Proceedings of the 1989 Exclusive 

Economic Zone Symposium on 

Mapping and Research: FederalState Partners in EEZ Mapping 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 1052 

Proceedings of the 1989 Exclusive 

Economic Zone Symposium on 

Mapping and Research: FederalState Partners in EEZ Mapping 

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 14-16, 1989 

Department of the Interior 

U .5. Geological Survey 

Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 1052 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

MANUEL LUJAN, Jr., Secretary 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Dallas L. Peck, Director 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive 

purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1990 

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 (1989 : 

USGS National Center) 

Proceedings of the 1989 Exclusive Economic Zone Symposium on Mapping 

and Research : federal-state partners in EEZ mapping : meetings held at the 

USGS National Center, Reston, Virginia. November 14-16. 1989 I Millington 

Lockwood, Bonnie A. McGregor, editors; sponsored by the USGS-NOM 

Joint Office for Mapping and Research in the EEZ. 

p. cm.-(U.S. Geological Survey circular ; 1052) Includes bibliographical 

references. 

Supt. of Docs. no. : Supt. of Docs. no. : 119.4/2: 1052, 

1. Mineral resources in submerged lands-United States-Congress. 2. Mineral resources in submerged lands-United States-Maps-Congresses. 3. 

Marine resources and state-United States-Congresses. I. Lockwood, Millington. II. McGregor, Bonnie A. Ill. USGS-NOM Joint Office for Mapping 

and Research in the EEZ. IV. Title V. Series. 

TN264.E94 1989 90-3991 

622'. 17'0973-dc20 CIP 
CONTENTS 

Symposium Introduction and Overview 

Millington Lockwood 1 

Mapping Our Underwater Domain 

John Knauss 4 

Partnership-Stewardship-The Mission of the Department of the Interior 

John Sayre 7 · 

The Role of the State Geological Surveys 

Kenneth N. Weaver 9 

The Coastal Ocean Program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Donald Scavia 12 

The Marine Minerals Technology Center of the Department of the Interior 

J. Robert Woolsey 15 

Our Seabed Frontier-Challenges and Choices 

Armand J. Silva, Kent A. Fanning, Larry L. Gentry, Charles D. Hollister, Robert 

W. Knecht, Gerry B. Manning, David B. Prior, Gary L. Taghon, and Alan G. 

Young 18 

Offshore Activities of the Minerals Management Service 

William D. Bettenberg 24 

From Data to Decisions-New Opportunities for Cooperation Between the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and State Agencies 

Charles N. Ehler 27 

Mapping the Ocean Floor 

Christian Andreasen 31 

Federal-State Partnerships in Exclusive Economic Zone Mapping and Research 

Dallas L. Peck 35 

The National Research Council's Marine Board Committee on Exclusive Economic 

Zone Information Needs 

Peter J. Lucas 39 

Case Studies 

East Coast Sea-Floor Mapping and Information Needs for Offshore Dredging for Sand 

and Gravel 

George L. Marshall 40 

Coastal Mapping-Preliminary Results From a Pilot Study of Contaminant Transport 

in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay 

Bradford Butman, Michael H. Bothner, Harley J. Knebel, and Carol M. 

Parmenter 45 

East Coast Physiography and Surficial Sediments Along the Inner Continental Shelf of 

Maine 

Joseph L. Kelley 56 

The Georgia-Federal Nonenergy Minerals Task Force 

Roger V. Amato 57 

Quaternary Geology of the Chesapeake Bay 

Jeffrey P. Halka, Steven M. Colman, and Carl H. Hobbs III 65 

Contents Ill 
IV Contents 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Multibeam Mapping in the Gulf of 

Mexico 

Albert E. Theberge, Jr. 71 

Minerals Management Service Data Inventory and Mapping Programs-Gulf of 

Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region 

J. Courtney Reed 76 

Oregon's Perspective on Ocean Resource Research and Mapping 

Jeff Weber 82 

A View of Sea-Floor Mapping Priorities in Alaska From the Mining Industry 

Mark A. Bronston 86 

Exclusive Economic Zone Scientific Activities in the Branch of Pacific Marine 

Geology, U.S. Geological Survey 

David A. Cacchione 92 

Mapping Requirements for Planning the Outer Continental Shelf Mining Program, 

Norton Sound, Alaska, Lease Sale 

lrven F. Palmer, Jr. 95 

Case Studies of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mapping Activities in the Islands' 

Exclusive Economic Zone 

Monty A. Hampton 107 

Policy Issues for Detailed Bathymetric Mapping in the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic 

Zone and Hawaii's Marine Mining Program 

John C. Wiltshire 114 

High-Resolution Sea-Floor Mapping in Hawaii 

J. Frisbee Campbell 121 

Appendix 1-1989 Exclusive Economic Zone Symposium Program Agenda 127 

Appendix 2-List of Registrants 133 

Appendix 3-Workshop Block Summaries 144 
Proceedings of the 1989 Exclusive Economic 

Zone Symposium on Mapping and Research: 

Federal-State Partners in EEZ Mapping 

Millington Lockwood and Bonnie A. McGregor, editors 

Symposium Introduction and Overview 

Millington Lockwood 

Joint Office for Mapping and Research 

The 1989 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Symposium was held from November 14 to 16, 1989, at the U.S. 

Geological Survey's (USGS) National Center in Reston, 

Va. A copy of the symposium program is contained in 

Appendix 1. This symposium was the fourth biennial 

national symposium held since the issuance of the EEZ 

Proclamation in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan. The 

meeting was sponsored by the USGS-National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Joint Office for Mapping and ~esearch (JOMAR) and the Association of American State Geologists. Attending the meeting were approximately 220 individuals who represented Federal 

Government agencies, executive and legislative branches 

(63 percent); private industry, including consultants (10 

percent); State governments (9 percent); academic institutions (8 percent); societies, nonprofit groups, and private 

citizens (7 percent); and foreign attendees (3 percent). A list 

of attendees and their affiliations is contained in Appendix 

2. The meeting was separated into three sections. The first, 

or plenary, session dealt with broad programmatic objectives and policy issues, the second involved presentations of 

16 case studies of regional mapping projects, and the final 

session consisted of 6 technical workshops. 

The following highlights the major points and areas 

of discussion developed at the symposium. Details are 

contained in the papers submitted by the individual participants in the main section of the proceedings. In a few 

cases, written papers were not submitted by the participants; 

Manuscript approved for publication, June 28, 1990. 

however, the presenters can be contacted directly for 

details. 

FIRST DAY-PLENARY AND POLICY 

OVERVIEW 

The keynote address was given by John A. Knauss, 

the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and the Administrator of NOAA. Dr. Knauss 

stressed the value of coordinated interagency cooperation to 

map the vast region of the EEZ efficiently. He also 

highlighted the recent accomplishments of the NOAA 

multi beam mapping program and expressed NOAA's satisfaction regarding the lifting of the national security restriction on the distribution of maps and data. Following the 

keynote address, a series of talks were presented on 

continuing activities; existing or planned Federal-State relations, needs, and opportunities were emphasized. 

During the remainder of the first day of the symposium, presentations were given by representatives from the 

Association of American State Geologists, the Coastal 

States' Organization, NOAA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the USGS, the Minerals Technology Center 

at the University of Mississippi, the Minerals Management 

Service, the National Research Council, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

SECOND DAY-CASE STUDIES 

An introduction to the second day of the symposium 

was given by Dallas L. Peck, Director of the USGS. He 

Symposium Introduction and Overview 
stressed the significance of the continued cooperative 

efforts to accomplish the task of mapping the entire EEZ. 

Following Dr. Peck's introduction, Peter Lucas, Chairman 

of the Marine Board's Study on EEZ Information Needs, 

gave a brief overview of his committee's task, introduced 

the members, and gave an indication of the schedule of 

activities. The second day consisted of four panel discussions by expert practitioners in sea-floor mapping and 

information needs. Panel members were selected to represent a range of interests from the Federal, State, and local 

governments; academia; and the private sector. A case 

study approach was used to discuss individual activities. In 

keeping with the theme of the symposium, each talk 

focused upon Federal-State cooperative activities from the 

point of view of "users" of sea-floor data and information. 

A paper was requested of each panel member and is 

included in the symposium proceedings. Papers emphasize 

mapping accomplishments, needs for additional sea-floor 

data, and existing or planned coordination activities within 

a specific area. 

Four case study panels were organized by geographical region of the EEZ-East Coast, the Gulf of Mexico, the 

West Coast and Alaska, and the Islands (Hawaiian, Puerto 

Rico, and Western Pacific). Topics included small-scale 

regional assessment projects, resource-evaluation mapping, 

high-resolution digital sidescan-sonar surveys, and geographical information systems (GIS). 

THIRD DAY-TECHNICAL WORKSHOPS 

On the final day of the symposium, six technical 

workshops were held, and each lasted about an hour. The 

workshops dealt with the following topics: NOAA Multibeam Data-Processing and Analysis; Applications of 

Computer Technology To Interpret Sonar Imagery and 

Multi beam Data; Leasing Considerations-Assessment and 

Evaluation Models; EEZ and Territorial Sea Mining Laws 

of the World; CD-ROM Tutorial and Demonstration; Management of Data; and Information-Computer Applications 

and GIS Development. Workshop descriptions are contained in Appendix 3'. Following the workshops, there was 

a tour through the USGS's GIS Development Laboratory. 

SYMPOSIUM RECOMMENDATIONS 

Although the symposium covered a range of topics, 

the following principal findings and recommendations came 

from the symposium: 

• Increased emphasis should be placed on surveying the 

nearshore; that is, within 12 nmi and shallower than 

200m water depth. Nearshore studies should include 

high-resolution bathymetric surveys, sediment sampling to determine basic sediment characteristics (grain 

2 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

size, engineering properties, geochemical characteristics, and so forth) for coastal zone planning, and 

resource (especially sand and gravel) assessment and 

characterization. Although it is unnecessary at the 

present time to conduct detailed surveys in the deeper 

waters and frontier regions of the EEZ, Federal and 

State nearshore waters do not have adequate maps for 

multiple user needs. 

• Steps should be taken to establish standards for the 

collection and the distribution of digital sea-floor data, 

especially data collected from swath bathymetry and 

sidescan sonar instruments. That these steps should be 

taken was stated during many of the sessions, the 

question-and-answer period, and the exhibit and the 

poster discussions. Lifting of the restrictions on the 

distribution of NOAA's multi beam data has lead to a 

host of issues concerning the dissemination of digital 

bathymetric data. To make these various types of data 

useful to everyone, a common definition of data format 

should be established. 

• Relations should be established with the Coastal States 

to coordinate mapping and surveying requirements and 

to facilitate exchange of data. It was suggested that the 

office within each State that houses the State Geologists could serve in this coordination capacity. 

• There should be improved coordination between various 

Federal agencies (the USGS, NOAA, the EPA, the 

Department of Energy, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, and the NSF) regarding short (1-yr) and 

long-term coastal programs. It appeared that the various ongoing and planned activities in the coastal 

waters could benefit from closer cooperation. 

• There should be additional sensors (gravity, magnetic, 

seismic reflection) carried aboard all ships operating in 

the EEZ. Survey and cruise plans should be widely 

circulated so that maximum use can be made of all 

ships surveying or transiting through the U.S. EEZ. 

• A coordinated database management structure should be 

created to facilitate the inventory and the distribution 

of EEZ data for GIS applications. Because GIS is 

easily available, there is a growing need to make data 

readily available. One possible solution could be 

"focused" regional mapping centers, such as the one 

proposed at the University of Hawaii. 

SUMMARY 

The results of the 1989 symposium will serve as 

additional guidance for the direction of a national EEZ 

mapping and research program. Critical to the success of 

the program is knowledge of ongoing or planned activities 

between Federal and State governments in the coastal ocean 

of the United States. Information will be incorporated into 

the 10-yr plan being prepared by JOMAR. This plan will 
serve as a guidepost for subsequent activities, products, and 

research in the EEZ. 

REFERENCES CITED 

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

Exploring the New Ocean Frontier, Washington, D.C., 

October 2-3, 1985: NOAA, NOS, Charting and Geodetic 

Services, 270 p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1984, Symposium proceedings of 

A National Program for the Assessment and Development of 

the Mineral Resources of The United States Exclusive Economic Zone, Reston, Va., 1983: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 929, 308 p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Commerce, 1988, Proceedings of The 1987 Exclusive Economic 

Zone Symposium on Mapping and Research-Planning for 

the Next 10 Years, Reston, Va., 1987: U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1018, 179 p. 

Symposium Introduction and Overview 3 
Mapping Our Underwater Domain 

John Knauss 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

INTRODUCTION 

Let me welcome you to the 1989 Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ) Symposium on mapping the EEZ. I am looking 

forward to the results of this meeting to assist me in defining 

the direction of our mapping program for years to come. We 

have taken the mandate from the EEZ Proclamation seriously. We have heard from a number of national advisory 

boards and scientific committees in regard to the initial 

direction of our program. However, ·we continue to rely 

upon advice from meetings such as this . to keep us on a 

steady course and to assure us that our surveys are responsive to national priorities and that our mapping products are 

delivered in a timely manner and in a useful form. 

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE JOINT 

OFFICE FOR MAPPING AND RESEARCH 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are 

joint sponsors of this effort of mapping the EEZ and have 

shared this responsibility since 1984. At that time, we 

negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding between the 

two agencies so as to exchange our mapping plans, data, 

and map products. Two years ago, our role was expanded 

on the advice of the National Advisory Committee on 

Oceans and Atmosphere to encompass the remainder of the 

user community-other Federal agencies, non-Federal 

(State governments, academic institutions) sector, and the 

commercial sector. At that time, the Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior formalized our 

cooperation by signing a charter that established a joint 

office for mapping and research in the EEZ. The main 

objectives of this charter are 

... 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 the private sector involvement in the direction and use of EEZ-related data 

products. 

