examining younger shallow seamounts for phosphorite 

and precious coral deposits. 

5. Exploring insular shelf areas for placers and construction materials. 

Workshop 5: Islands 93 
DEPTH 

Cl11et) 

10000 

20000 

30000 

BACK·ARC BASIN 

INTRA·ARC 

Island Arc Crust 

Figure 1. Potential resources associated with island arcs. 

Manganese 

Cobalt 

Nickel 

Platinum 

0 oo~"' 

r 00rAbyssal Manganese, Copper, 

Nickel NODULES 

Oceanic Crust 

DEPTH 

meters) 

5000 

10000 

DEPTH 

Ueet) 

/ Tsunamis, shoreline erosion, ground shaking, 

/' landslides, and volcanic ash falls. DEPTH 

mllers) 

ISLAND 

---------------------------------------------1-Sea 

10000 

20000 

30000 

BACK·ARC BASIN 

INTRA·ARC 

Figure 2. Geohazards of island arcs. 

Oceanic Islands 

Island Arc Crust 

As is apparent from the brief geological descriptions 

of these areas presented above, much remains to be learned 

about the geological histories of the Pacific oceanic islands 

and seamounts. Of these, only the Hawaiian Archipelago 

seems to have had a relatively straightforward tectonic 

history. As indicated in table 1 and figure 1 , the apparent 

nonliving resources in these areas consist of phosphorites, 

GUYOT Leve.l 

0') 

Oceanic Crust 

manganese crusts and nodules, and construction materials. 

The formation mechanisms for phosphorites and manganese • 

oxide deposits are not well known. Except for the Hawaiian 

and Johnston Island areas, very few resource data are 

available. 

Geohazards in these areas are essentially the same as 

those noted for island-arc areas (fig. 2), except that for 

many of these intraplate island areas the risks of potentially 

94 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
dangerous seismic activity are generally lower. The clearcut gaps in the data outlined above suggest the following 

research objectives: 

1. Assembling all existing magnetic and gravity data for 

the central Pacific to test the various tectonic theories 

of formation for the U.S. EEZ in this region. 

2. Conducting appropriate low-resolution mapping surveys in the areas with maximum resource potential 

where little or no regional reconnaissance has been 

performed to date. 

3. Performing high-resolution acoustic and sampling surveys in representative areas to test formation hypotheses for phosphorites and manganese oxide deposits. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Data and Information Sets 

Coastal Problems and Local Coordination 

Near-shore and shoreline processes are clearly of 

paramount importance to the economy, ecology, and social 

fabric of the local jurisdictions in the island EEZ areas. We 

recommend active coordination of research and data acquisition with local jurisdictions and experts on: (1) coastal 

erosion problems and processes; (2) sand and gravel 

resource inventory and development; (3) coral reef 

resources, including recreational considerations, conservation for shoreline protection, and management of deep-sea 

coral resources; and ( 4) geohazards. 

To facilitate these goals, educational training and 

development of island personnel through technical workshops and technology transfer programs are recommended. 

Reconnaissance Mapping.-We recommend the collection of reconnaissance-scale side-scan sonar imagery, 

bathymetry, subbottom seismic reflection profiles, and 

gravity plus magnetic-anomaly data for the entire sections 

not surveyed of the island EEZ areas. Some of the island 

regions, because of the high relief and scales of features, 

may require somewhat higher resolution imagery than that 

provided by a general reconnaissance mapping program. 

Detailed bathymetric surveys are considered particularly 

important. 

The regions of highest priority for this reconnaissance 

work are believed to be the Northern Mariana, Hawaiian, 

and Johnston Island EEZ areas. 

Release of NOAA Data.-We recommend that the 

bathymetric data, collected by NOAA with the Sea Beam 

system in the EEZ, be made available for resource evaluation work and survey design through an efficient and 

orderly procedure that recognizes the legitimate security 

considerations involved. 

Detailed Studies·.of Processes.-We recommend support for high-resolution mapping and sampling studies at 

specific sites to investigate basic processes relevant to 

island settings. Specific priorities for this kind of work 

include the following: 

1. Sediment Dynamics. Studies of sediment dynamics and 

geotechnical properties, particularly of carbonate sediments, which assess suspended and bedload transport, 

mass wasting, slumping, and so forth. An understanding of these processes is crucial to such concerns as 

shoreline erosion, navigation, recreation, coastal pollution, and cable and pipeline routing. Specific areas 

recommended for this work are north Puerto Rico, 

Hawaii, and Palmyra Island. 

2. Hydrogenetic Mineralization Processes on Seamounts. 

Studies of individual seamounts to assess the ferromanganese oxide and phosphate resources within the 

context of the existing geology, fine-scale topography, 

biology, and physical and chemical oceanography. 

Specific areas for this work should include Cross 

Seamount and the Johnston Island area. 

3. Hydrothermal Mineralization Processes. Studies in different tectonic regimes to examine the processes that 

lead to the formation of marine massive sulfide deposits and the geochemical and biological effects of the 

hydrothermal systems involved. Specific areas for this 

work should include sites in and near the Mariana 

Trough as well as the Loihi Seamount off the Island of 

Hawaii. 

4. Volcanic Island-Building Processes. Studies to examine the major constructional processes of volcanic 

islands, including hot-spot, island-arc, and poorly 

understood midplate volcanism, as well as associated 

destructional processes of mass wasting and erosion. 

Specific areas for this work should include Guam and 

the Mariana chain (for island-arc volcanism), Loihi 

(early-stage hot-spot construction), the Island of 

Hawaii (major constructional and destructional processes), and the Line Islands (midplate reactivation 

processes). 

Constraints to Acquiring These Data 

At present, funding is the principal constraint limiting 

data acquisition and interpretation. Adequate interpretation 

of the data and timely publication of the results should be a 

high priority. One approach to the possible reduction of this 

constraint is for the island governments to encourage 

cooperative programs with Federal agencies. The program 

could be framed around the local data or information needs 

and could include Federal training to permit direct participation by island residents in data collection and analysis. In 

this way the costs for high-priority work can more readily 

be shared and the processes of technology transfer can more 

effectively be implemented. 

Workshop 5: tslands' gs.· 
Consequences of Not Gathering the Data 

So little is known of the island EEZ' s that a rational 

and objective assessment of resources and geohazards is 

nearly impossible. The high potential for extensive strategic 

mineral deposits within U.S. EEZ seafloor areas requires a 

thorough and widespread investigation. In order for the 

island nations to make intelligent decisions regarding use of 

their seafloor, they need sufficient technical information. 

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 

Bruce M. Richmond, Co-chairperson 

Charles L. Morgan, Co-chairperson 

Bonnie A. McGregor, Steering Committee Representative 

J. Frisbee Campbell 

Margaret L. Cummisky 

Kyle R. Datta 

Eric H. De Carlo 

William P. Dillon 

Charles E. Harrington 

Barbara H. Keating 

Richard A. Legatski 

Yvonne Morehouse 

Narendra K. Saxena 

William C. Schwab 

Alexander Shor 

Anthony Syrett 

Harold R. Wanless 

SELECTED REFERENCES 

Beach, D.K., and Trumbull, J.V.A., 1981, Marine geologic map 

of the Puerto Rico insular shelf, Isla Caja de Muertos area: 

U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations 

Series Map 1-1265, 1:40,000, 1 sheet. 

Bouma, A.H., Normark, W.R., and Barnes, N.E., 1985, Submarine fans and related turbidite systems: New York, 

Springer-Verlag, 351 p. 

Bloom, A.L., Broeker, W.S., Chappell, J.M.A., Matthews, 

R.K., and Mesollela, K.J., 1974, Quaternary sea level 

fluctuations on a tectonic coast: Quaternary Research, v. 4, 

p. 185-205. 

Burke, K., Cooper, C., Dewey, J.F., Mann, P., and Pindell, J.L., 

1984, Caribbean tectonics and relative plate motions: Geological Society of America Memoir 162, p. 31-63. 

Burton, W.J., and others, 1982, Seafloor environments, north St. 

Croix margin and Virgin Islands Trough: NORDA report. 

Byrne, D.B, Suarez, G., and McCann, W.R., 1985, Muertos 

Trough subduction microplate tectonics on the northern 

Caribbean: Nature, v. 317, p. 420--421. 

Cacchione, D.A., Schwab, W.C., Nobel, M., and Tate, G.B., in 

press, Currents, temperature and sediment movement on 

Horizon Guyot, Mid-Pacific Mountains: Geo-Marine Letters. 

Case, J.E., 1975, Geophysical studies in the Caribbean Sea., in 

Nairn, A.E.M., and Stein, F.G., eds., The ocean basins 

and margins, v. 3, the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean: 

Plenum Press, p. 107-180. 

Chave, K.E., Morgan, C.L., and Green, W.J., 1986, A geochemical comparison of manganese oxide deposits of the 

Hawaiian Archipelago and the deep sea: Applied Geochemistry, v. 1, p. 233-240. 

Clague, D.A., 1981, Linear islands and seamount chains, aseismic ridges, and intraplate volcanism: Results from DSDP, 

in Warme, J.E., Douglas, R.G., and Winterer, E.L., The 

Deep Sea Drilling Project: A decade of progress: Society of 

Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication No. 32, p. 7-22. 

Clark, A.L., Humphrey, P., Johnson, C.J., and Pak, D.K., 1985, 

A resource assessment of cobalt-rich manganese crust 

potential within the Exclusive Economic Zones of U.S. 

trust and affiliated territories: Outer Continental Shelf 

Study, MMS--0006, Minerals Management Service. 

Commeau, R.F., Clark, A., Johnson, C., Manheim, F.T., Aruscavage, P.J., and Lane, C.M., 1984, Ferromanganese 

crust resources in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans: Proceedings of Oceans, September 10-12, p. 421--430. 

Cook, H.E., 1983, Introductory perspectives, basic carbonate 

principles, and stratigraphic and depositional models, in 

Cook, H.E., Hine, A.C., and Mullins, H.T., eds., Platform margin and deep water carbonates: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Lecture Notes for 

Short Course No. 12, p. 1-1-1-89. 

Cronan, D.S., 1967, The geochemistry of some manganese 

nodules and associated pelagic deposits: unpublished Ph.D. 

thesis, University of London. 

---1980, Underwater minerals: London, Academic Press, 

Chapter 5. 

Cullen, D.J., and Burnett, W.C., 1986, Phosphorite associations 

on seamounts in the tropical southwest Pacific Ocean: 

Marine Geology, v. 71, p. 215-236. 

Davis, A.S., Schwab, W.C., and Haggerty, J.A., 1986, Geochemistry and petrology of basaltic rocks from the Marshall 

Islands: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-273, 

23 p. 

Davis, A.S., Pringle, M.S., Pickthorn, L.B., Clague, D.A., and 

Schwab, W.C., 1987, Geochemistry, petrology, and age of 

alkalic lava from the Marshall Islands [ abs.]: Hawaii 

Symposium on How Volcanoes Work, January 19-25, 

1987, Hilo, Hawaii, p. 52. 

De Carlo, E.H., McMurtry, G.M., and Kim, K.H., 1987a, 

geochemistry of ferromanganese crusts from the Hawaiian 

Archipelago-!, Northern survey areas: Deep-Sea 

Research, v. 34, p. 441--467. 

De Carlo, E.H., Pennywell, P.A., and Fraley, C.M., 1987b, The 

geochemistry of the ferromanganese deposits from the 

Kiribati and Tuvalu region of the West Central Pacific 

Ocean: Marine Mining, v. 6, p. 301-321. 

Demars, K.R., and Chaney, R.C., 1980, Geotechnical properties, 

behavior, and performance of calcareous soils: ASTM, 

Special Technical Publication 777, 378 p. 

Dengler, A.T., Noda, E.K., Wilde, P., and Normark, W.R., 

1984, Slumping and related turbidity currents along the 

proposed OTEC cold-water-pipe route resulting from Hur96 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
ricane Iwa: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Offshore 

Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, p. 475-478. 

Dollar, S.J., 1979, Sand mining in Hawaii: University of Hawaii 

Sea Grant Program, SEAGRANT-TP-79-01, 106 p. 

---1984, Submersible investigations for the deep marine 

environment in the vicinity of French Frigate Shoals, 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: Final report to the State of 

Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Development, Ocean Resources Branch, Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Druffel, E.R.M., 1985, Detection of El Nino and decade time 

scale variations of sea surface temperature from banded 

coral records: Implications for the carbon dioxide cycle, in 

Sunquist, E.T., and Broecker, W.S., eds., The carbon 

cycle and atmospheric C02: Natural variations, Archaen to 

present: American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 32, p. 111-122. 

EEZ SCAN 85 Scientific Staff, 1987, Atlas of the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone, Gulf of Mexico and Eastern Caribbean: 

U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations 

Series Map 1-1864-B, scale 1:500,000, 58 p. 

Engebretson, D.C., Cox, A., and Gordon, R.G., 1985, Relative 

motions between oceanic and continental plates in the 

Pacific Basin: Geological Society of America Special Paper 

206, 59 p. 

Epp, D., 1978, Age and tectonic relationships among volcanic 

chains on the Pacific Plate: Ph.D. dissertation, University 

of Hawaii, Hawaii, 199 p. 

Futa, K., Peterman, Z.E., and Hein, J.R., 1987, Variation of Sr 

and Nd isotope ratios in Fe-Mn crusts in the central Pacific 

[abs.]: EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical 

Union, v. 68, no. 44, p. 449. 

Ginsberg, R.N., 1972, South Florida carbonates, reprint of the 

guidebook for field trip 1: Geological Society of America 

Annual Meeting, 1964, 71 p. 

Grove, K.A., 1983, Marine geologic map of the Puerto Rico 

insular shelf, northwestern area, Rio Grande de Anasco to 

Rio Camuy: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map 1-1418, scale 1:40,000, 1 sheet. 

Grove, K. A. , and Trumbill, J. V. A. , 1978, Surficial geologic 

maps and data on three potential offshore sand sources on 

the insular shelf of Puerto Rico: U.S. Geological Survey 

Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-10 17. 

Halbach, P., and Manheim, F.T., 1984, Potential of cobalt and 

other metals in ferromanganese crusts on seamounts of the 

Central Pacific Basin: Marine Mining, v. 4, p. 319-336. 

Halbach, P. , Hebisch, U. , and Scherhag, C. , 1981, Geochemical 

variation of ferromanganese nodules and crusts from different provinces of the Pacific Ocean and their genetic 

control: Chemical Geology, v. 34, p. 3-17. 

Halbach, P., Manheim, F.T., and Otten, P., 1982, Co-rich 

ferromanganese deposits in the marginal seamount regions 

of the Central Pacific Basin-results of the Midpac '81: 

Erzmetall, v. 6, no. 9, p. 447-453. 

Halbach, P., Segl, P.M., Puteanus, D., and Mangini, A., 1983, 

Co-fluxes and growth rates in ferromanganese deposits 

from Central Pacific seamount areas: Nature, v. 304, p. 

716-719. 

Halbach, P., Puteanus, D., and Manheim, F.T., 1984, Platinum 

concentrations in ferromanganese seamount crusts from the 

Central Pacific: Naturwissenschaften, v. 71, p. 577-579. 

Hawkins, J., presider, 1987, ALVIN studies of the Mariana and 

Bonin backarc basins I and II: EOS, Transactions of the 

American Geophysical Union, v. 68, no. 44, p. 

1530-1534. 

Haynes, B.W., and Magyar, M.J., 1987, Analysis and metallurgy 

of manganese nodules and crusts, in Teleki, P.G., and 

others, eds., Marine minerals: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, D. Reidel Publishing Company, p. 235-246. 

Haynes, B.W., Magyar, M.J., and Godoy, F.E., 1987, Extractive 

metallurgy of ferromanganese crusts from the Necker Ridge 

area, Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone: Marine Mining, 

V. 6, p. 23-26. 

Hein, J.R., 1984, The formation of ferromanganese crusts on 

seamounts [abs.]: 75th Meeting of Geologishe Vereinigung-Geology of the Oceans, Kiel, Germany, Terra 

Cognita, v. 5, no. 1, p. 64-65. 

Hein, J.R., and Manheim, F.T., 1985, Cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts in the oceans, in Krafft, K., ed.: U.S.G.S. 

research on mineral resources, 1985-program and 

abstracts: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 949, p. 23-24. 

Hein, J.R., Manheim, F.T., Schwab, W.C., and Davis, A.S., 

1985a, Ferromanganese crusts from Necker Ridge, Horizon 

Guyot, and S.P. Lee Guyot, Geological considerations: 

Marine Geology, v. 69, no. 112, p. 25-54. 

Hein, J.R., Manheim, F.T., Schwab, W.C., Davis, A.S., Daniel, 

C.L., Bouse, R., Morgenson, L.A., Sliney, R.E., Clague, 

D., Tate, G.B., and Cachione, D.A., 1985b, Geologic and 

geochemical data for seamounts and associated ferromanganese crusts in and near the Hawaiian, Johnston 

Island, and Palmyra Island Exclusive Economic Zones: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 85-292, 129 p. 

Hein, J.R., Manheim, F.T., Schwab, W.C., and Clague, D.A., 

1986a, Cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts from the Central 

Pacific [abs.]: Fourth Circum-Pacific Energy and Mineral 

Resources Conference, Singapore, p. 24. 

Hein, J.R., Manheim, F.T., Schwab, W.C., and Clague, D.A., 

1986b, Cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts from the Central 

Pacific: Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Richardson, Texas, OTC 5234, p. 119-126. 

Hein, J.R., Fleishman, L.A., Morgenson, L.A., Bloomer, S.J., 

and Stem, R.J., 1987, Submarine ferromanganese deposits 

from the Mariana and Volcano Volcanic Arcs, West 

Pacific: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 87-281, 

67 p. 

Hein J.R., Morgenson, L.A., Clague, D.A., and Koski, R.A., in 

press a, Cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts from the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States and nodules from 

the oceanic Pacific, in Scholl, D.W., Grantz, A., and 

Vedder, J. G. , eds. , Geology and resource potential of the 

continental margin of western North American and adjacent 

ocean basins-Beaufort Sea and Baja California: CircumPacific Council for Energy and Mineral Resources, Earth 

Science Series, v. 7, Houston, Texas. 

Hein, J.R., Schwab, W.C., and Davis, A.S., in press b, Cobaltand platinum-rich ferromanganese crusts and associated 

substrate rocks from the Marshall Islands: Marine Geology. 

Helsley, C.E., Keating, B., De Carlo, E., McMurtry, G., Pringle, 

M., Campbell, F., Kroenke, L., and Jarvis, P., 1985, 

Resource assessment of cobalt rich crusts within the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone: unpublished final report to 

Workshop 5: Islands 97 
the Office of Strategic and International Minerals, Minerals 

Management Service, Cooperative Agreement No. 

14-12--001-30177. 

Hirt, W.C., Foot, D.G., Jr., and Shirts, M.B., 1987, Beneficiation of cobalt-rich manganese crust: Salt Lake City 

Research Center, Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Salt Lake City, Utah, presented at the Underwater 

Mining Institute, Newport, Oregon, October 4-7. 

Holmes, C.W., 1978, Virgin Islands sand resource study: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 78-919, 49 p. 

Hubbard, O.K., Miller, J.L., Gill, I.P., and Dill, R.F., 1981, The 

production, transportation, and deposition of carbonate 

sediments on the insular shelf of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin 

Islands, West Indies Laboratory: Fairleigh Dickinson University, Technical Report MG-1, 145 p. 

Imamura, C.K., 1987, The mid-Pacific challenge-some thoughts 

on the role of surveying and mapping: American Congress 

on Surveying and Mapping, Fall Reconvened Session, 

October 13. 

Imbrie, J., in press, Scientific goals of an ocean drilling program 

designed to investigate changes in the global environment: 

Geological Society of America Bulletin (COSOD II Working Group on Global Environmental Changes). 

Jarrard, R.D., and Clague, D.A., 1977, Implications of Pacific 

island and seamount ages for the origin of volcanic chains: 

Reviews of Geophysical and Space Physics, v. 15, no. 1, p. 

57-76. 

~ohnson, C.J., Clark, A.L., Otto, J.M., Pak, O.K., and Johnson, 

K. T .M., 1987, Resource assessment, in Marine Development Associates, Inc., ed., Mining development scenario 

for cobalt-rich manganese crusts in the Exclusive Economic 

Zones of the Hawaiian Archipelago and Johnston Island: 

Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Development, Ocean Resources Branch Contribution No. 38, 

Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Jordan, C., 1978, Sedimentary processes: Carbonate sedimentology: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, reprint series, no. 5, 235 p. 

Jumars, P.A., Newell, A.R.M., and Self, R.F.L., 1981, A simple 

model of flow-sediment-organism interaction, in Nittrouer, 

A., ed., Sedimentary dynamics of continental shelves, 

developments in sedimentology: Amsterdam, Elsevier, v. 

32, p. 155-172. 

Karl, H.A., Carlson, P.R., and Cacchione, D.A., 1983, Factors 

that influence sediment transport at the shelfbreak, in 

Stanley, D.J., and Moore, G.T., eds., The shelfbreak: A 

critical interface on continental margins: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication No. 33, p. 219-231. 

Kayen, R.E., Lee, H.J., and Schwab, W.C., 1986, Geotechnical 

characterization and slope stability analysis of sediment on 

Horizon Guyot, Mid-Pacific Mountains [abs.]: EOS, 

Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 67, 

no. 44, p. 1002. 

Keating, B.H., in press, Reactivation of the Line Island seamount 

chain: Journal of Geophysical Research. 

---1987, Summary of radiometric ages from the Pacific: 

Inter-Government Oceanographic Commission on Technology Series, Paris, France, UNESCO, p. 1-67. 

Kennett, J.P., 1982, Marine geology: Englewood Cliffs, New 

Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 813 p. 

Koski, R.A., in press, Ferromanganese deposits from the Gulf of 

Alaska seamount province: Mineralogy, chemistry, and 

origin: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. 

Koski, R.A., Hein, J.R., Bouse, R.M., and Sliney, R.E., 1985, 

Composition and origin of ferromanganese crust from 

Tonga Platform, southwest Pacific, in Scholl, D.W., and 

Tallier, T.L., eds., Geology and offshore resources of 

Pacific Island arcs-Tonga region: Circum-Pacific Council 

for Energy and Mineral Resources Earth Science Series, v. 

2, Houston, Texas, p. 179-186. 

Ladd, J.W., Worzel, J.L., and Watkins, J.S., 1977, Multifold 

seismic reflection records from the Northern Venezuela 

Basin and the north slope of Muertos Trough, in Talwani, 

M., and Pitman, W.C., eds., Island arcs, deep-sea trenches 

and back-arc basins: American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., p. 41-56. 

Lane, C.M., Manheim, F.T., Hathaway, J.C., and Ling, T.H., 

1986, Station maps of the world ocean-ferromanganesecrust data base: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous 

Field Studies Map MF-1869, scale 1:30,000,000. 

Lee, H .J., 1985, State-of-the-art: Laboratory determination of the 

strength of marine soils, in Chaney, R.C., and Demars, 

K.R., eds., Strength testing of marine sediment: Laboratory and in-situ measurements: American Society for Testing and Materials, STP 883, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, p. 

181-250. 

Malahoff, A., McMurtry, G.L., Wiltshire, J.C., and Yeh, H., 

1982, Geology and chemistry of hydrothermal deposits 

from active submarine volcano Loihi, Hawaii: Nature, v. 

298, p. 234-239. 

Malahoff, A., Grigg, R., Vonderhaar, D., Kelly, K., and Arquit, 

A., 1985, Mass wasting and manganese crust growth on 

Cross Seamount, Hawaii: EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 66, no. 46, p. 1083-1084. 

Manheim, F.T., 1986, Marine cobalt resources: Science, v. 232, 

p. 600-618. 

Manheim, F.T., and Hein, J.R., 1986, Ferromanganese crusts, in 

Lockwood, M., and Hill, G., eds., Proceedings of the 

Exclusive Economic Zone Symposium: Exploring the New 

Ocean Frontier, October 2-3, 1985: Rockville, Maryland, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, p. 79-95. 

Manheim, F.T., Ling, T.H., and Lane, C.M., 1983, An extensive 

data base for cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts from the 

world oceans: Proceedings of Oceans, August 

29-September 1, p. 828-831. 

Mann, P., and Burke, K., 1984, Neotectonics of the Caribbean: 

Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, v. 22, p. 

309-362. 

Masson, D.G., and Scanlon, K.M., in press, The regional tectonic 

setting of Puerto Rico: Geological Society of America 

Bulletin. 

Mauffret, A., Jany, B.M., Lepinay, P., Bouysse, P., Mascle, A., 

Renard, V., and Stephan, J.F., 1986, Seabeam survey of 

the Virgin Island Basin (eastern tip of the Greater Antilles): 

Extension and wrench tectonics: Paris, C.R. Acad. Scr., 

Series II, p. 923-928. 

98 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Meyerhoff, A.A., Krieg, E.A., Cloos, J.D., and Taner, 1., 1983, 

Petroleum potential of Puerto Rico: Oil and Gas Journal, v. 

81, no. 51, p. 113-120. 

Middleton, G.U., and Hampton, M.A., 1976, Subaqueous sediment transport and deposition by sediment gravity flows, in 

Stanley, D.J., and Swift, D.J.P., eds., Marine sediment 

transport and environmental management: Wiley & Sons, 

p. 197-218. 

Milliman, J.D., 1974, Marine carbonates: Springer-Verlag, 375 p. 

Molnar, P., and Sykes, L.R., 1969, Tectonics of the Caribbean 

and Middle America regions from focal mechanisms and 

seismicity: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 80, 

p. 1639-1670. 

Morgan, W.J., 1972, Deep mantle convection plumes and plate 

motions: Bulletin of American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists, v. 56, p. 203-213. 

Mullineaux, L. S., 1987, Organisms living on manganese nodules 

and crusts: Distribution and abundance at three North 

Pacific sites: Deep-Sea Research, v. 34, p. 165-184. 

Nardin, T.R., Hein, F.J., Gorsline, D.S., and Edwards, B.D., 

1979, A review of mass movement processes, sediment and 

acoustic characteristics, and contrasts in slope and base-ofslope systems versus canyon-fan-basin floor systems, in 

Doyle, L.J., and Pilkey, O.H., Jr., eds., Geology of 

continental slopes: Society of Economic Paleontologists 

and Mineralogists Special Publication 27, p. 61-76. 

Nobel, M., Cacchione, D.A., and Schwab, W.C., in press, 

Observations of strong mid-Pacific internal tides above 

Horizon Guyot: Journal of Physical Oceanography. 

Pilkey, O.H., Trumbull, J.V.A., and Bush, D.M., 1978, Equilibrium shelf sedimentation, Rio de la Plata shelf, Puerto 

Rico: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 48, p. 389-400. 

Pilkey, O.H., Bush, D.M., and Rodriguez, R.W., 1984, Storm 

sedimentation: North shelf of Puerto Rico: Proceedings of 

Korea-U.S. Workshop on Marine Geology and Physical 

Processes of the Yellow Sea, Seoul, Korea, 19-23 June 

1984, p. 235-252. 

Rhodes, D.C., 1974, Organism-sediment relations on a muddy sea 

floor: Oceanography, Marine Biological Review, v. 12, p. 

263-300. 

Ritchey, J .L., in press, Assessment of cobalt-rich manganese crust 

resources on Horizon and S.P. Lee Guyot, U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone: Marine Mining, v. 6. 

Rodriguez, A., 1981, Marine and coastal environmental stress in 

the wider Caribbean region: Ambio, v. 10, no. 6, p. 

283-294. 

Rodriguez, R.W., 1984, Submerged sand resources of Puerto 

Rico: Highlights in marine research: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 938, p. 57-63. 

Rodriguez, R.W., Trumbull, J.V.A., and Dillon, W.P., 1977, 

Marine geologic map of Isla de Mona area, Puerto Rico: 

U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations 

Series Map 1-1063, scale 1:40,000, 1 sheet. 

Sager, W. W., and Keating, B. H., 1984, Paleomagnetism of Line 

Islands seamounts: Evidence for Late Cretaceous and early 

Tertiary volcanism: Journal of Geophysical Research, B13, 

11, 135-11,151. 

Sangrey, D .A., 1977, Marine geotechnology-state-of-the-art: 

Marine Geotechnology, v. 2, p. 45-80. 

Schneidermann, N., Pilkey, P.H., and Saunders, C., 1976, 

Sedimentation of the Puerto Rico insular shelf: Journal of 

Sedimentary Petrology, v. 46, p. 167-173. 

Schwab, W.C., ed., 1986, Sedimentological study of Horizon 

Guyot, mid-Pacific mountains (Johnston I. EEZ): U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-433, 137 p. 

Schwab, W.C., and Bailey, N.G., 1985, High-resolution seismicreflection data collected on RIV S .P. Lee: L9-84-CP, 

Marshall Islands to Hawaii: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 85-24, 6 p. 

Schwab, W.C., and Lee, J.H., 1983, Geotechnical analysis of 

submarine landslides in glacial-marine sediment, northeast 

Gulf of Alaska, in Molnia, B.F., ed., Glacial-marine 

sedimentation: Plenum Press, p. 145-184. 

Schwab, W.C., Davis, A., Haggerty, J., Ling, T., and Commeau, 

J., 1985, Geologic reconnaissance and geochemical analysis of ferromanganese crusts of the Ratak Chain, Marshall 

Islands: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 85-18, 

10 p. 

Schwab, W.C., Hein, J.R., Davis, A.S., Morgenson, L.A., 

Daniel, C.L., and Hagerty, J.A., 1986, Geological and 

geochemical data for seamounts and associated ferromanganese crusts in the Ratak Chain, Marshall Islands: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-338, 36 p. 

Schwab, W.C., Lee, H.J., Kayen, R.E., Quinterno, P.J., and 

Tate, G.B., in press, Erosion and slope instability on 

Horizon Guyot, Mid-Pacific Mountains: Geo-Marine Letters. 

Sellwood, B.W., 1978, Shallow-watercarbonateenvironments, in 

Reading, J.G., ed., Sedimentary environments and facies: 

Elsevier, p. 259-313. 

Stanley, D.J., and Moore, G.T., 1983, The shelfbreak: Critical 

interface continental margins: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication No. 33, 

467 p. 

Sykes, L.R., McCann, W.R., and Kafka, A.L., 1982, Motion of 

Caribbean plate during last 7 million years and implications 

for earlier Cenozoic movements: Journal of Geophysical 

Research, v. 87, p. 10656-10676. 

U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 1987a, Integrated renewable resource management for U.S. Insular 

Areas: OTA-F-325, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government 

Printing Office, June 1987. 

---1987b, Marine minerals: Exploring our new ocean frontier: 

OTA-0-342, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1987. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

1987, Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Proposed 

marine mineral lease sale in the Hawaiian Archipelago and 

Johnston Island Exclusive Economic Zones: Honolulu, 

Hawaii, Department of Planning and Economic Development. 

Valent, P.J., 1979, Engineering behavior of two deep ocean 

calcareous sediments, including influence on the performance of the propellant driven anchor: Ph.D. dissertation, 

Purdue University, 343 p. 

Wilde, P., Chase, T.E., Normark, W.R., Thomas, J.A., and 

Young, J.D., 1980, Oceanographic data off the Southern 

Hawaiian Islands: LBL Pub. 359, Lawrence Berkeley 

Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley. 

Workshop 5: Islands 99 
Wilde, P., Chase, T.E., Normark, W.R., Miller, C.P., Seekins, 

B.A., and Young, J.D., 1981, Oceanographic data off 

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands: LBL Publication No. 

360, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley. 

Yeh, H.,-W., Hein, J.R., and Koski, R.A., 1985, Stable-isotope 

study of volcanogenic- and sedimentary-manganese deposits: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 85-622, 16 

p. 

100 Proceedings, 1.987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Workshop 6: Technology Needs to Characterize the EEZ 

Panel Co-chairpersons: 

Robert C. Tyee, University of Rhode Island 

Donald E. Pryor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

INTRODUCTION 

Current technology, in many respects, shapes the 

view that we have of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 

and its potential. Indeed, much of the present interest in the 

EEZ is due to the fact that technology now makes it more 

practical than ever before to explore and exploit offshore 

areas. However, substantial improvements are both possible 

and necessary. Technology, and the strategy with which it 

is employed, will determine the pace and cost of exploration 

of the EEZ. The risk of exploitation of the EEZ will be, in 

large part, a reflection of gaps in technology or its application. 