4 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

I am pleased with our cooperative effort. It is going 

well, and I trust it will continue. 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC 

ADMINISTRATION-U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

MAPPING ACTIVITIES 

Although the USGS and NOAA have been heavily 

involved in surveying the EEZ since 1984, NOAA has had 

little to bring to the party until recently. We divided up the 

responsibility consistent with our mandates. NOAA was to 

do the detailed bathymetry by utilizing our survey ships that 

have multibeam mapping systems. The USGS, which has 

an interest in geological investigations, began by conducting sidescan-sonar surveys that utilized the GLORIA system. Concern over possible national security impacts was 

expressed by the U.S. Navy because of the quality of the 

high-resolution multibeam data and its potential use by an 

adversary. This resulted in a moratorium on the distribution 

of the maps and the data from NOAA's surveys. Meanwhile, the USGS continued to survey and release sidescan· 

imagery data and maps showing spectacular oceanfloor morphology. Surveys off the West Coast of the United 

States identified over 100 previously unknown seamounts. 

I am pleased to report that, after years of effort, the 

Navy (through the efforts of Admiral Richard Pittinger, 

who is the Oceanographer of the Navy) has lifted restrictions on the distribution of all but 3 percent of the sea floor 

in two small areas. NOAA approved the operational procedures on October 25, 1989. We are now prepared to expand 

our efforts accordingly. 

NOAA's effort in multibeam mapping of the EEZ has 

been minimal. It has been difficult to generate resources or 

enthusiasm for a program whose future is under a classification cloud. However, we have surveyed about 3 percent 

of the sea floor and are gearing up to do a lot more. 

THE MUL TIBEAM MAPPING PROGRAM OF 

THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND 

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINSTRATION 

The first map describes the sea floor near Monterey 

Canyon, Calif. This map, which was published at a scale of 
1: 100,000, shows extraordinary detail. I only wish that Fran 

Shepard (who taught me geology) could have lived long 

enough to see this chart and to follow the sinous path of 

Monterey Canyon and newly delineated tributaries. He, 

along with countless others, groped for years using poor 

echo sounders and limited navigation to understand these 

extraordinary features. It has only been in the last few years 

that we have had the technology to allow us to produce 

maps that virtually replicate the view one would visualize, 

if one were observing the ocean floor as if it were dry land. 

As we anticipated, such charts have generated more 

questions than answers. We trust that they will prove to be 

useful tools for those interested in coastal geological processes and continental margin research. These maps provide 

baseline information for a continual research effort in the 

ocean. 

NOAA has a long way to go. Surveying the 3.4 

million nmi2 of EEZ requires a continuous sustained effort. 

Now that we have a clear release from the Navy, we hope 

to increase our effort. Even with several survey ships, it will 

take many years to complete the work. Because the swath 

width of each survey line is proportional to the depth of the 

water, we need to investigate improvements in shallowwater swath systems to get increased mapping efficiency on 

the continental shelf. 

My goal is to have a set of multibeam-generated 

charts of the EEZ that will compare with the wonderful 

Veatch and Smith charts of the old U.S. Coast and Geodetic 

Survey before World War II. This is a set of charts that has 

never been fully appreciated by this generation of geomorphologists. They were compiled by using accurate sonic 

depths and, more importantly, accurate navigation, radio 

buoys, wire line-all before radar and loran. This was a 

magnificent triumph of the state-of-the-art technology. 

What we are looking at today with NOAA's program is the 

next generation in the surveying of our coastal waters. 

In the next 2 yr, we hope to publish about 40 

multibeam charts that have detail similar to that of the 

Monterey Canyon chart, and we expect to develop a 

realistic schedule for charting and publication for the future. 

COOPERATION WITH OTHERS 

We are exploring ways to combine data from other 

ocean survey programs-the military surveys, the academic 

fleet, and the private sector. By using the Global Positioning System, the quality of navigation should no longer be a 

problem. We would like to generate multibeam-quality 

bathymetric charts by using many inputs of data. We need 

the help of many of you in this room to determine how to go 

about this. 

I am also determined to find effective ways to make 

our data available to the academic and the industrial 

communities in digital form, perhaps on a CD-ROM, that 

will allow you to manipulate the data for your own uses. 

Beautiful charts like the one of Monterey Canyon continue 

to be useful for future study and aesthetically pleasing, but, 

as a researcher, I know that it is sometimes useful to get 

back into the basic sounding data. NOAA wants to make 

that data available to you in as timely a manner and as 

useful a form as possible. Again, we need your help and 

suggestions in this regard. 

Our survey areas are not chosen at random. We 

initially concentrated on the Pacific Coast and the Gulf of 

Mexico for good economic reasons but, also, because of the 

spectacular geology. Our next series of charts, which are 

from the Gulf of Mexico, show depressions and swelling of 

the sea floor that will prove to be as interesting as those of 

the Monterey Canyon. However, since arriving here, I have 

examined a number of these multibeam-generated charts, 

and they all have exciting geology. I expect that that will be 

the case wherever we go. Because we cannot be everywhere 

at once, we are asking you to assist us in determining survey 

priorities. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

Although this is an EEZ symposium dedicated primarily to the issues of charting and mapping the geology of 

the EEZ, I would like to say a few words about other 

aspects of EEZ studies and cooperation among Federal 

agencies. 

There is very good cooperation between our agencies. 

One of the best examples is through the Committee on Earth 

Science (CES) under Alan Bromley, who is the President's 

science advisor. This committee is responsible for developing a long-term global change research program. It is an 

extraordinary effort to develop an integrated, comprehensive program across all agency lines; Dallas Peck chairs this 

committee. Many, including the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), did not believe that it was possible. There 

was, however, good support last year; hopefully, that 

support will continue. 

The CES example is a possible blueprint for other 

programs. OMB is now looking at a "cross-cut" of all 

so-called coastal ocean programs, which may be expanded 

in the future. 

There are some things that we cannot wait for the 

Federal bureaucracy to resolve-the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NOAA coastal monitoring and 

pollution studies. I have met with William K. Reilly, who 

is the Administrator of the EPA, and have agreed to 

coordinate all our coastal programs with them. I am looking 

forward to similar agreements with the USGS, the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of 

Energy, and so forth. 

There are more than enough problems to go around, 

and we must take advantage of the expertise each of us has. 

One goal of this symposium is to learn about, discuss, and 

Mapping Our Underwater Domain 5 
understand the programs and the priorities of those active in 

the EEZ. 

Many of us have different emphases and different 

priorities within the EEZ that range from "pure" science to 

regulatory matters. We must understand what and why we 

6 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

are doing activities for coordination and cooperation to be 

effective. I pledge to you that we in NOAA will do our part 

and are prepared to take the lead with the USGS in bringing 

together different groups that have different priorities. 

Thank you. 
Partnership-Stewardship-The Mission of the Department 

of the Interior 

John Sayre 

Department of the Interior 

It is a pleasure to join Dr. Knauss and those attending 

from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), as well as our distinguished guests from the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Association of 

American State Geologists, Shell Development Company, 

and the National Research Council. And, of course, the 

people with whom I am most familiar from the Minerals 

Management Service (MMS), the Bureau of Mines, and the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 

I am pleased to be able to represent the Secretary of 

the Interior, Manuel Lujan, at this important symposium. 

President Reagan's 1983 proclamation of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) was an exciting challenge to the 

Nation. This proclamation established the U.S. jurisdiction 

over minerals and other ocean resources in areas extending 

200 nmi off our Nation's continental and island territory 

coasts-in effect, adding another frontier to the national 

domain, a frontier of over 3 million nmi2

• Not only is the 

EEZ an exciting frontier for scientific research, but it is an 

important economic frontier that scientific discovery can 

unlock. The EEZ holds important energy and mineral 

potential for the Nation. It is also essential for living 

resources of the marine realm, has aspects that affect our 

national security, and is important to recreational activities. 

Also, with heightened concern for the environment, the 

potential use of the EEZ as a possible means to help 

alleviate the waste-disposal problem must be viewed carefully to ensure that the quality of the ocean environment is 

not affected. 

A particularly exciting aspect of the EEZ program, to 

myself and to Secretary Lujan, is that it touches on several 

of the Secretary's STEWARDSHIP (fig. 1) initiatives, 

endorsed by President Bush. The EEZ program encourages 

STEWARDSHIP by the promotion of partnerships with 

State and local governments and the territories; of interest in 

furthering the political, the economic, and the social development of our people; and of the wise management of our 

energy and mineral resources. 

I am pleased to see that the Department of the Interior 

is such an active player in the EEZ; for example,.the MMS 

is involved in Federal and State task forces that evaluate 

scientific information for the purposes of lease sales and 

development decisions; the Bureau of Mines has a Marine 

Mining Technology Center that contributes research in 

minerals information pertaining to the EEZ; and finally, the 

USGS has Federal-State cooperative studies in coastal 

regions and cooperative studies with State Geological Surveys. You will be hearing more about these bureau programs from subsequent speakers. 

I am pleased with the progress made by the USGSNOAA Joint Office for Mapping and Research since the 

charter was signed by the Departments of Commerce and 

Interior 2 yr ago. The USGS has completed sonar mapping 

of about 50 percent of the EEZ and has produced image 

maps of the sea floor that are comparable in clarity and 

detail to Landsat satellite photographs of land areas. NOAA 

has completed high-resolution bathymetric surveys of about 

3 percent of the EEZ. This is an important partnership, and, 

during this symposium, you will have the opportunity to see 

exciting results and products prepared by the joint office. 

The importance of a continued partnership cannot be 

overstated. Mapping and research activities in the EEZ are 

critical to our ability to identify resources, to evaluate and 

preserve the quality of the environment, and to determine 

multiple-use needs and priorities. This can be accomplished 

only through a combined program by Federal and State 

agencies, industry, and universities. 

Again, I would like to emphasize the importance the 

Department places on symposia such as this. Thank you for 

the opportunity to be here. I am looking forward to an 

exciting symposium and wish you well in your endeavor. 

Partnership-Stewardship-The Mission of the Department of th~ Interior 7 
STEWARDSHIP OF AMERICA'S PUBLIC 

LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCES I 

President George Bush and Interior Secretary 

Manuel Lujan, Jr. agreed to the following 

1 0-point agenda. The first letters of the agenda 

items form the acronym that is the overarching 

theme of this Administration's programSTEWARDSHIP. 

STEWARDSHIP: We will be good stewards, conserving and wisely managing our national resources of limitless beauty and value. 

TERRITORIES: We will work with the leadership of the Territories and Freely Associated 

States to further the political, economic, and social development of their peoples. 

EDUCATION: We will place a high priority on 

the important role of education in ensuring the 

public's knowledge, appreciation, and support of 

our natural resource policies. We will use Departmental resources to help develop the Administration's long-range plan to reform, rejuvenate, and revitalize our education system for the 

benefit of all Americans. 

WAR ON DRUGS: We will be aggressive soldiers 

in the Nation's war on drugs. We will take all appropriate measures to: (1) increase cooperative 

efforts with State and local law enforcement officials to eradicate illegal crops and to interdict the 

sale and transportation of drugs on public lands; 

(2) provide a drug-free workplace; and (3) encourage treatment for drug users. 

AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL: We will implement President Bush's "America the Beautiful" 

concept to strengthen and preserve our National 

Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Wilderness Areas. 

RESPONSIBLE, EFFICIENT, AND ETHICAL 

t.-IANAGE"1ENT: We will manage the Department in a fiSCally responsible, efficient, and ethical manner, with a high priority placed on equal 

opportunity. 

DOMESTIC RESOURCES: We will manage the 

multiple-use Federal lands and waters to provide 

the widest range of b~nefits from these domestic 

resources to the American people, including 

preservation, recreation, energy, minerals, water 

supply, food, and fiber. 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: We will aggressively apply the Department's unique scientific and technological resources to the solution 

of national and international problems such as 

water and air quality, global climate change, acid 

rain, and biodiversity. 

HARMONY: We will strive to bring a spirit of 

harmony to our public policy discussions through 

consultation, cooperation, and coordination instead of confrontation among competing interests, consistent with President' Bush's call for a 

"kinder, gentler Nation." 

INDIAN TRIBES AND ALASKA NATIVE 

GROUPS: Weare committed to making the ideals of Native American self-government and 

self-determination a reality. We will work with 

Native Americans to promote economic development, improved educational opportunities, and 

other measures to enhance their quality of life. 

PARTNERSHIPS: We will promote partnerships with State and local governments, individuals, and public and private groups at all levels, as 

well as utilize President Bush's "thousand points 

of light" - the varied, voluntary, and unique organizations within our Nation of communities. 

Figure 1. The 10-point agenda for STEWARDSHIP of America's public lands and natural resources. 

8 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research \ 

\-

\ 
The Role of the State Geological Surveys 

Kenneth N. Weaver 

Maryland Geological Survey 

INTRODUCTION 

I am pleased that the theme for the ·symposium is 

"Federal-State Partners in EEZ Mapping," and the Association of American State Geologists deems it a privilege to 

be one of the sponsors. 

In this paper, I would like to address, in general 

terms, the State's role in Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 

mapping, then to present some background on the State 

Geological Surveys' programs and mission and, finally, to 

discuss my perception of the State Surveys' role in the EEZ. 

THE STATES' ROLE 

The Coastal States have a large stake in the EEZ 

Program even though most of the people living in the 

Coastal States have never heard of the EEZ. Yet, the 

program for mapping and establishing a database for the 

EEZ will have a profound effect upon how we plan for and 

use the coastal and the offshore resources of this Nation 

over the next several generations. It is an oft-reported 

statistic that over 50 percent of the Nation's population lives 

within 50 mi of the ocean, and, by 2000, this figure could 

go as high as 75 percent. People living in this area have put 

a high priority on marine-related activities, such as fishing, 

swimming, and boating. Moreover, they are increasingly 

aware of the threats to these activities due to oil spills, 

sewage sludge, and garbage dumping on the Continental 

Shelf; hypodermic needles along the Nation's shorelines; 

declining fish populations; the disappearance of beaches 

that results from shore erosion; and the dying off of aquatic 

grasses due to over fertilization from land runoff and treated 

sewage. Thus, the public perceives that environmental 

conditions are not getting any better. There also appears to 

be a broad-ranging distrust that government, at any level, 

can do a great deal to correct the situation. 