Many of the present exploration activities use modern 

technology in an optimal manner, but others do not. 

Order-of-magnitude improvements in the state of the art 

seem possible both in the technology for acquiring data and 

in the technology for managing and analyzing data. In most 

cases, the improvements can be realized through systematic 

development in a 10-year plan and do not require technological breakthroughs. 

This symposium is aimed at providing a basis for 

such a 10-year plan. The overall goal of this plan, as stated 

in the Guidance for 1987 EEZ Symposium Workshops (see 

appendix 3), is to "describe the framework and understand 

the processes . . . which interact at and within the seabed 

and subsoil of the EEZ and that contribute to the development of the continental margins and the formation of 

various non-living marine resources on and within the 

seafloor." Specific objectives include: 

1. Identify marine energy, mineral, and other nonliving 

resources, 

2. Understand geohazards, basin evolution, and geomorphic and sedimentological processes, 

3. Develop baseline information that would allow activities involving use of the seafloor or subsoil to be 

carried out in an efficient manner. 

Other workshops at this symposium are to define the 

data needs that are implied by that goal and those objectives. These data specifications will be important in directing technology development. They are difficult to specify 

precisely, in part because of the inherent nature of exploration. During this exploratory phase, technological possibilities will have to be examined and matched with evolving 

perceptions of data needs. 

PRESENT STATUS OF TECHNOLOGY 

Seafloor Mapping 

Bathymetry and Acoustic Imaging 

Seafloor mapping is the initial activity in virtually any 

exploration strategy. For the past 60 years, the primary 

technique has been the use of acoustic echo sounders. 

Substantial areas of the U.S. EEZ (especially off Alaska 

and around the Pacific Islands) still have not been covered 

with any modern technology. Most areas have been covered 

only with single-beam echo sounders run on relatively 

widely spaced lines. In shallow water, survey lines have 

been closer, positioning more accurate, and effects of finite 

beam width less troublesome. Generally, in depths less than 

50 m, existing data are sufficient to define seabed morphology over spatial scales down to 50 or 100 m. Off the 

continental shelf, accuracy and sounding density decrease 

and information on scales shorter than several kilometers is 

rarely available. 

Present practice in shallow water continues to be the 

use of single-beam sounders, but often supplemented with 

side-scan sonar. Side-scan systems provide reflectivity 

images rather than quantitative depth information. They can 

provide area coverage over swaths of several hundred 

meters with resolution of less than a meter. Shallow-water 

systems are relatively inexpensive and can be operated from 

small boats. 

Deepwater systems are larger, more expensive, and 

usually operated from large ships (Tyee, 1986). During the 

past decade, multibeam echo sounders have come into use 

for deepwater surveying. The best known of these systems, 

Sea Beam, covers a swath of0.8 times the water depth with 

a resolution of 5 percent of the water depth. In 4,000 m of 

water, the swath width is more than 3 km and the spatial 

resolution across track is about 200 m. Recently, a number 

Workshop 6: Technology Needs to Characterize the EEZ 101 
of competitive systems have been introduced ( deMoustier, 

in press). The GLORIA, a long range side-scan sonar, is 

also being used to map the deepwater portions of the EEZ. 

The system can cover swaths of 45 km with a resolution of 

100 m. For higher resolution in deep water, it is necessary 

to tow equipment near the bottom. Deep-tow and SeaMARC I are examples of this type of system. They provide 

resolution of the order of a few meters, over swaths from 2 

to 5 km. Tow speeds, however, are limited to 1 to 2 knots. 

The goals of development of new technology for 

seafloor mapping are improvements in resolution and area 

coverage rate (Andreasen and Pryor, in press). For shallowwater application, several airborne systems offer significant 

improvements. Laser "sounding" systems have reached 

operational status in Canada and Australia. In water depths 

of up to 35 m, these systems will provide resolution of the 

order of 10m over swaths of 250m at speeds of 120 knots. 

A U.S. Navy system, nearing completion, will combine a 

laser "sounder" with a multispectral scanner to provide 

coverage over a 700-m swath with 1-m pixels. A third type 

of airborne sensor uses very low-frequency electromagnetic 

fields. The approach has been demonstrated but it is still 

experimental. Resolution is not likely to be better than 30 

m, and the swath width is limited to the footprint size, but 

the system can operate through ice cover and can provide 

information on bottom conductivity along with the depth 

measurements. 

Interferometric side-scan sonar offers promise for 

application over a wide range of depths (Andreasen and 

Pryor, in press). This technique is similar to conventional 

side-scan systems but uses a second receiver so that the 

direction of echo arrival can be determined. Thus, it is 

capable of providing quantitative depth data over the same 

swath that a conventional side-scan image is obtained. The 

SeaMARC II system demonstrated the value of this combination in deepwater operation (Blackinton and others, 

1983; Davis, 1986). It can cover a swath of up to 10 km 

with 10-m resolution. For intermediate water depths, the 

SeaMARC/S system can cover swaths of up to 1 km with 

0.5-m resolution. In depths less than 60 m, the Bathyscan 

system can cover 200-m swaths with 0.5-m resolution. 

These systems have an advantage over alternatives in area 

coverage rate and resolution. Further improvements in 

accuracy and data processing techniques will make them 

fully competitive with alternatives. The technique works 

best over the same range of angles as conventional side-scan 

systems and may be combined with single or multibeam 

echo sounders to provide coverage near the vertical. SeaBeam systems have also been modified to provide image 

output similar to a side-scan system ( deMoustier, 1986). 

This modification improves its effective resolution and 

provides information on the bottom composition through 

acoustic reflectivity. 

Numerous other techniques have demonstrated promise in experiments. Included among these are multibeam 

side-scan sonar (in which multiple, parallel beams are 

formed to improve the effective resolution), synthetic aperture sonar, and acoustic holography. Image processing 

techniques are commonly applied to side-scan data 

(Chavez, 1986). Textural analysis can be used to classify 

bottom types and pattern recognition can aid in locating 

objects. Statistics of the amplitude of Sea Beam echoes have 

been demonstrated to be correlated with the abundance of 

manganese nodules ( deMoustier, 1985). Quantitative analysis of backscatter imagery, particularly from multiple 

frequency systems, may support the type of resource 

assessment that is possible on land by use of satellite remote 

sensing. 

Optical Imaging 

Optical imaging is an important tool in mapping the 

seafloor at specific sites. Still photography provides the 

greatest resolution. Ranges of 30 to 50 m in clear water are 

possible, although 10 m or less is most common. Stereo 

photography was used in the HEBBLE project and several 

other studies to provide quantitative measurement of seafloor microtopography over scales from centimeters to 

meters (Akal, 1984). 

Video systems have been developed to provide continuous records of submersible dives and to act as "eyes" to 

navigate towed, remotely operated vehicles (ROV's). It is 

now possible to obtain coverage of substantial areas. The 

video system on the ARGO uses low-light-level, siliconintensified target cameras rated at ISO 200,000 (Harris, 

1986). It can cover a 56-m-wide swath at an altitude of 35 

m above the bottom and resolve features of the order of 

centimeters. The JASON vehicle, being built to accompany 

ARGO, is planned to have stereo color television "eyes." 

Fiber optics seem to offer the improvements in usable 

cable bandwidth that will be needed to implement this. 

Image processing and pattern recognition techniques have 

application to optical imagery just as they do to acoustical 

imagery. 

Subseafloor Mapping 

Magnetics 

Magnetic data provide an indication of subsurface 

structure and are also important as an indicator of the age 

and evolution of the seafloor. Coarsely spaced lines of data 

(greater than 20 km) were adequate to play an important 

role in confirming the theory of seafloor spreading. 

Recently the scale of studies has focused down to smaller 

regions, and more detailed data (less than 5 km line 

spacing) have been sought for use with two- and threedimensional analysis techniques (K.D. Klitgord, unpub. 

data, 1987). Total field measurements, done with proton 

precession magnetometers, are normal practice. Gradio102 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
meter techniques, which would eliminate some of the 

eff~cts of temporal variation and improve sensitivity to 

clo~er magnetic sources, have recently been developed. 

M4.GSAT has provided worldwide coverage. Regional 

suzyeys, with greater resolution and accuracy, are often 

dol)e from aircraft. Surveys from surface ships, combining 

magnetic observations with bathymetric, gravity, and 

single-channel seismic measurements, are often done by 

academic vessels. Combining high-resolution bathymetric 

data with magnetic data permits inversion of the observed 

fields to infer source magnetization (Miller and Hey, 1986). 

Th¢ best resolution of surficial spatial variations in rock 

types and magnetization is based on data from sensors on 

deep-towed vehicles or submersibles. I 

Gr.vity I 

! Gravity data provide an indication of intermediate to 

dedp seafloor structure (Marcia McNutt, unpub. data, 

19~7). At long wavelengths, it has been used to characterize 

thej state of isostatic compensation and, thus, define tectonic 

models. At shorter wavelengths, it has proven useful in 

de~ining salt domes and sedimentary infill for oil and gas 

exploration as well as magmatic processes at spreading 

centers. SEASAT provided worldwide coverage accurate to 

6 ~gals and was able to resolve wavelengths of 100 to 200 

krn. Accuracy, but not resolution, will be improved by the 

ad4ition of unclassified data from GEOSA T, and data from 

the! planned TOPEX and proposed Geopotential Research 

Mission (GRM) (National Research Council, 1985). Shipboard gravimeters are accurate to 2 to 8 mgals with 

resplution to 2 or 3 km. Accuracy is very dependent on 

navigational errors, which affect the Eotvos correction. 

Terrain corrections are best made when data are taken 

simultaneously with swath bathymetric measurements. 

Ov~r 50 percent of the power in the gravity spectrum at 

wa!Velengths less than a few hundred kilometers is due to 

ba~ymetry. Airborne gravimetric measurements have 

rec~ntly evolved to near the same quality as shipboard 

me~surements. Gravity gradiometer equipment is under 

development for all platforms from spacecraft to surface 

ships and submarines. Ocean bottom gravimeters have been 

routinely used on the continental shelf. Current developments are pushing toward full ocean depth capability and 

10 tf,Lgal accuracy. For long -term geodynamic observations, a 

1-U,gal instrument can be considered to be sensitive to a 40-mm 

displacement of the seafloor (Marcia McNutt, unpub. data, 

19$7). 

Sirygle-Channel Seismic Profiling 

Seismic techniques are the primary geophysical methods for acquiring information about geological structure and I 

stratigraphy. Single-channel techniques suffice for most 

shAllow penetration requirements. The depth of penetration 

inoreases with the power and decreases with the frequency 

of the sound source. Resolution improves as the frequency 

increases. Subbottom profilers (typically 3.5 kHz) provide 

the highest resolution and typically penetrate the uppermost 

20 to 30m of strata (Trabant, 1984). Boomer systems use 

frequencies down to 400 Hz and penetrate to approximately 

40 m. Sparkers extend the frequency range down to 40Hz, 

increase the power to 10 kJ (15 bar-meters), and penetrate 

to 500 m. Air guns and water guns can generate frequencies 

down to 20 Hz and penetrate to 1 ,500 m. Explosives can 

also be used as sources. The natural seismicity of the 

Earth-earthquakes and microearthquakes-can also act as 

sources for seismic analysis. 

To improve horizontal resolution and penetration, 

subbottom profilers are often towed near the bottom in deep 

water. Nonlinear or parametric acoustics are also used in 

subbottom profilers on surface ships in order to improve 

horizontal resolution by forming narrow beams without 

sidelobes. Often, only rudimentary processing is done with 

analog circuitry and recorders. Deeper penetration systems 

often employ digital processing techniques, such as deconvolution, in order to improve vertical resolution. Multiple 

frequency operation is practical with shallow penetration 

systems. Quantitative analysis of backscatter from multiple 

frequencies can indicate the presence of resource deposits. 

The frequency dependence of backscattering from manganese nodule fields is different from that of nodule-free 

regions (Spiess, 1987). The Multiple Frequency Exploration System (MFES), built by Sumitomo, was judged 

effective in the search for manganese nodules (Porta, 1983). 

Refraction and wide-angle reflection techniques can also be 

accomplished with single-channel equipment. A separate 

ship or a sonobuoy is used as a receiver. These techniques 

are useful to determine subbottom velocity information. 

Ocean bottom seismometers (OBS's) also are used as 

receivers for seismic work. Seismic tomography experiments have been conducted by using arrays of bottom 

instruments and explosive sources imbedded in the ocean 

floor (Thurber and Aki, 1987). 

Multichannel Seismics 

Multichannel seismic surveys became standard industrial practice during the 1970's. The essential goal of adding 

channels is to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the 

seismic image. The present practice is to use streamers up to 

5 or 6 km long, with 240 or 480 hydrophone channels, 

arranged into 25-m sections (NORPO, 1986). The signals 

are sampled at intervals of 1, 2, or 4 milliseconds for up to 

10 to 15 seconds after the initial echo. The most effective 

sources are arrays of five to seven air guns displacing a total 

of approximately 10,000 in3 at 2,000 psi. This generates a 

relatively flat spectrum from 5 to 125 Hz. Threedimensional (3-D) analysis is a recent innovation, but, for 

some companies already, the majority of survey work is in 

support of such analysis (Clark, 1987). To acquire data 

Workshop 6: Technology Needs to Characterize the EEZ 103 
for this type of analysis, survey lines are set very close 

together, from 25 to 100 m apart. The efficiency of data 

acquisition can be increased by towing two streamers rigged 

from booms at the desired separation. This type of work is 

expensive (approximately $1,000 per km (OTA, 1987)) and 

requires specially outfitted vessels. 

Equipment must be tuned to the particular application. Oil and gas exploration requires optimizing the resolution, whereas deep crustal studies require maximum 

penetration (EDGE, 1986). Two-ship techniques have been 

developed to improve deep seismic images. In two-ship, 

wide-aperture profiling, the second ship, towing its own 

streamer, follows behind the streamer of the source ship. 

This process increases the effective streamer length. In 

expanded spread profiling, the source ship and the receiving 

ship steam apart. This separation provides better information on velocity structure than single-channel, wide-angle 

reflection or refraction operations. 

Electrical Techniques 

Electrical techniques have been used successfully on 

land for mineral exploration. Adaptation to ocean use is still 

in experimental stages (Francis, 1987; OTA, 1987). The 

high conductivity of seawater limits ranges and inverts the 

normal contrast found on land. The techniques have shown 

good potential particularly in searching for placer and 

sulfide ore deposits. 

Both frequency and time-domain electromagnetic 

techniques have been demonstrated. One coil is used to 

generate a field and a second to sense the field that results. 

An airborne system, also used for bathymetric measurements, is capable of mapping bottom conductivity variations in depths of up to 20 or 30m (Won and Smits, 1985). 

A towed version, designed at Scripps, used a silver-silver 

chloride transmitting antenna and a series of horizontal 

electric field receivers placed on the seafloor at ranges of 1 

to 70 km from the transmitter. The transmitter must be in 

contact with the seafloor and tow speeds are limited to 1 to 

2 knots. Development is proceeding on a system in which 

the transmitter and receiver can be towed in tandem along 

the bottom. The MOSES experiment (Francis, 1987) used a 

vertical electric dipole extending from the surface to the 

seafloor and an ocean-bottom magnetometer as the receiver. 

By towing the transmitter, the researchers were able to map 

the sediment thickness and the underlying basalt resistivity, 

thickness, and porosity. 

The first DC resistivity measurements on an oceanfloor sulfide deposit were reported by Francis in 1985. A 

Wenner array with 10-m spacing between electrodes was 

deployed from a submersible. Pillow basalts were found to 

be 40 times as resistive as seawater. Where sulfide was 

exposed, the resistivity was one to two orders of magnitude 

less. At one point the seabed was almost twice as conductive as the overlying seawater (Francis, 1987). 

The self potential (or spontaneous polarization) technique has been considered for marine use but has demonstrated only limited success. The induced polarization (IP) 

technique has shown some promising preliminary results 

and is being developed by the USGS as a reconnaissance 

tool to aid in the search for offshore titanium placers. Two 

electrodes introduce current into the ground and cause ions 

to move from the surrounding electrolyte onto local 

mineral-grain interfaces and be absorbed there. When the 

field is turned off, two other electrodes sense the finite 

decay time as these ions bleed back into the electrolyte. The 

USGS system uses electrodes spaced 10 m apart, and is 

towed 1 to 2 m off the bottom. Anomalies were detected 

that are thought to be related to concentrations of ilmenite in 

the seabed (OTA, 1987). 

Seafloor Sampling and Sample Analysis 

Free-fall grab sampling is the simplest and least 

expensive sampling technique. It is only effective in obtaining surficial sediment samples but still provides much 

useful preliminary information, especially when equipped 

with a mounted still camera. Chain bag and box dredges 

permit a better assessment of surface mineral deposits. With 

improvements these may provide adequate sampling of hard 

deposits such as cobalt crusts (Schmidt and others, 1987). 

Although these techniques are not expensive in shallow 

water, they present considerable costs in deeper water 

where each sample or dredge haul may take 3 to 4 hours. 

ROV's may prove economical in sampling, particularly where a dense grid (200-m spacing) is needed to define 

a deposit. RUM III is an example of a seafloor tractorlike 

vehicle designed for sampling. Any ROV will be limited in 

the volume of sample it can return to the surface. In-situ 

analysis techniques could alleviate this. The Continuous 

Seafloor Sediment Sampler, developed at the University of 

Georgia, provided some of this sort of capability (Duane, 

1987). A sled, towed along the seafloor at 3 knots, agitated 

surficial sediments that were then pumped to the surface as 

a slurry. At the surface the sediments were collected on 

filters and an X-ray fluorescence unit was used to analyze 

the samples. Naturally emitted gamma radiation can also be 

detected to indicate the presence of minerals such as 

phosphorite, monazite, and zircon. Kunzendorf (1987) 

reviewed geochemical methods used in manganese nodule 

exploration and efforts at devising in-situ sensors to perform 

such analyses. Indirect methods involving contact or nearcontact with the bottom material have also been proposed. 

For instance, short-range acoustic techniques may be able to 

measure the thickness of crust deposits (Hennigar, 1987). 

A variety of probes have been developed to measure 

geotechnical properties of the seafloor. Conductivity measurements can be related to sediment porosity and bulk 

density (Hulbert and others, 1982). Temperature and con104 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
du¢tivity can be used to calculate heat flow (Villinger and 

DaKris, 1987). Piezometer probes can measure excess porewater pressures in the sediment (Bennett and others, 1985). 

Compressional and shear-wave probes can be used to 

me1asure elastic moduli. Cone penetrometers can measure 

the! shear strength of bottom sediments. These probes could 

be !USed by divers or operated from an ROV or manned 

submersible. Sonatech developed an expendable doppler 

penetrometer that enabled shear strength measurements to 

be ,done from a surface ship. 

Drilling and Borehole Measurements 

, To obtain samples of hard bottom or more than a few 

ceqtimeters below the surface, drilling and coring are 

re9uired. Box cores have been very effective in manganese 

nodule exploration. However, gravity and free-fall corers 

ar~ not efficient penetrators of granular sediments or hard 

rodk (Duane, 1987). I 

1 Vibratory corers are the most effective coring devices 

fori unconsolidated marine sediments such as in placer 

exJ?loration. These have been very successful in obtaining 

un~isturbed cores in excess of 10 m in up to 100 m of water. 

Se~iment-lift and cuttings-lift systems, in which water, air, 

or ~ combination is used to raise material from the seafloor 

to ~he surface ship, can penetrate to 20m or deeper and over 

a \fider range of grain sizes than vibracores. Both percussion and vibratory drilling devices are used with these lift 

systems. Depths are limited to 30 to 40 m. 

Several techniques have been developed for obtaining 

sh~rt cores in hard material in deep water (OTA, 1987). 

Oqe is a tripod-mounted device that cuts disc-shaped cores 

25 em thick. Another is an explosive-driven device capable 

of !collecting as many as 30 short cores during a deploym~nt. For thicker deposits, drills are required. The Ocean 

Drilling Program has developed techniques for drilling into 

bru-e rock. This is a very expensive operation. An altemativ~. and relatively less expensive, approach is to use a 

rerhotely operated submersible drill. The Bedford Institute 

of Canada has developed and successfully obtained cores of 

a rew meters in length (Ryall, 1987). Williamson and 

Associates has proposed a design to core to a depth of more 

than 50 m (Williamson and Petters, 1987). 

Deeper cores require drilling techniques such as have 

be~n developed by the offshore oil and gas industry and the 

Oqean Drilling Program. A wide array of techniques and 

ins!truments is available to analyze the core material and to 

m*-e measurements in the borehole. 

Pc;)sitioning 

Se~ Surface ! 

Positioning is critical to the quality of any offshore 

data that may be gathered. LORAN coverage is provided 

for most of the U.S. EEZ. Nominal accuracy is from 0.25 

to 1 nautical mi. Repeatability is often much better. 

Integrated navigation systems, combining LORAN data 

with transit fixes, gyroscope, and speed log data can 

provide positioning accurate to the order of 100 m. During 

periods when the Global Positioning System (GPS) is 

available, accuracy is of the order of 10 to 20 m. NOAA 

surveys and many industry surveys, which require continuous positioning with accuracy of better than 50 m, rely on 

dedicated or shared medium- and short-range positioning 

systems. These shore-based systems cannot provide coverage out to the edge of the EEZ. The most demanding of 

present requirements is for control of 3-D seismic surveys. 

The quality of these surveys is theoretically impacted by 

positioning errors exceeding 10 em (National Research 

Council, 1983), although 10-m accuracy is more representative of what is being achieved now. A commercial 

positioning service, STARFIX, provides 10-m accuracy in 

most areas off the lower 48 States through the use of 

geostationary satellites (Dennis, 1987). 

GPS is hoped to be the solution to most of these 

positioning problems. At the present time, when coverage is 

available, accuracy is of the order of 10 m. New satellites 

are scheduled for launch beginning in October of 1988. 

Twenty-four-hour, two-dimensional coverage should be 

available in October of 1989. The full Block II constellation 

should be in orbit in January of 1991. The Standard 

Positioning Service (SPS) is expected to be degraded, at 

that time, to 100-m accuracy. The Precise Positioning 

Service (PPS), with 10-m or better accuracy, will be denied 

to most users. Differential operation with the SPS should 

regain most of the lost accuracy. Receivers, shore stations, 

and telemetry links to support this type of operation are 

under development. Use of the carrier phase can permit 

accuracies of better than a meter to be obtained (Mader, 

1986). NOAA has demonstrated this technique in application to aerial photogrammetry (Lucas, 1987). Difficulties in 

maintaining carrier lock may preclude this type of operation 

at sea, but, even there, carrier aiding can be employed to 

improve GPS accuracy (Lachapelle, 1987). 

Positioning, in many instances, requires more than 

precisely locating an antenna. For seismic work, the 

streamer must be positioned by use of compasses distributed 

through the array and, possibly, a receiver in a tail buoy. 

For swath bathymetry, the vessel's heading and attitude 

must be known precisely. GPS, in a local-differential mode, 

may be able to improve on the electromechanical sensors 

now being used to determine attitude and heading. In 

addition, the sound velocity structure must be known well 

enough to calculate ray paths. When data are obtained from 

a deep-towed vehicle, the vehicle position must be determined through the use of long or short baseline acoustic 

positioning systems. 

Workshop 6: Technology Needs to Characterize the EEZ 105 
Seafloor 

Techniques to determine positions on the seafloor are 

needed primarily to mark boundaries and to provide control 

for monitoring long-term processes such as plate motion 

and subsidence (National Research Council, 1983). Problems analogous to those on land will ultimately motivate 

extension of the terrestrial geodetic network into the sea 

(National Research Council, 1985). Seafloor, or nearseafloor, markers are also used to provide positioning for 

submersibles and towed bodies. Present operations normally involve the use of acoustic beacons or transponders 

anchored near the bottom. Their locations are determined 

from positions on the surface and calculations of acoustic 

propagation to the markers. Accuracies of the order of 

meters appear possible. Geodynamic applications will 

require higher accuracies. Passive, long-term benchmarks 

and implanting techniques, optical systems, and improved 

acoustic systems need to be investigated (Spiess, 1985). 

Platforms 

Surface Ships 

Industry, government, and academic ships are being 

used to support research and mapping of the seabed in the 

EEZ. Continual modernization of components is needed to 

keep operating costs down. Some replacements will be 

required. Small water-plane area, twin hull (SWATH) 

designs appear attractive because of their stability in rough 

seas. Ship time is likely to be the major component of the 

cost of exploring the EEZ. Therefore, optimizing the use of 

ship time, both through technological and administrative 

means, is extremely important. 

Few mapping and research ships are suitable for 

operation in ice-covered areas. Operations from aircraft or 

submersibles may be preferable in such areas. 

Aircraft 

Some aircraft operations could be effective in obtaining gravity and magnetic data as well as bathymetry in 

shallow water. 

Satellites 

The GPS will be a major aid in EEZ exploration by 

providing easily available, precise positioning. GEOSAT, 

TOPEX, and GRM data will be useful. Satellites also 

provide communication links. GOES and ARGOS are being 

used for low-data-rate applications and can provide a means 

for long-term, unattended installations to regularly report 

results and status to shore. INMARSAT provides the 

capability for voice and data links to ships at sea. Differential GPS telemetry links to cover the outer portions on the 

EEZ will use satellites. Data and control links to long-term 

ocean observatories may use satellite links. 

Submersibles and ROV's 

Manned submersibles have been working in the EEZ 

for many years. ROY's also have a history of service in the 

EEZ. Recently, the number of ROY's operating has 

increased markedly because of the improved manipulative 

capability that has been provided to these vehicles, although 

they have generally been limited to shallow and intermediate water depths. Full depth capability is awaiting the 

introduction of fiber optic cables for use on oceanographic 

winches. 

The primary advantage of manned submersibles is the 

opportunity for direct, three-dimensional viewing (OTA, 

1987). Another factor is the generally better manipulative 

capability that they provide. With technological improvements in ROY's, these advantages will diminish. At the 

present time, the ALVIN has the deepest diving capability 

(4,000 m) of submersibles in this country outside of the 

Navy. The Navy's SEA CLIFF, TURTLE, and NR-1 

submersibles are made available for civilian work when not 

required by the Navy. Approximately 16 other manned 

submersibles are operated in the United States. Most of 

these have depth limits between 300 and 1 ,000 m. 

ROY's have gained acceptance for many tasks previously consigned to submersibles. Risk to human life is 

reduced and endurance increased. More than 100 different 

models have been produced by different manufacturers. 

These range from low cost, limited capability devices to 

very sophisticated systems such as ARGO and JASON, 

Deep Tow, and CURY III. The ROY application has been 

a major driver in recent research activities in robotics. 

Improvements have been made in hydrodynamic modeling, 

nonlinear adaptive control techniques, and man to machine 

interfacing. Further work can be expected in these directions. 

Drag on the umbilical cable presents a major limitation to ROY performance. Autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV's) offer a means to avoid this. Substantial 

research efforts are under way on vehicles such as EAVE 

(University of New Hampshire), SPURV (University of 

Washington), AUSS (U.S. Navy), and ARCS (International 

Submarine Engineering). Techniques of machine vision, 

artificial intelligence, and robotics promise to permit many 

tasks to be done without any operator interaction. Limited 

supervisory control and feedback will be possible through 

acoustic communications techniques. Improvements are 

being sought in power sources (fuel cells, Sterling cycle 

engines, buoyancy propulsion, artificial gills, lithium batteries, etc.) and materials (composites with strength-toweight ratios better than 0.5, corrosion resistance, and so 

on). 

106 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Long-Term Ocean Bottom Observatory 

Geological processes are not static but are slowly 

varying and episodic. Long-term monitoring technology is 

netded to characterize geodynamic and erosional processes 

on! the seafloor. Proposals are being developed to monitor 

ri~ge crest processes over the time scales of days to years 

(Delaney and others, 1987). In addition to repeated surveys, 

sit~s would be instrumented with ocean bottom seismomete$, tiltmeters, gravimeters, strain measuring devices, geoch~mical monitors, current meters, and more. Significant 

experiments in the past have been devoted to the study of 

tu~bidity currents and the action of high-energy benthic 

bopndary layers. There are still no reliable techniques for 

pr~dicting the initiation of debris flows or turbidity currents 

or I for modeling their behavior. Long-term (20-50 year) 

cr~ep deformation of slope sediments is not yet understood 

(Sfymour and Webster, 1987). Instrumentation is needed 

fo~ monitoring geotechnical parameters, disturbing forces, 

an~ movements. 

D$ta Collection and Processing 

The most difficult collection and processing requiremttnts are posed by multichannel seismic operations. Data 

rat~s can be as high as two to four gigabytes per hour. 

Merely logging that amount of data is a formidable task. 

The multispectral scanner under development by the Navy 

fo~ shallow-water bathymetry will also produce data at three 

to !four gigabytes per hour. Video imagery from ANGUS 

ana data from interferometric SeaMARC systems occupy 

th~ full bandwidth of present deep ocean cables (approxim*ely 6 MHz). Magnetic tapes are the standard recording 

m~dium but require elaborate buffering at the highest data 

ra~s. Up to 25 high density (6,250 bpi) tapes per hour may 

bei required. Optical discs (with storage capacities up to 

seyeral gigabytes) are beginning to be used in conjunction 

with high-resolution side-scan and video systems. These 

applications tax the state of the art in computers and 

pehpherals. 

Most data acquired at sea do not approach these high 

ra~s. In fact, data collection at sea is, more often than not, 

agpnizingly slow. Many data are still collected in analog 

fo~ although the advantages of digital data are becoming 

inqreasingly clearer. The challenge of most data-collection 

sy$tems is to integrate data and provide for quality control. 

L~cal area networks and multitasking operating systems 

pr~vide the means to bring data together from the various 

sebsors, synthesize a coherent picture, and make it available 

fot analysis. Often that picture, itself, is the best qualitycop.trol aid. Monitoring of such parameters as signal-tono~se ratio, residuals of over-determined solutions, and 

agteements at junctions and crossings are other 

quality-control techniques that are automated in datacollection systems. Characteristic data anomalies must be 

sensed, and the operator alerted. 

Multichannel seismic processing cannot be done in 

the field. Seismic processing is one of the applications 

driving the development of supercomputers. Each step of 

the present processing requires days of dedicated time on 

the biggest computers that are sent to sea and minutes to 

tens of minutes of time on supercomputers. Increasing data 

density escalates processing requirements. 

Few, if any, other exploration techniques require 

such processing power. Gridding, contouring, and perspective viewing of bathymetric data, adjustment of gravity and 

magnetic data, image processing of side-scan data, and 

other common procedures presently employed are within 

the capability of DEC Microvax class computers (Tyee and 

others, 1987). At least an initial pass through these procedures is generally possible in the field within a day of 

collection of the data. This is important not only from the 

point of view of ensuring quality but because it offers the 

opportunity to adjust exploration strategy. Potential field 

inversion, pattern recognition, and mosaicing are examples 

of machine-intensive procedures being applied to exploration data in laboratories today. As these procedures and 

computer hardware continue to develop, some will be 

introduced into the field to improve and accelerate exploration. Interactive processing will become more feasible, 

and artificial-intelligence techniques will be applied. 

Data Storage and Retrieval 

Data relevant to exploration of the seafloor of the 

EEZ are gathered by several agencies of the Federal 

Government, by State governments, by universities, and by 

the exploration industry. Virtually all collection organizations maintain archives of their own data and exchange data 

on some basis. Much of the data gathered under the 

auspices of the Federal Government is submitted to the 

NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) for 

public dissemination. Although incentives for the collecting 

organizations to submit data are not strong, this collection is 

probably the largest data base of this type of information. 

About 5 gigabytes of digital data (worldwide-not limited 

to the EEZ) are in the archives at the present time, in 

addition to analog records. About half of this is bathymetric/hydrographic data and half is underway geophysics data 

(navigation, bathymetry, magnetics, and gravity). Geological data inventories and marine boundaries constitute the 

remainder of the digital data. 

The CONMAP project, within the USGS, is aimed at 

compiling an inventory of all geophysical data in the EEZ. 

Data would be available both as printed maps and through 

remote access to a data base. The Strategic Assessment 

Atlas project, within NOAA, has similar aims but with 

emphasis on biological, physical oceanographic, sociologWorkshop 6: Technology Needs to Characterize the EEZ 107 
ical, and economic aspects of the EEZ. NGDC has also 

recently started to provide area summaries of its holdings. 

On-line access to indices of data is possible with present 

technology but is not yet available. 