The resource-extraction industry, including hard minerals and oil and gas, also has an image problem in many 

areas of the United States because of perceived or real 

threats to the environment. This situation will undoubtedly 

be exacerbated by the increasing number of resourceextraction proposals for the offshore environment. 

Why is this discussion important when we are basically talking about technical issues revolving around mapping the EEZ? I believe it is of the utmost importance to 

recognize the situation iri which we will be operating. 

Scientific investigations of the EEZ should not be conducted in a vacuum. We should ask ourselves, "Will these 

studies give the public greater assurance that marine mining, oil and gas exploration and production, dredging 

operations, and waste disposal can be done with minimal 

effect on the environment?" This is an area in which I 

believe the States can play an important role in translating 

public concerns into appropriate scientific inquiries and also 

in relating the results of those scientific inquiries to the 

public as a feedback mechanism. Only by having a good 

communication network can we hope to accomplish the 

tasks set before us in the EEZ. 

Building a database for the EEZ should take into 

consideration the data needs of the States. What kinds of 

problems do the States have that can be addressed by 

applied research on the part of the States, the Federal 

Government, and industry? Two problems that face Coastal 

States are diminishing supplies of sand and gravel from land 

sources and the need for beach replenishment to manage the 

continuing process of erosion. We can look to the EEZ for 

the potential solution to both of these problems. States are 

interested in mapping the nearshore ocean and estuaries as 

well as getting a handle on the resources in and below the 

seabed. It would be fair to say, however, that a State's 

interest in the EEZ is inversely proportional to its distance 

from shore. 

BACKGROUND ON STATE GEOLOGICAL 

SURVEYS 

Some of the State surveys came into existence less 

than 50 yr after the Nation was founded, and 30 surveys had 

been in existence by the time the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) was established in 1879. The major missions of 

early survey work were mineral-resource investigations and 

geological mapping. 

The State surveys, in general, have experienced a 

healthy growth over the past several decades, and, today, an 

The Role of the State Geological Surveys 9 
agency dealing in State geological research is located in 

each of the 50 States. The aggregate of all 50 State 

Geological Survey budgets is $125 million, about 90 

percent of which is applied to research, data compilation, 

and resource analysis. 

A number of institutional arrangements exist. About 

one-third of the surveys are affiliated in some way with a . 

State university, and the remaining two-thirds are affiliated 

with natural resources or environmental departments or 

another State entity. 

The mission of the State Geological Surveys has been 

constant from their early beginnings. In most States, the 

mission includes geologic mapping, application of geology 

to environmental problems, mineral-resource studies, production of maps to meet special needs, cooperation with 

Federal geological and resource agencies, and generally 

acting as a geological and mineral-resources advisor to the 

executive departments of State governments. In addition, 

some State Geological Surveys are responsible for hydrogeological investigations, regulatory operations governing 

oil and gas exploration, water well drilling, and mineral 

exploration. Coastal State Geological Surveys (including 

the Great Lakes States) are becoming increasingly involved 

in the study of their coastal margins. These studies are 

focused on such geological processes as coastal flooding 

and shore erosion. Other studies are concerned with evaluating resources that may be available from shallow and deep 

formations, such as heavy minerals, sand and gravel, and 

oil and gas. 

ROLE OF THE STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEYS 

The question before this symposium is, how may the 

State Geological Surveys help in the mapping and the 

resource appraisal of the EEZ? As an example, the Coastal 

State Surveys are already participating in the Continental 

Margins Program of the Minerals Management Service 

(MMS), which was developed in cooperation with the 

Continental Margins Committee of the Association of 

American State Geologists and is managed through the 

University of Texas. The studies constituting this program 

can be characterized as either shallow or deep framework 

investigation. The shallow framework studies address the 

possibility of heavy minerals and aggregates in the nearshore environment by investigating their occurrence, provenance, abundance, geologic setting, and framework. Most 

of the 21 State studies in some way address this topic. The 

deep framework studies examine the structure, the stratigraphy, the sedimentology, and the geophysics of the deep 

subsurface relative to the occurrence or potential occurrence 

of hydrocarbons. Only three State studies have concentrated 

on the deep framework studies. 

All the Coastal State Geological Surveys have participated in the MMS Continental Margins Program. Perhaps 

1 0 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

one of the best features of this program is it~ ongoing 

nature. It is now in its sixth year, and the funding has been 

continuous for those States submitting proposals over that 

period of time. 

Although the amount of funding per State is modest, 

the fact that funding could be depended upon means that the 

State Geological Surveys can maintain an active program in 

continental margin investigations. States have profited from 

the increased database generated by the studies but, perhaps 

more importantly, now have a better trained cadre to deal 

with offshore studies. The USGS, over the past several 

years, has been carrying out field investigations on the 

geologic processes associated with shore erosion on the 

barrier islands of Louisiana and high lake levels in Illinois 

and Indiana. A new study on erosion and pollution is just 

getting underway in Mississippi and Alabama. All these 

studies are being carried out in cooperation with the State 

Geological Surveys in the respective States. 

Because of the success of these studies and the 

general awareness of the loss of coastal land resources, the 

USGS, at the direction of Congress, is preparing a plan to 

implement a national Coastal Geology Program. This plan 

will have input from State agencies, particularly the Coastal 

State Geological Surveys. The State Surveys welcome this 

new initiative and will work actively toward its implementation. We believe that the plan should provide the opportunity for close cooperative investigations by the USGS and 

the State Surveys. 

Another type of cooperation between Federal and 

State agencies is already in place. At least five MMS-State 

Task Forces have been established to examine the potential 

for mineral leasing. These are Hawaii, cobalt-manganese 

crusts; Oregon and California, polymetallic sulfides; Georgia, heavy minerals; North Carolina, phosphates; and the 

Gulf Coast States, heavy minerals and aggregates. 

Another model for cooperation between the States 

and the Federal Government has been the informal cooperation between two or more scientists from State and Federal 

agencies interested in the same subjects or problems. Such 

a model was used in working out the Quaternary geology of 

the Chesapeake Bay. The results were published in the 

Miscellaneous Field Studies series of the USGS under the 

joint authorship of geologists from the USGS, the Maryland 

Geological Survey, and the Virginia Institute of Marine 

Science. 

Thus, the State Geological Surveys are already 

involved in the geological/geophysical/geochemical mapping of the resources and the nearshore environment of the 

coastal areas. What do the States perceive as future needs in 

furthering this effort? 

• Studies on diagenetic processes operating within nearshore marine and estuarine sediments because these 

sediments provide important pathways for nutrient 

burial and regeneration. Another area of concern is 

toxics in the estuarine waters and sediments. 
• Systematic studies of shore erosion and wetland loss on 

the barrier islands along the Atlantic and the Gulf 

Coasts. Many site-specific studies have been carried 

out, and a large database has been developed on 

historical erosion rates, but we need more processoriented studies. 

• Studies of offshore sources of sand and aggregate resources. In many coastal areas, available aggregate supplies have been depleted either by mining or by 

preemption by other land uses in the rapidly developing coastal areas. Coastal beaches in many locations 

are being stabilized by beach replenishment. New 

supplies of these resources will probably come from 

the EEZ. 

• Sophisticated instrumentation and methods in geophysics 

and geochemistry. We need modem high-resolution 

bathymetric surveys of nearshore areas. In some areas 

of the Chesapeake Bay, for example, the survey data 

on which the charts are based are as much as 100 yr 

old. 

SUMMARY 

In summary, I believe the State Geological Surveys 

are well positioned to join in a Federal-State partnership for 

the mapping of the EEZ. The Coastal States understand the 

problems that they face concerning the EEZ. They are 

perhaps better prepared in terms of manpower and equipment than ever before, and, I believe, they eagerly look 

forward to the challenges arising from this monumental 

task. 

Symposium Introduction and Overview 11 
The Coastal Ocean Program of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

Donald Scavia 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration 

Our coastal oceans have been victim to a continual 

onslaught of problems-from wetland loss and coastal 

over-development to contaminated seafood and beach closures. In 1989 alone, we witnessed a number of devastating 

events, including the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Hurricane 

Hugo, record-low oyster harvests from the Chesapeake 

Bay, and destruction of a coral reef by a grounded ship. We 

can improve our abilities to predict and deal with these 

events. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the "Earth systems" agency, has the scientific expertise, the mandate, and the resources to accomplish these goals. The Coastal Ocean Program combines all 

NOAA's components to develop and implement agencywide programs to help the Nation solve immediate crises 

and to avoid or reduce future problems. Three critical 

improvements that form the core of the Coastal Ocean 

Program are as follows: 

• Predictions of coastal ocean pollution and degradation, 

• Conservation and management of living marine resources, and 

• Protection of life and property .in coastal areas. 

The Program focuses NOAA's efforts in five critical 

areas-nutrient overenrichment, estuarine habitats, coastal 

fishery ecosystems, toxic chemical contamination, and 

physical impacts. 

Nutrient overenrichment efforts will help us understand 

and predict the effects on coastal water quality and its living 

marine resources. 

Nutrient overenrichment is caused by the accumulation of algae-producing materials, such as nitrogen and 

phosphorus, in our Nation's water bodies. This can result 

from natural processes or human-induced changes. The 

accumulation of excessive algae reduces the oxygen needed 

to sustain fish and other organisms in the marine food chain 

and can have negative effects on recreational and commercial fisheries. Excess plant materials can make our beaches 

and coastal waters unattractive and unfit for use and may 

play an important role in global climate change. 

12 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

In fiscal year 1990, NOAA will examine the effects 

that human-induced nutrient enrichment has on the productivity and the water quality of the Mississippi River plume 

and the adjacent Louisiana continental shelf. NOAA will 

also study the impact nutrient overenrichment has on global 

climate change. 

NOAA will focus fiscal year 1991 efforts in the 

following three specific areas: 

• Continue nutrient research in the Mississippi River 

plume and the Louisiana continental shelf and expand 

efforts into the Southeast Atlantic Bight. 

• Conduct a nationwide assessment of the severity of 

nutrient overenrichment problems in U.S. coastal and 

estuarine waters through its National Status and Trends 

Program. On the basis of this assessment, NOAA will 

initiate a program to monitor conditions associated 

with nutrient overenrichment in areas that have substantial problems. 

• Study the atmospheric transport of nutrients into our 

coastal waters and develop strategies to confront this 

problem. Research suggests that significant amounts of 

nutrients are carried through the atmosphere and that 

prevailing wind patterns make the Atlantic Coast 

particularly vulnerable. 

Estuarine habitat will be studied to ascertain the 

effects that environmental change has on the quality of 

estuarine habitats and on the living resources they support. 

Estuaries are critical components of our marine environment. The 92 estuaries in the United States provide the 

foundation for productive coastal waters and are host to 

many recreational and commercial activities. In fact, twothirds of commercially valuable fish depend on estuaries 

during some part of their life. Estuaries are extremely 

vulnerable to human activities. Nutrient overenrichment, 

pollution, overdevelopment, and erosion threaten the wellbeing of our estuaries. 

To contribute to President Bush's goal of "no net 

wetlands loss," NOAA will initiate CoastWatch-land in 
fiscal year 1990 to inventory and analyze wetland habitats in 

the Chesapeake Bay. This will greatly improve our ability 

to monitor changes in coastal wetlands and to develop 

strategies to protect them. 

NOAA will focus research efforts on seagrass and 

tidal wetland habitats because of their vulnerability to 

declining environmental quality and their wide distribution 

along the Nation's coast. NOAA will examine how these 

habitats function and support marine life; special attention 

will be focused on the effects that nutrient -enhanced productivity, diversion of fresh water flows, and wetland 

habitat loss have on the productivity and the health of 

estuarine species. 

NOAA's efforts in fiscal year 1991 will focus in the 

following three areas: 

• Expand CoastWatch-land by mapping wetlands in other 

regions and extending its seagrass mapping activities 

to North Carolina, Florida, and Texas. Mapping an 

area every 2 to 5 yr allows coastal resource managers 

to assess the conditions of the habitats to see if they are 

impacted by erosion, pollution, or development. 

• Continue research on seagrass and tidal wetland habitats 

and begin research on mangrove swamps. Not enough 

is known about these habitats, which are rapidly 

disappearing due to human intervention. 

• Develop models to predict the effect that large and small 

incremental changes have on coastal habitats and their 

living marine resources and evaluate current techniques for wetland restoration. 

Coastal fishery ecosystem efforts will develop more 

accurate and effective models by taking into account natural 

changes in the ocean environment. This will help resource 

manage(s develop more effective fishery management 

plans. 

In recent years, the demand for seafood has risen 

dramatically; however, no major new fisheries are available 

for development. Therefore, effective management plans, 

which are based on models that take into account natural 

variability are critical. Human activities and natural changes 

in the coastal ocean environment affect the dynamics and 

the populations of fisheries. These must be recognized as 

we develop more accurate and efficient fisheries managment plans. 

NOAA's fiscal year 1991 efforts will focus in the 

following two areas: 

• Expand research into specific key fisheries ecosystems 

and focus on understanding the difference between the 

influences of nature and society on the success of 

important fish species and 

• Develop CoastWatch-land for the West Coast to help 

detect, monitor, and evaluate the impact unusual 

environmental events (for example, El Nifio and red 

tides) have on the Pacific Coast. CoastWatch-land uses 

remote sensing to provide decisionmakers with upto-date environmental information on unusual environmental events. 

Toxic chemical contamination efforts will help us 

understand the sources and the effects of toxic chemical 

contaminants entering coastal and estuarine waters as a 

result of human activities and will help resource managers, at 

all levels, develop strategies to respond to the problems 

these contaminants cause. 

Society continues to add an alarming amount of toxic 

chemical contaminants to our coastal waters and estuaries. 

These damage living marine resources, threaten the economic viability of coastal waters, and endanger human 

health. 

NOAA's National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program collects and maintains data to determine the status and 

to detect the changes in the level of toxic contaminants in 

coastal and estuarine waters. NOAA currently monitors 

concentrations of toxic chemicals in fish, shellfish, and 

sediments at 250 sites nationwide. In fiscal year 1990, 

NOAA will expand the NS&T Progam to study the effects 

contaminants have on living resources in our coastal waters 

and estuaries. NOAA also will study two highly contaminated areas, Tampa Bay and the Hudson-Raritan Estuary, to 

understand the effects contaminants have on estuary productivity and quality. 

In fiscal year 1991, NOAA will continue efforts to 

define toxic chemical contaminant problems, to develop 

models to predict future events, and to provid~ options for 

resource managers to deal with problems. NOAA also will 

continue detailed assessments of highly contaminated areas 

and provide decisionmakers with information so they Cat) 

implement effective plans to safeguard important living 

marine resources. 

Physical impact efforts will improve our understanding 

of natural physical impacts, such as tsunami and hurricane 

flooding, and reduce hazards to coastal resources and 

populations. 

These natural physical impacts cause hundreds of 

deaths and millions of dollars worth of property damage 

each year. NOAA's efforts will provide the data and 

research we need to understand and predict the impacts of 

severe events and to develop preventive measures. 

In fiscal year 1991, NOAA will continue to develop 

more reliable predictions of the impacts of tsunami and 

storm surge inundation to lessen hazards to U.S. coastal 

resources and populations. Specifically, NOAA will 

upgrade the tsunami measurement system in Alaska and 

accelerate efforts to predict the hurricane flooding of 

vulnerable U.S. coastal locations. 

The Coastal Ocean Program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 13 
COMMON PROGRAMS 

Much of the research and the assessments needed to 

address these problems rely on similar sets of basic ocean 

observations. To meet this need, NOAA will enhance its 

coastal ocean observation network of buoys, ships, and 

other platforms. They also will develop an improved 

capability to acquire and disperse rapidly remotely sensed 

observations. 

In fiscal years 1990 and 1991, NOAA also will expand 

CoastWatch-water to other regions in the United States, 

including the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico, and the 

West Coast. CoastWatch-water programs now operate off 

the southeastern U.S. coast and in the Chesapeake Bay and 

provide analysis of satellite imagery to help anticipate and 

track unusual environmental events. 

GETTING THE INFORMATION TO THE RIGHT 

PEOPLE 

The data, the information, and the models that 

NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program is designed to produce are 

of little value unless we can get this information into the 

hands of scientists and the decisionmakers who must make 

critical judgments concerning our coastal oceans. Effective 

communication and data transfer systems help generate new 

information and understanding and are a critical component 

in solving coastal ocean problems. In fiscal years 1990 and 

1991, NOAA will improve its existing communication and 

information transfer network. 

NOAJ\.'s user-friendly computer system, the Coastal 

Ocean Management, Planning, and Assessment System 

14 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

(COMPAS), was designed for coastal resource managers to 

access data on rapidly changing coastal resources and to 

develop management strategies to safeguard important 

coastal resources. In fiscal year 1990, NOAA will work 

closely with State and local decisionmakers to demonstrate 

and evaluate COMPAS in Texas; additional States will be 

included in fiscal year 1991. 

NOAA's Ocean Communication Network (NOCN, 

or "l'iotion") provides rapid communication and data transfer capabilities throughout selected NOAA facilities in the 

Untied States. NOCN will be. expanded in fical year 1990 by 

upgrading telecommunications at the Beaufort, N.C., fisheries laboratory and by adding telecommunication capabilities at three new sites-the fisheries laboratory in Narragansett, R.I., and the Environmental Research 

Laboratories in Seattle, Wash., and Ann Arbor, Mich. 

NOAA will continue regional expansion and system 

upgrades in fiscal year 1991. 

NOAA's Interactive Marine Analysis and Forecast 

System is a user-friendly, desktop computer that integrates 

analysis, display, data management, and communications 

capabilities for research and operations. NOAA will continue to enhance the program in fiscal years 1990 and 1991 

and will make it available to more fisheries scientists, 

oceanographers, and meteorologists. 

NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program sets the course for 

the Nation to solve the environmental problems confronting 

our coastal oceans and enables us to preserve and enhance 

our valuable coastal resources, to prepare for future challenges, and to ensure continued economic growth. Protecting the environment is good business! 
The Marine Minerals Technology Center of the 

Department of the Interior 

J. Robert Woolsey 

University of Mississippi 

SUMMARY 

The Marine Minerals Technology Center (MMTC) 

was established by Congress in 1988 as a national research 

center within the Department of the Interior to be administered by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. The primary objective 

of the MMTC is to provide focus and guidance for the 

development of the marine mineral resources of the United 

States balanced with the protection and the conservation of 

the environment. As a national research center, the MMTC 

brings together leading scientists and engineers in marine 

minerals and ocean mining, thus linking universities, 

research institutions, and industry. The MMTC also functions as a training center and an information and reference 

center, particularly for the transfer of technological developments to industry. The two center divisions of the MMTC 

are the Continental Shelf Division (CSD) at the University 

of Mississippi and the Ocean Basins Division (OBD) at the 

University of Hawaii. 

OPERATIONAL FACILITIES 

The MMTC is adrr· 1istered from offices on the 

University of Mississippi C<' tnpus; operations of the CSD 

centered in Biloxi, Miss. The CSD facilities include a 

machine shop, an office, and the Research Vessel Kit 

Jones, which is a 61-ft wood-hull vessel that is well-suited 

for the testing of sampling and surveying systems and for 

in-house and cooperative research and exploration programs. The OBD centers its operations around Look Laboratory at the University of Hawaii, where office space, 

machine shops, and small coastal craft are available. The 

Open Ocean Test Range and the Vertical Test Tank at Look 

Laboratory are under consideration for rehabilitation and 

improvement. 

FUNDED RESEARCH PROJECTS 

Qualified researchers submit proposals on an annual 

basis to be reviewed and selected by the MMTC and its 

Research Advisory Council. Current CSD research projects 

include the following: 

• An Advanced Design for a Seafloor Gamma Measurement Data Collection System, 

• Coastal and Marine Depositional Models for Aggregate 

and Heavy Mineral Exploration in the Northern Gulf of 

Mexico, 

• Assessment of Sand Resources of Heald and Sabine 

Banks, Texas Exclusive Economic Zone, 

• An Investigation of Potential Titanium and ZirconiumBearing Placer Deposits Offshore Oregon, and 

• Evaluation and Development of Geostatistical Methods 

for Marine Placer Exploration. 

Current OBD research projects include the following: 

• Development of a Free-Fall Seafloor Hard Substrate 

Corer, 

• The Microtopography of Manganese Crust Deposits, 

• Evaluation of the Cobalt Crust Continuum on Seamounts in the EEZ of Hawaii, 

• Economics of Marine Polymetallic Sulfide Resources, 

• Acquisition of a Oraphite Furnace Atomic Absorption 

Spectrometer, and 

• Computer Aided Design Methodology for Power, Communication, and Strength Umbilicals. 

INDUSTRY AFFILIATIONS 

The MMTC maintains active ties with industry and 

focuses many of its activities on current and projected 

industrial needs. In industry-cooperative research programs, the MMTC generally contributes personnel for the 

design, the construction, and the testing of new technology, 

and industry provides the majority of supplies, materials, 

and travel expenses. Because the resulting technology 

remains in the public domain, it is available to other 

researchers and to industries that have similar needs. 

In a cooperative program with Western Gold Exploration and Mining Company (West Gold), the MMTC was 

asked to develop a mobile reconnaissance drill for use in the 

exploration of gold placer deposits offshore Nome, Alaska. 

The Marine Minerals Technology Center of the Department of the Interior 15 
West Gold needed a drill that could be rapidly deployed 

. from relatively small vessels and that would be capable of 

inexpensively sampling the variable sediments of the Alaskan Coast. To meet these needs, the MMTC constructed the 

Remote Placer Drill (RPD), which is a counter-flush drill 

system that combines a vibralift drill design with a pneumatic rock drill. 

Because the initial results from the testing of the RPD 

were encouraging, West Gold sponsored the design, the 

construction, and the testing of a more advanced version 

that could be used for production drilling. The RPD II, 

which incorporates a hydraulic drill motor and drill feed, 

has a deeper drilling capacity and is of a sturdier design than 

the prototype pneumatically operated RPD. Testing of the 

new production version of the RPD II offshore Nome was 

completed in August and September 1989; the results were 

quite favorable. The hydraulic drill motor and constant drill 

feed system proved very effective, and the RPD II averaged 

an impressive rate of one 6-m hole per 30 min, transition 

positioning on close centers at a 1-m sampling interval. The 

MMTC will continue testing and modifying the RPD's in 

future in-house and cooperative projects. 

Also at the request of industry, the MMTC has 

designed a series of prototype dredge systems capable of 

mining placer and (or) gravel deposits in light ice and rough 

sea conditions. One continuous bucket dragline design 

incorporates the flexibility of a dragline system with the 

efficiency of a continuous bucket line ladder dredge but 

without the limitations of the ladder. This system would be 

suitable for mounting on a low-profile surface platform for 

increased stability in rough seas or light ice. The continuous 

bucket dragline dredge also would be capable of working 

beyond the depth limits of a traditional bucket ladder system 

(approximately 15 m) and would have significant capital 

and operating cost advantages in conventional mining 

applications. 

The MMTC plans to design and construct a prototype 

continuous bucket dragline dredge system in a cooperative 

venture with Miller Construction Company. Contingent 

upon the financial ability of the MMTC to assemble the 

prototype model, Miller Construction will provide a barge, 

a powerplant, and a drive system for the dredge and will test 

the prototype system in working deep gravels of the 

Mississippi River. Although the prototype dredge will be 

designed for working deep-river gravels, the concept also 

will be adaptable to rough offshore conditions. After some 

modification, the system could be mounted on an ice-belted 

barge that could be maneuvered in light sea ice, thus 

making the concept attractive for a variety of environments. 

Negotiations with the Ocean Minerals Company 

(OMCO) have resulted in the acquisition by the MMTC of 

the entire set of reports and computer files produced by the 

OMCO Exploration Group. OMCO is one of the four 

U.S.-based consortia to have a claim, under U.S. law, to 

extensive deposits of deep-seabed manganese nodules in the 

16 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

Clarion-Clipperton Zone of the northeastern Pacific Ocean. 

The MMTC will archive these data and make them selectively available through publication, which will not compromise OMCO's proprietary interest. 

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS 

MMTC cooperative research programs are the basis 

for networking efforts that encourage government agencies, 

academic institutions, and industry to work together toward 

common research purposes. Groups conducting similar or 

complimentary research are coordinated, and their interaction is frequently supported through MMTC contributions 

of technical expertise, shipboard time, and sampling and 

surveying systems. These cooperative programs promote 

technology transfer and help minimize the unnecessary and 

often costly duplication of research efforts. 

One such cooperative research project with the Ocean 

Science Directorate of Naval Oceanographic and Atmospheric Research Laboratory involved a field test of the 

Remote Acoustic Sediment Classifier System in May 1989. 

This computerized, single-frequency system is capable of 

making remote and rapid determinations of a number of 

physical and acoustic properties of surface and nearsurface 

sediments. The system has a number of applications for 

rapid and remote seabed sampling and excellent potential 

for environmental assessment. 

In a 1989 Minerals Management Service (MMS)-

Georgia Task Force project in the nearshore waters of the 

Georgia coast, the MMTC worked in conjunction with 

Georgia State University and the Center for Applied Isotope 

Studies at the University of Georgia. This project, which 

was cosponsored by the Georgia Geological Survey and the 

MMS, had a twofold objective-to run a series of highresolution seismic profiles between the Department of the 

Navy's Tactical Aircrew Combat Training System offshore 

platforms that would provide a regional stratigraphic framework for the phosphate-bearing Miocene deposits and to 

conduct a series of site-specific studies in targeted areas of 

the Georgia Continental Chelf that would determine the 

presence of heavy minerals, phosphorite, sand, and gravel. 

In response to continued partial MMS funding, the 

MMTC will conduct a bulk sampling program in summer 

1990 at promising sites identified in the 1989 survey. The 

RPD, which has been modified for use as a mini borehole 

miner, will be used in an attempt to recover 1 to 2 tons of 

phosphorite matrix material. If successful, then the recovered bulk material will be delivered to the Bureau of Mines' 

Salt Lake City facility for processing studies. 

In an effort to delineate the placer potential near Cape 

Prince of Wales, Alaska, a 1990 cooperative project with 

the Bureau of Mines-Fairbanks will involve drilling a series 

of holes through the ice by using a percussion-waterlift drill 

system. MMTC will design and construct the drill system, 
which will be a slightly modified version of one previously 

constructed for the DuPont Corporation. Decisions concerning further project plans will be based upon the outcome of 

this preliminary drill sampling investigation, although a 

geophysical survey and a more extensive drilling program 

are expected to follow. 

The MMTC also plans to join the Center for Cold 

Ocean Resources Engineering (C-CORE) in a cooperative 

project to develop an offshore Induced Polarization 

(IP)/Resistivity System. C-CORE has obtained funding to 

construct this system, which~will be completed by October 

1990. Field testing aboard the Research Vessel Kit Jones is 

slated for several Mississippi Sound sites for which ground 

truth data is presently available. The goal of this testing will 

be to integrate the IF/Resistivity System data with data 

taken during the comprehensive MMTC geophysical and 

drill sampling survey scheduled for summer 1990. 

IN-HOUSE RESEARCH PROJECTS 

Programs of in-house research include resource characterization studies and the technological development of 

new and modified systems in minerals exploration. The 

development of a number of sampling, surveying, and 

mining systems are initiated in-house, but applications are 

frequently extended to various cooperative and industry 

programs. 