The amount of data available to the public through 

NGDC would increase substantially if significant amounts 

of multichannel seismic, high resolution side-scan, or 

multibeam bathymetric data were included in the collection. 

The USGS is planning to release GLORIA data from the 

Gulf of Mexico EEZ on a CD-ROM. Technology seems to 

be available to accommodate even orders of magnitude 

growth in the amount of data in archives. NASA has 

successfully handled substantially larger quantities of data 

from space programs. Ocean data, however, are most 

valuable if they do not have to be handled as sets of data. 

Geographic Information Systems (GIS's), currently being 

developed, may provide the optimum framework for handling these data. Procedures must be developed to maintain 

a data base in the context of a continuing flow of additional 

data of widely varying quality. A data base need not be 

physically consolidated but could be managed by an index 

and referral system, thus avoiding the necessity of duplicating files. 

Multichannel seismic data would constitute the largest portion of data in archives, but very little has been 

submitted. Nearly all of these data are gathered by the 

geophysical industry. About 15 percent of these data are 

purchased by the Minerals Management Service. These data 

were to be held proprietary for 20 years then added to the 

public archives maintained by NGDC. 

The largest portion of multibeam bathymetric data 

would come from NOAA surveys. Due to national security 

concerns raised by the Navy, these data are being held as 

classified information. The Navy has indicated that similar 

concerns may exist about other types of geophysical data. 

PROGRAMS IN PROGRESS 

There are no programs specifically aimed at the 

development of technology to characterize the EEZ. There 

are programs in several Federal Government agencies that 

are contributing to mapping and research in the EEZ and, 

indirectly, to the development of technology. The USGS 

and NOAA have coordinated efforts to focus on the EEZ. 

The USGS is in the midst of a program of complete surveys 

of the EEZ using the GLORIA side-looking sonar. A 

program of ground-truth work to aid in interpretation of the 

GLORIA imagery has been initiated. The USGS has also 

started the CONMAP program (described above) as a 

data base of available geological information. NOAA has 

embarked on a program of systematic surveys in which 

multibeam bathymetric sonars and 3.5-kHz subbottom profilers are used (NOAA, 1987). NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center, National Oceanographic Data Center, 

and Strategic Assessment Atlas project (also described 

above) are assembling available data from various aspects. 

NOAA's Sea Grant program and VENTS project have 

supported substantial research efforts in the EEZ. The 

Ocean Minerals and Energy Division has supported ocean 

mining studies outside the EEZ. 

Other agencies also have substantial programs related 

to the EEZ. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) has 

supported extensive studies of the environmental impact of 

offshore oil and gas operations and the hazards they may 

face. It also purchases large quantities of seismic data 

(mentioned above) to evaluate the resource potential of 

offshore areas. A number of State-Federal task forces have 

been set up under the auspices of MMS to study the 

potential of mining hard minerals offshore. The Bureau of 

Mines has been developing estimates of offshore hardmineral resources and examining mining and extraction 

techniques. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has no 

specific EEZ focus but continues a broad program of 

support for marine geology and geophysics including the 

Ocean Drilling Program and the UNOLS facilities. The 

Office of Naval Research (ONR) continues to support the 

study of seafloor geological properties that relate to bottom 

acoustics. A new Seafloor Terrains initiative has been 

started. Other Navy activities provide considerable support 

for the development of ocean technology but technology 

transfer to the civilian sector is limited. The Department of 

Energy (DOE) has supported the study of seafloor geological and physical processes for ocean disposal of nuclear 

wastes. Recent legislation renews that mission. The 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

sponsors the Geodynamics Program, which is undertaking 

land- and sea-based observations of tectonic plate motion. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has efforts to 

determine the environmental impact of ocean operations 

and disposal. 

Few of these programs are currently able to support 

the development of new technology, although many have in 

the past. NOAA's Sea Grant program is an exception, still 

providing active support in ocean engineering (particularly 

autonomous vehicles) and some technology development in 

other research areas. NSF has conducted two workshops on 

engineering solutions for utilization of EEZ resources and 

has proposed initiatives to provide support to such efforts. 

The congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) 

has recently completed a study of the marine mineral 

potential of the EEZ and the status of technology for its 

exploration (OTA, 1987). The Marine Board of the 

National Academy of Sciences has completed a working 

paper on technology requirements for the EEZ (Marine 

Board, 1987) and is nearing completion of a study on 

utilization of the seafloor of the EEZ. This study should aid 

in defining the requirements for the development of technology. 

108 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Workshop participants suggested that a specific portiOJ). (5 to 15 percent) of the exploration budget should be set 

asi~e for development. Such investments should be made at 

the! front end of programs in order to reduce total program 

CO$tS. 

Innovative mechanisms for the development of technolpgy are needed in order to reduce costs and improve 

inc~ntives. The present marketplace does not provide suffic~ent incentive for the private sector to support the 

neqessary effort. Government programs must forego the 

long-term benefits of supporting development in favor of 

imtjnediate exploration and research work. Innovative 

arrangements to share the burden, risks, and benefits of 

de~elopment between the public and private sector are 

nedded. The Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) 

Prqgram, which has participation from several Federal 

ag~ncies, has had some success in this regard. In this 

program, some monies are set aside for the development of 

equipment relating to agency needs and also having a 

potential commercial market. Work done on successful 

proposals is permitted to remain proprietary. Other 

approaches are necessary to supplement and expand this 

start. Collaborative arrangements with industry, to the 

mutual benefit of both government and industry, are 

needed. Mechanisms developed by foreign countries 

(France, Germany, England, Japan, Canada, and so on) 

should be examined as possible models. Possibilities of 

increased international cooperation on technology development should also be examined. 

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

STRATEGIES FOR FILLING THE GAPS 

Collection, Integration, and Standardization 

of Existing Information 

In planning for the next 10 years we must consider the 

plans already in progress as well as the work already done 

and incorporate them into our thinking, as well as their 

results into our archive for EEZ data. To make use of 

available, as well as future, data will first require an 

assessment of available data, followed by collection, standardization, and integration into a well-defined EEZ data 

base. A coordinated effort amongst the various agencies 

will be required to determine just how data can be organized 

and archived. First of all NOAA and USGS should undertake the job of compiling lists of existing data of various 

forms from reconnaissance and site surveys. All new data 

acquired in the EEZ should be organized and collected in 

standard digital form for broad distribution, with NOAA 

taking the lead role in data base definition. Standard formats 

have already been established for many types of data. They 

need to be developed and adopted for other types of data, 

such as digital 3.5-kHz seismic, conventional side-scan 

sonar or multibeam seafloor backscatter data. NOAA's 

National Geophysical Data Center should take the lead in 

working with equipment manufacturers, operators, and data 

users to define and encourage use of these standards. 

Application of Existing Capabilities 

Government 

Plans are already in progress to make significant use 

of existing capabilities for EEZ exploration. NOAA and 

USGS will have the lead roles in government-sponsored 

work. With more than 1 million nautical mi2 of GLORIA 

surveys completed and 350,000 nautical mi2 per year 

planned, most of the EEZ will have been mapped by 

GLORIA in the next 5 years. Availability of this monumental digital data base will require techniques for access, 

processing, display, distribution, and registration of these 

data with other data sets to be developed or adapted. Since 

the low-resolution side-looking sonar data provided by 

GLORIA are considered truly reconnaissance in nature by 

most geologists, site selection and planning for limited site 

surveys and potential bottom observatories become the next 

task for USGS, including determining requirements for 

higher resolution survey systems as well as sampling 

systems. 

For NOAA, three Sea Beam ships are already in 

operation, and installation of two new shallow-water (less 

than 1 ,500 m) swath bathymetry systems is expected by 

1990. Beginning in 1989, 1,050 ship days per year are 

requested for EEZ bathymetric and 3.5 kHz seismic mapping. The present capability can produce about 2,500 

nautical mi2 per month, with production directly proportional to depth for each type of system. Approximately 

50,000 nautical mi2 have been covered as of January 1988. 

At this rate of production, 70-100 years of survey would be 

required, so survey work must be prioritized. Wider swath 

systems obviously need to be developed to improve production. To make efficient use of this enormous investment in 

ship time, the survey ships need to be equipped with all 

appropriate capabilities, such as magnetometers, gravimeters, digital seismic profiler, swath backscatter data logging, and so forth. Because of the length of time required to 

survey the EEZ with present technology, new developments 

in other sensors as well as in swath mapping can significantly impact and augment this program in the next 10 

years. 

Upgrades in NOAA shipboard and shore-based computing are in progress for the EEZ program and should 

extend to definition, establishment, and distribution (once 

classification restrictions have been relaxed) of standard 

digital data bases for bathymetric data. Addition of nonconflicting data collection in digital form must be considered 

for magnetics, gravity, 3.5-kHz seismic profiling, and 

swath roughness/backscatter measurements, along with data 

Workshop 6: Technology Needs to Characterize the EEZ 109 
bases or storage formats for such data. USGS, NSFsponsored academic researchers, and industry representatives should cooperate in the geological interpretation of 

these data as they become available. 

Academic 

Academic institutions are expected to participate in 

EEZ research and mapping through research programs of 

particular scientific or engineering focus, as well as through 

use of UNOLS survey capabilities to augment NOAA and 

USGS resources. Reconnaissance survey work is possible 

aboard the three Sea Beam-equipped UNOLS ships once 

they have appropriate navigation control and data collection 

and processing systems equivalent to those used by NOAA. 

Site survey work can be expected to involve various vessels 

and instruments of the academic research community, and 

care must be taken to combine application of instruments in 

order to optimize coverage and resources. Academic institutions and industry are expected to take the lead in 

development of improved site survey capabilities, including 

remotely controlled and autonomous vehicles, as well as 

bottom observatories. Workshops of agencies and researchers will be required to define standards in navigation, data 

collection, formats, and so forth. 

Industry 

Mapping of the EEZ has a long history in the oil 

industry, with a wealth of proprietary data in existence 

already, though for relatively shallow water. Threedimensional seismic profiling is an advanced technology 

relatively common to oil industry surveys, that effectively 

provides subsoil swath mapping of geological strata. 

Employment of such capabilities in site surveys will almost 

certainly involve contracting with industry survey crews or 

proprietary site surveys. Ocean dumping and ocean mining 

interests have had more recent requirements for EEZ 

mapping. As prospective sites for development are identified from EEZ mapping efforts, industry can be expected to 

conduct detailed site surveys, in addition to making use of 

EEZ data bases. A policy for encouraging industry contribution to the EEZ data base should be devised. Incorporation of available, as well as future, industry data into an 

EEZ data archive should be a part of the EEZ mapping 

program. To this end, existing data must be cataloged, 

archive formats and standards established, distribution 

established, and computer programs and access developed. 

Optical disk formats will soon be well established and 

available for distribution of large data sets. Advances in 

computers over the next few years will make processing of 

large data sets straightforward and network access to large 

data bases common. 

Development and Application of New 

Capabilities 

What Are Our Priorities? 

New developments are appropriate to all phases of 

EEZ mapping, including reconnaissance surveys, site surveys, and long-term or bottom observatory measurements. 

Of particular relevance is the report of the recent NSFsponsored conference "Engineering Solutions for the Utilization of the Exclusive Economic Zone Resources" (Yuen, 

1987). While dealing with questions of broader scope than 

this symposium on mapping and research in the EEZ, this 

conference identified systems for "characterization of the 

ocean bottom resource . . . " as a primary development 

need. The relevant parameters of seafloor characterization 

referenced include bottom topography, bottom roughness, 

and physical and chemical properties of seafloor rocks and 

sediments. Only in the case of seafloor topography do we 

presently have available systems capable of meeting reasonable requirements for detailed surveys. In all other areas 

we are limited either by absence of adequate systems or 

technological barriers. 

Reconnaissance Surveys 

Present plans for EEZ reconnaissance mapping 

involve long-range side-looking sonar surveys that use 

GLORIA and swath bathymetry mapping that uses multibeam sonars. Both systems can be expected to produce 

gridded digital data with 200- to 250-m lateral resolution, 

one representing an image of sound scattering from seafloor 

roughness and the other representing depth. This resolution 

is relatively coarse for side-looking sonars and relatively 

fine for echo sounders. GLORIA has a swath of about 10 

times water depth, while Sea Beam has a swath about 0.8 

times water depth. These systems are not optimum, but they 

represent the state of the art. What few people realize is that 

the Sea Beam sonar was not designed as a swath-mapping 

sonar. It was designed as a high-resolution echo sounder 

with one beam stabilized in roll and pitch, for a system 

called the Narrow Beam Echo Sounder (NBES). The 

transmitted signal is a narrow side-looking sonar beam 

stabilized for pitch but with swath beam width reduced for 

echo sounding. As the ship rolls, the echo from beneath the 

ship is interpolated from the two beams nearest to downward out of the 16 beams formed. The swath width results 

from the requirement to accommodate a ship rolling 20 

degrees to either side, and not from swath survey considerations. Sea Beam represents the addition of a computer 

echo processor to the old NBES sonar to process all of the 

16 beams available. 

Thus, it is not surprising that a German company, 

setting out to design a new swath-mapping sonar (Hydrosweep), was able to achieve a swath 2 times water depth 

with equal accuracy. Intermediate-depth swath sounders 

110 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
achieve 2.5 times water depths, while side-looking sonars 

adapted for phase comparison between two receivers 

achieve 3.4 times water depth, though with reduced accuracy. Side-looking sonars typically achieve images of 10 

times water depth when not operating at frequencies too 

high for the depths involved. Thus it would seem that 

greater swath widths are possible, since swath sonars use 

exactly the same acoustics that side-looking sonars employ. 

They should also be capable of producing the bottom 

acoustic backscatter images associated with side-looking 

sonars in addition to depth measurements. In fact, UNOLS 

operators have experimented with Sea Beam digital images 

with success, using added computer data acquisition 

systems. 

Considering the investment in ship time planned for 

EEZ mapping, it is surprising to discover that there is 

presently no commercial or unclassified governmentsponsored research in multibeam sonars underway at 

present in the U.S. There is considerable foreign development currently, but no work on a multibeam system with 

combined side-looking sonar digital imagery and bathymetry. Some support is being provided for the development 

of interferometric systems, which provide combined output. 

The imagery is essentially a measure of bottom roughness, 

though the relationship is not completely understood (work 

on this subject is presently being supported by ONR). 

Development is clearly needed in this area, with NSF and 

ONR taking the lead role to develop new combined systems 

for deep and shallow water. Increases in productivity of 

more than tenfold are possible with present technology, 

particularly if current sonar technology is combined with 

remote controlled launch technology in the hydrographic 

tradition. 

The introduction of digital acoustics in imaging and 

mapping has come of age in the past decade. Thus it would 

seem appropriate that NOAA should collect digital rather 

than analog 3.5-kHz seismic profiling data. Such systems 

have been developed by university labs and commercial 

firms and should be accommodated by NOAA's improved 

shipboard computing capability. Paper analog records are 

difficult to interpret quantitatively and are generally subject 

to uncalibrated gain adjustments. Advances in digital data 

storage have made the problems of storing and distributing 

such digital data manageable. 

Shipboard magnetics and gravity measurement systems have been commonplace aboard research ships for 

some time, without interference with underway survey. 

New high-resolution magnetic systems can operate continuously and high-resolution gravity systems are commonly 

available, though costly. Such systems should be aboard 

NOAA and UNOLS ships used for reconnaissance surveys 

of the EEZ, considering the minimum impact and considerable investment in ship time. NOAA, NSF, and USGS 

should take responsibility for ensuring data processing and 

integration into the EEZ data base. Airborne magnetic and 

gravity survey capabilities, comparable to those available 

shipboard, should be considered a viable alternative once 

these capabilities mature. 

Accurate survey ship navigation is critical to survey 

work at all scales. Accuracies of 50 m or better are required 

throughout the EEZ. At present, this accuracy is only 

possible near shore with shore-based systems such as 

ARGO and Miniranger or offshore during GPS satellite 

availability. By 1990, 24-hour GPS coverage is expected, 

but reduction in CA code accuracy to 100 m by the Defense 

Department is likely. Techniques for improving this accuracy to 10m have been demonstrated, and development of 

such capabilities for EEZ surveys must be fostered. 

Site Surveys 

Detailed site surveys will involve application of 

various towed sensors, such as multichannel and 3-D 

seismic profiling systems, side-looking sonars, thermal, 

magnetic, electromagnetic, and gravity sensors, and camera 

sleds that presently exist or are being developed. Detailed 

acoustic imagery and bathymetry for selected sites is within 

the realm of present technology but because of reduced ship 

speeds tends to be site specific. One of our greatest 

deficiencies, however, is in our ability to make in-situ 

measurements and take accurate samples of seafloor materials. We still use sediment and rock samplers lowered 

blindly to the seafloor to collect random samples. Development of remote monitoring and control of sampling 

systems is important to site survey work, particularly in 

complex areas, such as those associated with hydrothermal 

deposits. Remotely controlled vehicle development is 

already rather advanced, and the introduction of fiber optic 

cables to the oceanographic environment will allow vehicles 

already developed to be used in deepwater applications. 

Autonomous vehicles can be expected to play a role in site 

survey work as well, though this technology is not as well 

advanced. NSF should take the lead role in developing new 

vehicles for EEZ exploration, along with new bottom 

samplers. Better underway sampling devices, designed to 

optimize survey ship time, should also be developed. 

Underwater navigation systems are critical to detailed site 

survey work. Acoustic transponder systems need to be 

improved to provide rapid net calibration and centimeter 

accuracy for geodetic measurements. Such developments 

are already in progress in academia and industry and need to 

be encouraged. 

Standard shipboard and shore techniques for seabed 

sample analyses need to be established so that government, 

academic, and industry efforts can produce common 

results. Techniques for efficient seafloor sampling of sediments need to be improved, and techniques for rock 

sampling in complex environments need to be developed. 

Workshop 6: Technology Needs to Characterize the EEZ 111 
Long-Term Monitoring-Seafloor Observatories 

Our capability for long-term monitoring of seafloor 

sites is extremely poor. While we may leave simple 

instruments on the bottom for several years, we have little 

capability for installing them in complex environments 

other than by using very expensive submersibles with 

limited payloads. We have not developed either power or 

data communication systems for long-term, complex installations and have limited satellite communication capacity 

for remote monitoring or control. This is an area of 

development detailed in the NSF "Engineering 

Solutions ... " conference as well (Yuen, 1987). With 

present-day technology it is not unreasonable to imagine an 

observatory with robot vehicles controlled remotely via 

satellite doing systematic sampling and monitoring of seafloor hydrothermal sites, but much of the seafloor analog of 

available laboratory technology does not yet exist. Considerable long-term development is required in these areas that 

should be of benefit to everyone working in the ocean. This 

development should be led by either NSF or ONR. 

Combined Application Strategies 

Combinations of survey and sampling programs at all 

scales will be essential to efficient utilization of resources, 

particularly ship time. Reconnaissance surveys should 

incorporate all noncompeting sensors. Site surveys should 

utilize towed sensor packages with multiple standard sensors when possible and include multiple measurement 

programs on the same survey cruise. Seafloor observatories 

must involve careful interdisciplinary planning to make 

efficient use of these expensive installations. 

SUMMARY 

• The development of technology has played, and will 

continue to play, a crucial role in the exploration of the 

U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. 

• Marked improvements can be made in the efficiency of 

present activities through application of existing technology and optimization of its use. An order-ofmagnitude improvement in the efficiency of mapping 

systems is possible within 10 years with a directed 

development effort. New tools can be developed to 

directly indicate the presence of valuable seafloor 

resources and to monitor seafloor processes. 

• Technology development must be closely related to user 

needs. Requirements for data and specifications for 

equipment to acquire, manage, and analyze such data 

need to be better defined. This symposium, and the 

10-year plan which is to follow, as well as the efforts of 

advisory groups such as the Marine Board, should 

provide such a foundation. Particularly during this 

10-year exploration period, the direction of technology 

development should remain sufficiently flexible to 

respond to evolving perceptions of data needs. 

• Innovative mechanisms are needed to support technological development. Arrangements that encourage 

cooperation between the private and public sectors are 

necessary. The burden, risks, and benefits of development must be shared. Possibilities for international 

cooperation should be examined. A specific portion (5 

to 15 percent) of the exploration budget should be set 

aside for development. Such investments should be 

made at the front end of programs in order to reduce 

total program costs. 

• Current restrictions on the availability of data must be 

removed as far as possible without causing damage to 

national security or economic incentives. Exploration of 

the EEZ cannot proceed efficiently under the present 

restrictions. The decision to classify bathymetric data 

should be reviewed. The period of proprietary holds on 

data obtained by the government must be minimized. 

• Accessibility of data needs to be improved. Substantial 

quantities of data that have already been collected must 

be included in inventories and made available. New 

data must be acquired in digital and standardized form. 

Standard formats should be established where they do 

not exist. Provisions must be made for management of 

several orders of magnitude more data than is presently 

archived. New, denser storage technologies, such as 

optical disks must be integrated into the data management scheme. Techniques to accommodate and maintain varying levels of quality must be devised. Interconnection of data bases maintained by various 

organizations should be examined as an alternative to 

centralized management. Provisions for remote access, 

with inventory, browse and order software, need to be 

developed. 

• Substantial improvements in current operations are 

possible. The use of expensive acquisition platforms 

can be optimized. Bathymetric survey ships need to be 

equipped with magnetometers, gravimeters, digital seismic pro filers, and other instrumentation that can be 

operated without conflicting with their basic mission. 

Wider swath bathymetric systems can improve survey 

efficiency and should be configured to log backscatter 

imagery in addition to bathymetry. 

• The most productive directions for near-term improvements are in the areas of navigation and direct sampling. 

The GPS should be operational by 1990. The development of techniques and user equipment to exploit it 

offshore must continue. Construction of better remotely 

operated rock drills, crust corers, and large sample 

dredges can greatly improve the success of direct 

sampling. 

• The most productive areas to direct a longer term (5- to 

10-year) program of technology development include: 

112 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
o Quantitative, remote techniques-Have shown 

promise to determine surface and subsurface composition, electrical techniques, such as induced 

polarization, and acoustic techniques, using, for 

example, multiple frequencies, texture analysis, or 

tomography. Development will require analysis and 

testing, including ground truthing with direct sampling techniques. Techniques should be devised to 

determine both resource estimates and geotechnical 

properties of the seafloor. 

o Long-term monitoring techniques-Seafloor geodetic techniques at least an order of magnitude more 

sensitive than those available today need to be 

developed. Sensors need to be devised that are 

capable of detecting changes in the shape and 

composition of the seafloor. Sensors to monitor 

possible disturbing forces need to be incorporated. 

Telemetry techniques need to be developed and 

energy sources improved. Strategies need to be 

developed that integrate these time-series data with 

data on spatial extent. 

o Remote and autonomous vehicles-The objective is 

to develop highly flexible, cost-effective robots 

capable of operating in the most difficult ocean 

environments. Advances in artificial intelligence, 

machine vision, energy sources, control systems, 

telemetry techniques, and materials will all contribute to this effort. In-situ analysis techniques must be 

developed to make optimum use of these vehicles. 

The program should also include continued development of wide-swath bathymetry and imaging systems and 

direct sampling devices. It should attempt to make maximum use of technology developed for other applications, 

such as fiber optics. 

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 

Robert C. Tyee, Co-chairperson 

Donald E. Pryor, Co-chairperson 

Millington Lockwood, Steering Committee Representative 

Stanley Alper 

Charles A. Bookman 

Kevin T. Brown 

Donald Brychczynski 

J. Frisbee Campbell 

Martin P. Conricote 

Michael E. Dee 

Donald J. Florwick 

Stanley Hecker 

Harold Hennigar 

Lisa Hilliard 

Thomas T. Jeffries 

Paul Jubinski 

James G. Kosalos 

William A. Kruse 

David A. Larson 

Michael S. Loughridge 

James Love 

Ron MacNab 

M.P. Mulligan 

Fred L. Olson 

Guy C. Pautot 

David Powell 

David B. Prior 

Buck Redman 

Alexander Shor 

E.G. Valdez 

Conrad G. Welling 

SELECTED REFERENCES 

Akal, T., 1984, Underwater photography for quantitative description of bottom roughness, in Smith, P.F., ed., Underwater 

photography: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. 

Andreasen, Christian, and Pryor, Donald, in press, Hydrographic 

and bathymetric systems for NOAA programs: Marine 

Geodesy. 

Bennett, Richard H., and others, 1985, Deep-ocean piezometer 

probe technology for geotechnical investigations: Institute 

of Electronics and Electrical Engineers Journal of Oceanic 

Engineering, OE-10, v. 1, p. 17-22. 

Blackinton, J.G., Hussong, D.M., and Kosolos, J.G., 1983, First 

results from a combination side-scan sonar and seafloor 

mapping system (SeaMARC II): Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, Paper 

4478, V. 1, p. 307-314. 

Busby, F., 1985, Undersea vehicles directory-1985: Arlington, 

Virginia, Busby Associates. 

Chavez, P.S., 1986, Processing techniques for digital sonar 

images from GLORIA: Photogrammetric Engineering and 

Remote Sensing, v. 52, no. 8. 

Clark, Michael K., 1987, Delivering the geophysical news: Sea 

Technology, v. 28, no. 9, p. 19-22. 

Davis, E.E., 1986, The use of swath bathymetric and acoustic 

image mapping tools in marine geoscience: Marine Technology Society Journal, v. 20, no. 4, p. 17-27. 

Delaney, J .R., and others, 1987, Scientific rationale for establishing long-term ocean bottom observatory/laboratory systems, in Teleki, P.G., and others, eds., Marine minerals: 

Dordrecht, Holland, D. Reidel. 

deMoustier, Christian, 1985, Inference of manganese nodule 

coverage from Sea Beam acoustic backscattering data: 

Geophysics, v. 50, p. 989-1001. 

---1986, Beyond bathymetry: Mapping acoustic backscattering from the deep seafloor with Sea Beam: Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, v. 79, no. 2, p. 316-331. 

Workshop 6: Technology Needs to Characterize the EEZ 113 
---in press, State of the art in swath bathymetry survey 

systems: ASME Ocean Engineering Symposium, January 

10-14, 1988, New Orleans, Louisiana. 

Dennis, A.R., 1987, STARFIX: A new high-precision satellite 

positioning system: Proceedings, INSMAP '86, p. 17-29. 

Detrick, R.S., 1986, Mid-Atlantic bare-rock drilling and hydrothermal vents: Nature, v. 321. 

Duane, D.B., 1987, Marine placers: Reconnaissance exploration 

technology, in Teleki, P.G., and others eds., Marine 

minerals: Dordrecht, Holland, D. Reidel. 

EDGE, 1986, EDGE-A program for deep seismic reflection 

exploration of the submerged part of the continental lithosphere: Report of the First EDGE Workshop, March 5-7, 

1986, Geotechnology Research Institute, The Woodlands, 

Texas. 

Francis, T. J. G. , 1987, Electrical methods in the exploration of 

seafloor mineral deposits, in Teleki, P.G., and others, eds., 

Marine minerals: Dordrecht, Holland, D. Reidel. 

Harris, S.E., 1986, ARGO: Capabilities for deep ocean exploration: Proceedings, Oceans '86, v. 1 , p. ~8. 

Hennigar, H. F. , 1987, Design of devices to measure thickness and 

to acquire engineering test samples of cobalt crust. Proceedings, Oceans '87, p. 1027-1030. 

Hulbert, M.H., and others, 1982, Seabed geotechnical parameters 

from electrical conductivity measurements: Geo-marine 

Letters, v. 2, p. 219-222. 

Kunzendorf, H., 1987, Geochemical methods in manganese 

nodule exploration, in Teleki, P.G., and others eds., 

Marine minerals: Dordrecht, Holland, D. Reidel. 

Lachapelle, G., 1987, GPS marine kinematic positioning accuracy 

and reliability: Proceedings, INSMAP '86, p. 113-147. 

Lucas, J.R., 1987, Aerotriangulation without ground control: 

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 53, 

no. 3, p. 311-314. 

Mader, G .L., 1986, Dynamic positioning using GPS carrier phase 

measurements: Manuscripta Geodaetica, v. 11, p. 

272-277. 

Marine Board, 1987, Technology requirements for assessment and 

development of hard mineral resources in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, working paper: Washington, D.C., 

National Academy Press, 179 p. 

Miller, S.P., and Hey, R.N., 1986, Three-dimensional magnetic 

modeling of a propagating rift, Galapagos 95°30'W: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 91, B3, p. 3395-3406. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

1987, Plan for mapping the seafloor of the United States 

Exclusive Economic Zone, 1988-92: Office of Charting 

and Geodetic Services, Rockville, Maryland. 

National Oceanic Reflection Profiling Organization (NORPO), 

1986, The role of multichannel seismology and U.S. 

Marine Geological and Geophysical Research: JOI, Inc., 

Washington, D.C. 

National Research Council, 1983, Seafloor referenced positioning: 

Needs and opportunities: Washington, D.C., National 

Academy Press. 

---1985, Geodesy; A look to the future: Washington, D.C., 

National Academy Press. 

National Science Foundation, 1987, Engineering solutions for the 

utilization of Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) resources: 

Washington, D.C., National Science Foundation. 

Office of Technology Assessment, 1987, Marine minerals: 

Exploring our new ocean frontier: OTA-0-342, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Porta, Dave, 1983, Ferromanganese deposits detected by multifrequency acoustic system: Sea Technology, v. 24, no. 2, 

p. 15-28. 

Rona, P .A., 1983, Exploration for hydrothermal mineral deposits 

at seafloor spreading centers: Marine Mining, v. 4, no. 1. 

Ryall, P.J.C., 1987, Drilling sulphide mounds: Proceedings, 

Oceans '87, p. 1037-1040. 

Schmidt, R.L., and others, 1987, Developing a sampling system 

for seabed crust deposits: Proceedings, Oceans '87, p. 

1031-1036. 

Seymour, R.J., and Webster, W.C., 1987, Ocean engineering 

research needs: Results of a workshop hosted by the 

University of California and sponsored by the National 

Science Foundation at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 

June 23-25, 1987. 

Spiess, F.N., 1985, Suboceanic geodetic measurements, in 

Walter, L.S., ed., Special issue on satellite geodynamics: 

Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GE-23, v. 4, p. 

502-510. 

---1987, Deep-ocean near-bottom surveying techniques, in 

Teleki, P.G., and others, eds., Marine minerals: Dordrecht, Holland, D. Reidel. 

Thurber, C.H., and Aki, K., 1987, Three-dimensional seismic 

imaging: Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Science, v. 

15. 

Trabant, P.K., 1984, Three-dimensional seismic methods: Boston, Massachusetts, International Human Resources Development Corp. 

Tyee, R.C., 1986, Deep seafloor mapping systems-A review, 

Marine Technology Society Journal, v. 20, no. 4, p. 4-16. 

Tyee, Robert, and others, 1987, NECOR Sea Beam data collection and processing development: Marine Technology Society Journal, v. 21, no. 2, p. 80-92. 

Villinger, Heiner, and Davis, E.E., 1987, A new algorithm for 

marine heat flow measurements: Journal of Geophysical 

Research, v. 92, B12, p. 1284~12856. 

Williamson, M.E., and Petters, Richard, 1987, Hard rock sampling with a portable, deepsea coring drill: Proceedings, 

Oceans '87, p. 1041-1046. 

Won, I.J., and Smits, K., 1985, Determination of electrical depths 

and bottom characteristics of shallow oceans using the 

Airborne Electromagnetic Method: NORDA Report 106, 

Naval Ocean Research and Development Activity, NSTL 

Station, Mississippi. 

Yuen, P.C., 1987, Results of a workshop on engineering solutions 

for the utilization of the Exclusive Economic Zone 

resources: Hosted by the University of Hawaii College of 

Engineering and sponsored by the National Science Foundation, October 19-23, 1986, 18 p. 

114 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Workshop 7: Information Needs and Availability for Oil and 

Gas Leasing, Exploration, and Development of the EEZ 

Panel Co-chairpersons: 

Carolita L. Kallaur, Minerals Management Service 

Carl H. Savit, Oil and Gas Consultant 

INTRODUCTION 

This session was concerned with the currently available geological and geophysical (G&G) data that characterize the seabed/subsoil of the Exclusive Economic Zone 

(EEZ) of the United States and defined what types of efforts 

may be necessary over the next 10 years to fill in any gaps 

in these data to support the Minerals Management Service 

(MMS) oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development 

program. An important factor to keep in mind in reviewing 

the data needs of the Department's oil and gas leasing 

program is that it is market driven. Where leasing occurs 

and where industry collects information are a direct consequence of industry interest and economic expectations. The 

industry has already collected extensive amounts of subsurface data, drilled in water almost 1112 mi deep, and explored 

in areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) more than 

150 mi from shore. 

In the early stages of leasing offshore lands to the oil 

and gas industry, the MMS focus is on determining the 

regional subsurface geological framework of a planning 

area. Within the planning area a geological model(s) of 

potential hydrocarbon generation, accumulation, and distribution is (are) developed. Potential source, reservoir, and 

impermeable cap rocks are identified and potential 

hydrocarbon-bearing horizons mapped. This information 

provides the basis for a geology report and associated 

subsurface maps that describe the geology, resource potential, and potential geological hazards of the planning area. 

As the leasing process progresses, the focus shifts 

from planning areas to the specific tracts being offered for 

lease and the identification of individual prospects in the 

area. More detailed mapping and analyses are conducted to 

estimate the resource potential of individual prospects 

within the area and to determine parameters for postsale bid 

analyses for purposes of assuring receipt of fair market 

value. Specific geological structures and (or) stratigraphic 

traps, such as salt or shale diapirs, anticlines, fault traps, 

unconformities, and pinchouts, are identified. Tract- and 

prospect-specific subsurface maps and analyses are produced for resource economic evaluations. During this process, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared 

that addresses the proposed lease sale. Estimates of the 

potential quantities of undiscovered resources are critical in 

analyzing the proposal and the various alternatives. 

The G&G data are also used in the regulation of 

operations on leased lands such as in preparing unitization 

agreements, determining the potential for drainage between 

State and Federal leases, and mapping potential geohazards. 

The portion of the EEZ of interest from an oil and gas 

perspective is currently limited to the area surrounding the 

contiguous States and Alaska. Much of these areas is 

already included in the Department's recently issued 5-Year 

OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program, covering the period 

from July 1987 to June 1992. The areas included are 

depicted in figure 1. 

Those planning areas not included, that is, Kodiak, 

Aleutian Arc, Bowers basin, Aleutian basin, and St. 

Matthew-Hall, are of little or no current interest, but 

attractive prospects may be found with more data coverage, 

the evolution of new geologic theories, or better economic 

conditions for oil and gas development. If industry interest 

evolves, they would be considered for the program covering 

the period from 1992 through 1997. Also, as technology 

evolves more hostile and remote frontier areas of the OCS 

will be explored by industry and thus more data and 

information will be available. Because of MMS's right to 

select from industry's vast data base, the MMS does not 

generally need to supplement its data acquisition efforts 

with other Government-sponsored research efforts to carry 

out its mission. 

MMS vs. USGS ROLES 

The MMS exercises all appraisal and management 

functions in direct support of the OCS/EEZ leasing program. The MMS functions include the following: 

1. Acquisition, interpretation, and dissemination of data 

and information collected under permits and leases 

issued by MMS. 

Workshop 7: Oil and Gas Leasing, Exploration, and Development 115 
.... 

.... 

0) 

"0 

0 

~ 

[ 

:;· 

(Q 

~ 

.... 

i 

..... 

m 

m 

N 

!f 

3 

"C 

0 

tn 

;:· 

3 

0 

:I 

s:: 

Cl) 

"C 

"C 

:;· 

(Q 

Cl) 

:I 

0. 

:::D 

CD 

! 

a 

~ 

so.,_ r r r ·r ·\ 

PLANNING 

4,s. 

4o~ 

1 Maritime boundaries and limits depleted on the 

2

5 !___} maps, and divisions shoVIIn between planning areas, 

r--are for Initial planning purpose• only and do not . prejudice or affect United States Jurisdiction In any way. 

I I J .... . ... 125° 

100° 95° 

Figure 1A. Outer Continental Shelf planning areas-lower 48 States. 

I 

75° 

,.o• 

\ .~':Jo 

\ I 

'!>o• 

·rz.<.>" 
... 

~ ~ 

tn 

::r 

0 

"C 

~ 

g 

I» 

::::J 

Q. 

C) 

I» 

tn 

mtn 

s· 

~ 

m 

>< 

"C 

~ a 

c;· 

~::::J 

I» 

::::J 

Q. 

c 

~ 0 

"C 

3 

CD 

3. 

-' 

-' 

....... 

;6~. ~~~.;o• 

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 

PLANNING AREAS I 

Maritime bounda{nd llmlt6ed on the I 

maps, and divisions shown between planning areas, 

are for Initial planning purpose• only and do not 

preJudice or affect United States jurisdiction In any way. 

Figure 18. Outer Continental Shelf planning areas-Alaska. 

~.,. 7e8. 1e2• f1se• 15o• 144• 1as• .,3_2• 12e• 

150• 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE 
2. Preparation of all OCS/EEZ appraisals and resource 

estimates including the biennial reports required under 

section 606 of the OCS Lands Act, resource estimates 

for proposed legislation pertaining to OCS/EEZ energy 

and nonenergy programs, resource estimates of OCS 

planning areas and for the sale alternatives within these 

planning areas, and resource estimates for preparation 

of the 5-year OCS lease sale schedule. This includes 

estimates for energy minerals and, as required, nonenergy minerals. 

3. Determination of the areas of hydrocarbon/mineral 

potential in each OCS planning area and recommendations of those areas to be included in the Call for 

Information and Nominations. 

4. Preparation of regional hazards data and analyses 

necessary to support the NEP A and Secretarial decision 

process for OCS/EEZ mineral leasing activities. 

5. Preparation of geologic or resource reports required by 

the OCS/EEZ lease sale process. 

6. Fair market value determinations for OCS/EEZ energy 

and nonenergy mineral leases. 

The USGS exercises functions derived from its 

Organic Act. These activities include research and dissemination of results for nationwide assessments of the geology 

and mineral resources of the national domain including 

coastal waters, the continental margins, and the EEZ but not 

in direct support of the OCS/EEZ leasing program. The 

USGS functions include the following: 

1. Collection of new data as fundamental to its research 

mission. 

2. Preparation, synthesis, and dissemination of resource 

data and information generated as a result of research. 

3. Preparation and dissemination of geologic framework 

studies, topical and process studies, and the synthesis 

of nonproprietary data related to geologic potential 

generated as a part of research activity. 

4. Synthesis, analysis, and dissemination of available 

regional hazards data generated by USGS in its 

research mission, including descriptions of major 

regional phenomena, such as faults, earthquakes, seafloor instability due to erosion and slumping, volcanic 

activity, and seismicity. 

5. Petroleum geology and nonenergy minerals geology 

and environmental geology studies generated as a result 

of its research effort, and syntheses and dissemination 

of these and related data. 

DATA AVAILABILITY 

Industry collects and owns the vast majority of the 

data and information that are used by the Federal Government for decisions related to offshore oil and gas leasing, 

exploration, and development. The seismic method 

accounts for 97 percent of all expenditures in petroleum 

geophysical activity. From 1976 through 1986, industry 

acquired approximately 3,693,600 line mi of seismic data 

on the U.S. OCS. From FY 1976 through FY 1986, MMS 

acquired approximately 906,400 line mi of seismic data, 

mostly from industry as a condition of the permits issued by 

the MMS for data collection on the OCS. 

Most seismic data collected by the oil and gas 

industry are collected by geophysical companies who contract for exclusive surveys with major or independent oil 

and gas companies or who collect data on a speculative or 

group shoot basis in areas of potential interest to the 

industry. Generally in frontier areas regional surveys are 

initially conducted, followed by prospect-specific surveys 

where further interest is generated by analysis of the 

regional surveys. Three-dimensional (3-D) surveys are 

conducted prelease by oil and gas companies or by geophysical contractors where great detail is desired in prospectspecific areas and postlease to locate optimum sites for 

exploratory drilling operations. 

Other types of geophysical data acquired by industry 

and the MMS are marine gravity and airborne gravity and 

magnetics. Approximately 97 percent of the permits issued 

by the MMS were for geophysical exploration. Geological 

exploration permits accounted for only 3 percent. Permits 

for Continental Offshore Stratigraphic Test (COST) wells 

account for about 9 percent of the geological permits. These 

statistics illustrate the dominant role that geophysics plays 

in prelease hydrocarbon exploration. 

The MMS also has acquired geological, geophysical, 

and engineering data, as a condition of granting leases, 

from exploration and development wells drilled on the U.S. 

OCS. More than 25,000 wells have been drilled on the 

OCS. While seismic data and information reveal subsurface 

detail over broad areas of the OCS, data and information 

from these wells yield the most accurate and definitive 

information concerning the subsurface. 

The oil and gas industry is exploring frontier areas of 

the OCS. Drilling has occurred 160 mi from shore in 

Garden Banks Block 543, Central Gulf of Mexico (GOM). 

The farthest offshore discovery well is located 145 mi from 

shore, also in Garden Banks. The lease farthest from shore 

is in the Navarin basin approximately 450 mi from mainland 

Alaska. Technology has made possible drilling in greater 

water depths. Recently, Shell exceeded its record drilling 

water depth set in the mid-Atlantic by spudding a well in 

7,520 ft of water in Mississippi Canyon Block 657, again in 

the Central GOM. The greatest water depth for a recovery 

well is 5,759 ft, in the Mississippi Canyon. The lease issued 

in the deepest water is on Block 955, in Alaminos Canyon, 

GOM (9,800 ft). 

Nonproprietary scientific data collected by the Federal Government are limited to mostly bathymetric, sidescan sonar, and widely spaced geophysical seismic survey 

lines, which are not the primary types of data used by MMS 

118 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
for resource evaluation and engineering studies of the OCS. 

Surveys such as GLORIA, while very valuable as a basic 

earth-science research tool, are not generally needed by the 

MMS to fulfill its mission responsibilities. The MMS 

acquires from the oil and gas industry all G&G and 

engineering data necessary for presale geologic mapping 

and postsale review and approval of operations and reserve 

mapping. 

In summary, the MMS, under provisions of the OCS 

Lands Act, has the responsibility to oversee the acquisition 

of G&G data and information collected by industry on the 

OCS. In addition it also retains a right to these data and 

information and under certain conditions to data collected 

on the OCS for scientific research. Authorizing regulations 

govern permitting, data collection and release, leasing, and 

postlease operations on the OCS. These regulations prescribe when a permit or the filing of a notice is required to 

conduct G&G exploration on the OCS and operating procedures for conducting exploration, as well as requirements 

for disclosing data and information, conditions for reimbursing permittees for certain costs, and other conditions 

under which exploration shall be conducted. 

Types of Data Available to the MMS from 

Industry 

The MMS obtains geophysical, geological, geochemical, and engineering data from industry as well as 

information related to archaeological/cultural resources surveys. The most important types of geophysical data needed 

for MMS purposes are deep and shallow penetration CDP 

seismic reflection data, shallow penetration analog seismic 

reflection data, gravity data, and magnetics data. Other 

geophysical data available to the MMS are 3-D seismic 

reflection data, seismic refraction data, shear (S) wave 

seismic refraction and reflection data, vertical seismic 

profiles, cross-hole primary (P) and shear (S) wave velocity 

data, and side-scan sonar data. 

Geological data include well logs (electrical, radioactivity, sonic, electromagnetic), well cuttings, shallow 

cores, and bottom samples. Related data include bathymetry, geochemical, heat flow, and paleontological information. 

Engineering data from lessees include formation pressures, casing record, producing interval, production rates, 

geotechnical boring, and the amount and direction of 

deviation of any well from the vertical. 

Uses of Data Acquired by MMS 

Data are used to map the subsurface geology and 

determine structure, stratigraphy, porosity, permeability, 

water saturation, paleontological content, and other indicators of hydrocarbons. 

Sale Activities 

The MMS uses the result of in-house data interpretations and analyses to identify areas and blocks having 

potential for the occurrence of oil, gas, and shallow 

hazards. These data are also used to develop geological 

profiles, resource estimates, and regional and prospectspecific subsurface geologic maps. 

Regional mapping and analyses identify prospective 

areas that are used in reviewing and developing lease 

schedules for oil and gas. These analyses are the basis for a 

geology report and area of hydrocarbon potential determination used in the early stages of the leasing process and are 

used later for resource economic and engineering evaluations and analyses activities. On the basis of these data and 

subsequent mapping, resource estimates are prepared for 

lease sale proposals and alternatives for use in EIS and 

economic analyses that provide, in part, the basis for 

decisions concerning individual sales. Resource estimates 

are made for broad, general areas as well as small, specific 

areas during the lease sale planning stage. 

After area identification, the emphasis shifts to more 

detailed mapping and analyses needed to estimate the 

resource potential of individual prospects within the area 

offered for lease. These prospect-specific data, maps, and 

analyses are also used to determine parameters for postsale 

bid analyses for purposes of assuring receipt of fair market 

value. 

Upon completing the evaluations and analyses for a 

specific lease sale, the prospect-specific analyses are incorporated into the regional maps and analyses, and the process 

is repeated for the next sale. 

Other Resource Evaluation Products 

The G&G data are combined with economic and 

engineering analyses to develop products that are essential 

to completing major steps in the leasing process. These 

products include input to the annual review and development of the 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program and 

comprehensive information on the availability of undiscovered offshore oil and gas resources essential to the national 

security of the United States. The data are critical to the 

joint MMS/USGS National Assessment of undiscovered 

conventional oil and gas resources of the United States (the 

MMS is conducting the offshore assessment, State waters). 

The results of this assessment have been used to update the 

1981 USGS Circular 860 and the 1985 MMS OCS Report 

MMS-85-00 12. Results of this study are expected in early 

1988, although the publication will not be available until 

early fall. 

The format of the assessment will provide for the 

reporting "undiscovered resource base" as well as the 

"economically recoverable" resources for the onshore and 

offshore areas. Inasmuch as the 1985 MMS report provided 

significantly lower estimates of undiscovered, economically 

Workshop 7: Oil and Gas Leasing, Exploration, and Development 119 
recoverable oil and gas resources for the offshore areas than 

the 1981 USGS assessment, it is anticipated that the overall 

estimates currently being prepared for the offshore areas 

will not be significantly different than the 1985 MMS 

results (although some reduction to reflect the revised lower 

economic scenarios associated with the future oil and gas 

supply outlook is likely). However, the resource estimates 

for the Bering Sea planning areas will probably indicate a 

more significant reduction to reflect the extremely disappointing results of exploratory drilling in those areas since 

previous MMS estimates were prepared. The development 

of the "undiscovered resource base" category for estimating 

offshore resources will allow MMS to recognize the potential existence of oil and gas accumulations in circumstances 

presently excluded from MMS estimates because of economic and technological caveats associated with the contribution of such potential resources to the future oil and gas 

supply of the United States. 

Procedures Under Section S(g) of the OCS Lands Act 

Section 8(g) of the OCS Lands Act, as amended in 

1985, requires that governors of States adjacent to proposed 

leasing areas be provided with information describing the 

area at the time of the Call for Information and Nominations. The MMS provides information on the G&G characteristics of the area or region, including a geology report, 

reserve estimates, and a tract list, to the Governor of the 

affected State. Certain proprietary G&G data or information 

will be provided upon request to States that have entered 

into an official data sharing agreement between the Department of the Interior and the State. 

Under section 8(g) of the OCSLA, as amended, the 

adjacent coastal States are provided with certain proprietary 

information on leased and unleased lands within 3 nautical 

mi of the State's seaward boundary, provided that the State 

has entered into a data-sharing agreement as outlined under 

section 26 of the OCSLA. 

This agreement is in three parts. Part I provides the 

terms and conditions. Part II establishes the authorization of 

the State to receive proprietary G&G data or information 

from leased or unleased lands within 3 nautical mi of the 

State's seaward boundary. Part III establishes the State's 

authority to inspect proprietary G&G data or information on 

leased lands. 

To satisfy the requirements of section 8(g) of the 

OCSLA and respond to litigation concerning disputes 

between the Federal Government and States, it is frequently 

necessary for MMS to purchase CDP seismic reflection data 

in State waters that are acquired under State permits. The 

acquisition costs of these data are usually much more 

expensive than permit data from Federal waters, as MMS is 

required to pay the full commercial price as opposed to 

either a share of the processing costs or solely the reproduction costs. 

Postlease Permitting to Drill 

To satisfy requirement for drilling permits, including 

placement of structures, lessees submit to the MMS highresolution data and information (high-resolution seismic, 

side-scan sonar, and magnetometer data and interpretations) 

and (or) reports. Parallel survey lines are spaced 300 m 

apart to detect potential bottom or near-bottom hazards to 

exploratory drilling operations, including placement of 

drilling rigs, well bores, and pipelines. This survey may 

also fulfill the requirements for a prehistoric resources 

survey. Survey lines are spaced 150 m apart when it is 

determined that there is a possibility of the existence of 

historic shipwrecks on the lease. 

Limitations to Acquiring Data 

The MMS has rights to all G&G data and information 

collected on the OCS under prelease G&G permits and 

operations conducted pursuant to a lease, but funding 

limitations and data redundancy limit the amount of data 

that are actually acquired. Under current regulations the 

MMS must reimburse permittees and lessees for reproducing all scientific and engineering data and information 

requested by the MMS. In addition, the MMS must reimburse permittees for a portion of geophysical digital data 

processing costs for prelease permits issued before FY 

1986. Data can only be acquired from permittees by MMS 

within certain time limits after data are collected by industry. Data on non-Federal lands are usually very expensive to 

acquire and are acquired only when necessary to tie data on 

the OCS to data in State waters or on land. 

Managing Data Sets 

The MMS has a large inventory of data to preserve 

and archive. Data are kept in original condition, protected 

from unauthorized disclosure, and inventoried for authorized access and eventual public release. 

Most well logs are released directly on expiration of 

the appropriate proprietary term. Most of the remainder of 

the data are released through the National Geophysical Data 

Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration when the proprietary term expires. 

Current regulations issued by the MMS provide a 

10-year period of time during which G&G data and information acquired by the MMS under a permit are not 

available to the public without the consent of the permittee. 

Proposed rules to change the proprietary term were issued 

by the MMS in the Federal Register in 1983 and again in 

1986. In response to comments concerning the proposed 

changes, the MMS issued a temporary rule that suspended 

the release of prelease proprietary geophysical data and 

information for a period of 1 year, effective upon publication in the Federal Register on June 22, 1987. 

120 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Subsequently, on September 29, 1987, in the Federal 

Register the MMS proposed a rule that would extend the 

time frame for protection of proprietary G&<... data and 

information collected on the OCS under prelease permits. 

This revision would provide additional assurance that the 

party that incurred the cost to produce the data and 

information would have a reasonable opportunity for exclusive use during a subsequent lease sale in the general area. 

In developing this proposed rule change, MMS is 

considering both the needs of the public and the States for 

these data and information and the need to provide certain 

minimum protection for the party incurring the cost of 

obtaining the data. 

COOPERATIVE STUDIES 

In an effort to broaden the base of data and information on the offshore, the MMS entered into a cooperative 

agreement with the Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG), 

University of Texas at Austin, in September 1983. The 

Texas BEG acts as a central contact between the MMS and 

the Geological Surveys of coastal States and monitors 

multidisciplinary, scientific activities conducted by the 

State surveys for the MMS. The two general areas that the 

cooperative effort addresses are (1) strategic/critical minerals and (2) geologic studies relating to hydrocarbon 

resources. 

Projects from participating coastal States include 

identification of existing and potential production trends for 

the Texas OCS, geologic framework studies of offshore 

California, Washington, Alabama, Delaware, and Virginia 

and a Hope basin stratigraphic report. Recently, the MMS 

renewed the cooperative agreement with the Texas BEG for 

$540,000 to continue a special studies program with 22 

coastal States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. These studies have 

helped the MMS in analyzing the geologic framework of the 

offshore areas of the OCS and in identifying hydrocarbon 

and mineral resource potential of specific areas of State and 

adjacent Federal waters. 

FUTURE DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 

NEXT 10 YEARS 

Expectations concerning the price of oil generally 

drive seismic and other prelease offshore activities. Since 

offshore seismic surveys are expensive to conduct, industry 

tends to look for new oil prospects when oil prices rise and 

tends to concentrate on the other phases of oil exploration 

and development when prices fall. Figure 2 indicates a 

positive correlation between the price of oil and worldwide 

marine seismic activity between 1970 and 1986. 

The number of permits issued by the MMS and the 

areas for which the permits are issued are leading indicators 

of oil and gas activities and their locations on the OCS. 

Figure 3 shows the number of permits issued each calendar 

year since 1969 for prelease geophysical and (or) geological 

exploration and the total number of permits issued since 

1960. 

The MMS anticipates an increase in industry exploration activity over the next 10 years. Data collected will 

shift to a more dense coverage of certain areas currently 

surveyed and to those frontier areas where there is little or 

no coverage. More accurate navigation for locating seismic, 

bathymetric, sampling, and site surveys will be available 

from the Global Positioning System, a constellation of 

satellites with 24-hour coverage on the OCS. 

Seismic data and the drilling of wells are the main 

sources to the MMS of geological, geophysical, and engineering data and information. The amount and extent of 

data and information that will be available to the MMS from 

permittees and lessees should meet most of the data requirements of the MMS during the next decade. 

Further details concerning G&G data acquisition and 

permitting activities, including the permitting process, 

kinds and amounts of G&G data and information that the 

MMS has acquired, MMS data coverage of the OCS, and 

uses by the MMS of the data and information may be found 

in MMS OCS Report 87--003, entitled "Geological and 

Geophysical Data Acquisition-Outer Continental Shelf 

Through Fiscal Year 1985." 

The MMS also has responsibilities related to nonenergy marine minerals. In 1983 MMS established the 

Office of Strategic and International Minerals to develop 

policy guidelines and implement a leasing program for 

exploration, development, and production of minerals other 

than oil, gas, and sulfur from the OCS. Panel 8 of this 

symposium addressed information availability for hard 

mineral leasing and development of the EEZ. 

The G&G data and information and related analyses 

and reports play a large part in analyzing marine mineral 

prospects on the OCS. Pre lease grab samples and coring, 

high-resolution seismic data, and well cuttings can be used 

with other information to locate site-specific prospects. 

Deep-penetration seismic data and related geologic 

framework studies can be used to locate geological structures and stratigraphic features favorable for marine mineral 

occurrence. For example, thick sequences of sediments and 

various combinations of glacial, subaerial, and marine 

processes can be identified to locate potential sand and 

gravel resources. Regional geological studies furnish data 

regarding potential sources, stream transport paths, mineralized zones, geochemical anomalies, and deposits of placers that are a source of heavy minerals such as gold, tin, 

platinum, titanium, and chrome. 

Regulations specifically governing prospecting for 

minerals other than oil, gas, and sulfur are being formuWorkshop 7: Oil and Gas Leasing, Exploration, and Development 121 
70 

60 

50 

1985 

Dollars 40 

per Barrel* 

30 

20 

1200 

1000 

Line Miles 

(thousands) 

800 

~1arine 

Seismic Data 

600 

400 

101-----------~----------------------------------------~ 200 

Do 11 a rs ____., 

0+-~--~~--~~--~~~~~~~~~~--~~--~~~ 

1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 

• Average quarterly ex>st of crude oil imported by U.S. refiners. 

Figure 2. Price of oil vs. worldwide marine seismic activity. (Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration (dollars per 

barrel); Society of Exploration Geophysicists (marine seismic line miles).) 

lated; in the meantime, G&G permits have been issued for 

mineral exploration, for example, offshore Florida, Georgia, and Alaska. 

Much of the environmental study performed for oil 

and gas exploration, development, and leasing can be 

applied to marine mineral exploration on the OCS. Since 

the program began in FY 1973, close to a half billion dollars 

have been spent for environmental studies through FY 

1987. 

In summary, the current system allows the oil and gas 

industry to collect data in areas where it sees hydrocarbon 

potential, and the MMS in tum sets its leasing schedule in 

response to industry interest consistent with other statutory 

requirements. 

DISCUSSIONS 

Discussions at the Workshop 7 session were concentrated on USGS GLORIA surveys and MMS postlease 

shallow hazards requirements, and the data gap between 

tract-specific hazards data and the broad, regional GLORIA 

data. Results of GLORIA surveys to date were depicted as 

most beneficial in areas where there is little known about 

the seabottom and the broad, regional view of vast areas of 

the EEZ. In the long term, analyses of the GLORIA surveys 

along with other information may lead to an understanding 

of how geological structures evolve. In the short term, 

GLORIA-type surveys yield a seabottom "photograph" that 

can reveal surface manifestations of structures and tectonics 

in the subbottom. However, according to one oil company 

representative, false indications of potential geologic hazards, especially upslope of potential lease blocks, could 

lead to inappropriate decisions whether to offer some areas 

for lease or to issue leases to successful bidders. 

The other area of discussion concerned the large gap 

of knowledge in frontier areas between the results of 

large-scale reconnaissance surveys, such as GLORIA, and 

small-scale, tract-specific surveys, such as the highresolution type surveys that lessees are required to supply to 

the MMS as part of the process for obtaining a drilling 

permit. Lessees are required to furnish appropriate G&G 

data and information on their leases and, if there is evidence 

of a potential hazard on an adjacent lease, that portion of the 

adjacent lease which may affect the lessee's block. Lessees 

do create geological models of areas beyond their leased 

blocks, but information is scarce in frontier areas. The 

discussion resulted in an open-ended question as to who, if 

anyone, was responsible for filling in the knowledge gap of 

potential geohazards on unsurveyed, unleased blocks that 

could affect leased blocks in the same area. The MMS 

formerly contracted for shallow hazards surveys on 

unleased blocks that were considered for leasing but 

changed this policy in 1982, when the responsibility for 

site-specific hazards data collection was shifted to the 

lessee. 

To perform its mission the MMS obtains most of the 

geological, geophysical, and engineering data and informa122 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
NUMBER OF G&G PERMITS 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

FROM 1960 THROUGH 1986- 8883 PERMITS ISSUED* 

PERCENT OF PERMITS ISSUED BY REGION 

ALASKA - 10.4% G.O.M. - 79.2% 

ATLANTIC- 2.7% PACIFIC- 7.7% 

0 

1970 

*RECORDS OF NUMBER OF PERMITS ISSUED 

PER YEAR, 1960-1968, NOT AVAILABLE 

1975 1980 

YEAR PERMIT GRANTED 

1985 

Figure 3. Number of permits issued for geological and geophysical (G&G) exploration of the OCS. GOM, Gulf of Mexico. 

tion it needs from the private sector, which is reimbursed in 

part for the data and information submitted. Where additional data and information are needed to supplement the 

MMS data base, the MMS has the option of awarding 

specialized contracts, if needed. Because of the extensive 

MMS data base and industry's ability to collect data in new 

areas as interest evolves, MMS has available to it the data 

and information to carry out its leasing and regulatory 

program over the next 10 years. 

At the same time, it is recognized that the Government-acquired bathymetry and GLORIA survey data can 

enhance MMS' s understanding of the OCS, particularly in 

frontier areas and (or) on the continental slope. Furthermore, the Global Positioning System, when fully capable of 

providing 24-hour coverage on the OCS, will increase the 

positioning accuracy of seismic survey lines and other 

surveys and thus better locate potential areas of hydrocarbon and marine mineral prospects. 

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 

Carolita L. Kallaur, Co-chairperson 

Carl H. Savit, Co-chairperson 

Robert L. Rioux, Steering Committee Representative 

Christian Andreasen 

H. S. Bolton 

Warren Dewhurst 

Earl Doyle 

Michael Hunt 

Thomas T. Jeffries 

Gary Lore 

Mike Loughridge 

Joan Ragland 

Mary Ann Turner 

Norm Weaver 

Bruce Weetman 

Dave Zinzer 

Workshop 7: Oil and Gas Leasing, Exploration, and Development 123 

Workshop 8: Information Availability and Utilization for Hard 

Minerals Leasing, Exploration, and Development of the EEZ 

Panel Co-chairpersons: 

Reid T. Stone and John B. Smith, Minerals Management Service 

D.S. Cottell, ARC Marine Limited 

INTRODUCTION 

The primary objective of the Workshop on Information Availability and Utilization for Hard Minerals Leasing, 

Exploration, and Development of the EEZ was to provide a 

forum for user groups to discuss information needs for 

mineral leasing, exploration, and development decisions 

and to relate these needs to the development of a 10-year 

program for the EEZ. The agenda for the workshop 

included presentations by a panel of 10 speakers representing various Federal, State, industry, academic, and private 

groups followed by a roundtable discussion that provided 

opportunities for members of the audience to question 

members of the panel and offer comments and advice. The 

workshop was chaired by Reid T. Stone of the Minerals 

Management Service and D.S. Cottell, Managing Director 

of ARC Marine Limited. Other speakers were Harry J. 

Olson from the University of Hawaii, Alan C. Bauder of the 

New York State Office of General Services, Randal M. 

Waterman of McCormack Sand Company, Inc., George L. 

Marshall of Marshall Engineering Geologists, Joseph R. 

Wilson from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Donald G. 

Rogich of the U.S. Bureau of Mines, Robert F. Dill of Dill 

Geomarine Consultants, and William P. Pendley from the 

law firm of Comiskey and Hunt. This paper reviews the 

presentations made by each of the panel members and 

summarizes the recommendations of the panel for development of a 10-year program for the EEZ. 

WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS 

ReidT. Stone, Minerals Management Service 

The workshop began with remarks by Mr. Stone, 

who introduced panel members, described the purpose of 

the workshop, and reviewed the status of the leasing and 

regulatory program for marine minerals being developed by 

the Minerals Management Service (MMS). Mr. Stone 

emphasized that the primary objective of the workshop was 

to survey the needs of user groups concerned with various 

aspects of marine minerals leasing, exploration, and development activities. For the purposes of the workshop, user 

groups were defined as private sector firms directly 

involved in exploration and development of marine minerals, State and Federal agencies having administrative and 

regulatory authority over marine mining, and academic 

institutions and other private sector groups having a direct 

involvement or interest in the development of a domestic 

marine mining industry. Mr. Stone stated the workshop 

would focus on information needs for sand and gravel and 

other nearshore, shallow-water minerals because these 

resources had the greatest potential for development in the 

near term. 

Mr. Stone also briefly described the leasing and 

regulatory program being developed by the MMS under the 

authority provided by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 

Act. He stated that the program is being developed on a 

case-by-case basis and that the MMS was working closely 

with the coastal States in developing the program. This is 

being accomplished through joint Federal/State task forces 

that have been established to investigate leasing opportunities and conduct reconnaissance mineral resource investigations to study the commercial viability of marine mining. A 

total of five task forces involving the participation of nine of 

the coastal States had been formed during the 3-year period 

from 1984 to 1987. The task forces were established with 

Hawaii to examine possible leasing of cobalt-rich manganese crust resources, Oregon and California to examine the 

leasing potential of polymetallic sulfides, North Carolina to 

study offshore phosphorites, Georgia to examine heavy 

minerals, and the gulf coast States of Alabama, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Texas to study the commercial potential of 

shell, heavy mineral, and sand and gravel resources. Mr. 

Stone also reported that the MMS was proceeding with the 

development of a regulatory framework for marine mining. 

In his final comments Mr. Stone stated that commercial interest in marine mining was increasing, particularly 

for nearshore sand and gravel and gold placer resources. He 

noted that marine mining of these resources was ongoing 

within the territorial sea offshore New York and Alaska and 

Workshop 8: Hard Mineral Leasing, Exploration, and Development 125 
that task forces may be established in the near future to 

study the leasing potential of submerged Federal lands 

offshore those States. 

D.S. Cottell, ARC Marine Limited 

Mr. Cottell discussed the United Kingdom's (U.K.'s) 

marine mining experience and the information requirements 

associated with mining offshore sand and gravel deposits. 

In his presentation Mr. Cottell discussed the importance of 

the U.K.'s offshore sand and gravel mining industry, 

technological innovations in marine mining, and the legal 

and administrative framework governing marine mining of 

sand and gravel in the U.K. He indicated that ARC Marine 

Limited was currently operating 13 ships and producing 8 

million tonnes of sand and gravel annually from the North 

Sea. 

Mr. Cottell stated that the mining of marine sand and 

gravel is a major industry in the U.K. that currently supplies 

15 percent of the U.K's sand and gravel requirements. The 

marine mining fleet consists of 54 vessels ranging in size 

from 500 to 8,000 tonnes, some of the more modem of 

which can achieve production rates of 2,000 tonnes per 

hour. One of the key technological advances has been the 

development of submerged pumps that have extended 

dredging operations to 50-m water depths. 