The MMTC seismic systems are developed in-house 

and are used to conduct in-house research and to provide 

cooperative support to industry, academia, and government 

agencies. Basic components include a highly portable 

Datasonics "bubble pulser," a factory reconditioned Teledyne spark gap, a Del Norte analog signal processor, a 

Teledyne minispark array, an EG&G uniboom transducer, 

and an EPC thermal recorder. Recent acquisitions include a 

386/20 PC system that has a 60-megabyte internal tape 

backup unit, a 16-bit analog/digital converter capable of 

direct-memory access, a high-fidelity stereo videocassette 

recorder, a data-acquisition software package, and a dataprocessing software package. These items will be used in 

the in-house development of a PC-based system that will 

permit the conversion of analog seismic data resolution by 

expanding processing capabilities. Data will be archived in 

a convenient format available for accurate reproduction. 

Other in-house projects involve deposit assessment 

and characterization studies. In addition to the projects in 

Alaska and Georgia, the CSD is conducting a sampling and 

geophysical survey in the Mississippi Sound, and the OBD 

and the CSD are conducting a major joint in-house program, 

"Sand for Hawaiian Beaches." This project will investigate 

the viability of using offshore sand deposits to replenish the 

beaches on the island of Oahu in Hawaii. This research will 

involve preliminary offshore deposit characterizations, 

first-order environmental impact assessments, and the 

design of preventative technology. 

EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND TECHNOLOGY 

TRANSFER 

The MMTC supports a number of graduate students 

each year on a full-time basis, thus introducing them to 

professional levels of research, possibly leading to meaningful thesis or dissertation topics, and often providing 

hands-on training during the data collection phases of 

specific projects. Both divisions of the MMTC maintain 

reference centers that are available to students and professionals in the fields of marine minerals and ocean mining. 

In addition to direct support for education and training, the 

CSD is active in the primary forums for marine minerals 

research activities. The MMTC provides support funding 

for the International Marine Minerals Society and the 

Underwater Mining Institute and presents technological 

developments at a number of conferences and meetings 

each year . 

• 

The Marine Minerals Technology Center of the Department of the Interior 17 
Our Seabed Frontier-Challenges and Choices 

Armand j. Silva 

University of Rhode Island 

Kent A. Fanning, Larry L. Gentry, Charles D. Hollister, Robert W. Knecht, 

Gerry B. Manning, David B. Prior, Gary L. Taghon, and Alan G. Young 

National Research Council 

PREFACE 

The following is primarily derived from the executive 

summary of the report Our Seabed Frontier-Challenges 

and Choices by the Committee on Seabed Utilization in the 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Marine Board, 

Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, 

National Research Council. The report was published in 

November 1989 (Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 

89-63099) and is available from the National Academy 

Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 

20418; telephone (202) 334-3313. 

INTRODUCTION 

The establishment of the U.S. EEZ by Presidential 

proclamation in 1983 "for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources" presents 

the Nation with an opportunity and a challenge to wisely use 

its divers resources. In addition to living resources, such as 

fisheries, this vast region (over 3.4 million nmi2

) contains 

extensive and potentially valuable mineral and energy 

resources and is used for many other purposes, such as 

waste disposal, pipelines, cables, and military uses. 

The opportunities for resource recovery and other 

uses carry with them the challenge of determining the most 

appropriate development and management policies for such 

an extensive and complex area. A prerequisite to formulating adequate policies for managing this region in the 

Nation's best interest over the long-term is a comprehensive 

understanding of the region's sediments and seabed processes. Understanding these processes will depend on a 

variety of data-gathering systems and techniques. Finally, 

all potential uses of the region need to be determined, along 

with the environmental effects of these uses on the ocean's 

environmental systems. 

The ocean's resources are relatively untapped. The 

role of the oceans in transportation, communications, and 

18 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

disposal of waste; as a source of food, energy, and mineral 

resources; and as an aesthetic and recreational asset is likely 

to increase worldwide under the pressures of demographic 

and economic growth. This study focused on the present 

and the future uses for the seabed of the U.S. EEZ; its 

objective is to stimulate the efficient and environmentally 

sound utilization of the resources. 

The utilization of the EEZ presents a variety of 

technological challenges. Much of the future development 

will be dependent on having the necessary tools to survey, 

map, probe, sample, and monitor the seabed. Improved 

technology also will be needed for most of the actual 

uses-whether to mine and process minerals, to bury cables 

and pipelines, or to dispose of waste. A carefully conceived 

and coordinated plan for EEZ development will assure that 

the United States will retain its leadership role in offshore 

technology for scientific research, resource recovery, and 

other long-term activities while minimizing degradation of 

the environment. 

The EEZ is a national resource of unprecedented 

dimensions. What we do in the U.S. EEZ over the next 10 

to 30 yr will have long-range economic and environmental 

implications not only for our Nation, but for significant 

areas of the globe. It is clear that all future uses of the EEZ 

must take into account possible negative ecological impacts 

and, therefore, manage this area in the best interests of 

present and future generations. 

SEABED CHARACTERISTICS AND GENERAL 

NEEDS 

This study assessed the state of knowledge of the 

seabed as related to future activities within the U.S. EEZ 

and concluded that all projected industrial, commercial, 

public, and military development prospects will require 

expansion of basic and applied data about the characteristics 

and processes in the ocean environment and on the seabed. 
In terms of geologic settings and oceanographic conditions 

and processes, the frontier deepwater and Arctic areas of the 

EEZ are especially complex compared to areas where 

previous development activities have been conducted. 

Expanded utilization of these regions must be based on a 

thorough understanding of seabed characteristics and processes at prospective sites and the likely consequences to the 

environment of each use. 

The seabed regimes within the. U.S. EEZ are composed of virtually all types of ocean seabed features and 

processes. The diversity of conditions, together with the 

remoteness of the seabed, creates a very complex and 

challenging environment. A multidisciplinary approach is 

necessary to understand natural seabed processes in frontier 

areas, to increase our knowledge about the genesis of ore 

bodies, and to monitor the impacts of human activities. 

In this study, the major present and potential uses of 

the EEZ seabed, the technical and the nontechnical constraints to their development, and their likely impact on the 

seabed environment were identified. Information and technology needs for each use are assessed in terms of achieving 

the most efficient use of existing research and technology 

development. Information needs for monitoring the effects 

of present and planned activities on the marine environment 

and ecosystem also are determined. Also considered were 

the problems associated with managing the large amounts of 

data gathered on the EEZ seabed and preliminary recommendations for ensuring the broadest accessibility and 

dissemination of data by all users. 

Management structures are proposed for planning and 

coordinating research and development activities in the EEZ 

and for resolving potential conflicts among future seabed 

uses. An evaluation was made of existing Federal policy 

and regulatory frameworks with respect to their role in 

limiting or encouraging expanded use of the EEZ seabed. 

USES AND RELATED ISSUES 

Oil and Gas Resources 

In terms of strategic importance and economic value, 

the exploration for and production of offshore oil and gas 

resources will remain the most important economic activities in the U.S. EEZ into the next century. Currently, about 

12 percent of total crude oil production and 25 percent of 

total gas production is produced offshore; it is estimated that 

U.S. dependence on these resources will continue to 

increase each year as land reserves decline. Although 

current technology is adequate to develop nearshore oil and 

gas resources, many technical constraints face the offshore 

oil and gas industry as it moves farther onto the continental 

slope and into unexplored Arctic regions. The environmental hazards of operating in deep and ice-infested waters are 

considerably greater, and overcoming them will be far more 

costly than previous offshore oil and gas development 

operations. 

Development of these areas will be affected not only 

by technical progress, but also by nontechnical factors, such 

as fluctuating world oil prices, the impact of unstable 

political regimes in oil-producing countries, and a domestic 

regulatory climate subject to public pressure to protect 

offshore lease areas. Equally significant will be the extent to 

which government and industry cooperate to achieve a 

proper balance between meeting the Nation's energy needs 

and environmental concerns and maintaining a competitive 

and technically innovative domestic oil and gas industry. 

Mineral Resources 

Except for construction materials, such as sand and 

gravel, and some placers, it is unlikely that substantial 

amounts of hard mineral resources will be commercially 

recovered from U.S. EEZ deposits within the next decade. 

Depressed market prices, together with high costs of mining 

in marine environments, create an unfavorable economic 

condition for development of most seabed mineral resources. 

Future national needs for certain strategic materials 

could spur development of offshore mining industries for 

selected critical materials, such as cobalt, chromium, man-: 

ganese, and the platinum group metals, that are now 

imported by the United States. Because lead times of up to 

15 yr are required for developing commercial seabed 

mining systems, it seems prudent to establish the scientific 

and technical base necessary to assess and recover strategic 

or critical materials should national interests require them in 

the future. An integrated long-term (5-10 yr) program of 

technology development is needed to perfect the tasks for 

comprehensive assessment of hard mineral resources in the 

EEZ seabed. Basic research also is needed in mineral 

sampling and recovery technology requirements for exploitation of deepwater deposits. 

Waste Disposal 

For many years, th~ ocean waters surrounding the 

United States have been used for disposing of municipal and 

industrial wastes, particularly sewage sludge and dredged 

materials. Recent legislation places restrictions on such 

practices and, in some cases, requires phasing them out 

during the next few years. However, comparisons between 

land and ocean disposal options frequently indicate that 

marine disposal is less expensive and less environmentally 

damaging than land alternatives. This leads many experts to 

believe that marine waste disposal is likely to increase in the 

next 10 to 20 yr, despite present public disapproval. Future 

pressures on land-based repositories may increase incentives to explore the use of subseabed geologic formations 

for permanent repositories for containerized low-volume, 

highly toxic, and radioactive wastes. 

Our Seabed Frontier-Challenges and Choices 19 
Devising environmentally acceptable ocean wastedisposal strategies depends on understanding the physical 

and the chemical oceanic processes and how they affect 

sedimentation and mobility of contaminants. Distinguishing 

and isolating contaminated from uncontaminated material 

and specifying appropriate disposal methods for each type is 

another major requirement for developing sound seabed 

waste-disposal practices. 

Innovative engineering approaches to isolating and 

disposing of wastes in the ocean need to be tested and 

evaluated through pilot or demonstration projects so that 

their effectiveness can be determined; for instance, placement of contaminated sediment in excavated pits or trenches 

that are then capped by clean sediment could be one of the 

most effective means of isolating certain toxic materials 

from the food chain. 

Future use of the EEZ seabed for waste disposal will 

depend on socioeconomic pressures, innovative technologies that will not compromise the use of other marine 

resources, and better understanding of the processes of 

dispersal and deposition of waste particulates. Additionally, 

a comprehensive national policy for selecting long-term 

waste-disposal strategies, which includes evaluation and 

comparison of land- and ocean-based options and their 

impacts on the marine, terrestrial, and atmospheric components of the ecosystem, would provide a framework for 

making wise choices about waste disposal. 

Communication Cables and Military Uses 

Increasing use of the EEZ seabed for the installation 

of commercial submarine cable systems and a number of 

military applications is driven primarily by advances in 

fiber optics and digital transmission, as well as improvements in the technology capability for secure emplacement 

of various devices in or on the seabed. Commercial communications cables constitute the majority of ocean cable 

installations. The military uses the EEZ as an operational 

arena; as a laboratory for researching, developing, testing 

and evaluating operational systems and techniques; and to 

train personnel. Military activities in the ocean are expected 

to continue indefinitely; cables, sensors, and transducer 

systems are likely to increase as their technological applications are improved. 

Geological processes and the composition of the 

substrate are the most crucial physical conditions affecting 

emplacement, maintenance, and survivability of ocean 

cables and seabed military systems in the EEZ seabed. 

Improved geophysical survey equipment, sediment sampling, and in situ testing, along with more effective procedures for interpretation of geotechnical data, would yield 

benefits to military and commercial operations in the 

seabed. 

A major issue related to the expansion of military 

uses of the seabed is the conflict between military applica20 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

tions and commercial, recreational, and (or) environmental 

interests. An additional problem associated with military 

uses of the EEZ seabed has been the imposition of military 

classification restrictions on some categories of data. 

Recent changes in Navy policy have reduced some of the 

requirements for classification. Because of the likely expansion of the military presence in the EEZ seabed, it is 

important that potential conflicts with other uses be anticipated and that policies be developed for resolving them. 

Biological Resources 

Living resources associated with the EEZ seabed fall 

into one of two categories-commercially important fishery 

resources and organisms of special scientific interest or of 

potential importance as biotechnological or genetic resources. The United States is one of the world's largest 

consumers and importers of seafood products. There is 

potential for expansion of the domestic fisheries industry 

into deeper waters to capture a larger share of this market. 

Although most experts believe that traditional fisheries are 

being harvested at or near maturity, some additional resources of the continental slope can be harvested by extending 

existing technology into deeper waters. 

Many bacterial species found in chemically unusual 

marine environments are logical candidates to study for 

their ability to degrade toxic chemicals. Some marine 

benthic invertebrates are potential sources of pharmaceutical agents in the treatment of cancer, AIDS, and other 

diseases. 

Research should be focused on the basis, the variation 

and the effects of human activity on biological productivity 

in deep water. Newer techniques that are based on remotely 

operated vehicles, better sensors, acoustics, and improved 

data interpretation may alleviate present assessment problems. Such fundamental knowledge of biological and living 

resource processes will contribute to the expansion of 

American fisheries, the development of new biotechnology 

products, and the protection of the quality of marine 

environments. 

Ocean Energy Systems 

Ocean energy systems and related technologies are in 

the very early stages of development, and the commercial 

feasibility awaits more favorable economic conditions. In 

the near future, the most likely candidate for development 

that will affect the EEZ seabed is ocean thermal energy 

conversion (OTEC); this is a process that harnesses the 

temperature differences between surface and deeper waters 

as energy. The first commercial OTEC installations probably will be shore-mounted facilities on islands and will have 

the intake pipe extend to nearby deepwater sources, possibly into the EEZ. Moored OTEC facilities will require 

information on the physical properties of steeply sloping sea 
floors that border U.S. subtropical and tropical islands and 

have access to deep, cold water relatively close to their 

shorelines. In some configurations, the electrical energy 

would have to be transmitted to shore by sea-floor cable, 

thus creating a need for detailed sea-floor information along 

the cable route. 