All marine minerals, with the exception of oil and 

gas, are owned by the Crown and administered by the 

Crown Estate Commissioners (CEC). The CEC administers 

offshore mining of sand and gravel in the U.K. by licensing 

exploration and development of the resources. 

The licensing system is a two-step process. One 

applies to the CEC for an exploration license over a defined 

area of the seabed. At this stage, no formal consultations are 

initiated with any other interested government department, 

although the Department of Environment, through its minerals division, is informed in confidence of the intention to 

issue the prospecting license. 

The exploration licenses are usually granted for a 

minimum period of 1 or 2 years and can be renewed. The 

conditions attaching to such licenses are not onerous, but 

bulk sampling is sometimes limited to 1 ,000 to 2,000 

tonnes from the entire area. 

The company acquiring an exploration license typically conducts an in-house study of the area before initiating 

field surveys of the area that include bathymetric mapping, 

seismic profiling, and bottom sampling by means of gravity 

coring, vibracoring, and high-pressure jetting. A typical 

survey covering a 100-km2 area of the seabed and involving 

around 400 boreholes at 0.5-km intervals was estimated to 

cost about $270,000. 

If commercially viable resources are discovered as a 

result of these surveys, the company can file an application 

with the CEC for a production license. At this state the CEC 

begins consultations with a host of government departments, local authorities, and environmental groups to 

review the application. If this review process is favorable, a 

production license can be granted. 

Mr. Cottell stated the most common concerns associated with dredging sand and gravel were with coastal 

erosion and fisheries impacts. To address these concerns, a 

Voluntary Code of Practice establishing clear guidelines has 

been developed to ensure that dredging operations were 

conducted in a manner that resulted in minimum interference and damage to other resources. In addition, the CEC 

commissions the Hydraulic Research Station to conduct 

in-depth coastal erosion studies prior to the issuance of 

production licenses. 

Mr. Cottell summarized his presentation by describing the key data sets necessary for marine mining. He 

grouped these data sets into two general categories: (1) 

mapping and mineral resource assessment studies and (2) 

environmental baseline data. These categories were further 

subdivided into bathymetric and geological mapping and 

surveys of the chemical, biological, environmental, and 

oceanographic conditions. Mr. Cotten emphasized that 

these studies should be conducted in a way to define the 

economic potential of the mineral resources. He recommended that areas having commercial potential be determined and that mapping and environmental baseline studies 

be concentrated in these areas as a matter of first priority. 

The limited availability of oceanographic vessels and the 

high costs of operating the vessels were factors cited by Mr. 

Cottell that necessitated the establishment of priorities. To 

facilitate data collection and improve its utility, he recommended that maps be produced on standard scales and that 

standard formats for reporting data be developed. 

In his concluding remarks, Mr. Cottell expressed 

concern that ongoing EEZ mapping programs were neglecting the nearshore environment where the commercial potential of the mineral resources is the greatest. He emphasized 

that the consequences of not mapping and collecting data on 

nearshore mineral resources would be a further delay in 

development of the EEZ's mineral resource potential. 

Harry J. Olson, University of Hawaii 

Mr. Olson discussed the specific geologic and environmental data needed for leasing, exploration, and development, and the respective roles of government, industry, 

and academia in collecting the required data. He stated that 

his comments were based on his many years of experience 

with the mining industry in hard rock and geothermal 

exploration. 

Mr. Olson began his presentation by emphasizing the 

need for maps at various scales showing information on 

bathymetry, features, rock types, and the minerals of potential economic value associated with these rocks. He also 

stressed the need for geophysical surveys as well as the need 

to periodically publish and update geologic, geochemical, 

126 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
and geophysical data in a standard map series. He stated 

that 1:100,000- and 1:250,000-scale maps were the most 

useful for leasing and industry exploration. 

Mr. Olson also recommended that libraries be established to maintain samples collected by researchers and 

other groups. Other information needed for leasing and 

exploration includes parameters of the ocean environment 

such as temperature, currents, upwelling zones, and circulation patterns. 

With regard to the development of mining technology, Mr. Olson emphasized the need for pilot demonstration projects to test mining techniques for certain types of 

mineral occurrences. The pilot projects would serve to 

identify cost parameters, potential problems that would be 

encountered in actual mining of the deposits, and possible 

technological solutions to these problems. Other topics 

requiring study are processing technology, the handling of 

waste materials, and transportation logistics. Mr. Olson 

stated that industry alone cannot support these studies and 

that the role of government and academia should be to 

provide assistance in conducting basic research in these 

areas. 

Mr. Olson stressed that the regulatory framework for 

marine mining should provide assurances that firms conducting exploration activities will have the right to develop 

a deposit if a discovery is made. In addition, he emphasized 

the need to adopt measures to minimize up-front costs. He 

further stated that the regulations should be general and 

flexible because geologic factors, mining techniques, and 

environmental conditions will vary widely from one geographic location and mine site to another. He also called for 

the adoption of measures that provide for reasonable environmental protection requirements, limit the potential for 

litigation, and are responsive to economic cycles and 

rapidly changing market conditions for minerals. Mr. Olson 

stated that the Federal Government can assist industry by 

conducting environmental baseline studies that provide 

background information on the types of environmental 

problems likely to be faced by industry. Mr. Olson concluded his presentation by emphasizing that marine mining 

is possible and that industry has the capability to develop 

technology not yet available. He stated the burden is now on 

MMS to demonstrate that it can implement a regulatory 

framework that addresses industry needs and encourages 

exploration and development of marine minerals. 

Alan C. Bauder, New York State Office of 

General Services 

The major topics discussed by Mr. Bauder were the 

need for sand and gravel in the New York metropolitan 

area, the history of sand mining in New York Harbor, and 

the types of information and studies required to evaluate the 

potential environmental impacts resulting from offshore 

sand mining operations. 

Mr. Bauder began his presentation by informing 

workshop participants that the New York State Office of 

General Services was preparing a draft environmental 

impact statement for sand mining in New York Harbor. He 

also stated that the Office of General Servces had assumed 

the responsibility for obtaining all necessary State and 

Federal permits and preparing an Environmental Impact 

Statement in order to prevent duplication of efforts by 

industry. 

Mr. Bauder reported that sand and gravel for building 

and highway construction projects is in short supply 

because 7 out of 10 mines in the New York metropolitan 

area have closed in response to environmental and social 

concerns. He indicated that New York was being pressured 

to find a solution to the problem and that the mining of 

offshore sand deposits was an option receiving serious 

consideration. 

According to Mr. Bauder, approximately 89 billion 

cubic yards of material were removed from New York 

Harbor during the 1960's and 1970's for several large 

construction projects in New Jersey, one of which was the 

New Jersey Turnpike. Mining ceased in the 1970's, however, in response to changing economic conditions and 

environmental concerns. The major environmental concerns 

were related to potential coastal erosion problems and 

fisheries impacts. These problems led to the prohibition of 

dredging operations on the west bank of the harbor. 

Mr. Bauder states that large-scale mining of sand 

from New York Harbor will not take place until environmental concerns are satisfactorily addressed. Some of the 

key areas of concern are impacts on fisheries and benthic 

organisms, shipping channel impacts, coastal erosion, mining techniques, turbidity standards, aesthetic impacts, multiple use considerations, and monitoring procedures. 

Randal M. Waterman, McCormack Sand 

Company, Inc. 

Mr. Waterman briefly described the dredging operations of McCormack Aggregates in New York Harbor, 

which are annually producing approximately 1. 5 million 

cubic yards of concrete sand. He also reviewed the basis for 

his company's decision to initiate mining operations in New 

York Harbor and the need for an efficient and reasonable 

government regulatory process. 

Mr. Waterman stated that his company has been in 

the business of mining sand and gravel since the early 

1930's and that it operates several mining operations in the 

New York metropolitan area, including one dredging operation located about 20 miles inland. About 4 years ago the 

company sensed that the development of new mines within 

reasonable transportation distances to the New York market 

was being seriously hampered by economic and social 

factors such as rising land values and strong opposition to 

mining near residential areas. In response, they began to 

Workshop 8: Hard Mineral Leasing, Exploration, and Development 127 
investigate offshore resources by examining data that had 

been collected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 

other sources. The results of their investigation revealed 

tremendous inconsistencies in the data base, so they then 

raised serious questions about locating material suitable for 

mining in New York Harbor. To confirm the location of 

mineable deposits, McCormack Aggregates conducted an 

extensive sampling program to verify the results obtained 

by other investigators. Mr. Waterman reported that the 

samples collected proved to be far superior to those 

obtained from onshore deposits. On the basis of these 

results, McCormack Aggregates sought and received the 

necessary permits to mine sand from the Ambrose Channel 

of New York Harbor. 

Mr. Waterman stated that McCormack Aggregates' 

dredging operations are located in the shipping channel of 

New York Harbor on lands owned by New York and New 

Jersey and that dredging permits were obtained from both of 

these States as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

He also indicated that the permitting process was complex 

and time consuming and appealed for the development of a 

one-stop process where one lead agency has responsibility 

for coordinating the permitting process. Mr. McCormack 

commended the New York State Office of General Services 

for taking the initiative to develop a marine mining program 

and was hopeful that the MMS could play a similar role on 

the Outer Continental Shelf. 

In his concluding remarks, Mr. Waterman stated that 

McCormack Aggregates was extremely fortunate in having 

an offshore source of high quality sand within a few miles 

of one of the densest metropolitan areas of the world. He 

also indicated the company had the unique advantage of 

being able to assist the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 

channel maintenance while providing much-needed concrete sand to the New York metropolitan market. Mr. 

Waterman was hopeful that McCormack Aggregates' pioneering efforts in New York Harbor would improve the 

public perception of offshore mining and pave the way for 

other offshore mining operations. 

George L. Marshall, Marshall Engineering 

Geologists 

Mr. Marshall discussed the information needed for 

industry capital investment decisions and the general character of the sand and gravel mining industry. One of the key 

points made by Mr. Marshall was that sand and gravel 

deposits suitable for meeting construction industry specifications were limited in supply, particularly in the New York 

metropolitan area. He also stated that sand and gravel were 

high-volume, low-value commodities and emphasized the 

importance of developing sources of supply in proximity to 

the market to reduce haulage distances and transportation 

costs. 

With respect to capital investment decisions, Mr. 

Marshall stressed that a favorable market outlook must exist 

before industry can justify investing scarce capital resources 

in exploration programs and the development of new 

mining and processing facilities. He stated that the role of 

government is to conduct basic research and provide an 

investment climate that encourages industry exploration and 

development. Mr. McCormack concluded his talk by stressing the need for additional mapping, geophysical surveys, 

and sampling programs of marine aggregates to further 

define their commercial potential. 

Joseph R. Wilson, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers 

Mr. Wilson presented an overview of the laws and 

regulations that apply to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

dredging and disposal operations and described how those 

laws and regulations may apply to EEZ activities. He stated 

that there were nine major environmental laws that may 

apply to certain EEZ activities. These laws included the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the River and 

Harbor Act of 1899, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 

1972, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, the 

Clean Water Act of 1977, the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, the Antiquities Act of 1906, Marine Protection, 

Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, and the Coastal 

Barriers Resources Act of 1982. 

Mr. Wilson concluded his presentation by stressing 

the importance of providing documentation to demonstrate 

compliance with environmental laws and providing opportunities for public input into the decision-making process. 

He stated that the MMS must demonstrate that marine 

mining in the EEZ can be conducted in an environmentally 

acceptable manner. 

Donald G. Rogich, U.S. Bureau of Mines 

Mr. Rogich discussed the results of economic reconnaissance studies conducted by the Bureau of Mines and the 

need to acquire additional resource data in marine minerals. 

He stated that the Bureau had performed an economic/engineering study of sand and gravel and heavy minerals in the 

EEZ that resulted in the publication of two technical 

reports. The sand and gravel report concluded that three of 

the seven offshore sites it investigated near metropolitan 

areas had potential for development and that two sites 

(Boston and New York City) were strong candidates for 

near-term development. The heavy minerals report established resource criteria (tonnage, grade) that would be 

required to support commercial development of placer gold 

deposits located offshore Nome, Alaska, and heavy mineral 

deposits offshore Oregon and Virginia. 

128 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Mr. Rogich stated that fragmentary resource data and 

lack of operating experience were major problems the 

Bureau encountered in conducting its economic reconnaissance studies. He indicated that the Federal Government 

could play an important role in filling these data gaps by 

conducting regional mapping and mineral resource assessment programs and funding basic research to support the 

development of marine mining and processing technology. 

He believed this type of support would be required to 

stimulate industry interest in further exploration. In his 

closing remarks, Mr. Rogich cautioned that there could be 

a conflict between the need for additional governmentsponsored studies and the desire to avoid providing subsidies to industry. 

Robert F. Dill, Dill Geomarine Consultants 

Mr. Dill appealed to Federal Government officials 

attending the EEZ symposium to support the basic research 

required to foster and encourage the development of a 

marine mining industry. He emphasized that development 

of EEZ mineral resources would languish if the Federal 

Government failed to promote basic research and develop a 

regulatory framework for marine mining that encourages 

private sector investment in this high-risk industry. 

Mr. Dill was also in agreement with other members 

of the panel who expressed concerns that EEZ mapping 

programs were neglecting the nearshore environment, 

where the commercial potential for marine mining was the 

greatest. He also questioned the priority given the GLORIA 

EEZ mapping program by the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) and the utility of the maps being produced. It was 

his opinion that the priority placed on the GLORIA mapping program was diverting scarce financial resources that 

could be more productively used to support critically 

needed field studies, including site-specific mineral 

resource investigations and geologic framework studies of 

high-potential areas. Mr. Dill recommended that the USGS 

reevaluate its mapping priorities and develop an effective 

process for soliciting private-sector advice regarding the 

establishment of mapping and basic research priorities. 

In his concluding remarks, Mr. Dill encouraged the 

private sector to support the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Sea Grant Program and the joint 

Federal/State task force concept the Department of the 

Interior has established for the purposes of working closely 

with the coastal States to study the development potential 

for marine minerals. He emphasized that it was extremely 

important that programs such as these receive the support 

required to encourage young scientists to enter the marine 

science field. 

William P. Pendley, Comiskey and Hunt 

In his presentation, Mr. Pendley discussed the prospects for congressional enactment of new marine mining 

legislation and the need for the Department of the Interior to 

demonstrate that it is committed to moving forward with the 

development of a regulatory framework for marine mining 

under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. 

Mr. Pendley stated that the prospects for new legislation were not bright because the issues involved (that is, 

revenue sharing, State rights) were extremely controversial 

and not likely to be resolved in the near future. To support 

his position, he noted that the Deep Seabed Hard Minerals 

Resources Act had taken 8 years to be enacted, the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act 7 years, and that 

amendments to the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, first 

proposed in 1977, had not yet been enacted. 

In addition, he emphasized that the outcome of the 

legislative process can never be assured. He stated that this 

was the primary reason for the U.S. mining industry's 

reluctance to advocate fine-tuning of the location and 

patenting provisions of the 1872 Mining Law. 

In his closing remarks, Mr. Pendley strongly encouraged the Department of the Interior to move forward with its 

initiative to develop a regulatory framework for marine 

mining. He indicated that the continued delay in issuing the 

regulations was being interpreted by the private sector as a 

lack of commitment by the Federal Government to encourage marine mining. 

SUMMARY 

The primary objective of Workshop 8, Information 

Availability and Utilization for Hard Minerals Leasing, 

Exploration, and Development of the EEZ was to provide a 

forum for user groups to discuss information needs for 

mineral leasing, exploration, and development decisions 

and to relate these needs to the development of a 10-year 

program for the EEZ. It was the general opinion of 

workshop participants that the Federal Government could 

best address the needs of user groups by supporting mapping and mineral resource assessment studies, the collection 

of environmental baseline data, the development of mining 

and processing technology, and developing a regulatory 

framework for marine mining that would encourage the 

private sector to invest in EEZ exploration and development 

activities. The key findings and recommendations of workshop participants are summarized below. 

Mapping and Mineral Resource Assessment 

1. The Federal Government should support geological 

mapping and mineral resource assessment studies as 

well as bathymetric surveys. 

Workshop 8: Hard Mineral Leasing, Exploration, and Development 129 
2. EEZ mapping and mineral resource assessment programs should be focused on areas where development 

is likely to occur to reduce costs and address user 

needs. Less emphasis should be placed on large, broad 

scale mapping and mineral resource assessment programs. 

3. EEZ mapping programs are presently neglecting the 

nearshore environment where user needs and the commercial potential for resource development are the 

greatest. 

4. The private sector has had little or no role in the 

establishment of EEZ mapping and basic research 

priorities. A formal process should be established to 

provide user groups with an effective role in the 

establishment of program priorities. 

5. Maps are needed at various scales showing information 

on bathymetry, geologic features, rock types, and 

minerals of potential economic value. Map scales of 

1:100,000 and 1:250,000 are the most useful for 

leasing and industry exploration decisions. 

6. Geologic, geochemical, and geophysical data should 

be periodically published and updated and sample 

libraries established. 

7. Sampling programs and mineral resource assessment 

studies are needed to verify geological interpretations 

and investigate the engineering and economic parameters associated with developing marine mineral deposits. 

8. The private sector should support the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration's Sea Grant Program 

and the joint Federal/State task forces the Department 

of the Interior has established to study marine minerals. 

Environmental Baseline Studies 

1. The Federal Government should support the collection 

of environmental baseline data that provide background 

information on the types of environmental problems 

likely to be faced by industry. 

2. Environmental baseline studies should be prioritized to 

focus on areas of high commercial potential to reduce 

costs and address the needs of user groups. 

3. Environmental studies must be conducted to ensure 

compliance with environmental laws and to demonstrate that marine mining can be conducted in an 

environmentally acceptable manner. 

4. Key areas of environmental concern are impacts on 

fisheries and benthic organisms, coastal erosion, turbidity standards, aesthetic impacts, multiple-use considerations, and monitoring procedures. 

Technology Requirements 

1. The Federal Government should support the development of exploration, mining, and processing technology. 

2. Pilot demonstration projects are needed to test mining 

techniques for certain types of mineral occurrences and 

waste-handling techniques. 

3. Mining technology has been developed and is being 

widely used in the United Kingdom and Japan, that is 

capable of dredging sand and gravel and other unconsolidated deposits from 16m water depths. Technology 

also exists for mining manganese nodules from the 

deep sea bed. 

4. Little exists for mining consolidated mineral deposits in 

water depths greater than 75 to 100m. 

Regulatory Framework 

1. The Federal Government must develop a regulatory 

framework for marine mining that encourages private 

sector investment in the development of this high-risk 

industry. 

2. The regulatory framework should be flexible because 

geologic factors, mining techniques, and environmental conditions will vary widely from one deposit to 

another. 

3. The regulatory framework must minimize up-front 

costs to encourage private sector investment in this 

high-risk industry. It must also provide the firm making 

a discovery with a priority right to develop the deposit. 

4. The regulatory framework should provide for reasonable environmental protection requirements, limit the 

potential for litigation, and be responsive to economic 

cycles and rapidly changing market conditions. 

5. The prospects for new marine mining legislation being 

enacted in the near future appear remote because the 

issues involved are very controversial and not likely to 

be easily resolved. Moreover, the outcome of the 

legislative process cannot be assured. 

6. The MMS's delay in issuing marine mining regulations 

has increased doubts by industry that the Federal 

Government is committed to moving forward with the 

development of a regulatory framework. 

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 

ReidT. Stone, Co-chairperson 

John B. Smith, Co-chairperson 

D. S. Cotten, Co-chairperson 

Gary W. Hill, Steering Committee Representative 

James P. Allen 

Eileen Ashworth 

130 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
E. Evan Brunson 

Jerry Callahan 

Peter G. Chamberlain 

Michael J. Cruickshank 

Margaret L. Cummisky 

Jim Evans 

John F. Gillespie 

Richard J. Greenwald 

Phyllis L. Gunn 

Susan Hall 

Jim Herring 

Margaret Kaeding 

Ed Kruse 

Brad J. Laubach 

Phyliss M. Minn 

Richart T. Naito 

Scott L. Powell 

Maurice 0. Rinkel 

Larry Taggerman 

Emmett Turner 

Brian Wheeler 

William H. Wright 

Val Zadnik 

Workshop 8: Hard Mineral Leasing, Exploration, and Development 131 

Workshop 9: Information Needs for Seafloor-Seabed Utilization 

Panel Co-chairpersons: 

Armand J. Silva, University of Rhode Island 

Charles N. Ehler and Joseph R. Vadus, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

INTRODUCTION 

This document summarizes the principal information 

needs for future use of the seafloor within the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) of the United States. Eleven topical 

areas are examined, each from the point of view of ( 1) 

existing uses of the seabed and future technology needs; (2) 

information needs for future use; (3) constraints that might 

limit the acquisition of information; (4) consequences of not 

obtaining information; and (5) a strategy for acquiring and 

managing information. A selected bibliography is listed at 

the end of this document. 

Acquisition and use of data are critical to any decisions related to use of the EEZ. Although this workshop 

identifies a number of potential utilization activities that 

may occur in the EEZ, they are not likely to occur without 

timely development and availability of required information. When a 10-year plan is written, information development becomes a key part of it. It does little good to map the 

total EEZ if key decisionmaking information is missing. 

Both industry and policymakers need it to carry out their 

tasks or responsibilities related to EEZ management. 

Much of the information compiled and summarized in 

this document is derived from papers presented and notes 

taken at a workshop sponsored by the National Research 

Council, Marine Board Committee on "Seabed Utilization 

in the EEZ," convened in Keystone, Colorado, August 

1987. This document does not represent the Marine Board's 

position on this topic. 

Eight other workshops at this symposium reported on 

information and research needs and provided substantial 

overlap and some differences of opinion. There are five 

workshops concerned with regional needs, one on oil and 

gas, and one on hard minerals. To provide comprehensive 

coverage, this document summarizes some information 

needs on oil and gas and hard mineral exploration/exploitation activities. However, these two topics are covered in 

detail elsewhere in these EEZ proceedings. 

The eleven topical areas reviewed and summarized 

from the perspective of information needs are: 

1. Oil and Gas Exploration and Exploitation 

2. Hard Mineral Exploration and Exploitation 

3. Waste Disposal (Industrial, Sewage, Nuclear, and 

Dredged Materials) 

4. Offshore Facilities (Pipelines and Cables) 

5. Living Marine Resources Exploitation 

6. Living Marine Resources and Habitat Protection 

7. Military and Security Uses 

8. Ocean Energy Conversion 

9. Marine Recreation 

10. Underwater Archaeology and Cultural Resources 

11. Scientific Research 

A large body of information is needed to promote 

efficient use and management of the seabed of the EEZ. In 

order to set priorities and acquire new data sets, information, and knowledge, we must know better how current 

information and data are being used, their adequacy (content, format, quality), and deficiencies. Although many of 

the present data and information are stored and analyzed by 

advanced computer techniques, we need better identification of, access to, and dissemination of information. 

Toward this end, USGS, NOAA, and other organizations 

are developing geographic information systems that are 

capable of organizing large digital data sets and producing 

thematic maps and other data displays on characteristics of 

the EEZ and the seafloor. 

Many of the data and information needs identified 

during the workshop cut across individual uses of the 

seafloor and seabed. For example, 

1. Improved oceanographic and meteorological data for 

real-time forecasts to improve operations and public 

safety. 

2. Improved data on sediment characteristics, including 

shear strength and stress-strain parameters, compressibility, and effects of slope deformation and failure. 

3. Improved information and knowledge of seafloor geologic processes, including landsliding, turbidity currents, faulting, erosion and scour, vulcanism, and 

sediment transport and deposition rates. 

4. Improved physical, chemical, geological, biological, 

and economic data and information to improve models 

for risk analyses. 

Workshop 9: Seafloor-Seabed Utilization 133 
5. Improved information and knowledge of the long-term 

and cumulative effects on environmental quality and 

habitat loss of individual and multiple uses of the 

seafloor, including the need for improved environmental quality monitoring of seafloor uses and their effects. 

6. Improved information on the conflicts among uses of 

the seafloor. 

Many of the data described in this report would be 

incorporated in documents such as design guidelines for 

safety and protection of property, environmental impact 

statements, operational plans, and especially for the present 

objective of this EEZ symposium-to develop a 10-year 

plan. In many areas there is a need for advances in 

technology for more effective and accurate information 

gathering, resource assessment, exploitation, and conservation to reduce delays in economic growth and to improve 

international competitiveness. To improve productivity, 

there is a need for closer cooperation between government, 

industry, and academia in high-potential, high-risk research 

and exploratory development activities. Public-private partnerships are one way to promote research and development 

in these areas. 

This document identifies many uses of the seafloor 

and some of their benefits. However, related to these many 

uses is the obvious concern of dealing with some of the 

multiple-use conflicts that are inevitable. Each of the uses 

has varying degrees of effects on the others, which are 

briefly identified in each section of this report. Figure 1 

(developed during the workshop) illustrates the scale of 

multiple-use conflicts and rates subjectively the degree of 

conflict in three categories: ( 1) no conflict, (2) minor 

conflict, and (3) major conflict. 

The scale of multiple-use conflicts and the related 

issues of inefficiency, delays in productive use, or the 

losses due to nonuse, are major concerns affecting fulfillment of future needs, economic growth, and international 

competitiveness. Multiple-use conflicts within the EEZ and 

coastal ocean are inevitable, and in some cases desirable, to 

obtain the most economic and social benefit without harming the environment or impairing national security. To help 

resolve these conflicts, a comprehensive, geographically 

organized information base on geological, physical, biological, chemical, and other characteristics of the EEZ, as well 

as information on the location and extent of human activities in the EEZ, is desirable. With this general base of 

information and understanding of specific conflicts, it is 

possible to conduct initial, "strategic" assessments to determine the need for more site-specific data. 

Finally, two points about use of the seafloor and 

seabed should be emphasized. First, the ocean is a multidimensional, dynamic system. Priorities for the conduct of 

mapping and research on the seafloor and seabed should not 

be considered exclusive of the multiple uses that take place 

on and over the seabed, including environmental protection 

and habitat conservation. 

Second, marine regions, including the seafloor and 

seabed, are used to produce multiple goods and services. 

Few, if any, regions of the seafloor will be used exclusively 

for any single use. As human activities make increasing use 

of these regions, inevitably conflicting uses will compete 

for limited access to resources of the seafloor and seabed. 

Without improved information and knowledge, these competing uses and conflicts among them could damage the 

marine environment and lead to underuse or overuse of the 

resources of these regions. The challenge is to develop the 

data, information, and knowledge that will permit societyboth the private and public sector-to decide what is the 

best mix of goods and services that should be produced 

from the multiple uses of any given region at any point in 

time- and over time. 

Many of the conflicts identified in the cross-impact 

matrix are not apparent or important today. However, as 

uses of the EEZ and seafloor increase over the next 10 to 20 

years, the first steps toward production of the data, information, and knowledge required to remove or reduce these 

real or perceived multiple-use conflicts will be the real 

contribution of this workshop. 

OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND 

EXPLOITATION 

Introduction 

Because the U.S. oil and gas industry provides the 

Nation with important supplies of energy, there is a need to 

develop the required technology necessary to meet future 

national energy demands and to reduce reliance on other 

nations for oil and gas. Recent studies confirm that the 

production of oil and gas reserves offshore will continue to 

increase each year as onshore reserves continue to decline. 

The exploration and exploitation of deepwater oil and gas 

reserves have increased dramatically since 1975, and new 

technologies, specific to deepwater production and other 

frontier areas, are being developed. 

Current activities and future trends indicate that 

installation of production facilities in the deep waters of the 

continental slope and the Arctic will increase during the next 

decade. As offshore drilling moves farther out to sea, 

economic constraints will eliminate the installation of standard, fixed offshore structures, and other solutions, such as 

tension leg platforms and guyed towers, will be implemented. New subsea technologies (for example, autonomous vehicles and robotics) will be required for seafloor 

uses on the continental slope in water depths greater than 

1,000 m and in Arctic regions. To accomplish this objective, 

industry, academia, and government will first need to 

134 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Oil 

and Gas 

Hard 

Minerals 

Waste 

Disposal 

Offshore 

Facilities 

Fishing 

Habhat 

Conservation 

Military 

Ocean 

Energy 

Marine 

Recreation 

Cull ural 

Resources 

SclentHic 

Research 

Oil 

and Gas 

Hard 

Minerals 

Waste 

Disposal 

Offshore 

Facilities 

Ashlng 

Figure 1. Multiple-use conflict matrix of seabed uses. 

collect, analyze, and assess information and data sets that 

characterize the EEZ and to conduct research and technology development to facilitate future operations. 

Information Needs 

• Sediment Characteristics: The properties of sediments, 

which are fundamentally important to the evaluation of 

Habllat 

Mll~ary 

Ocean 

Energy 

Marine 

----1 Recreation 

D NoConllld 

IJ Minor ConfUd 

• MaJor Conflict 

Cull ural 

Resources 

Scientific 

Research 

geologic processes and to engineering design, are frequently unique on the continental slope (for example, gas 

hydrates) and therefore will need to be characterized. In this 

regard, the following information will be required: strength 

and stress-strain-time parameters, compressibility and stress 

history, permeability, effects of drilling by-products on 

sediment characteristics, and effects of slope deformation 

and failure. 

Workshop 9: Seafloor-Seabed Utilization 135 
• Facilities and Systems: Information is needed on the 

interaction between the structure and seabed of new 

production facilities (for example, guyed towers, tension leg platforms, or subsea well heads) being considered for the frontier areas, as in deepwater and steepsloped environments and Arctic regions. Important 

issues include the long-term effectiveness of various 

types of production systems, their cost-effectiveness, 

their long-term behavior in dynamic deepwater environments, and the long-term interactions with the seabed. 

• Risk Analysis: Appropriate geological and geotechnical 

models need to be developed for the unique, complex 

interactions in the deep waters of the continental slope 

and in the Arctic. Similarly, input parameters for 

deepwater phenomena, such as earthquakes, and their 

effects on sediments, need field validation. Quantitative 

data, with which to build models and calibrate them to 

specify design conditions, are needed. 

• Seafloor Geologic Processes: Information is needed on 

downslope deformations, landsliding, turbidity currents, debris flows, faulting, erosion and scour, volcanism, and diapiric uplift, all of which are prevalent to 

various degrees on the continental slope. The distribution and intensities of these processes are currently 

unknown and cannot be predicted from the available 

regional geologic information. 

• Surveying and Mapping: A process is needed to identify 

and define information requirements. The rate of data 

collection needs to be improved (estimates are that, with 

the current technology and four-ship operation, it will 

take over 100 years to complete the bathymetric surveying of the EEZ). There is a need to improve the 

resolution and accuracy of data derived via seabed 

imaging techniques and subbottom profiling. Subsurface information, such as stratigraphy and geologic 

structures, based largely on seismic profiles, needs to be 

extended to areas beyond the upper continental slope 

and the ice-covered oceans of the Arctic. Surveys via 

satellite remote sensing are needed for near real-time 

synoptic ocean measurements. 

• Environmental Quality Effects: In deep water, environmental concerns include effects of drilling, muds, and 

oil spills, and increased difficulty of dealing with 

blowouts and spills in sensitive areas, including longterm, cumulative effects. The fragile and hostile environment in high latitudes presents some special problems and research requirements. Removal of obsolete 

structures and facilities may have an impact on the 

disturbed ecosystem. 

• Conflicts with Other Uses: Major conflicts can occur 

with commercial fishing, habitat conservation, cultural 

resources, and military uses, especially the latter. Minor 

conflicts with waste disposal, marine recreation, and 

scientific research were also identified. 

Constraints 

• Financial: Many of the research and operational needs 

are expensive, and costs are frequently directly related to 

distance from shore and depth of water. Research and 

development of technology are largely dependent upon 

future oil and gas prices, as well as costs of production 

and the size and quality of resources discovered in 

deepwater environments. 

• Seafloor Gradients: The bathymetry of the continental 

slope is far more complex than that found on the shelf. 

Some areas with steep slopes and rough seafloor may be 

too difficult and uneconomical to develop. 

• Legal and Political: Environmental organizations and 

some coastal State governments may oppose offshore 

oil and gas development for its potential adverse impact 

on the environment and living marine resources. Disputes concerning EEZ boundaries present legal constraints to oil and gas development. 

• Classification of Data: Prohibiting release of NOAA 

Sea Beam bathymetric data slows EEZ development; 

data obtained by the private sector are usually considered proprietary and not available to the general public. 