Commercial feasibility of any ocean energy systems 

depends on more favorable economic conditions than presently exist, mainly higher oil prices. These systems are, 

therefore, not likely to be developed in the near term. 

Cultural and Recreational Resources 

Cultural and recreational resources of the EEZ 

include marine archaeology, treasure seeking and commercial salvage, recreation, and marine sanctuaries. It seems 

likely that new and improved sea-floor exploration technology and availability of affordable submersibles will stimulate interest in marine archaeology and submarine tourism. 

The identification and the protection of unique U.S. 

underwater areas and habitats have been a limited effort. To 

designate and manage a marine sanctuary, a substantial 

amount of information on the resources and the physical 

environment of the area is needed. Federally sponsored 

mapping and exploration programs in the EEZ could 

include the identification of potential marine sanctuaries. 

Early identification of such areas would forestall potential 

conflict among competing uses by including sensitivity to 

environmental considerations in advance planning for the 

development of other resources. 

TECHNOLOGY AND INFORMATION ISSUES 

Assessment of the constraints to engineering development and the impacts of EEZ use at specific sites will 

require a systematic, integrated approach that involves 

investigation of oceanographic, geologic, geotechnical, and 

biological data to develop a site performance model for 

predictive capability related to a specific use or a combination of uses. Such an approach involves mapping, sampling, and measurement of sea-floor conditions and processes through a variety of in situ sampling, monitoring, and 

laboratory techniques tailored to seabed use. Acquiring 

information essential for achieving efficient and nondestructive use of the EEZ seabed will require expanded or, in 

some cases, new tools and technologies for exploring and 

gathering seabed data. 

Surveying and Mapping 

A variety of individual acoustic and optical technologies are available for the collection of bathymetry, bottom 

imagery, and sub bottom sediment data. However, each 

survey system has its own operational characteristics, particularly in terms of resolution and coverage rates. Improvements are needed to make surveying methods and use of the 

results more efficient, particularly balancing survey data 

quality with survey costs in dollars and in time. Additionally, the use of digital acquisition techniques and the 

ongoing development of realtime data image enhancement 

will result in improved survey and mapping effectiveness. 

The mapping priorities and geographic areas of interest to 

all potential EEZ user groups will require further defmition 

as a first step toward cost-effective and efficient sharing of 

mapping activities, survey and ship time, and equipment. 

Geotechnical Investigation Systems 

Detailed knowledge of the seabed sediments will 

require measurements by sampling and in situ and experimental testing. Various systems for data acquisition are 

highly developed for water depths of less than 300 m, but 

little development has occurred for systems that can be used 

in the Arctic or in offshore regions where water depths 

exceed 300 m. Technology needs for geotechnical and 

geological data acquisition include improved sampling and 

in situ testing equipment for use in frontier areas, field 

monitoring of installations, and laboratory experimental 

modeling. 

Monitoring of the Seabed 

The environmental consequences of expansion of 

activities in the seabed of the EEZ are difficult to predict in 

advance. A monitoring program would establish environmental baseline information that could be used for such 

predictions. Monitoring of environmental impacts is particularly important in relation to the use of the seabed for 

waste disposal, oil and gas exploration and production, and 

mining. 

The required monitoring will fall into three categories-reference monitoring to determine the natural range 

and variability of environmental parameters of the EEZ 

seabed, process-related monitoring to understand major 

EEZ seabed processes, and use-related monitoring to evaluate the suitability of EEZ sites for specific uses and to 

determine their environmental consequences. Monitoring 

priorities and strategies should be established within the 

framework of a national EEZ program. 

Technology Development 

Mapping and surveying, geotechnical research, and 

monitoring programs will benefit from expansion of existing technology or development of new equipment and 

techniques for gathering data on the seabed. Efficiency of 

present activities related to mapping and surveying the EEZ 

can be improved through application of existing and emerging technologies and optimization of their use. New tools 

also can be developed to indicate directly the presence of 

valuable resources and to monitor processes. Monitoring 

Our Seabed Frontier-Challenges and Choices 21 
capabilities would be improved by the ability to record data 

from buoys by using satellites. 

Technology development for acquiring information 

must be closely related to plans for utilizing the EEZ 

seabed. Requirements for data and specifications for equipment to acquire, manage, and analyze such data need to be 

defined in terms of specific user needs. The complexity, the 

· cost, and the timeframes required to improve existing 

technology and to develop new data acquisition systems for 

the frontier areas of the EEZ will require a cooperative 

effort among academia, industry, and the Federal Government. 

GOVERNANCE AND POLICY ISSUES 

The variety of uses envisioned for the EEZ seabed 

and the amount of data and information needed to plan and 

manage the rational conservation and development of the 

EEZ seabed require joint planning and coordination by 

government, industry, and academia. Effective and efficient programs for the systematic mapping and surveying, 

the development of technology to gather data, the identification and the resolution of potential conflicts, and the 

development of approaches for multiple uses of certain 

areas depend on a successful cooperative relation among a 

broad range of public and private entities that have varied 

views. 

A broad foundation will be necessary upon which to 

build an institutional framework capable of developing and 

managing the EEZ seabed resources. Such a framework 

needs to be based on a commitment to a national EEZ 

seabed plan that delineates programs for basic and applied 

research, technology development, and industrial and environmental policy developed in cooperation and consultation 

with representatives of State and Federal agencies, marine 

industries, research institutions, and public interest groups. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The investigations resulted in two major conclusions 

about the future uses of the seabed in the EEZ. First, it is 

highly probable that the present uses of this region are likely 

to increase in the next 20 yr. These include exploration for 

and development of oil and gas resources, waste disposal, 

emplacement of cables for civilian and military purposes, 

harvesting of fisheries resources, recovery of certain hard 

minerals, identification of cultural resources, such as 

marine sanctuaries. Potential uses of the EEZ seabed related 

to a broader spectrum of mineral exploration and development, other biological resources, development of ocean 

energy systems and technologies, and recreational uses are 

less likely in the near term but will probably become more 

important in the time frame beyond 20 yr. 

22 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

The second major conclusion of this study is that for 

all foreseeable uses of the EEZ seabed, improved coordination and increased joint planning are needed to implement 

effective and efficient programs for systematically mapping 

and surveying the EEZ, developing new or improved 

technology to support EEZ mapping, and surveying and 

research programs, improving access to and sharing of EEZ 

data, developing approaches for multiple uses, and identifying and resolving potential conflicts between the various 

users. Such a strategy would provide the Nation with the 

foundation for a coherent plan for developing its ocean 

territory. 

To accomplish these objectives, the Committee on 

Seabed Utilization in the EEZ recommended that the 

following actions be initiated: 

• Congress should enact legislation to create a formal joint 

planning and coordination process that includes a lead 

agency mandated to develop a national EEZ plan; an 

external commission composed of representatives of 

industry, academia, and public interest groups; and an 

internal interagency committee. On the basis of recommendations and the advice of the commission and 

the interagency committee and in cooperation with the 

Coastal States, the Federal Government should formulate a national management policy for EEZ uses that 

identifies the needs of specific user groups and determines ways of enhancing cooperation and efficiency of 

operations among the variovs agencies and industries 

and identifying and resolving potential conflicts among 

users. 

• As part of the planning and coordination process, Federal 

agencies that have EEZ programs should pursue cooperative and joint agreements with Coastal State governments in planning and implementing EEZ activities. 

• The U.S. Congress should ensure that a coherent policy 

is developed that addresses specific concerns of industry and Coastal States, especially economic and environmental issues affecting the development of EEZ 

mineral resources. Appropriate agencies should provide the leadership to ensure development of the 

necessary scien<:e and technology for assessment, evaluation, and verification of critical hard-mineral resources. 

• A comprehensive long-term national waste-management 

policy based on an evaluation of waste disposal in all 

media, including land and ocean disposal options, 

should be formulated by Congress to provide a predictable framework for planning and developing 

acceptable ocean waste-disposal strategies. 

• Research activities in the EEZ should be coordinated 

through a designated agency to enhance cooperation 

and efficiency of operations among various agencies, 

industries, and academia and to promote basic research 

efforts that will increase our understanding of seabed 

processes in the EEZ. 
• As a part of the national EEZ plan, a formal government/industry/academia EEZ program should be established to set priorities for seabed surveying and mapping activities and to promote the development of 

technologies for obtaining EEZ seabed data. The 

technological developments should include expanded 

use of multisensor systems for task-specific and reconnaissance surveys in frontier areas, use of autonomous 

and towed vehicles, and improved techniques for 

processing and interpreting remotely acquired seabed 

data. 

• The agency designated to coordinate EEZ research activities should ensure that programs are set in place to 

develop the necessary technology for geotechnical and 

geological data acquisition in concert with the projected uses and needs. These systems and techniques 

will include improved sampling and in situ testing 

equipment for use from surface and submerged vessels 

in frontier areas, field monitoring of installations, and 

laboratory experimental modeling for seabed-structure 

interaction studies. 

• Government should provide leadership in fostering communication and exchange of data among all agencies 

and other organizations conducting research in the 

EEZ through development of a comprehensive EEZ 

data management system. 

• In conjunction with the joint planning and coordination 

process and the research efforts recommended above, a 

national EEZ monitoring program should be established that has input from industry; Federal, State, and 

local governments; academia; and public interest 

groups to determine EEZ monitoring priorities and 

strategies and the commitments by government and 

users required to implement them. Such a program 

should be based on the framework of projected uses of 

the seabed and should include long-term reference 

monitoring, seabed process-related monitoring, and 

use-related monitoring at specific sites. It also should 

incorporate the capability to respond to detrimental 

impacts. 

• Federally sponsored EEZ activities should include a 

marine sanctuary reconnaissance component for discovery and identification of such unique areas of the 

sea floor. Such designations should occur well in 

advance of resource development in EEZ areas to 

forestall potential conflict among competing uses. 

Our Seabed Frontier-Challenges and Choices 23 
Offshore Activities of the Minerals Management Service 

William D. Bettenberg 

Minerals Management Service 

It is a pleasure to be here to participate in this fourth 

biennial symposium on the Exclusive Economic Zone 

(EEZ). From every indication, this well-organized event 

will be the success we have come to expect. I am looking 

forward in particular to tomorrow's panel discussions in the 

hope that they will result in a clearer picture of future 

mapping needs in the EEZ. I appreciate this opportunity to 

say a few words about the offshore activities of the Minerals 

Management Service (MMS) because our mission and the 

industries with which we work are important to the Nation's 

energy security and overall economic well-being. 

I think that we should begin with a few statistics. The 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) contributes about one-fourth 

of the natural gas and one-ninth of the oil currently 

produced in the United States. To produce the vast resource 

potential of the OCS, more than 3, 700 production facilities 

are in place-one is as far as 129 mi from shore, and one 

began production this past year in a record water depth of 

1, 760 ft. Over 28,500 wells have been drilled, the deepest of 

which is in 7,520 ft of water. 

As onshore fields become depleted, these offshore 

resources are becoming increasingly important to our ability 

to help meet U.S. energy needs. With the Exxon Valdez oil 

spill, it is also increasingly important that offshore development have the confide~ce of the public and take place in 

a responsible manner that protects the marine and coastal 

environments. Toward that end, the MMS manages an 

Environmental Studies Program that has invested nearly 

$0.5 billion since its implementation in 1973. The purpose 

of this program is to obtain information to understand better 

and to mitigate potential environmental impacts associated 

with drilling and production in specific areas. We also have 

been operating (jointly with Canada) the Federal Government's only oil spill containment and cleanup research 

program; earlier this year, the program saw increased 

Federal funds and industry participation through the American Petroleum Institute. We also have reviewed all our oil 

spill contingency plans and stepped up our pace of oil spill 

equipment inspections and response drills. 

Exploration and development of the OCS is implemented under the OCS Lands Act. The 1978 Amendments 

to the OCS Lands Act added a provision that requires the 

24 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

Department of the Interior (DOl) to prepare and maintain 

OCS oil and gas leasing programs in 5-yr increments. The 

current program, which was approved in July 1987, scheduled lease sales through June 1992. A new planning cycle 

has just begun that will provide an opportunity for a 

transition from the existing program to one that will carry us 

through 1996. It is hoped that this program will balance 

national and local interests in a way that will allow offshore 

development to proceed without the threat and the disruption of the moratoria that we have experienced during these 

past several years. The next step in the process of developing the new plan will be the release of a "draft proposed 

program," which is tentatively set for March 1990. It will 

reflect comments received from the States and the public 

since the start of the new cycle last July. The draft proposal 

also will reflect the findings and the recommendations of 

the President's OCS Leasing and Development Task Force, 

which is charged with examining environmental concerns in 

lease sales that had been scheduled for 1990 off southern 

Aorida in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and off northern and 

southern California. 

Concerns expressed to the task force range from the 

visual aesthetics of oil rigs and platforms to fear of impact 

on mangrove forests, coral reefs, and seagrass communities. Clearly not all concerns are equal in weight, especially 

in view of national needs for petroleum. However, all 

concerns are sincerely motivated and will be taken into 

account in the task force recommendations to the President. 

Following comments on the draft proposed program, 

two additional versions will be developed and released for 

public review. This process, which will have heavy State 

and public input, will take more than 2 yr. We should have 

the new program in place by late 1991 or early 1992. 

The 5-Year OCS Leasing Plan is just our initial step. 

For each sale in the 5-yr program, there is a separate 2-yr or 

longer process that has additional opportunities for public 

input before final sale design. 

Estimates of the remaining, as yet undiscovered, oil 

and gas resources are lower than those made earlier in the 

decade because of lower energy prices coupled with disappointing results from exploration efforts by industry from 
1980 to 1986. Nevertheless, exciting offshore discoveries are 

not a thing of the past as witnessed by recent events. 

Last year's lease sale in the Chukchi Sea drew 653 

bids, which was a record number for a sale outside of the 

Gulf of Mexico. High bids totaled $478 million. Since 

then, Shell Western Exploration and Production, Inc., has 

drilled and successfully completed one well and has begun 

two others. Several lessees are conducting preliminary 

activities on leases in the Beaufort and the Chukchi Seas in 

preparation for upcoming exploration activities. 

On another front, delineation drilling by FreeportMcMoran suggests that a Gulf of Mexico sulphur discovery 

will develop into one of the largest Frasch sulphur reserves 

in North America. Earlier this year, the company drilled 17 

wells to delineate a salt dome structure that contains a 

sulphur-bearing rock sequence that ranges in thickness from 

42 to 204 ft. Analysis of the wells indicates that the deposit 

could support a production rate of 2 million to 3 million 

long ton/yr. The gross value of this discovery is estimated to 

be roughly equivalent to a 0.5-billion-bbl oil field. This 

sulphur discovery presents a unique challenge for multimineral production because it is colocated with a significant oil 

discpvery by Chevron under a Federal oil and gas lease. Our 

Gulf of Mexico Regional Office is working with the two 

companies to optimize the simultaneous development of 

both resources. 

In the Atlantic, Mobil Oil Corporation has submitted 

a draft Plan of Exploration for unitized exploration of the 

Manteo Prospect, which is located approximately 47 mi off 

North Carolina. Industry estimates the hydrocarbon potential of the play to be approximately 5 trillion fe of natural 

gas. 

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between 

the State of North Carolina, Mobil Oil, and the MMS was 

signed on July 12, 1989, to satisfy the State's needs for 

information and the analysis concerning the environmental 

impacts of Mobil's proposed exploration activities. The 

information and the analysis will be contained in an 

Environmental Report that the MMS is preparing under the 

MOU. The Environmental Report is "custom made" to 

address a broader range of State concerns than is customarily considered in Environmental Impact Statements 

(EIS' s). Public hearings on the draft Environmental Report 

are set for December 1989, and the final Environmental 

Report will be available before the submission of Mobil's 

final Exploration Plan. 

Unlike the oil and gas program, hard-minerals activities are not keyed to 5-yr programs. Rather, the MMS is 

seeking to encourage activity on a case-by-case basis where 

the potential for economically recoverable resources is 

greatest and State and industrial interests coincide. The 

MMS has moved under the OCS Lands Act to provide "a 

climate of certainty" conducive to industry initiative by 

promulgating regulations that cover a full spectrum of 

activities, which range from prospecting to mining; those 

rules were completed in January of this year. I think of our 

role at this early state of a pioneering industry is that of a 

catalyst. We are working closely with the States and 

bringing together the various interests to identify where 

commercial potential is greatest and to resolve environmental and other concerns early in the process. We are not into 

heavy subsidization because we do not want to elicit 

uneconomic activity. We are prepared to commit modest 

funding where others are also willing to contribute and 

where we can see near-term industry interest. 

Typically, we have proceeded through a FederalState cooperative agreement involving a task force; this 

follows a request from a State to the Secretary of the Interior 

or the Director of the Minerals Management Service. 

Following the development of a cooperative agreement, 

which is tailor made to each specific case, a team of Federal 

and State experts is assembled; industry and other interests 

act as advisors. I will comment briefly on each of the six 

task forces that involve nine Coastal States. You will 

undoubtedly hear more during the panel presentations 

tomorrow. 

Onshore phosphorite production in the Southeastern 

United States comes from Miocene formations deposited on 

the ancient sea floor in basins adjacent to topographical 

highs. One such deposit is being mined at Aurora, N.C. 

Seismic surveys off North Carolina and Georgia indicate 

that the Miocene thickens down dip-offshore. One drill 

hole plus several shallow vibracores reveal phosphorite in 

the upper sediments. In 1986, task forces were formed with 

North Carolina and Georgia to consider the potential for 

either dredging sea-floor phosphorite outcrops or slurry 

mining the deep phosphorite through drill holes, if it 

continues to exist at depth. The Georgia task force also is 

considering the significance of assemblages of heavy minerals observed in grab samples. You will hear more about 

this from Roger Amato during the East Coast panel discussion tomorrow. 

A task force formed in 1987 involving Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama has decided to focus not on 

marine mining per se, but on the practicality of transferring 

offshore sand to beaches and barrier islands where shoreline 

retreat has become a critical concern. The Mississippi River 

has shifted its channel several times in the geologic past, 

which has resulted in the reworking of abandoned deltas and 

the creation of blanket-type deposits and linear shoals. The 

State of Louisiana and the MMS have recently initiated an 

18-mo project to examine the feasibility of developing Ship 

Shoal as a source of sand for the Isles Dernieres off 

Louisiana. The hope is that this will be economically 

feasible· and that the project can serve as a model for other 

wetlands protection and beach development ventures in the 

Gulf. 

An Oregon task force created in 1988 is looking into 

the potential of recovering strategic minerals, such as 

chromite, ilmenite, and gold, from ancient beaches' black 

Offshore Activities of the Minerals Management Service 25 
sands now on the Continental Shelf. During World War II, 

over 50,000 tons of chromite concentrate was mined, along 

with some gold and platinum, from the present beach and 

now-elevated relict terraces. Numerous concentrations of 

black sands and traces of gold have been found in the 

surficial sediments offshore. Magnetic anomalies suggest a 

third dimension- bathymetry reveals several submerged 

beaches. The transgressing sea would have reworked the 

now-submerged beach deposits and might have concentrated the heavy minerals. At least we hope so. 

Commercial gold mining in State waters off Nome, 

Alaska, led to the establishment in 1988 of a Federal-State 

coordination team to address issues &urrounding a possible 

OCS lease sale. Questions raised during the preparation of 

an EIS regarding the potential effects of mercury now 

appear to be answered. A revised draft EIS is planned to 

reflect the results of new water column and sea-floor 

samples, the first phase of a public health study, and a 

workshop to evaluate all results that take place later this 

month (November 1989). The delay in incorporating this 

important new information and in completing the EIS 

process probably will move the lease sale to about February 

1991. You will hear more about this activity from Mark 

Bronston and Irv Palmer during the West Coast/ Alaska 

panel presentations tomorrow. 

The Hawaii task force is addressing the opportunities 

and problems associated with the potential exploitation of 

ferromanganese crusts, which are draped over seamounts 

and have been found to contain fairly high amounts of 

cobalt and, in places, over 1 percent platinum, as well as 

nickel, copper, and manganese. Although the task force 

26 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

was originally created in 1984, a new cooperative agreement was signed late last year that increases the role of the 

State regarding marine mining off Hawaii. Objectives of the 

agreement are to resolve issues of mutual interest, to 

develop coordinated program and policy positions, to coordinate legislative and regulatory initiatives, and to oversee 

leasing and development activities. The agreement calls for 

a "Joint Planning Arrangement" that has two committees-

-the four-member Cooperative Steering Committee prepares joint plans, to resolve issues, and to work directly 

with DOl and State decisionmakers on program and policy 

issues, and the Coordination Committee coordinates project 

activities and to provide technical support to the Steering 

Committee. Both committees met for the first time in 

Honolulu last April. New initiatives resulting from the 

meetings include publication of a Request for Interest and a 

"workshop" in spring 1990 to solicit industry comments on 

potential leasing and development of cobalt-rich manganese 

crusts and a coordinated public information effort that 

succinctly describes the results of the final EIS and the 

future direction of the project. A draft final Request for 

Interest (including Johnston Island) is nearing completion 

and the information program which will be coordinated with 

the release of the EIS, probably in January, is being jointly 

scoped. I am sure John Wiltshire will discuss this initiative 

in more detail at tomorrow's panel devoted to Island 

activities. 

As you can tell, the MMS has a considerable interest 

in the OCS/EEZ. We are heavily involved with States to 

ensure that concerns they might have are fully considered 

and addressed, as we make decisions and pursue the 

important mineral resources that lay offshore. 
From Data to Decisions- New Opportunities for 

Cooperation Between the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration and State Agencies 

Charles N. Ehler 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

During the 1987 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 

Symposium, Armand Silva and I chaired the workshop on 

"Information Needs for Sea-Floor-Seabed Utilization." Our 

workshop identified at least 11 thematic areas that focused 

on multiple uses of the EEZ. In summarizing the conclusions of the workshop, I pointed out an obvious "fact of 

life"-that uses of the seabed and the sea floor will be 

affected by what is going on in the water mass above the sea 

floor and at its edges; that is, the coastal zone. This region 

represents a national resource base that extends far beyond 

bathymetry and bottom sediments. 

I want to emphasize two ideas today-information 

synthesis and information transfer, particularly to State 

agencies. The first idea is important because we are already 

drowning in data, and, in our rush to handle all the new 

data, we often lose sight of what we already know. My 

point is that we should put a high value on efforts to 

organize existing data and to synthesize information for 

decisionmaking. The second idea is important because we 

do not do a very good job in delivering our best information 

to decisionmakers in a timely and understandable form. 

Within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), we are trying to do something about both. 

We all work in an environment that is data rich and 

information poor. Today, we have at our disposal more 

scientific data than ever before, more scientists and engineers working on problems and spending more money than 

ever before, and more published scientific literature than 

ever before. However, most indicators tell us that problems, 

especially environmental quality problems in coastal and 

oceanic areas, are getting worse. 

A disconnect often exists between the needs of 

decisionmakers for information about multiple-use problems, including alternatives to solving them, and our 

collective ability as scientific problem solvers to deliver the 

goods. If we are going to plan and manage the multiple 

resources of the EEZ, then we need some new ways of 

doing business that emphasize and support information 

synthesis and transfer as an integral part of the process. 

INFORMATION SYNTHESIS-A CRITICAL LINK 

BETWEEN DATA AND DECISIONS 

For the past 10 yr, NOAA's Office of Oceanography 

and Marine Assessment has been devoting a substantial 

effort toward synthesizing information about the coastal 

areas and the adjacent EEZ. We have been organizing 

information that summarizes what we know about selected 

characteristics of the "American ocean." Our best-known 

products have been a series of comprehensive thematic 

atlases that cover land and water areas from the head-of-tide 

to the seaward extent of the EEZ. In 1980, we published an 

atlas of the East Coast; in 1985, one of the Gulf of Mexico; 

and, in 1989, an atlas of the Bering, the Chukchi, and the 

Beaufort Seas; we will complete the series by 1991, when 

the atlas of the West Coast of North America from the 

Bering Sea to Baja California will be published. In 1988, 

we distributed review versions of sections of the West Coast 

atlas on marine mammals. This year, we will print a volume 

about fishes. The section on West Coast economic activities 

and environmental quality conditions will be distributed 

toward the end of 1990. Each of these 1:4,000,000-scale 

thematic atlases contains comprehensive information on the 

physical and the biological characteristics of each particular 

region of the EEZ, information on the life histories of 

important living resources and their habitats, economic 

activities and environmental quality, and jurisdictions of 

Federal and State management agencies. 

More recent publications of our National Estuarine 

Inventory atlas series synthesize information by themes, 

such as physical characteristics and hydrology, habitats, 

and pollutant discharges, within the drainage areas of about 

125 estuaries of the United States. The maps within the 

atlases are important as easy-to-understand information 

summaries of large data sets. However, the basic databases 

From Data to Decisions-New Opportunities for Cooperation 27 
that have been compiled in the process of orgamzmg 

information for presentation are perhaps more important. 

Over the past 10 yr, we also have organized large georeferenced digital data sets on pollutant discharges, including 

nutrients and pesticides entering coastal and oceanic areas 

from most sources; freshwater inflows and salinity regimes 

of coastal waters; coastal wetlands; classified shellfishgrowing waters; and the distribution in time and space of 

over 300 individual species of living resources. 

We are not only deriving information from large data 

sets, but are experimenting in its use; for example, we have 

helped analysts and decisionmakers in NOAA and other 

Federal and State agencies to use the results of our programs 

in the assessment of estuarine problems. We have provided 

information to the Environmental Protection Agency's 

(EPA) National Estuary Program for near coastal waters 

assessment to evaluate alternative living resourcemanagement decisions, including shrimp management in 

the Gulf of Mexico, and to evaluate oil and gas development alternatives on the Outer Continental Shelf. But we 

can do more. 

INFORMATION TRANSFER-AN EXPANDED 

USER FOCUS 

I said earlier that an important problem- and perhaps 

the most important problem-is our collective inability to 

bring the best information about the nature of and solutions 

to coastal ocean problems to decisionmakers. This happened in the response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. NOAA 

provided decisionmakers with a powerful tool to access 

information for allocating and tracking scarce resources 

used in clean-up activities. 

As scientists and managers, we have to make fundamental changes in the way we do business, and much of this 

change will be in how we organize and use information. 

There is a revolution going on in information technology, 

and we must be part of it. Scientists and other experts are no 

longer the sole-or even the primary-user of large data 

sets or their information content. 

We want to adapt and use technology to support 

people, particularly those who influence and make decisions about the use of coastal and oceanic resources. We 

want to provide sophisticated information directly to the 

decisionmaker-get the best information to the "point of 

attack." State decisionmakers are important clients for our 

information and capabilities. 

DEVELOPING DESKTOP INFORMATION 

SYSTEMS 

Recent developments in microcomputer technology 

now make it possible to bring to the desktop of the resource 

28 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

manager or researcher a wide range of capabilities and data 

that previously could be accessed only on large mainframe 

database systems. These "desktop information systems" 

serve a different purpose and, if properly constructed and 

used, can considerably augment the applications and the 

interpretation of data from large mainframe systems. 

Effective and efficient desktop information systems 

have several characteristics. First, they are developed to be 

either problem- or theme-specific (for example, managing 

the shrimp harvest in the Gulf of Mexico) so that the logic 

of how the data can be used is clear, almost transparent, to 

a user. Second, they are designed to answer a limited 

number of questions well and do not attempt to provide a 

generic capability to answer any question that could be 

asked of a database. Consequently, they typically contain a 

subset of the data in the larger database. Third, they 

typically are more user-friendly than most mainframe systems. Little or no training is usually required to perform 

often complex operations by using the desktop system. A 

user does not need to understand programming or specialized syntax. This broadens the number of potential users 

and applications of a database; this often leads to new and 

innovative uses of existing data and provides insights into 

improving the larger overall database. 