Consequences of Not Obtaining Information 

Lack of information could result in denial or delay of 

development of offshore oil and gas resources, continued 

reliance on foreign sources, and reduced competitiveness. 

Strategy for Acquiring and Managing 

Information 

Cooperative partnerships between government and 

industry to acquire and manage information are needed, 

with government conducting broad-scale surveys and environmental studies and industry collecting and disseminating 

site-specific information. 

HARD MINERAL EXPLORATION AND 

EXPLOITATION 

Introduction 

Vast amounts of hard minerals lie beneath the oceans. 

However, uncertainties still remain about the distribution 

and abundance of minerals that are of economic interest. As 

hard mineral deposits on land become depleted and as world 

economies become increasingly unreliable, some underwater deposits will become economically attractive. Most land 

mineral deposits appear to be in abundant supply, but a 

concern lies in the potential for disruption in the supply of 

imported minerals, particularly strategic minerals (cobalt, 

chromium, manganese, and platinum group metals). 

136 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Given the relative abundance of hard minerals on 

land, demand for seafloor hard minerals is currently relatively low. However, there is a growing effort to develop 

the technology needed to exploit strategic minerals critical 

to American industry and security. The long-term national 

needs make it imperative to assess the U.S. EEZ hard 

mineral reserves and to develop the technological capability 

to recover them within an appropriate time frame. The 

amount of time needed for development is dependent upon 

a variety of factors: availability of domestic and foreign 

sources of supply, discovery of new onshore deposits or 

expanded reserves, amount of research needed to augment 

supplies by recycling, substitution of materials, technical 

problems, and difficulties in satisfying environmental and 

regulatory requirements. 

Future technology needs will be for development of 

(1) remotely operated vehicles (ROV's), both tethered and 

untethered, to acquire high-resolution data, (2) improved 

navigation technology to generate accurate seafloor topographic maps, (3) directional wave and current spectra to 

design environmentally acceptable tailings disposal 

schemes, (4) tools to sample massive deposits (tools that 

record properties of mineral deposits or processes are not 

necessarily universally applicable, and different meteorological conditions, such as those found in the Arctic, require 

different sets of tools for sampling and surveying), (5) 

dredges with the appropriate technology (current law forbids foreign dredges to mine in U.S. waters), and ( 6) less 

costly recovery technology. To accomplish these objectives, industry, academia, and government will need to 

collect and analyze data aimed at assessing hard mineral 

resources in the EEZ, and conduct research and technology 

development to facilitate future operations. 

Information Needs 

• Sediment Characteristics: The properties of sediments, 

which are fundamentally important to the evaluation of 

geologic processes and to engineering design, are frequently unique on the continental slope (for example, 

gas hydrates) and therefore will need to be characterized. In this regard, the following information will be 

required: transport and settling characteristics of disturbed sediment, shear strength and trafficability of 

sediment as related to bottom-roving equipment, slope 

stability, and postmining effects and recovery rate of 

bottom to original conditions. 

• Geomechanical Characteristics of Deposits: Consolidated or massive deposits that may need drilling, 

fracturing, or chemical dissolution require much information about their physical properties. Mining plans are 

dependent on data about the sediment and rock. Demonstration projects will have to be conducted over broad 

areas, as most hard mineral deposits are not homogeneous in composition or in physical properties. Better 

and more efficient sampling tools are needed to recover 

samples at depth for assessment of the resources. 

• Facilities and Systems: Advances in technology are 

needed for efficient and effective resource assessment, 

economic extraction, and processing. This is a ripe area 

for government-industry cooperation. 

• Resource Assessment: Resource assessment is a high 

priority. Improved knowledge will be needed for the 

five classes of hard mineral deposits (construction 

minerals, placers, phosphorites, manganese nodules 

and crusts, and polymetallic sulfides). A data base will 

need to be developed to permit mapping of known 

deposits and to make reasonable estimates of their 

economic significance. The type, quality, and accuracy 

of data vary with deposit type, constituent minerals, 

water depth, distance from shore, exploration techniques, and marketability. 

• Risk Analysis: Appropriate geological and geotechnical 

models need to be developed for the unique, complex 

interactions in the deep waters of the continental slope 

and in the Arctic. Similarly, input parameters for 

deepwater phenomena, such as earthquakes, and their 

effects on sediments, need field validation. Quantitative 

data, with which to build models and calibrate them to 

specify design conditions, are needed. 

• Seafloor Geologic Processes: Information is needed on 

downslope deformations, landsliding, turbidity currents, debris flows, faulting, erosion and scour, volcanism, and diapiric uplift, all of which are prevalent to 

various degrees on the continental slope. The distribution and intensities of these processes are currently 

unknown and cannot be predicted from the available 

regional geologic information. Data are also needed on 

the potential of seabed mining operations triggering 

seafloor instabilities. 

• Surveying and Mapping: Suitable technology for highresolution bathymetric mapping will be necessary. The 

accuracy of bathymetric information seaward gradually 

diminishes as positional accuracy degrades. There is a 

need for better and more efficient subbottom profiling 

systems with the capability of remotely assessing the 

seabed stratigraphy in terms of resources. Deep-towed 

surveys will be needed to reduce surveying-sampling 

costs and to increase resolution. Resource surveys 

should be accompanied by surveys of local biota and 

environment wherever possible and cost effective. 

• Environmental Quality Effects: The effects of disrupting the seabed and marine organisms and their habitats 

are concerns, as are the fate of resuspended sediments 

and transportation of the resources to the shore. Effects 

of mining by-products, such as plumes, must be considered. Information is also needed on effects of 

onshore processing and disposal of mining materials. 

Workshop 9: Seafloor-Seabed Utilization 137 
• Conflicts with Other Uses: Major conflicts could occur 

with offshore facilities (disruption of cables), habitat 

conservation (disruption or loss of habitat), military 

uses, and marine recreation, especially from sand and 

gravel mining in coastal waters. Minor conflicts could 

arise with waste disposal, commercial fishing, cultural 

resources, and scientific research. 

Constraints 

• Financial: At any water depth, seafloor mmmg is 

expensive compared to land mining, with the expense 

being proportional to depth of water. Most of the 

technology for continental margin deposits in water less 

than 50 m deep is basically available. In deep water, lift 

systems are well developed for depths to 5,000 m, but 

excavation and collection systems in hard rock environments require a considerable investment for research 

and development. In addition, some minerals, such as 

sulfides and oxides, are found only in deepwater areas. 

The cost of recovering a mineral and the price it 

commands are dependent on such physical factors as 

geographic location, grade, size, and mineralogical 

complexity of the deposit, besides such economic factors as demand and interest rates. Transcending these 

issues are the long-term national concerns in terms of 

industrial competitiveness and the security needs of the 

military for strategic materials. 

• Seafloor Gradients: The bathymetry of the continental 

slope is far more complex than that found on the shelf. 

Some areas with steep slopes and rough seafloor may be 

too difficult and uneconomical to develop. The effect of 

mining operations on seabed stability must be carefully 

considered. 

• Legal and Political: Environmental organizations and 

some coastal State governments may oppose hard mineral mining for its potential adverse effects on the 

environment. A management regime for offshore sand 

and gravel mining in State and Federal waters does not 

exist. Clear, unambiguous legal titles to access the 

seabed for mineral extraction are needed. 

• Technological: Technology is needed for sampling and 

resource assessment and economical extraction. 

• Classification of Data: Prohibiting release of NOAA 

Sea Beam bathymetric data slows EEZ development. 

Consequences of Not Obtaining Information 

Lack of information will delay developing a U.S. 

capability to economically mine strategic and other hard 

minerals. 

Strategy for Acquiring and Managing 

Information 

Government is acquiring and providing large-scale 

reconnaissance information on the entire EEZ; industry is 

providing site-specific data. 

WASTE DISPOSAL (INDUSTRIAL, SEWAGE, 

NUCLEAR, AND DREDGED MATERIAL) 

Introduction 

As the costs of land-based disposal options increase, 

interest has grown within the last 10 years toward use of the 

seafloor of the EEZ for waste disposal. Growing international restrictions on deep-sea disposal and State government opposition to near-coastal dumping leave the EEZ as 

the only ocean regime for the disposal of many types of 

materials, including hazardous wastes and dredged materials. The seabed of the EEZ should be considered along with 

land-based alternatives with a view toward selecting the 

most environmentally sound solution. Surveys of the EEZ, 

including information on habitat, will be needed to locate 

suitable potential sites for specific classes of wastes. It will 

be necessary to conduct comprehensive studies with due 

regard for interactions between the overlying water and the 

sediments. 

Information Needs 

• Sediment Characteristics: The properties of sediments, 

which are fundamentally important to the evaluation of 

geologic processes and engineering design, are frequently unique on the continental slope and therefore 

will need to be characterized. The following information will be required: shear strength for subbottom 

excavation and emplacement, thermal effects, radiological effects, permeability, pore fluid migration, plasticity of sediment, geological stability, physiochemical 

property changes of sediments, scour characteristics of 

the bottom, bottom stability, and long-term behavior. 

• Risk Analysis: Appropriate geological and geotechnical 

models need to be developed for the unique, complex 

interactions in the deep waters of the continental slope. 

Similarly, input parameters for deepwater phenomena, 

such as earthquakes, and their effects on sediments, 

need field validation. Quantitative data, with which to 

build models and calibrate them to specify design 

conditions, are needed. 

• Seafloor Geologic Processes: Information is needed on 

downslope deformations, landsliding, turbidity currents, debris flows, faulting, erosion and scour, volcanism, and diapiric uplift, all of which are prevalent to 

138 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
various degrees on the continental slope. The distribution and intensities of these processes is currently 

unknown and they cannot be predicted from the available regional geologic information. Basic sediment 

properties, sediment thickness and transport, spatial 

variability, and sediment interaction models are needed, 

and the rates of sediment deposition are needed for 

geochronological indicators. 

• Surveying and Mapping: There is a need for better and 

more efficient means of remotely determining subseabed characteristics, both vertically and areally, especially for deep seabed disposal. 

• Environmental Quality Effects: Biota and sediment 

analyses for organics and metals, with good controls 

and selective leaching studies on the sediments, will be 

needed to determine the long-term effects that contaminants in dredged materials have on the biota. Criteria 

for degradation identification will need to be established 

by conducting detailed monitoring of sediments, water, 

and organisms around waste sites. Microcosmic experiments will be needed to provide simulations of the 

consequences of dumping. Estimated release rates of 

metals and toxic organics in waste materials and the 

ability to identify forms of released metals will be 

needed. Detailed studies will be needed to assess the 

effectiveness of the sediment as a barrier to waste 

migration from subseabed waste sites to the biosphere. 

This should be primarily a government-supported function. 

• Environmental Quality Monitoring: Long-term, in-situ 

monitoring is needed to obtain information on the status 

and trends of environmental quality. This should be 

primarily a government-supported function. 

• Conflicts with Other Uses: Major conflicts exist with 

commercial fishing (although some forms of wastes 

could benefit living marine resources), habitat conservation, military uses of the seafloor, and marine recreation. Minor conflicts exist with offshore facilities, 

cultural resources, and scientific research. 

Constraints 

• Financial: The long-term costs and benefits of ocean 

disposal of specific wastes will need to be assessed and 

compared with other alternatives. 

• Seafloor Gradients: The bathymetry of the continental 

slope is far more complex than that found on the shelf. 

Some areas with steep bottom slopes and rough seafloor 

may be too difficult and uneconomical to use for 

disposal activities. 

• Legal and Political: Growing international bans on 

deep-sea disposal and State government opposition to 

near-coastal dumping and land-based alternatives leave 

the EEZ as one of the few alternatives for the disposal 

of hazardous wastes. Also, there is a continuing unresolved question of how to handle radioactive wastes. At 

one time, there were three low-level dumpsites in the 

U.S. EEZ. There are problems in handling incinerated 

waste, for example, the transport of gases and ash over 

coastal and EEZ areas as well as the potential occurrence of highly toxic compounds produced from organic 

wastes during combustion. There is also local resistance 

to the transporting and storing of hazardous materials in 

port facilities. Port operators are concerned about liabilities and increased insurance needs. 

Consequences of Not Obtaining Information 

Without improved information, public perception 

will slow or prohibit disposal activities in the EEZ. 

Strategy for Acquiring and Managing 

Information 

The Federal Government is responsible for acquiring, 

assessing, and disseminating information on the use and 

management of public-trust ocean areas for waste disposal. 

OFFSHORE FACILITIES 

(Pipelines and Cables) 

Introduction 

Many areas of the EEZ are crossed by thousands of 

miles of cable for commercial and military communications, tactical systems, and research. In other areas, hydrocarbons are brought from offshore production facilities to 

land through pipelines on or in the seabed. As these 

operations move into deeper water and into more hostile 

environments (the Arctic), the design and construction of 

offshore facilities will require further development to cope 

with the range of constraints presented by these unique 

environments. 

Information Needs 

• Sediment Characteristics: The properties of sediments, 

which are fundamentally important to the evaluation of 

geologic processes and engineering design, are frequently unique on the continental slope and therefore 

will need to be characterized. Knowledge of the following will be required: potential for slope deformation and 

mass wasting, sediment-structure interaction, potential 

for sediment transport, potential for liquefaction from 

interaction of waves on the bottom, bioturbation and 

scour, hostile environments for design and temporal 

Workshop 9: Seafloor-Seabed Utilization 139 
variability, strength and stress-strain parameters, compressibility and stress history, permeability and trafficability of bottom-crawling vehicles for cable and pipe 

laying. 

• Facilities and Systems: Information on the installation 

and maintenance of pipelines and undersea cables on 

and under the seabed will be needed, especially in deep 

water, on steep slopes, and in the Arctic. This is 

primarily the responsibility of the private sector. 

• Risk Analysis: Appropriate geological and geotechnical 

models need to be developed for the unique, complex 

interactions in the deep waters of the continental slope 

and in the Arctic. Similarly, input parameters for 

deepwater phenomena, such as earthquakes, and their 

effects on sediments, need field validation. Quantitative 

data, with which to build models and calibrate them to 

specify design conditions, are needed. 

• Seafloor Geologic Processes: Information is needed on 

downslope deformation~, landsliding, turbidity currents, debris flows, faulting, erosion and scour, and 

diapiric uplift, all of which are prevalent to various 

degrees on the continental slope. The distribution and 

intensities of these processes are currently unknown and 

cannot be predicted from the available regional geologic 

information. Of critical importance is better knowledge 

of the effects of installation operations on the stability of 

sediment masses. 

• Surveying and Mapping: Subsurface information (such 

as stratigraphy and geologic structures), based largely 

on seismic profiles, needs to be extended to areas 

beyond the upper continental slope and the ice-covered 

oceans of the Arctic. Charting of cables and pipelines in 

multiple-use areas is needed for planning purposes. 

There is also a need to improve the resolution of 

bathymetric data. 

• Environmental Quality Effects: Environmental concerns 

include effects of oil and gas spills from damaged 

pipelines, effects that disrupting the seabed would have 

on marine organisms, and eventual need to remove 

facilities after their service life. 

• Conflicts with Other Uses: Because of the areal extent 

and distance covered by these facilities, there are 

potential conflicts with most of the other seabed uses. 

Major conflicts exist with hard mineral exploration and 

exploitation, commercial fishing (especially trawling), 

habitat conservation, and military uses. Minor conflicts 

exist with waste disposal activities. 

Constraints 

• Financial: The costs associated with pipelines will be 

factored into the overall systems costs. These will be 

especially expensive in frontier areas. The use of 

fiber-optic cables dictates burial in most of the EEZ. 

• Seafloor Gradients: The bathymetry of the continental 

slope is far more complex than that found on the shelf. 

Some areas with steep bottom slopes and a rough 

seafloor may be too difficult and uneconomical to 

develop, as will be the Arctic with its special processes 

(like ice scour processes and permafrost). 

• Legal and Political: Environmental organizations and 

some coastal State governments oppose the construction 

of offshore facilities and the laying of buried apparatus 

for their potential adverse impacts on the coastal and 

nearshore environment. 

Consequences of Not Obtaining Information 

Seabed information is essential prior to any industry 

activities in pipeline and cable-laying on or under the 

seabed. Improper installation could result in failures and 

possible large-scale slope instability. 

Strategy for Acquiring and Managing 

Information 

Government should continue to provide most of the 

general reconnaissance survey data and related information, 

and industry should obtain the site-specific data needed for 

pipeline and cable-laying. 

LIVING MARINE RESOURCES 

EXPLOITATION 

Introduction 

Most of the world catch of marine species occurs in 

coastal waters, where many of the species are closely 

associated with the seafloor, such as bottom-feeding fish 

and invertebrate species. Assessment of population sizes 

becomes increasingly important as more and more nations 

harvest mass quantities of marine life. Assessments, however, can be difficult in topographically complex regions of 

the seafloor, such as banks, escarpments, and seamounts; 

conventional sampling techniques (nets and dredges) are 

frequently inappropriate. New techniques, relying on ROV 

technology, are being used increasingly. 

Expansion of mariculture and aquaculture, traditionally concentrated in the nearshore zone, to areas farther 

offshore is a possibility. Information on the physical and 

chemical properties of sediments and their erosion potential 

will be needed. Potential multiple-use conflicts between 

living marine resources and human activities, such as 

offshore oil and gas and waste disposal, must be resolved. 

140 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Information Needs 

• Resource Assessment: The primary concern is with 

overfishing of particular species and possible extermination of certain fisheries. There must be a proper 

balance between exploitation and conservation with due 

regard for the entire ecosystem. Spatial and temporal 

characteristics of oceanic features that affect the distribution of living marine resources and the activities and 

pollutants affecting them within the U.S. EEZ will need 

to be determined. Detailed information on the life 

histories of selected marine resources for various 

regions of the EEZ will have to be developed. Computer 

mapping of the spatial and temporal distribution of 

species life histories within various regions of the U.S. 

EEZ (as could be provided by geographic information 

systems) will be useful. 

• Sediment Characteristics: Seabed studies will be needed 

on the cohesiveness of the uppermost seabed, seabed 

chemistry, and the potential for erosion, deposition, and 

transport. 

• Environmental Quality Effects: The primary concern is 

with overfishing of particular species and possible 

extermination of certain fisheries. There must be a 

proper balance between exploitation and preservation 

with due regard for the entire ecosystem. Habitat 

degradation studies will need to be conducted on the 

effects of ocean pollution, dredging and mining activities, military operations, bottom trawling, and more. 

Monitoring of environmental quality will be needed to 

determine the existing status and the long-term trends of 

conditions in coastal and marine waters. This will 

include benthic surveillance to monitor toxic chemicals 

in both surface sediments and in marine life that inhabits 

these areas. 

• Conflicts with Other Uses: There are major conflicts 

with many other uses of the seabed including oil and 

gas, waste disposal, offshore facilities, cable routing, 

habitat conservation (as in alteration and destruction of 

habitat by trawling), and marine recreation. Minor 

conflicts exist with hard minerals, military security, 

ocean energy, cultural resources, and scientific 

research. Additional multiple-use conflict studies will 

be needed to determine the impact of human activities 

on living marine resources. 

Constraints 

• Financial: The design and construction of offshore 

mariculture and aquaculture facilities, especially for 

offshore operations, will be expensive. The American 

fishing fleet is currently overcapitalized. 

• Legal and Political: There is potential for multiple-use 

conflicts, as well as long-term implications relative to 

overall food resources. 

Consequences of Not Obtaining Information 

Overfishing, stock depletion, and fishing limitations 

set because of prohibited areas are all concerns. Undetected 

pollution effects can provide short- and long-term impacts 

on stocks and increase the risk of fishing operations. 

Strategy for Acquiring and Managing 

Information 

There is a need for the Federal Government to 

improve the collection and use of existing information and 

the assessment of multiple-use conflicts. 

LIVING MARINE RESOURCES AND HABITAT 

PROTECTION 

Introduction 

The topography of the seafloor, together with currents and other environmental factors, creates a wide variety 

of ecosystems in offshore waters. While open ocean waters 

are generally less productive than the nutrient-rich coastal 

waters, they do support a great mass of microscopic 

organisms that eventually become food for benthic animals, 

including commercially important fish and shellfish. Where 

physical and topographic conditions are right, nutrient-rich 

upwelling occurs. This phenomenon produces large 

growths of phytoplankton, a source of food for zooplankton, which in tum becomes food for fish, seabirds, and 

marine mammals, including some threatened and endangered species. Areas of frequent upwelling are, therefore, 

some of the most productive marine ecosystems. 

Submarine canyons, hydrothermal vents, seamounts, 

and hard bottoms are other important habitats. Submarine 

canyons, for example, are especially rich ecosystems, since 

they focus on food spilling from the surrounding continental 

shelf. Seamounts that reach into the euphotic zone are 

especially rich ecosystems that are well known to commercial fishermen, seabirds, and marine mammals. Several of 

these areas, for example, submarine canyons and hydrothermal vents, have only recently become the focus of 

scientific research. Little is known of the geologic processes 

that form these areas, their productivity, their interactions 

among their inhabitants, and their importance relative to 

other deepwater habitats. 

In addition to specific areas of the seafloor that 

deserve special attention as important habitats of living 

marine resources, 13 species of marine mammals are 

classified as "threatened" or "endangered" throughout their 

range under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Many of 

these animals range over large areas of the EEZ, and their 

habitat requirements must be considered in the planning of 

uses of the seafloor. 

Workshop 9: Seafloor-Seabed Utilization 141 
Information Needs 

• Resource Assessment: Spatial and temporal characteristics of oceanic features that affect the distribution of 

living marine resources and the activities and pollutants 

affecting them within the U.S. EEZ will need to be 

determined. Detailed information on the life histories of 

selected marine resources for various regions of the 

EEZ will have to be developed. Computer mapping of 

the spatial and temporal distribution of species life 

histories within various regions of the U.S. EEZ should 

be encouraged. 

• Sediment Characteristics: Special studies will be needed 

to determine the importance of various areas of the 

seabed as habitat. Seabed studies will be needed on the 

cohesiveness of the uppermost seabed, seabed chemistry, and the potential for erosion, deposition, and 

transport. 

• Environmental Quality Effects: Special studies, including measurements and surveys, are needed to assess the 

effects of pollutants on habitats. Improved technology is 

needed for more accurate and rapid measurements over 

a wider area. 

• Conflicts with Other Uses: Major conflicts exist with 

oil and gas, hard minerals, waste disposal, offshore 

facilities, and commercial fishing. Minor conflicts exist 

with military uses, marine recreation, and cultural 

resources. Multiple-use conflict studies will be needed 

to determine the effects of human activities on habitats 

of living marine resources. 

Constraints 

• Financial: Obtaining new information and knowledge of 

habitats will be expensive; management, including 

monitoring of environmental quality of these areas, will 

be expensive. 

• Legal and Political: Many living marine resources and 

their habitats are protected under national and international laws and regulations. 

Consequences of Not Obtaining Information 

Not having this information increases the risk of 

habitat loss and, over time, will reduce populations of living 

marine resources. 

Strategy for Acquiring and Managing 

Information 

The acquisition and use of this information is the 

responsibility of the Federal Government. 

MILITARY AND SECURITY USES 

Introduction 

Military interests in the EEZ range from operational 

uses including cable and sensor installations to research and 

development, and test and evaluation activities. Many of 

the activities are classified, but in a broad sense, the 

military requires most of the information that all other users 

of the EEZ need. In addition, the military is concerned with 

the protection of offshore economic interests and, hence, 

national security. 

Current technology requirements include ( 1) ocean 

cables for voice and (or) data transmissions among shorebased facilities as well as for data transmissions from sensor 

systems located at sea to shore-based processing facilities; 

(2) sensor and transducer systems to increase knowledge 

and understanding of basic scientific processes that can be 

applied to military operations; (3) mooring systems; (4) 

remotely-operated vehicles (ROY's) and autonomous 

underwater vehicles (AUV's) for research activities and 

tactical systems; and (5) disposal of a variety of surplus, 

outdated, or dangerous defense assets. Future systems may 

involve increased use of active acoustic systems. 

Information Needs 

• Sediment Characteristics: The properties of sediments, 

which are fundamentally important to the evaluation of 

geologic processes and engineering design, are frequently unique on the continental slope and in the Arctic 

and therefore will need to be characterized, especially 

with regard to mooring and cable technology. Knowledge of the acoustic properties of sediments, in-situ 

properties of the seafloor for installation of equipment, 

potential for sediment transport, overall knowledge of 

distribution of sediment types and properties, and temporal variability of the seafloor will be needed. Areas 

that have sediments exhibiting beneficial acoustic properties for sensor systems will need to be determined. 

• Facilities and Systems: Information on the soil characteristics and the engineering properties for design of 

various production facilities (for example, guyed towers, tension leg platforms, or subsea well heads) will be 

needed to assist the military in its defense of such 

valuable, but vulnerable, facilities. 

• Risk Analysis: Appropriate geological and geotechnical 

models need to be developed for the unique, complex 

interactions in the deep waters of the continental slope 

and in the Arctic. Similarly, input parameters for 

deepwater phenomena (such as earthquakes) and their 

effects on sediments, need field validation. Quantitative 

data, with which to build models and calibrate them to 

specify design conditions, are needed. 

142 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
• Seafloor Geologic Processes: Information is needed on 

landsliding, turbidity currents, debris flows, faulting, 

and erosion and scour, all of which are prevalent to 

various degrees on the continental slope. Special processes in the Arctic (like permafrost and ice gouging) 

need to be better understood. The distribution and 

intensities of these processes are currently unknown and 

they cannot be predicted from the available regional 

geologic information. 

• Surveying and ·Mapping: Subsurface information (stratigraphy and geologic structures), based largely on 

seismic profiles, needs to be extended to areas beyond 

the upper continental slope and the ice-covered oceans 

of the Arctic. A data base will need to be developed for 

storing detailed information on bathymetry and bottomsurface topography vital to national security. 

• Environmental Quality Effects: Environmental quality 

concerns include the effect of active sonar on marine 

life and possible ecological damage from installation 

operations of subsea systems. Microcosmic experiments 

will be needed to provide simulations of the consequences of military waste disposal. Estimated release 

rates of metals and toxic organics in waste materials and 

identification of forms of released metals on seawater 

and organisms will be needed. 

• Conflicts with Other Uses: Major conflicts exist with 

oil and gas, hard minerals, waste disposal, and offshore 

facilities. Minor conflicts exist with commercial fishing, habitat conservation, ocean energy, marine recreation, and scientific research. Specific examples include 

the bottom-trawling fishing industry and the oil industry's exploration activities that interfere with the effective performance of sensor and transducer systems. 

Seismic profiling for oil and gas exploration seriously 

interferes with acoustic surveillance systems. 

Constraints 

• Seafloor Gradients: The bathymetry of the continental 

slope is far more complex than that found on the shelf. 

Some areas with steep bottom slopes and rough seafloor 

may be too difficult and uneconomical to develop. A 

variety of natural characteristics of the seabed, such as 

bottom topography, bottom sediment types, jetting/trenching/plowing bottom characteristics, trafficability of 

the bottom, and bottom scour and stabilization, constrain military development. 

• Legal and Political: Military uses of the seafloor have 

few, if any, political or legal constraints. 

Consequences of Not Obtaining Information 

Conflicts between military and nonmilitary uses will 

continue unless adequate information is available for assessment and resolution of multiple-use conflicts. 

Strategy for Acquiring and Managing 

Information 

Acquisition and management of information and data 

for military use are the responsibility of the military 

establishment. 

OCEAN ENERGY CONVERSION 

Introduction 

Because of the increased availability and moderate 

prices of oil and gas, the emphasis on energy activities that 

relate to the ocean has been reduced in recent years. The 

principal area of interest in ocean energy in the EEZ 

pertains to ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC). A 

temperature difference on the order of 20 oc is required to 

operate a rankine-cycle heat engine. OTEC plants are 

presently being considered primarily for the island communities of the U.S. EEZ (such as Hawaii) where the plant is 

shore based and the cold water pipe extends down steep 

slopes to a depth of about 1,000 m to access the cold water. 

Offshore OTEC plants are also being considered. Both 

types of plants need information pertaining to the use of the 

seafloor. Tidal power and salinity-gradient-based energyconversion systems are directed toward installation near the 

mouths oflarge rivers or estuaries. Wave, current, and wind 

energy facilities are more likely to be located in relatively 

shallow coastal waters. 

OTEC development for commercial use is in its 

formative stages but is being considered by at least five 

nations. Engineering information needs similar to those 

required for shallow-water, offshore structures, offshore 

sewer pipelines, and moored oil rigs will be required for 

OTEC systems. 

Information Needs 

• Sediment Characteristics: The properties of sediments, 

which are fundamentally important to the evaluation of 

geologic processes and to engineering design, are frequently unique on the continental slope and therefore 

will need to be characterized. In this regard, the 

following information will be required: strength and 

stress-strain time parameters, compressibility and stress 

history, permeability, and effects of slope deformation 

and failure. 

• Facilities and Systems: Information on seafloor characteristics and engineering properties will be needed for 

the design and construction of onshore or nearshore 

bottom-fixed, at-sea floating facilities (''grazers"), as 

well as on the engineering problems associated with the 

Workshop 9: Seafloor-Seabed Utilization 143 
technical needs of the facilities, such as cold water 

pipes, electrical power riser cables, and deepwater 

moorings. 

• Resource Assessment: Temperature profiles need to be 

examined to determine the differences between surface 

ocean water and deeper waters as an energy source for 

OTEC. 

• Seafloor Geologic Processes: Information is needed on 

landsliding, turbidity currents, debris flows, faulting, 

and erosion and scour, •an of which are prevalent to 

various degrees on the continental slope. The distribution and intensities of these processes are currently 

unknown, and they cannot be predicted from the available regional geologic information. Information is 

needed on nearshore seafloor properties on a sitespecific basis to successfully "fasten" cold water pipes 

to a sharply sloping seafloor. Also, information on the 

load-bearing properties of the seafloor and on slope 

stability is important. 

• Surveying and Mapping: Subsurface information (concerning, stratigraphy and geologic structures, for example), based largely on seismic profiles, needs to be 

extended to areas beyond the upper continental slope. 

• Environmental Quality Effects: The environmental 

effects of OTEC systems pumping cold water nutrients 

to the surface and mixing cold water with warm surface 

and subsurface waters need to be resolved relative to 

their effects on living marine resources. The effects of 

discharging antifoulants used in cleaning heat exchangers are also a concern. 

• Conflicts with Other Uses: Shore-based OTEC facilities pose few serious conflicts with other uses. Offshore, moored OTEC facilities could have some minor 

conflicts with commercial fishing and military uses. 

Constraints 

• Financial: The extent to which energy conversion 

devices can be economical depends on the relative 

initial capital cost per installed kilowatt, the relative 

cost per kilowatt hour at which energy can be delivered 

to a grid, and the location of markets relative to the 

location of the generating facility. The single most 

important barrier to OTEC development is the uncertainty of financial backing associated with unproven 

cost estimates and comparatively moderate oil prices. 

Consequences of Not Obtaining Information 

Delays in proving technical and economic feasibility 

of ocean energy systems can affect future economic growth 

of island economies and reduce their competitiveness. 

Strategy for Acquiring and Managing 

Information 

In its formative stages, the Federal Government 

should take the primary lead in ocean energy research and 

development. 

MARINE RECREATION 

Introduction 

Over 50 percent of the U.S. population lives within 

50 mi of the ocean, and by the year 2000, this could be 

as high as 75 percent. This large, coastal population has 

placed increasing demands on marine recreation, a steadily 

growing multibillion dollar per year industry. Much of this 

industry concerns boating, swimming, sport fishing, and 

other related activities. 

Seabed utilization in these areas pertains primanly to 

construction of shore-based and nearshore facilities for 

ports, marinas, and moored facilities but also includes the 

quality of the underwater and seabed environment for 

divers. Dredging activities associated with such facilities 

are a major, continuing activity. Most of these facilities are 

within the coastal waters, not in the EEZ, but development 

activities in the EEZ could affect the quality of coastal 

environments. 

There is new (relatively small) interest in undersea 

recreational habitats, underwater recreational vehicles, and 

underwater hotels. Implementation of these interests will 

require detailed siting information on the characteristics of 

the ocean environment, and especially the seabed. 

Information Needs 

• Sediment Characteristics: Information will be needed on 

load-bearing characteristics, bottom topography, thickness of unconsolidated sediments, bottom stability, and 

the potential for sediment erosion, transport, and deposition. 

• Facilities and Systems: Information on the seabedstructure interaction could be needed to determine the 

most suitable designs for underwater habitats and hotels 

of the future. 

• Risk Analysis: Appropriate seabed models will need to 

be developed for the various interactions that are likely 

to take place in the coastal waters where recreational 

habitats and hotels are to be constructed. 

• Seafloor Geologic Processes: Information is needed.on 

landsliding, turbidity currents, erosion and scour, and 

faulting, all of which are prevalent to various degrees on 

the continental slope. The distribution and intensities of 

these processes are currently unknown, and they cannot 

144 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
be predicted from the available regional geologic information. Information on seafloor characteristics and 

engineering properties will be required on the advantages and disadvantages of fixed or mobile habitats; 

permanent, semipermanent, and temporary habitats; 

and hyperbaric or atmospheric habitats. 

• Surveying and Mapping: Site-specific, high-resolution 

bathymetric information will be needed for coastal 

waters. 

• Environmental Quality Effects: Information is needed 

on the overall quality of the ocean environment where 

nearshore facilities are planned. Also needed is information on temperature profiles and circulation and 

stratification of coastal waters in site-specific areas. 

• Conflicts with Other Uses: Major conflicts exist with 

hard minerals (for example, sand and gravel), waste 

disposal, and commercial fishing. Minor conflicts exist 

with oil and gas, habitat conservation, military uses, 

and cultural resources. 

Constraints 

• Financial: Investments in recreational underwater habitats are in an exploratory phase to sample the market 

demand. Early investments are risky. Most of the 

detailed site-specific information needs for such facilities will probably be factored into the cost of the facility 

development. 

Consequences of Not Obtaining Information 

Marine recreation activities in the EEZ will be slowed 

without this information. 

Strategy for Acquiring and Managing 

Information 

Since most marine recreation areas are made available for the public good, general information will probably 

be acquired and managed by Federal and State Governments. Site-specific information will be acquired, when 

needed, by the private sector. 

UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY 

AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Introduction 

Recovery of artifacts from several well-known shipwrecks has spurred interest in underwater archaeology and 

shipwreck salvage activities. A report by the Office of 

Technology Assessment (OT A) indicates that most underwater historical resources are suffering rapid attnt10n 

because the United States lacks a coherent national policy to 

guide identification and preservation of underwater and 

maritime cultural resources. The OT A report indicates that 

underwater maritime cultural resources are so vulnerable to 

a variety of natural and human threats that Federal support 

is needed. 

Presently, seven national marine sanctuaries, covering about 2,500 nautical mi2 , have been designated by the 

Federal Government. Similar in concept to land-based 

national parks and wildlife refuges, marine sanctuaries are 

an essential part of our national heritage. However, the 

terrestrial analogy may not be entirely appropriate, since 

boundaries of marine ecosystems are less discernible and 

less geographically stable. For example, isotherms, water 

masses, and salinity are true barriers but are difficult for our 

land-oriented legal and management systems to deal with 

effectively. Criteria for the establishment and management 

of these sanctuaries are developed by NOAA. Other kinds 

of marine reserves and stable, pristine reference areas 

should be acquired in the course of development of the 

EEZ. These areas are growing in importance and value to 

society. 

Information Needs 

• Sediment Characteristics: For underwater archaeology 

and shipwreck salvor activities, information on the 

site-specific nature of the seafloor and sediments is 

required. Information is also needed on load-bearing 

characteristics; bottom topography; thickness of unconsolidated sediments; bottom stability; and the potential 

for sediment erosion, transport, and deposition. Similar 

information is required for pristine reference areas 

designated in the EEZ. 

• Surveying and Mapping: High-resolution bathymetric 

mapping is needed, especially for location and identification of historical shipwreck sites. Accurate surveying 

and mapping of marine sanctuaries and pristine reference areas are also required. 

• Environmental Quality Effects: Information on environmental health of marine sanctuaries and reference areas 

is needed through a long-term, environmental monitoring program that obtains a comprehensive reference 

base and periodically measures quality and reports on 

status and trends. 

• Conflicts with Other Uses: A major conflict exists with 

the offshore oil and gas industry. Minor conflicts exist 

with hard minerals, waste disposal, commercial fishing, 

and military uses. 

Constraints 

• Financial: Budgets for archaeological activities, preservation of historic shipwrecks, and establishment and 

Workshop 9: Seafloor-Seabed Utilization 145 
monitoring of marine sanctuaries and pristine areas are 

minimal and require additional funding support. 

• Legal and Political: The legal aspects of artifact recovery and ownership are a major concern. 

Consequences of Not Obtaining Information 

The location, designation, and protection of cultural 

resources will be delayed or inadvertently lost. 

Strategy for Acquiring and Managing 

Information 

Since this seabed usage pertains to the public good, 

related information should be acquired and managed by 

Federal and State Governments. 

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 

Each of the previous uses of the seafloor requires and 

involves scientific research that includes a better understanding of sediment characteristics, erosion, transport, and 

deposition; bottom stability; seafloor geologic processes; 

environmental quality; and resource assessment. The conduct of this research is in itself an important and competing 

use of the seabed. It must contend with the constraints and 

impacts of multiple-uses of seabed regions. 

Scientific research is one of the means for providing 

the required data, information, and knowledge for seabed 

utilization. 

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 

Armand J. Silva, Co-chairperson 

Charles N. Ehler, Co-chairperson 

Joe Vadus, Steering Committee Representative 

Robert J. Bailey 

Gerald Barton 

H. Suzanne Bolton 

Rebecca Coverdale 

Michael J. Cruickshank 

William Curtis 

George English 

Kent Hughes 

Clifford E. McLain 

Andrew C. Palmer 

Harold D. Palmer 

Scott Powell 

David Price 

Kurt Stehling 

William Stewart 

SELECTED REFERENCES 

Broadus, J.M., 1987, Seabed materials: Science, v. 235, p. 

853-860. 

Champ, M.A. (chairman), 1984, Exclusive Economic Zone 

papers, Special symposium at the OCEANS '84 Conference, Washington, D.C., September 1984: Marine Technology Society and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 189 p. 

Chaney, R.C., and Fang, H.Y., eds., 1986, Marine geotechnology and nearshore/offshore structures: ASTM Publication 

STP 923. 

Coastal States Organization, 1987, Coastal states and the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone: Washington, D.C., Coastal 

States Organization, 26 p. 

Compass Publications, 1987, Special report-Ocean engineering 

and resource development in the Exclusive Economic Zone: 

Sea Technology, v. 28, no. 6., 77 p. 

Duedall, I.W., Ketchum, B., Park, P.K., and Kester, D.R., eds., 

1983, Industrial sewage wastes in the ocean, in Wastes in 

the ocean, Volume 1: New York City, New York, John 

Wiley and Sons. 

Duedall, I.W., Kester, D.R., Park, P.K., and Ketchum, B., eds., 

1985, Energy wastes in the ocean, in Wastes in the ocean, 

Volume IV: New York City, New York, John Wiley and 

Sons. 

Ehler, C.N., and Basta, D.J., 1982, Information for assessing the 

future use of ocean resources: Marine Pollution Bulletin, v. 

13, no. 6., p. 186-191. 

---1984, Strategic assessment of multiple resource-use conflicts in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, in Proceedings 

of the Exclusive Economic Zone Symposium at the 

OCEANS '84 Conference: Washington, D.C., Marine 

Technology Society and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, p. 1-6. 

Ehler, C.N., Basta, D.J., LaPointe, T.F., and Warren, M.A., 

1986, New oceanic and coastal atlases focus on potential 

EEZ conflicts: Oceanus, v. 29, no. 3, p. 42-51. 

First, M.W., ed., 1972, Municipal waste disposal by shipborne 

incineration and sea disposal of residues: Cambridge, 

Massachusetts, Technical Report of the Harvard University 

School of Public Health. 

Hansen, L.C., and Alexander, L., eds., 1984, Resource use and 

use conflicts in the Exclusive Economic Zone: Kingston, 

Rhode Island, University of Rhode Island. 

Hill, G., and Lockwood, M., 1987, Seafloor exploration and 

characterization: Prerequisite to ocean space utilization: 

Proceedings of the OCEANS '87 Conference, Halifax, 

Nova Scotia. 

Kato, W., ed., 1986, Ocean Space Utilization '85, Proceedings of 

the International Symposium. 

Kester, D.R., Ketchum, B., Duedall, I.W., and Park, P.K., eds., 

1983, Dredged, material disposal in the ocean, in Wastes in 

the ocean, Volume II: New York City, New York, John 

Wiley and Sons. 

Kester, D.R., Burt, W.V., Capuzzo, J.M., Park, P.K., Ketchum, 

B. , and Duedall, I. W. , eds. , 1985, Deep-sea waste disposal, in Wastes in the ocean, Volume V: New York City, 

New York, John Wiley and Sons. 

146 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Ketchum, B., Capuzzo, J.M., Burt, W.V., Duedall, I.W., Park, 

P.K., and Kester, D.R., eds., 1985, Nearshore waste 

disposal, in Wastes in the ocean, Volume VI: New York 

City, New York, John Wiley and Sons. 

Lockwood, M. , and Hill, G. , eds. , 1986, Proceedings of the 

Exclusive Economic Zone Symposium-Exploring the new 

ocean frontier: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 270 p. 

Manheim, F.T., and Vine, A., 1987, Options for radioactive and 

other hazardous waste siting within the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone: Technical Report WHOI-87-12, Woods 

Hole, Massachusetts, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. 

Mruine Board, Assembly of Engineering, 1977, Verification of 

fixed offshore oil and gas platforms: Washington, D.C., 

National Research Council. 

Marine Technology Society, 1983, Oceans '83 Proceedings: 

Boston, Massachusetts, Marine Technology Society and 

the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. 

--1984, Oceans '84 Proceedings: Washington, D.C., September 1984, Marine Technology Society and the Institute 

of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. 

----1985, Marine mineral resources: Special issue of the MTS 

Journal, v. 19, no. 4., 72 p. 

Office of Technology Assessment, 1987a, Technologies for 

underwater archaeology and maritime preservation: Sea 

Technology, August 1987, p. 30-35. 

---1987b, Marine minerals: Exploring our new ocean frontier: 

OTA--0-342, Washington, D.C., 347 p. 

Park, P.K., Kester, D.R., Duedall, I.W., and Ketchum, B., eds., 

1983, Radioactive wastes in the ocean, in Wastes in the 

ocean, Volume III: New York City, New York, John Wiley 

and Sons. 

Prior, D.B., and Doyle, E.H., 1984, Geological hazards survey 

for exploratory drilling in water depths to 2000 m: Offshore 

Technology Conference Paper No. 4747, p. 311-318. 

Ross, D.A., and Aubrey, D.G., 1980, The use of the coastal 

oceans in the 80's: Opportunities for marine geology: 

WHOI Technical Report 80-19, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. 

University of Hawaii/National Science Foundation, 1987, Ocean 

engineering technology in the Exclusive Economic Zone: 

Results of a workshop entitled Engineering Solutions for 

the Utilization of the Exclusive Economic Zone Resources, 

October 19-23, 1986: University of Hawaii, College of 

Engineering, 18 p. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1984, U.S.-Japan cooperative program in natural resources: Proceedings of the 13th meeting, 

U.S.-Japan Marine Facilities Panel. 

---1986a, U.S.-Japan cooperative program in natural 

resources: Proceedings of the 14th meeting, U.S.-Japan 

Marine Facilities Panel. 

---1986b, Gulf of Mexico strategic assessment data atlas: 

Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 165 maps 

and text. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the President's Council on 

Environmental Quality, 1980, Eastern United States coastal 

and ocean zones data atlas: Washington, D.C., National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 127 maps and 

text. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1979, Outer continental shelf order no. 

8, platforms and structures: Washington, D.C., Department 

of the Interior. 

---1984, Symposium Proceedings: A national program for the 

assessment and development of the mineral resources of the 

United States Exclusive Economic Zone: U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 929, 308 p. 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1984, Special issue on the 

Exclusive Economic Zone: Oceanus, v. 27, no. 4, 96 p. 

Workshop 9: Seafloor-Seabed Utilization .··:&47 

APPENDIXES 1-3 

APPENDIX 1: 

1987 

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE 

SYMPOSIUM 

MAPPING AND RESEARCH: 

Planning Cor the Next 10 Years 

USGS-NOAA Office for 

Coordination of Mapping 

and Research in the EEZ 

November 17-19, 1987 

Appendix 1 151 
SYMPOSIUM OVERVIEW 

This will be the third in a series of biennial symposia dedicated to the development and 

implementation of a National Program for Mapping and Research for the non-living 

resources of the sea floor of the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Through 

overview presentations and nine (9) individual workshop panels, a scientific framework 

for EEZ mapping and research will be developed. Five ofthe panels will discuss issues 

relative to each of the EEZ regions - East Coast, Gulf, West Coast, Alaska, and the 

Hawaiian Islands and U.S. Territories. The other four panels will cover technology needs 

and information needs for oil and gas, hard minerals, and seafloor-seabed utilization. 

SYMPOSIUM OBJECTIVES 

• Review and update of significant ongoing Federal, State, Academic, and Industrial 

activities. 

• Examine the essential elements for a National Plan to characterize the seafloor and 

subsoil of the EEZ within 10 years. 

• Determine attributes ofEEZ data and information: time, space, resolution, scale, 

geographical areas, measurements required to characterize the seafloor and subsoil. 

• Assess the requirements of users of EEZ data and information. Who needs what data, 

when, where, why, how much, how often? 

• Determine the data management and data archival requirements for the building and 

maintenance of a National EEZ data base. 

SYMPOSIUM STEERING COMMITTEE 

Chainnen: 

Gary W. Hill, U.S. Department ofthe Interior, U.S. Geological Survey 

Millington Lockwood, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service 

Bonnie McGregor, U.S. Geological Survey 

Robert Rioux, U.S. Geological Survey 

Richard Perry, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

joe Vadus, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

john Goll, Minerals Management Service 

Pat Pecora, Minerals Management Service 

john Rowland, Bureau ofMines 

Symposium support is provided by Buhler and Abraham, Inc., 8700 First Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910, 

301-588-4177. 

SYMPOSIUM SPONSORS 

• U.S. Geological Survey 

• Minerals Management Service 

• Bureau of Mines 

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

152 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
PROGRAM AGENDA 

Tuesday, November 17, 1987 

10:00 a.m. Registration (North Wing) Adjacent to Auditorium 

(Lunch available in cafeteria) 

1:00 p.m. Introduction (Auditorium) 

3:00p.m. 

3:20p.m. 

5:00p.m.-

7:00p.m. 

The Need for Mapping and Research of the Seabed-Subsoil of the EEZ 

james W. Ziglar, Assistant Secretary, Water and Science, Department of the Interior 

Keynote Speaker 

The Importance of the EEZ and the Need for a National Program 

D. james Baker, joint Oceanographic Institutions 

The Needs of Users of EEZ Mapping and Research 

j. Steven Griles, Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, Department of 

the Interior 

Science and the EEZ as Part of a Global Program 

M. Grant Gross, National Science Foundation 

Technology Assessment for the EEZ - A National Perspective 

james W. Curlin, Office ofTechnology Assessment, Congress ofthe United States 

Mapping of the Seafloor - Progress and the Plan 

Paul M. Wolff, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Information Needs to Develop Technology to Recover the Mine.-al Resources of 

the EEZ 

David S. Brown, Bureau of Mines 

Coffee Break (North Wing) 

(Auditorium) 

The OCS Program - Information Needs and Sources 

William D. Bettenberg, Minerals Management Service, Department of the Interior 

Information Needs for Multiple-Use Decisions - An Environmental 

Perspective 

Clifton E. Curtis, Oceanic Society 

U.S. Oil Supply and Demand Outlook - An Industry Perspective 

Theodore R. Eck, Amoco Corporation 

The EEZ, An Offshore Extension of the Continent - The States' Perspective 

Charles G. Groat, Association of State Geologists 

The Face of the Deep - Road Maps of Discovery 

Dallas L. Peck, U.S. Geological Survey 

Exhibits Show and Reception (North and South Wings) 

Adjacent to Auditorium, National Center, U.S. Geological Survey 

Appendix 1 153 
PROGRAM AGENDA 

Wednesday, NoveJDber 18, 1987 

8:00a.m. 

9:00a.m. 

9:30a.m. 

Coffee and Doughnuts (North Wing) 

(Auditorium) 

Organization and Role of the U.s. Geological Survey/National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration joint Office 

Gary W. Hill, U.S. Geological Survey 

Presentation of the Draft 10-Year National Plan and Purpose and Makeup of 

the Workshops 

Millington Lockwood, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Workshop Sessions (Concurrent) (Designated Workshop Rooms) 

12:00 noon Lunch (On Your Own) (USGS Cafeteria) 

1:00 p.m. Workshop Sessions (Continued) 

3:00p.m. Coffee Break (North Wing) 

3:30p.m.- Workshop Sessions (Continued) 

5:00p.m. 

Thursday, Nove10ber 19, 1987 

8:00a.m. 

9:00a.m. 

Coffee and Doughnuts (North Wing) 

(Auditorium) 

Workshop Panel Presentations 

Moderator: Millington Lockwood, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Workshop Reports and Discussion 

Workshop Chairpersons 

Summary -joint Ofllce's Role in Development of 10-Year Plan 

Gary W. Hill, U.S. Geological Survey 

12:30 p.m. Symposium Adjourns 

Exhibits, results of EEZ mapping and research projects, and EEZ-related products and 

services will be on display in the North and South Wings. Poster boards will be 

available to workshop chairmen and others wishing to show results of EEZ-related 

projects. 

154 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
WORKSHOPS 

Workshop Session Introductions 

REGIONAL PANELS 

Workshop 1. 

Rm. 7A 212 

Workshop2 

Rm. 3B 327 

Workshop3 

Rm. 3A409 

Workshop4 

Rm. 5A 217 

WorkshopS 

Rm. 2A405 

Scientific Mapping and Research to Characterize the EEZ - Alaska 

Co-Chairperson: 

Douglas A. Wolfe, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Michael S. Marlow, U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Mapping and Research to Characterize the EEZ - West Coast 

Co-Chairperson: 

William R. Normark, U.S. Geological Survey 

Donald A. Hull, State Geologist, Oregon 

Scientific Mapping and Research to Characterize the EEZ - East Coast 

Co-Chairperson: 

johnS. Schlee, U.S. Geological Survey 

David B. Duane, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Scientific Mapping and Research to Characterize the EEZ - Gulf Coast 

Co-Chairperson: 

james M. Coleman, Louisiana State University 

Chacko]. john, Louisiana Geological Survey 

Scientific Mapping and Research to Characterize the EEZ - Islands 

Co-Chairperson: 

Bruce M. Richmond, U.S. Geological Survey 

Charles L. Morgan, Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii 

MAPPING AND RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY PANEL 

Workshop 6 

Rm. 1D 111 

Technology Needs to Characterize the EEZ 

Co-Chairperson: 

Robert C. Tyee, University of Rhode Island 

Donald Pryor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

SEAFLOOR-SEABED USE PANELS 

Workshop 'I 

Rm. BA 102A 

WorkshopS 

Auditorium 

WorkshopS 

Rm. BA 102C 

Infonnation Needs and Availability for Oil and Gas Leasing, Exploration, 

and Development of the EEZ 

Co-Chairperson: 

Carolita L. Kallaur, Minerals Management Service, Department of the Interior 

Carl H. Savit, Oil and Gas Consultant 

Infonnation Availabllity and Utilization for Hard Mineral Leasing, 

Exploration, and Development of the EEZ 

Co-Chairperson: 

ReidT. Stone, Minerals Management Service, Department ofthe Interior 

D.S. Cottell, ARC Marine Limited 

Infonnation Needs for Seafloor-Seabed Utilization 

Co-Chairperson: 

Charles N. Ehler, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Armand]. Silva, University ofRhode Island 

Appendix 1 155 
Charter for Coordination of Federal Exclusive 

Econondc Zone Mapping and Research Programs 

Purpose 

The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the United States has a vast potential for resource 

development. In order to develop these resources in an efficient manner, it is necessary 

for a coordinated mapping and research endeavor to be formed, involving the Federal 

Government, State governments, private industry, and academic interests. 

The purpose of this charter is to provide a formal mechanism for the coordination of 

the Federal mapping and research activities in the EEZ of the United States. Coordination 

will avoid duplication of activities, assure adequate response to needs of users and provide 

for timely delivery of products and services and exchange of data. Coordination will also 

facilitate private sector involvement in the direction and use of EEZ-related data products. 

To Meet This Purpose, We Hereby Establish the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)-

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) joint Office for Mapping 

and Research in the EEZ 

Mapping and research activities involved in the EEZ range from long-term ocean 

surveying programs, preparation of atlases and maps from new and existing data, and 

site specific research to determine the nature ofthe seafloor geology. 

Much of this research and mapping activity is conducted by the USGS in the Department 

of the Interior and by NOAA in the Department of Commerce. The joint USGS-NOAA 

office will provide natural leadership for the design, implementation, and coordination of 

a national EEZ program of mapping and research and investigation of the nonliving 

resources of the EEZ seafloor. The Joint Office will also ensure participation by all 

interested groups in the formulation of goals, objectives, and priorities for a national 

EEZ mapping and research program. 

USGS-NOAA 

JOINT OFFICE 

USGS-NOAA for User 

Technical - MAPPING 1J,:J RESEARCH ~ Coordination 

Working Group in the Committee 

• 

Region 1 

ATLANTIC 

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC 

ZONE 

I Report Staff ~ ! Mapping Staff 

• • 

Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 

G.MEX-cARB. WEST COAST ALASKA 

joint Office for .Mapping and Research in the EEZ 

Organizational Chart 

156 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

• 

Region 5 

HAWAIIISLANDS 
EXHIBITS- DISPLAYS- RESEARCH RESULTS 

North Wing 

• GLORIA Mosaics - Results from U.S. Geological Survey cruises aboard the RN F ARNELLA are 

shown. Geographical areas include East Coast, GulfofMexico, Puerto Rico, West Coast, Bering 

Sea, and a portion of Hawaiian waters. Copies of West Coast and Gulf of Mexico atlases are also 

on display. 

• Gorda Ridge - Minerals Management Service - Office of Strategic and International Materials 

has produced a video tape of live filming on the seafloor during the 1986 DSRV. dives. RelHted 

publications are also available. 

• Hawaiian Seamounts and Cobalt Crusts -Joint Minerals Management Service and the State 

of Hawaii display showing results of activities carried out by the State Task Force. 

• Cenozoic Sediments - Minerals Management Service display showing correlation of Cenozoic 

Sediments consisting of geological and geophysical cross-sections of a study area in the central 

Gulf of Mexico. 

• Hawaii Survey Results - Seafloor Surveys International, Inc., has surveyed portions of the 

seafloor off Hawaii showing the value of having co-registered side-scan sonar images and swath 

bathymetry. 

• Continental Margin Maps- U.S. Geological Survey, Office ofEnergy and Marine Geology will 

have maps and computer display ofits digital mapping capability. 

South Wing 

• Strategic Assessments of the EEZ - NOAA's National Ocean Service's Office of Oceanography 

and Marine Assessments has a national program to evaluate the environmental and economic 

effects of policies affecting the use of the ocean. Display includes interactive computer demonstrations of strategic assessment capability. 

• Mining Technology Developments - Bureau of Mines conducts numerous research activities 

in the Exclusive Economic Zone in order to deterinine approaches to seafloor mining and 

recovery of resources therein. 

• Oil and Gas Resources - Overview of Minerals Management Service's programs in the EEZ, 

Royalty Management and the National Studies Program. 

• Sea Grant and Undersea Research- Summary ofEEZ activities sponsored by NOAA's 

National Sea Grant and Undersea Research Program. 

• Geophysical Products and Services - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has 

many programs that produce data and information useful to characterize the seabed subsoil of 

the EEZ. This display describes some of these data. 

• Bathymetric Mapping - Overview of NOAA's Exclusive Economic Zone Bathymetric Mapping. Description of mapping systems, geographical areas to be surveyed and products available. 

Handouts describe NOAA's 5-year EEZ mapping projections. 

• EEZ Development in the Nation's Interest- University ofWashington- Institute for Marine 

Studies has prepared a display in conjunction with the Seattle Waterfront Awareness Exhibit 

highlighting the significant activities ongoing in the EEZ. 

Appendix 1 157 
THE WHITE HOUSE 

Office of the Press Secretary 

Embargoed for release at 4:00 pm EST March 10, 1983 

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

A PROCLAMATION BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

WHEREAS the Government of the United States of America desires to facilitate the wise 

development and use of the oceans consistent with international law; 

WHEREAS international law recognizes that, in a zone beyond its territory and adjacent 

to its territorial sea, known as the Exclusive Economic Zone, a coastal State may assert certain 

sovereign rights over natural resources and related jurisdiction; and 

WHEREAS the establishment of an Exclusive Economic Zone by the United States will 

advance the development of ocean resources and promote the protection of the marine environment, while not affecting other lawful uses of the zone, including the freedoms of navigation 

and overflight, by other States; 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, by the authority vested in me as President of the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim the 

sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the United States of America and confirm also the rights 

and freedoms of all States within an Exclusive Economic Zone, as described herein. 

The Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States is a zone contiguous to the territorial 

sea, including zones contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States, the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (to the extent consistent 

with the Covenant and the United Nations Trusteeship Agreement), and United States overseas territories and possessions. The Exclusive Economic Zone extends to a distance 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. In cases 

where the maritime boundary with a neighboring State remains to be determined, the boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone shall be determined by the United States and other State 

concerned in accordance with equitable principles. 

Within the Exclusive Economic Zone, the United States has, to the extent permitted by 

international law, (a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and 

managing natural resources, both living and non-living, of the seabed and subsoil and the superjacent waters and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration 

of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds; and (b) jurisdiction with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands, and installations and structures having economic purposes, and the protection and preservation of the marine environment. 

The Proclamation does not change existing United States policies concerning the continental shelf, marine mammals and fisheries, including highly migratory species of tuna which are 

not subject to United States jurisdiction and require international agreements for effective 

management. 

The United States will exercise these sovereign rights and jurisdiction in accordance with 

the rules of international law. 

Without prejudice to the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the United States, the Exclusive Economic Zone remains an area beyond the territory and territorial sea of the United 

States in which all States enjoy the high seas freedoms of navigation, overflight, and laying of 

submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of March, in the 

year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-three, and of the Independence of the United 

States of America _the two hundred and seventh 

RONALD REAGAN 

Accompanying the releaae of this proclamation were a statement by the President (Appendix A) and 

an oceans policy fact sheet (Appendix B). 

158 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
APPENDIX 2: Alphabetical List of Symposium Participants 

Ted Albert 

U.S. Geological Survey 801 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

James P. Allen 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

729 Arapeen Drive 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 

Stanley Alper 

NOAA/NOS 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Roger V. Amato 

Minerals Management Service 

1951 Kidwell Drive #601 

Vienna, Virginia 22180 

Christian Andreasen 

Chief, Charting Geodetic Services, N/CG2 

NOAA 

6001 Executive Boulevard N/CG2 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Eileen Ashworth 

ASME-MERI 

1825 K Street, N.W., Suite 218 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

James E. Ayres Scientific Advisor for Hydrography U.S. Naval Observatory DMA Headquarters Building 56 

Washington, D.C. 20305-3000 

Ivar G. Babb 

NOAA 

6010 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Ledolph Baer 

NOAA 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20850 

Robert J. Bailey Oregon OCS Coordinator 

Department of Land Conservation 

and Development 320 SW Stark Street, Room 530 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

D. James Baker, President 

Joint Oceanographic Institutions, Inc. 

1755 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 

Suite 800 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Kenneth C. Baldwin 

Assistant Professor 

Ocean Engineering Program University of New Hampshire Durham, New Hampshire 03824 

George M. Banino 

Dunn Geoscience Corporation 

12 Metro Road 

Albany, New York 12205 

Don Barnes 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

4217 McCain Court 

Kensington, Maryland 20895 

Aldo Barsotti 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

2401 E Street, N.W., MS 5010 

Washington, D.C. 20241 

Gerald Barton 

Chief, NEDRES Program Office 

Universal Building 1825 Connectivut Avenue, N.W., Room 522 

Washington, D.C. 20235 

Daniel J. Basta 

NOAA, N/OMA 31 

11400 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, Maryland 20500 

Alan C. Bauder 

Natural Resources Manager State of New York Office of 

General Services 

Empire State Plaza 

A 1 bany, Ne\'1 York 12242 

Christy Anne Bell 

New Jersey Geological Survey CN029 

Trenton, New Jersey 08690 

Peter F. Bermel 

U.S. Geological Survey 105 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

Car R. Berquist Virginia Division of 

Mineral Resources 

469 Catesby Lane 

Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 

Appendix 2 159 
William D. Bettenberg 

Director, Minerals Management Service 

Department of the Interior 

18th and C Streets, N.W., MS 4230 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Bev D. Blackwood 

Washington Representative Exxon Corporation 1899 L Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Naomi R. Bolden 

Department of Commerce 

NOAA 

Building FB4 

14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20230 

H. Suzanne Bolton 

NOAA - External Affairs 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Room 5222 - HCHB 

Washington, D.C. 20230 

Commander Booker 

U.S. Naval Observatory 

DMA Building 56 

Washington, D.C. 20305 

Charles A. Bookman 

Director 

Marine Board 

National Research Council 

2101 Constitution Avenue 

Washington, D.C. 20418 

Dixie L. Bounds 

Department of Interior 

18th and C Streets, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Skip Braden 

Minerals Management Service 

621 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

Garrett W. Brass 

Chairman and Professor 

Marine Geology and Geophysics University of Miami 

4600 Rickenbacker Causeway Miami, Florida 33149-1098 

David S. Brown 

Deputy Director 

Bureau of Mines 

2401 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20241 

Kevin T. Brown 

Navigational Scientist 

Hydrographic Topographic Center 

Defense Mapping Agency Washington, D.C. 20315 

Mark K. Brown 

U.S. Geological Survey 914 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

E. Evan Brunson 

Project Coordinator, OCS 

Phosphates EFS 

North Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources and Community Development 

4002 Twickenham Court 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27617 

Donald Brychczynski 

Department of Commerce 

14th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20230 

Scott R. Bulfinch 

U.S. Navy (OP-006) 

34th and Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20390 

Richard Burroughs Department of Marine Affairs/ 

Washburn 

University of Rhode Island 

Kingston, Rhode Island 02881 

Jeremia Callahan 

McCormack Aggregates 415 Main Street 

South Amsoy, New Jersey 08879 

J. Frisbee Campbell Operations Manager Seafloor Surveys International, Inc. 

1221 Kapiolani Boulevard, PH-40 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96814 

Julie K. Campbell Constituent Affairs Specialist/OLA 

NOAA, Department of Commerce 

14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20230 

Edward W. Cannon 

U.S. Coast Guard 

2100 2nd Street, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20593-0001 

160 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Normand Caplan Director, Engineering Directorate 

National Science Foundation 

1800 G Street, OEID Rm 1238 

Washington, D.C. 20550 

Nancy O'Neal Carter 

Foreign Affairs Officer for 

Marine and Polar Minerals 

EB/MPM, Room 3425 

U.S. Department of State 

Washington, D.C. 20520 

John Gerard Catena 

Research Fellow 

The Oceanic Society 1536 15th Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Peter G. Chamberlain 

Staff Engineer U.S. Bureau of Mines 

2401 E Street, N.W., MS 6020 

Washington, D.C. 20241 

Michael A. Champ Senior Advisor 

National Science Foundation 

1800 G Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20550 

John H. Clotworthy Vice President 

Harry Constantine 

Alpine Oceanic Seismic Survey 80 Oak Street 

Norwood, NJ 07648 

D. S. Cot tell 

Managing Director, ARC Marine Limited 

Burnley Wharf, Marine Parade 

Southhampton, SOl lJF 

England 

Carl H. Cotterill 

Staff Assistant MDA 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

6030 Corland Court 

McLean, Virginia 22101 

Robin Granton 

Director, The Mississippi Mineral 

Resources Institute 

202 Old Chemistry Building University, Mississippi 38677 

David W. Crow 

Minerals Management Service 

Department of the Interior 

18th and C Streets, N.W., MS 610 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Michael J. Cruickshank 

Consulting Marine Mining Engineer 

P.O. Box 295 

Hamilton, Virginia 22068 

Joint Oceanographic Institutions, Inc. 

1755 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 800 Walter Cruickshank . Washington, D.C. 20036 PBA, Department of Inter1or 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

George J. Coakley Assistant Chief, Division of 

International Minerals 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

2401 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20241-4010 

James M. Coleman 

Coastal Studies Institute 

Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 

Martin P. Conricote 

NOAA/EEZ Program N/CG2x2 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Thomas J. Culliton 

NOAA 

11400 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Margaret Cummisky Legislative Assistant 

Office of Senator Inouye 722 Hart Senate Building Washington, D.C. 20510 

James W. Curl in 

Oceans and Environment Program Office of Technology Assessment 

Congress of the United States 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Clifton E. Curtis 

The Oceanic Society 1536 16th Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Appendix 2 161 
William R. Curtis 

Oceanographer 

Office of Radiation Programs (ANR-461) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Kyle R. Datta 

567 South King Street 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 

Eric H. De Carlo 

Hawaii Institute of Geography 

University of Hawaii 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 

Patty Debenham 

Science Applications (SAIL) 

8400 West Park Drive 

Mclean, Virginia 22102 

Michael E.Dee 

CIDE NCPE 

Defense Mapping Agency Washington, D.C. 20315 

Rick Derquist 469 Katsbey Lane 

Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 

Warren Dewhurst 

NOAA, National Geodetic Survey 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Robert F. Dill 

Dill Geomarine Consultants 

610 Tarento Drive 

San Diego, California 92106 

William P. Dillon 

Branch of Atlantic Marine Geology 

U.S. Geological Survey Quissett Campus, Bldg. B 

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 

Earl H. Doyle Staff Civil Engineer Shell Oil Company 

P.O. Box 2099 

Houston, Texas 77001 

David B. Duane 

Program Director 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

6010 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Cheryl Lyn Dybas Public Affairs Officer 

NOAA/NESDIS (E/PO) 

Federal Building 4, Room 3308 

Washington, D.C. 20233 

Theodore R. Eck 

Chief Economist 

AMOCO Corporation P.O. Box 87703 (Internal Mail Code 2905A) 

Chicago, Illinois 60680-0703 

Gary M. Edson 

Minerals Management Service 

1951 Kidwell Drive 

Vienna, Virginia 22180 

Charles N. Ehler 

Director, Office of Oceanography and 

Marine Assessment, NOAA 

6001 Executive Boulevard, WSC 1, Room 323 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Herman Emzer 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

2401 E Street 

Washington, D.C. 20241 

George T. English, Jr. 

NOS Charting & Geodetic Services 

NOAA/NOS/CGXI 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

William Erb 

OES/OMS 

Department of State 

22nd and C Streets, N.W., Room 5801 

Washington, D.C. 20520 

Edward C. Escowitz 

U.S. Geological Survey 

915 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

Jim Evans 

Office of Congressman Mike Lowrey 

2454 Rayburn Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 

Donald J. Florwick 

National Ocean Survey, NOAA 

6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 1016 

Rockville, Maryland 20853 

Doyle G. Frederick 

U.S. Geological Survey 

102 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

162 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Edward Ga 11 ati n 

Geophysical Coordinator 

Exxon Company, U.S.A. 

P.O. Box 2180 

Houston, Texas 77252-2180 

Richard A. Gallotta 

BDM Corporation 7915 Jones Branch Drive 

McLean, Virginia 22102 

Stephen J. Gawarecki 

Remote Sensing Specialist 

Remote Sensing Dynamics 

7018 Vagabond Drive 

Falls Church, Virginia 22042 

Heather L. Gay Legal Assistant 

Kelley, Drye, and Warren 

1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 600 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Conrad A. Gazzier 

Bureau Director & State Geologist 

Mississippi Bureau of Geology 

P.O. Box 5348 

Jackson, Mississippi 39216 

Tracey A. Gi 11 

NOAA 

308 Cedar Lane 

Annapolis, Maryland 21403 

John F. Gillespie President 

Tilcon New York, Inc. 

P.O. Box 362 

Haverstraw, New York 10927 

John T. Goll 

Minerals Management Service 

18th and C Streets, N.W., MS 644 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Gail Gordon 

U.S. Geological Survey 

809 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

H. Gary Greene 

U.S. Geological Survey 

345 Middlefield Road, MS 999 

Menlo Park, California 94025 

Richard J. Greenwald 

Deep Sea Ventures, Inc. 

Drawer 2 

Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 

J. Steven Griles 

Assistant Secretary, Land and 

Minerals Management Department of the Interior, MS 6628 

18th and C Streets 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Muriel S. Grim 

U.S. Geological Survey 

914 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

Charles G. Groat 

Director and State Geologist 

Louisiana Geological Survey Department of Natural Resources 

Box G, University Station 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 

M. Grant Gross 

Director, Division of Oc:an Science 

National Science Foundat1on 

1800 G Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20550 

Andrew E. Grosz 

U.S. Geological Survey 

954 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

Norm Gunderson 

U.S. Geological Survey 

910 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

Phyllis L. Gunn 

U.S. Coast Guard 

2100 2nd Street, S.W., Room 2310 

Washington, D.C. 20593-0001 

Donald W. Gunn 

Exxon Company USA 

3711 Rock Springs Kingwood, Texas 77345 

Alma Hale 

Interior Committee 

819 House Annex 1 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Susan Hall 

Minerals Management Service 

18th & C Streets, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Richard Hammer 

Senior Scientist 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 

759 Parkway Street 

Jupiter, Florida 33477 

Appendix 2 163 
John C. Hampson, Jr. 

U.S. Geological Survey 

914 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

Charles E. Harrington 

NOS/NOAA 

10904 Kingstead Road 

Damascus, Maryland 20872 

William E. Hart 

General Instrument Corporation 

33 South West Park 

Westwood, Massachusetts 02090 

Mary Beth Hatem 

Marine Technology Society 

1825 K Street, N.W., Suite 203 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

Benjamin W. Haynes Physical Scientist 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

2304 Highland Avenue 

Falls Church, Virginia 22046 

Stanley Hecker 

Associate Director 

Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant 

Consortium 

P.O. Box 7000 

Ocean Springs, Mississippi 39564-7000 

Harold Hennigar Technical Director 

Deepsea Ventures, Inc. 

Drawer 2 

Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 

Daniel Richard Herlihy 

Ocean Mapping Section 

NOAA 

19120 Mt. Airey Road 

Brookville, Maryland 20833 

Jim Herring Branch of Sedimentary Processes 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Denver, Colorado 80225 

Porter Hoagland Research Associate 

Marine Policy Center 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 

Carl Hobbs 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 

Alexander F. Helser 

Minerals Management Service 

1951 Kidwell Drive, Suite 601 

Vienna, Virginia 22180 

Mark H. Houston 

Manager, Applied Technology Marine 

Western Atlas International 

P.O. Box 2469 

Houston, Texas 77252 

Wayne Hoyle Qubit North America 

11400 Rockville Pike, Suite 750 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Lloyd L. Huff 

NOAA 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Kent Hughes 

NOAA/NODC 

1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20235 

Donald A. Hull 

Director and State Geologist 

Department of Geology and 

Mineral Industries 

910 State Office Building Portland, Oregon 97201-5528 

Wesley V. Hull 

Director, Charting and Geodetic Services 

NOAA 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Michael C. Hunt 

Gary W. Hill Minerals Management Service 

Chief, Office of Energy and Marine Geology 643 National Center 

U.S. Geological Survey Reston, Virginia 22092 

915 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

Bruce F. Hillard 

EEZ Project Office N/CG224 

NOAA 

515 Park Road 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Robert F. Hunt 

Atlantic Marine Center, NOAA 

439 West York Street 

Norfolk, Virginia 23510 

164 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Hameedi Jawed 

NOAA Ocean Assessment Division 

Alaska Office 

Federal Building 

701 C Street 

P.O. Box 56 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513 

Thomas T. Jeffries 

Exxon Company USA 

P.O. Box 2180 

Houston, Texas 77252 

Chacko J. John 

Research Associate 

Louisiana Geological Survey P.O. Box G, University Station 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70893-4107 

James Johnston 

AMOCO Corporation 

P.O. Box 87703 

Chicago, Illinois 60680 

James I. Jones 

Director, Mississippi/Alabama 

Sea Grant Consortium 

Gulf Coast Research Laboratory Cay 1 or B u i 1 d i n g Ocean Springs, Mississippi 39564-7000 

Paul Jubinski 

Texas A&M University College Station, Texas 77842 

John R. Justus 

Specialist, Earth Science and 

Oceanography Congressional Research Service-SPRD 

Library of Congress, LM-413 

Washington, D.C. 20540 

Margaret Kaeding 

New Jersey Geological Survey CN029 

Trenton, New Jersey 08690 

Carolita L. Kallaur 

Department of the Interior 

Minerals Management Service 

18th & C Streets, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Barbara H. Keating Hawaii Institute of Geophysics University of Hawaii Honolulu~ Hawaii 96822 

Donovan Kelly U.S. Geological Survey 

119 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

John L. Kermond 

National Association of State 

Universities & Grant Colleges One Dupont Circle, N.W., #710 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Keith R. Knoblock 

Vice President 

American Mining Congress 1920 N. Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Dane Konop Office of Public Affairs, NOAA 

14th & Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 6013 

Washington, D.C. 20230 

James G. Kosalos 

Vice President 

International Submarine Technology, Ltd. 

2733 - 152nd Avenue, N.E. 

Redmond, Washington 98052 

Daniel Koski-Karell 

President 

Karell Archeological Services 

P.O. Box 342 

Washington, D.C. 20044 

Alex N. Kosorukov 

Third Secretary Russian Embassy 

1125 16th Street 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Bill Kruse 

Kruse Imaging 2770 Ross Road 

Palo Alto, California 94303 

Ed W. Kruse 

Minerals Management Service 

1900 Constitution Avenue 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Julie Lamontaine 

7368 Lee Highway, #201 

Falls Church, Virginia 22046 

David A. Larson 

Mining Engineer U.S. Bureau of Mines 

5629 Minnehaha Avenue South 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55417 

Appendix 2 165 
Brad J. Laubach 

Minerals Management Service 

1951 Kidwell Drive, Suite 601 

Vienna, Virginia 22180 

James P. Lawless 

NOM/NOS 

Universal Building 1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20235 

Maureen A. Lawton 

Minerals Management Service 

12203 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 644 

Reston, Virginia 22091 

Richard A. Legatski Planning Staff, NOS, NOM 

6180 Vine Forest Court 

Falls Church, Virginia 22044 

Christina J. Lief 

U.S. Geological Survey 

914 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

Jacqueline M. Lloyd Geologist 

Florida Geological Survey 

903 West Tennessee Street 

Tallahassee, Florida 32304 

Millington Lockwood 

NOM/NOS 

6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 1006 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Gary L. Lore 

Minerals Management Service 

643 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22091 

Michael S. Loughridge Chief, Marine Geology and 

Geophysics Division 

National Environmental Satellite, Data, 

and Information Service, NOM 

325 Broadway Boulder, Colorado 80303 

James Love 

EOSAT 

4300 Forbes Boulevard 

Lanham, Maryland 20706 

Ron MacNab 

Bedford Institute of Oceanography Geological Survey of Canada 

Dartmouth, Canada B2Y 4A2 

Robert Gary Magnuson Coastal States Organization 444 North Capitol Street, N.W. 

Suite 312 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

Michael S. Marlow 

U.S. Geological Survey 345 Middlefield Road, MS 999 

Menlo Park, California 94205 

George L. Marshall 

Engineering Geologists 

RD #1, Box 45 

Averill Park, New York 12018 

Curtis Mason 

Program Director, Coastal Processes 

Office of Sea Grant, NOAA 

6010 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Gilbert L. Maton 

Division Vice President 

Tracor ASG 

2001 Jeff Davis Highway, Suite 707 

Arlington, Virginia 22202 

Stephen P. Matula 

NOM/NOS/EEZ 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20853 

Michael D. Max 

Naval Research Lab 

4555 Overlook Avenue, S.W., Code 5110 

Washington, D.C. 20375 

Bonnie McGregor U.S. Geological Survey 

915 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

William McGuinness 

Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey 

80 Oak Street 

Norwood, New Jersey 07648 

Clifford E. McLain 

Director and Associate 

Marine Development Associates 

7816 Manor House Drive 

Fairfax Station, Virginia 22039 

David L. Mearns 

Project Manager Eastport International, Inc. 

501 Prince Georges Center Boulevard 

Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772 

166 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
James E. Mi ell<e 

Congressional Research Service, SPRD 

Library of Congress 

Washington, D.C. 20540 

Phyliss M. Minn 

Legislative Director 

Office of Senator Inouye 722 Hart Senate Building Washington, D.C. 20510 

John V. Mirabella 

Minerals Management Service 

646 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

Donna D. Moffitt 

Executive Director 

North Carolina Science Council 

417 N. Blount Street 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1009 

Yvonne Morehouse 

Main Interior Building, MS 645 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Benjamin Morgan 

U.S. Geological Survey 912 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

Charles L. Morgan 

Research Corporation of the 

University of Hawaii 

1110 University Avenue, Room 411 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96826 

Robert E. Morrison 

Specialist in Marine Science, SPRD 

Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 20540 

M.P. Mulligan DMAHIC SOT 

Washington, D.C. 20315 

Richard T. Naito 

Minerals Management Service 

P.O. Box 25165 

Denver Federal Center 

Denver, Colorado 80225 

James Neiheisel 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

ANR 461 

401 M Street, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

John E. Noakes 

CAIS 

120 Riverbend Road 

Athens, Georgia 30605 

Myron H. Nordquist, Esq. Kelley, Drye & Warren 

1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 600 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

William R. Normarl< 

Branch of Pacific Marine Geology U.S. Geological Survey 345 Middlefield Road, MS 999 

Menlo Pari<, California 94025 

Charles J. o•Hara 

Minerals Management Service 

1951 Kidwell Drive 

Vienna, Virginia 22180 

Fred L. Olson 

Consultant 

Global Ocean 

3801 Newark Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20018 

Harry J. Olson 

HNEI 

University of Hawaii at Manoa 

2540 Dole Street 

Holmes Hall 240A 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 

Victor Omelczenko 

Communications Director 

National Sea Grant College Program National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration 

6010 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Michael K. Orbach 

Chair, North Carolina Marine Service Council 

210 Longmeadow Road 

Greenville, North Carolina 27834 

Ell en S. Overton 

4820 W Street, N.W. 

Wasington, D.C. 20007 

John W. Padan 

Program Manager 

Deep Sea Mining, NOAA 

1825 Connecticut Avenue 

Universal Building Washington, D.C. 20235 

Appendix 2 167 
Andrew C. Palmer 

President 

Ocean Policy Associates 

236 Manor Circle 

Takoma Park, Maryland 20912 

Harold D. Palmer 

6436 Bannockburn Drive 

Bethesda, Maryland 20817 

Richard F. Pascucci 

Principal Scientist 

Autometric, Inc. 

5301 Shawnee Road 

Alexandria, Virginia 22312 

Malka Pattison 

PBA 

Department of Interior, MS 4412 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Guy C. Pautot 

IF REMER 

Centre de Brest 

B.P. 337-29273 Brest CEDEX 

France 

Dallas L. Peck 

U.S. Geological Survey 

101 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

Patricia Pecora 

Minerals Management Service 

12203 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 644 

Reston, Virginia 22091 

William P. Pendley Comiskey and Hunt 

4501 North 18th Street 

Arlington, Virginia 22207 

Richard B. Perry 

NOAA, NCG2x2 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Edward N. Pickering U.S. Geological Survey 421 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

Richard Poirier 

Chief, Special Plans Branch 

Office of State Planning Governor•s Office 

State of Hawaii 

P.O. Box 2359 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96804 

David Powell 

McElhanney Services Ltd. 

101 Thornhill Drive 

Dartmouth Nova Scotia, Canada 

B3B 152 

Scott Po we 11 

Institute for Marine Studies 

HF-05, University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 

David Price 

NOAA 

7009 Old Stage Road 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Ray A. Price 

Director General 

Geological Survey of Canada 

601 Booth Street, Room 213 

Ottawa, Ontario 

KlA OE8 Canada 

David B. Prior 

Coastal Studies Institute 

Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803-4101 

Dona 1 d Pryor NOAA/National Ocean Survey, N/CGX3 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Joan M. Ragland Geologist 

Florida Geological Survey 903 West Tennessee Street 

Tallahassee, Florida 32304 

Buck Redman 

N/M0112, NOAA 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Bruce M. Richmond 

U.S. Geological Survey 345 Middlefield Road, MS 999 

Menlo Park, California 94025 

John B. Rigg Associate Director for Offshore 

Minerals Management Service 

Department of the Interior 

18th and C Streets, N.W., MS 640 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Stanley R. Riggs Professor of Geology East Carolina University Greenville, North Carolina 27834 

168 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Maurice 0. Rinkel 

State of Florida OCS Representative University of S. Florida 

830 First Street South 

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 

Robert L. Rioux 

Office of Energy and Marine Geology U.S. Geological Survey 

915 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

Jane A. Roberts 

Minerals Management Service 

646 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22091 

Don Rogich U.S. Bureau of Mines 

2401 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20241 

John Rowland 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

2401 E Street, N.W., Room 615 

Washington, D.C. 22041 

Robert W. Rowland 

U.S. Geological Survey 

914 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

James B. Rucker 

Ocean Minerals and Energy Division 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, N-ORM 1 

Universal Building 

1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20236 

Ted F. Saunders 

Program Office 

10143 Hellington Court 

Vienna, Virginia 22180 

Carl H. Savit 

Consulting Geophysicist 

201 Vanderpool Lane, #49 

Houston, Texas 77024 

Narendra K. Saxena 

Professor 

Department of Civil Engineering University of Hawaii 

Holmes 383 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 

John S. Schlee 

Branch of Atlantic Marine Geology 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Quissett Campus, Bldg. B 

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 

Robert Schmieder 

Director 

Cordell Bank Expeditions 

4295 Walnut Boulevard 

Walnut Creek, California 94596 

Herbert K. Schneider 

Minerals Management Service 

646 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22091 

E.J. Schremp 

226 South Fairfax Street 

Alexandria, Virginia 22314 

William C. Schwab 

U.S. Geological Survey Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 

R. Philip Shimer 

Washington Representative Western Governor•s Association 

444 N. Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 526 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

Alexander Shor 

2525 Correa Road 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 

Wren Shrout 

Office of Strategic and International Minerals 

Minerals Management Service 

1951 Kidwell Drive, Suite 601 

Vienna, Virginia 22186 

Armand J. Si 1 va 

Department of Ocean Engineering University of Rhode Island 

Box 70 

Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882 

Walter S. Simmons 

NOAA 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Frederick 0. Simon 

U.S. Geological Survey 

917 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

Appendix 2 169 
Douglas L. Slitor 

Chief, OCS Information Program Minerals Mangement Service 

1951 Kidwell Drive, Suite 601 

Vienna, Virginia 22180 

John B. Smith 

Geologist 

Minerals Management Service 

11 Golden Shore, Suite 260 

Long Beach, California 90802 

Susann P. Smith 

93 Main Street, Suite 400 

Annapolis, Maryland 21401 

Joseph John Snyder Special Projects Editor 

Sea Power 

Navy League of the United States 

2300 Wilson Boulevard 

Arlington, Virginia 22201-3308 

Ronald K. Sorem 

RKS Geological Research 

Washington State University SE 925 Spring Street 

Pullman, Washington 99163 

William 0. Stewart 

18th and C Streets, N.W., MS 6640 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

ReidT. Stone 

Minerals Management Service 

11 Golden Shore, Suite 260 

Long Beach, California 90802 

Melanie J. Stright U.S. Department of Interior 

1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70123 

William Stubblefield 

NOAA/OAR 

6010 Executive Blvd., Room 823 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Donald L. Suloff 

NOAA N/GXLL 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

John R. Suter 

Senior Marine Geologist Louisiana Geological Survey 

Box G, LUS 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70893 

Alexander L. Sutherland 

National Science Foundation 

1800 G Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20550 

Anthony Syrett Marketing Manager Marconi Electronics, Inc. 

1215 Jeff Davis Hwy, Suite 900 

Arlington, Virginia 22202 

Lawrence Taggerman DGA, Inc. 

1818 N. Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Paul Teleki 

U.S. Geological Survey 

915 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

Valentin V. Tepordei Mineral Commodity Specialist 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

2401 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20241 

Albert E. Theberge Chief, Ocean Mapping Section 

NOAA/NOS/C&GS 

Office of Marine Operations 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Leland Thoirmahlen 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Room 2108, MS 625 

Lakewood, Colorado 80225 

Glen Trochelman 

Site Manager U.S. General Accountine Office 

Room 710, WSC #1 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Emmett W. Turner 

Minerals Management Service 

Main Interior, Room 2524 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

170 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Mary Ann Turner 

Minerals Management Service 

644 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22091 

Robert C. Tyee Graduate School of Oceanography University of Rhode Island 

S. Ferry Road 

Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882 

Joseph R. Vadus 

NOAA/NOS 

6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 316 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

E.G. Valdez 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

2401 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20241 

Lisa A. Vehmas 

Professional Staff Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on 

Energy & Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Philip S. Vinson 

Scientific Staff Assistant to CNO OP-006 

13416 Point Pleasant Drive 

Chantilly, Virginia 22021 

George D. Vose 

NOAA 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Harold R. Wanless 

RSMAS-MGG 

University of Miami 

4600 Rickenbacker Causeway Virginia Key, Florida 33149 

R.M. Waterman 

McCormack Sand Company, Inc. 

Clifton Farm 

Rt. 1, Box 62 

Upperville, Virginia 22176 

Donald E. Watson 

U.S. Geological Survey 105 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

George Watts 

American Dredging Association 

1911 N. Ft. Myer Drive, Suite 601 

Arlington, Virginia 22209 

Norm L. Weaver 

Minerals Management Service 

1951 Kidwell Avenue 

Vienna, Virginia 22180 

Conrad G. Welling Senior Vice President 

Ocean Minerals Company P.O. Box 4660 

Santa Clara, California 95054 

William E. Westermeyer Office of Technology Assessment 

U.S. Congress Washington, D.C. 20510 

Brian Wheeler 

Arc Marine Limited Head Office 

Burnley Wharf Marine Parade 

Southampton SOl IJF 

South Hampton, MA 6340110703 

Jeffrey D. Wiese 

OCS Information Program Minerals Management Service 

1951 Kidwell Drive, Suite 601, MS 642 

Vienna, Virginia 22180 

S. Jeffress Williams 

U.S. Geological Survey 914 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

Joe R. Wilson 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Caser Building 

Ft. Belvoir, Virginia 22060 

Douglas A. Wolfe 

Office of Oceanography and 

Marine Assessment 

National Ocean Service, NOAA 

Rockwall Building, Room 656 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Paul M. Wolff 

National Ocean Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

14th & Constitution Avenue, N.W., 

Room 4021 

Washington, D.C. 20230 

James R. Woolsey University of Mississippi 202 Chemistry Road 

University, Mississippi 38677 

Appendix 2 171 
Arthur Wright 

Williamson and Associates 

1219 West Lake Avenue, N., Suite 911 

Seattle, Washington 98109 

William H. Wright U.S. Geological Survey 

101 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

Hatten S. Yoder, Jr., Director 

Geophysical Laboratory 2801 Upton Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20008 

Val Zadnik 

U.S. Geological Survey 915 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

James B. Zaitzeff 

Code E/RA13 

Washington, D.C. 20233 

James W. Ziglar Assistant Secretary of Interior 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

David R. Zinzer 

Minerals Management Service 

643 National Center 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

172 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Appendix 3: Guidance for 1987 Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) Symposium Workshops 

A Strategy for Developing a 10-year National Plan for Characterizing the Seabed and Subsoil of the United States 

through the Implementation of a National Mapping and Research Program 

Introduction and Background 

Mapping and research on the seafloor of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) has been a national effort, 

involving primarily the U.S. Geological Survey, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, certain 

academic institutions, and elements of the private sector. 

The long-term objective is to characterize the seabed and 

subsoil of the EEZ of the United States. This will be 

accomplished by studying the geologic framework and 

seafloor processes to better determine the nonliving 

resource potential. The program was accelerated in 1983, 

following the issuance of the EEZ Proclamation by President Reagan with the intent of expanding the exploration 

already begun on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to the 

frontier regions of the EEZ. The need for expanded exploration is based on the premise that the earlier the EEZ is 

fully explored, the sooner the Nation will realize the 

benefits this territory has to offer. 

Previous efforts to explore the seafloor of the continental margins have focused on that portion which was 

clearly under the legal authority of the United States, that is, 

the OCS, for the purposes of leasing and development of oil 

and gas, sulfur, and other mineral resources. This has 

largely been an effort by private industry, which has been 

concerned with those areas having a high potential for 

recovery of energy or selected minerals. Now that authority 

has been extended, by the EEZ Proclamation, it is appropriate to continue exploring the ocean frontier to supplement information from the continental shelf areas and to 

begin a process of developing an information base in a 

comprehensive, systematic manner. 

The ocean has played a key role in the history of this 

country. Fisheries, transportation, and defense are examples of national issues where the ocean has been a major 

factor. The ocean holds much potential for our future. This 

includes marine energy and mineral resources, the disposal 

of waste, multiple-use opportunities, boundary determinations, technology developments, and national defense applications. These issues will continue to play an increasingly 

important role in our efforts to secure and maintain the 

quality of the American lifestyle and our international 

leadership. A well-developed, comprehensive mapping and 

research program will provide much of the knowledge 

essential to meet this challenge. 

Advancements in technology, such as high-speed computers, satellites, and new measurement systems, coupled with 

an awareness of the "earth system," allow us to build on 

past efforts in the EEZ. From this information base we can 

design and conduct a program consisting of studies involving the geologic framework, seafloor processes, and nonliving resources of an area as large and as complex as the 

EEZ in a relatively short time frame. 

This effort must be aggressively pursued and combine the 

expertise and technology found in government, academia, 

and the private sector. It should have clearly defined 

(measurable) goals and be coordinated with other ongoing 

activities in the ocean. It cannot be accomplished in a 

haphazard, isolated manner. In short, to be successful it 

must be based upon a carefully thought out long-range plan. 

The purpose of the 1987 EEZ symposium is to develop the 

essential elements of that plan. 

Goals and Objectives 

The goal of the National EEZ Mapping and Research 

Program is to describe the framework and understand the 

processes-geological, geochemical, and geophysicalthat interact at and within the seabed and. subsoil of the EEZ 

and that contribute to the development of the continental 

margins and the formation of various nonliving marine 

resources on and within the seafloor. 

Specific objectives are to characterize and evaluate 

the seabed and subsoil of the EEZ in a timely manner by 

understanding the geological framework and processes 

related to this frontier; identifying marine energy and 

mineral and other nonliving resources; understanding geohazards, basin evolution, and geomorphic and sedimentologic processes; and developing baseline information, 

which would allow activities involving use of the EEZ to be 

carried out in an efficient manner. 

Development of a 10-Vear Plan 

The strategy for developing the plan is based on the 

principal of identifying relevant scientific objectives, within 

Appendix 3 173 
the context of national issues in order to focus the direction 

of the program toward a 10-year goal. On the basis of 

previous symposia, workshops, and studies by national 

advisory boards, we have chosen to develop the program 

based on five geographical regions (Alaska, West Coast, 

Gulf of Mexico, East Coast, and Islands) and three ocean 

resource categories (oil and gas, hard minerals, and other 

seafloor uses). Additionally, one element of the program 

will concentrate on technology needs for seafloor mapping. 

National Need and Benefits 

It has been recommended further that a national effort 

involving cooperation, coordination, and communications 

between Government, academia, and the private sector 

would have the best chance of accomplishing the goals of 

the program. A successful program will address the following: 

1. Identification of resources from the EEZ could be 

significant to the economy and national security, especially strategic and critical materials. 

2. The ocean crosses State, Federal, and international 

boundaries; thus, EEZ data can be used by many 

elements of society. 

3. A cooperative program will stimulate and encourage 

private sector involvement in EEZ mapping and 

research efforts. 

4. The national program would significantly advance our 

scientific understanding of the formation of our contivental margins and the processes therein, thus increasing opportunities for practical application. 

5. The program would develop an information base that 

will address the multiple-user aspect of the ocean. 

Program Constraints and Limitations 

In order to be successful in meeting the program's 

goals we must, of necessity, limit the activity to those 

which can be clearly identified as relevant to the program's 

objectives and can be linked to the identified components. 

To accomplish this, certain limits or constraints have been 

placed on the program. These limiting factors include: 

1. Geographical area, baseline to 200 mi with primary 

emphasis on the outer shelf, slope, and rise (that is, 

those areas not extensively studied in the past). 

2. Program goals and objectives set in a 10-year time 

frame. 

3. Program emphasis is to answer questions regarding the 

seafloor (seabed and subsoil) relative to geologic 

framework, processes, and resources, eliminating 

much of the water column and biological aspects 

considerations except as they relate specifically to the 

seabed. 

4. Mapping and research should stress exploration and 

scientific interpretations and investigation of the 

unknown frontier regions of the EEZ. Emphasize a 

"telescope" approach, from reconnaissance-scale 

(regional) to studies of individual features (local). 

5. Emphasis on wide involvement of user groups in 

program design, rapid turnaround of results, cooperative projects, and preparation of products and data 

bases for multiple uses, such as maps, atlases, and 

interpretative reports. 

6. Program management philosophy is one of coordination, cooperation, and communications, rather than 

centralized control. 

Program Development 

The development of the National EEZ Mapping and 

Research Program on the seabed and subsoil will be 

accomplished in three phases: 

1. Establish the scientific objectives in terms of national 

issues. 

2. Create a strategy for program development. 

3. Develop a range of options for program implementation. 

EEZ Symposium and Workshops 

The primary purpose of the EEZ symposium and 

workshop is to provide scientific and technical expertise for 

program development by identification and analysis of the 

currently available data and information relevant to the 

program's goal and, through an appraisal of this data base, 

identify gaps between current knowledge and the program's 

goals. The topics that each workshop should address are (1) 

framework, (2) processes, and (3) resources, hazards, and 

utilization. 

This program development will be accomplished by 

the following steps: 

1. Analyze current programs and data relating to the state 

of knowledge in each topic area. 

2. Identify ''gaps" between current state of knowledge and 

program goals through use of the following procedures: 

a. Develop specific objectives for each program component in each region or ocean use-category. 

b. Enumerate "gaps" between current state of knowledge and 10-year objectives for each component. 

c. Answer the following questions as they relate to 

the framework, processes, and resources: 

( 1) What specific data and information sets do 

we need and for what purposes? 

(2) What are the attributes of these data and 

information sets? 

174 Proceedings, 1987 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
(3) What are the constraints to acquiring these 

data and information sets? 

( 4) What is a viable strategy to acquiring and 

managing these data and information sets? 

(5) What are the consequences of not gathering 

these data and information sets? 

Note: In regard to the panel dealing with technology the 

phrase "mapping and research technology" should 

be substituted for "data and information sets." 

Each workshop chairman has been asked to prepare a 

preliminary or "working" draft of the workshop report 

prior to the meeting. To maintain a consistent format 

and to ensure that each workshop covers the same 

subject matter, the symposium steering committee has 

prepared the report outline and table of contents for 

participants. Workshop participants should be prepared 

to discuss or otherwise contribute to each of the report 

sections as their expertise and interest dictates. 

3. Propose or recommend specific data-collection elements and implementation strategies to fill the gaps. 

Suggest institutional arrangements, technologies, 

cooperative agreements, or organizations. The preference is to accomplish the work within an existing 

structure or organization, that is, whether work could 

*U.S. G.P.O. 1988-201-933:80013 

be performed by Government, academia, or the private 

sector. Recommend phasing-in of each element based 

upon the analysis of gaps and any knowledge of 

resources available. 

Preparing a 10-Year National Plan 

The results of the symposium workshops will serve as 

the main elements of the 10-year national plan. Following 

the symposium the Joint U.S. Geological Survey-National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office will compile the results and workshop papers into a symposium 

volume. This report will serve to document the present 

status of activities and serve as the source material for a 

10-year mapping and research plan. 

This plan, which will be prepared by the staff of the 

Joint Office in cooperation with affected agencies and 

organizations, will be used as guidance for activities in the 

EEZ. Over the next 10 years, the Joint Office will host 

periodic meetings in each region or participate with other 

existing activities, (for example, State geologists, regional 

management councils) in order to encourage cooperation, 

coordination, and communication. A review of the plan, 

from a national perspective, will be a main purpose of the 

EEZ symposium held every other year. 

Appendix 3 175