However, before describing some of our new information system capabilities, a note of caution should be 

sounded. The more simplified and aggregated the data 

contained in a desktop system, the higher the level of 

expertise required to interpret results intelligently. Although 

the data are more accessible to computer-illiterate professionals, a high level of experience and understanding of the 

data is still required to interpret results. Streamlining and 

making computer operations user friendly are not substitutes for an in-depth working knowledge of the subject. 

Cmas-A COMPUTER MAPPING AND 

ANALYSIS SYSTEM FOR LIVING MARINE 

RESOURCES 

Cmas is a compact desktop information system 

designed for use with large databases that contain information characterizing biological aspects and spatial and temporal distributions of marine and coastal species of invertebrates, fishes, birds, and mammals (fig. 1). Information 

stored in Cmas applications comes from a wide range of 

sources, including published scientific literature, technical 

reports, and field data. Cmas applications are fast, interactive, and user friendly. For Cmas applications, species data 

are digitized and entered into the system, along with 

locational, seasonal, and behavioral information. By designating and coding these elements, the user can define 

analysis areas (for example, the northwestern Gulf of 

Mexico) for designated species; develop maps and simple 

summations by species, month, year, and area; select 
• Brown, White 6: Pink 

• Other Shrimp 

~Texas Closure 

i III II 

Figure 1. Cmas flow chart for a shrimp harvest. 

combinations of species and attributes for time-series histograms or tabular summaries; and compute ratios and other 

comparisons for specified subareas of previously stored 

maps. Cmas applications are currently available for over 

200 marine and coastal species found in the Gulf of Mexico; 

the Bering, the Chukchi, and the Beaufort Seas of Alaska; 

and portions of the Pacific Ocean offthe West Coast of North 

America. 

Development of Cmas is an evolving process. Plans 

are to increase distribution to users over the next year. The 

system will continue to be refined as more experience is 

gained with its applications, especially by these users. A 

major goal is to increase communication between scientists 

and resource managers of the coastal ocean through the use 

of Cmas. 

COMPAS-A COASTAL OCEAN 

MANAGEMENT, PLANNING, AND 

ASSESSMENT SYSTEM 

COMP AS is a powerful desktop information system 

designed to access and manage coastal resource information 

at a rapid rate and to provide a variety of automated 

capabilities, including simple data sorts and summary 

analyses in either mapped or graphic formats (fig. 2). It will 

soon include simple water-quality modeling capabilities that 

will simulate pollutant transport in estuarine and coastal 

waters. Although COMPAS may eventually be used by a 

variety of public and private organizations, it is designed 

initially for State-level coastal planners and resource managers. Its objectives are as follows: 

• Bring existing, but disparate, coastal resource information into a single user-friendly microcomputer environment; 

• Simplify the transfer of information to and from Statelevel resource managers and planners and the Federal 

Government; and 

• Improve Federal and State capabilities to integrate large 

data sets and apply them toward problem-solving and 

conflict resolution in the Nation's coastal areas. 

A COMP AS prototype has been developed for eight 

Texas estuaries by using data primarily from NOAA's 

National Estuarine Inventory. The prototype includes information on physical and hydrologic characteristics of each 

estuary, land use, habitats, shellfish-growing waters, distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates, point 

and nonpoint sources of pollution, site-specific monitoring 

data from NOAA's National Status and Trends Program, 

and regulatory data from such programs as the EPA's 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 404 permits for wetlands 

modifications. A cooperative agreement has been signed 

with the Texas Water Commission to coordinate with other 

Texas State users the evaluation and evolution of COMP AS 

through its application to real problems. 

GeoCOAST -A COASTAL OCEAN 

GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM 

GeoCOAST is a state-of-the-art hardware and software information facility developed by NOAA's Office of 

Oceanography and Marine Assessment. The facility is 

being developed to help address environmental quality 

issues concerning the management and the protection of 

coastal areas, including the EEZ. Its function is to provide 

the resources for developing and supporting information 

systems used to store and analyze the spatial and the 

temporal relations of data on these areas. The NOAA 

GeoCOAST facility provides a series of analytical tools and 

supports desktop systems for studying the effects of human 

activities on the Nation's coastal and marine areas. 

From Data to Decisions-New Opportunities for Cooperation 29 
National Coastal Data Bases Reformat 

various formats focus on individual states 

Coastal State Information System 

integrated system with 

maps and graphics 

Figure 2. The COMPAS concept. 

GeoCOAST uses commercially and NOAAdeveloped software packages. The major commercial packages are geographic information systems consisting of the 

Environmental Systems Research Institute's ARC/INFO, 

TYDAC's Spatial Analysis System (SPANS), and the Earth 

Resources Data Analysis System (ERDAS). ARC/INFO is 

used to load, edit, manipulate, and analyze map-based 

vector data and to generate high-quality vector map products. SPANS is used for more complex spatial problems, 

such as modeling and statistical analysis, by using an 

innovative "quad-tree" approach. ERDAS is used to analyze raster-based satellite images and other types of 

remotely sensed data. 

All computer processing in the GeoCOAST facility is 

performed by microcomputers. Currently, there are five 

independent Geographic Information Systems workstations, 

one ERDAS workstation for processing remotely sensed 

data, two CD-ROM stations that read optical disks, and 

several distributed PC database management systems. All 

workstations use Compaq 386 microcomputers and a variety of input and output devices, including tape drives, 

digitizing tablets, scroll plotters, and color printers. 

WHAT MORE CAN WE DO IN THE FUTURE? 

Development of a body of information on the EEZ 

and adjacent coastal areas and operational capabilities to use 

it intelligently has been under way in NOAA for over 11 yr. 

One of the lessons that we learned was that there are simply 

no shortcuts to developing these capabilities systematically 

and carefully. The operational task of integrating disparate 

30 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

databases and analytical capabilities is a difficult one 

requiring creativity, consistency, and continuity. 

Until the introduction of the compass by Portuguese 

mariners in the 13th century, navigation was based primarily on courage and luck and a little bit of knowledge of 

landmarks, winds, and currents thrown in. For a long time 

after its initial introduction, however, the compass was a 

rather inefficient instrument. Often the ship's master took a 

reading that with a rough approximation, either confirmed 

or denied what he had already guessed through other means. 

In many ways, today's decisionmakers are in the 

same boat. Many important decisions that affect the EEZ 

are made only on the basis of courage or luck, and a little bit 

of experience thrown in. We move from decision to 

decision with little or no information about where we are, 

where we have been, or where we are going. Like the 

ancient mariner, we need to make and learn how to use new 

tools to provide better information for decisionmaking. We 

have to be prepared to use that information to act to solve 

problems. 

When over 10 million gal of crude oil from the Exxon 

Valdez spilled into Alaskan coastal waters, it caused some 

obvious and many still-unmeasured environmental and 

economic damages. Perhaps even more importantly, the 

most significant long-term damage is the accelerated erosion of public confidence in our institutions and public and 

private decisionmakers to deal with resource-management 

problems in coastal and oceanic areas. If public confidence 

is to be restored, then we have to make fundamental 

differences in the way we think about and decide strategies 

for dealing with these complex problems 
Mapping the Ocean Floor 

Christian Andreasen 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

First, I would like to publicly thank Rear Admiral 

Pittenger, Oceanographer of the Navy, and his staff for 

bringing the data classification issue to a successful conclusion. The Department of Defense (DOD) has withdrawn its 

objection to public release of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) multibeam survey 

data for 97 percent of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 

(EEZ). Only the submarine ingress/egress areas remain 

subject to controls in the interest of national defense (fig. 

1). I would also like to thank the National Academy of 

Sciences (NAS), the American Geophysical Union, and 

those of you, including Dr. Gary Hill and the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), who persevered in supporting 

us through this initial 5-yr period. 

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES 

Classification of NOAA's mapping effort precluded 

most of the interactions needed to operate a fully functional 

scientific endeavor. Cooperative projects with scientists 

were all but impossible because NOAA was unable to give 

any assurance that data could be made available. To date, 

only government scientists have sailed on NOAA multibeam cruises, but, now, there is the opportunity for others 

to participate. Dr. Gary Greene (USGS) sailed with the 

NOAA Ship Surveyor during surveys off the Monterey, 

Calif., area. He has produced an open-file report, which 

includes a geologic interpretation of the bathymetry. Also, 

a lengthy article about Monterey Bay will appear in the 

February 1990 issue of National Geographic, including a 

three-dimensional depiction of the bay produced by NOAA 

that shows Dr. Greene's geologic interpretations. I hope 

that those of you who have expertise in the various regions 

of our EEZ will rise to the challenge and follow Dr. 

Greene's lead in interpreting data sets. 

The evolution of the USGS-NOAA Joint Office for 

Mapping and Research (JOMAR) can now proceed as Dr. 

Gary Hill and I originally envisioned. The GLORIA imaging effort has given us a quick look at major areas of the 

U.S. EEZ, which has provided newly discovered sea-floor 

features, and the excitement of new scientific curiosities. 

Future GLORIA coverage of the Pacific island areas of the 

U.S. EEZ, which constitutes almost one-half of the U.S. 

EEZ (fig. 2) and is largely unknown territory, will provide 

important guidance as to what areas should be given priority 

for investigation in the future. The islands typically have 

poor economies, and just locating seamounts and potential 

fisheries can be of significant value. Under the umbrella of 

JOMAR, NOAA and the USGS also are cooperating on 

possible nearshore surveys and have recently completed a 

plan for mapping the U.S. Great Lakes shoreline. 

The USGS has done a wonderful job of getting 

GLORIA data into atlas and CD-ROM form. The JOMAR 

CD-ROM provided a sampling of USGS GLORIA data and 

NOAA multibeam data of the Monterey Canyon area, plus 

a number of other data sets pertaining to the region. This 

certainly illustrates the building of the foundation for a 

marine geographic information system. 

During this year's symposium, we hope to take up the 

challenge of developing a National Plan for Mapping and 

Research in the EEZ. In 1984, we developed our initial plan 

and held a workshop for representatives from government, 

private industry, and academia. The conclusions of that 

group were very supportive. However, due to classification, 

the followup 5-yr plan had to be focused on the USGS and 

NOAA. We now have an opportunity to develop a 10-yr 

plan to incorporate the requirements of others and to 

develop a system for monitoring the requirements. A 

Technical Working Group, which was formed at the same 

time as JOMAR, meets monthly. This past year, a Federal 

Coordination Committee was formed to provide a mechanism for input from such agencies as the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the 

U.S. Coast Guard, DOD, and so forth. Most recently, the 

NAS-National Academy of Engineering, Marine Board, is 

providing an avenue for input of non-Federal requirements. 

MAPPING EFFORT OF THE NATIONAL 

OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC 

ADMINISTRATION 

At the present time, five NOAA ships are outfitted 

with multibeam systems, four of which are active. To date, 

Mapping the Ocean Floor 31 
Figure 1. The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the 48 contiguous United States. Blackened areas (approximately 3 

percent of the total EEZ) are where multibeam data restrictions apply. 

nearly 0.25 million km2 have been mapped. It should be 

noted that this has been primarily in the shallower complex 

regions where progress is slow. As global positioning 

system (GPS) satellite navigation becomes available 24-hr/d 

and deeper water surveys are conducted, progress will 

increase. Also, advancing technology will improve capability. 

The watchword of NOAA's survey effort is quality. 

Most of NOAA's survey work has been within 161 km of 

the coast because NOAA strives to maintain a positional 

accuracy of 50 m or less to comply with International 

Hydrographic Organization product standards. Mediumrange positioning systems calibrated by using GPS have 

controlled most surveys. Satellite positioning by means of 

the Starfix system (5-7 m accuracy) has been used in the 

Gulf of Mexico. Sound velocity, which not only affects the 

depth measurement, but also the horizontal position, is 

measured in each survey area. Water column variability is 

monitored through the use of expendable bathythermograph 

data taken periodically in conjunction with our normal 

shipboard weather observations. Heave and ·the biases 

associated with alinement of the multibeam array are 

monitored, and correctors are applied. Roll bias, pitch bias, 

and G-bias are taken into account. 

32 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

Because bias computations are quite labor intensive 

and time consuming, two NOAA agencies-the Office of 

Charting and Geodetic Services and the Office of NOAA 

Corps Operations- are in the process of automating the 

procedure. Once GPS becomes available on a roundthe-clock basis, we anticipate being able to measure ship 

altitude in near realtime to within 0.1 o of arc, thus further 

improving data quality. Careful quality control is an important factor in obtaining data from these high-resolution 

narrow-beam systems. Accurate position is essential to the 

realization of the value of high-resolution data. The result of 

our effort is the type of quality map product upon which 

NOAA's National Ocean Service and its predecessor organizations, such as the Coast and Geodetic Survey, have 

built their reputations. A quality base map and digital data 

set will become an important part of modeling and of the 

future development of the marine GIS. 

PROGRESS AND PLANS • 

Public dissemination of multibeam data is now the 

focus. Numerous individuals have requested maps and data 

sets since the Navy first announced that NOAA would be 
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE 

Midway 

Islands 

• 

/7 . NorthelslrannMdsariana g-,. v { ·-:,:~-~ ..... ~-"~~ 

I I 

g, t~/) l':l:nk:Qj) '<,~~~~~~~~Hawaii ,.r /- _ ~1Y "'""' k) G Johnston tV:/ 

/ ~·~ . uam ·~:"" ~Palmy,. AloiiiKingman AHI 

I .V(fL~, -J ''..... Howland a_}..~) \.frrJa..,l•l•land 

\ 

Baker Islands 

\\ 

~.,~·~.rf .. . ... ~ .. ·-. ..~t._ 

•· 

- ef' <:\) 

l American 

Samoa 

Photo credit: U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Figure 2. The Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States and its Trust Territories. 

allowed to release the data to the public. Because we had no 

warning of this, we have not been able to respond as quickly 

as we would have liked. The Ocean Mapping Section, 

Mapping and Charting Branch, is a small group. Rather 

than respond to individuals, our primary effort has been to 

develop the desired mechanism for the flow of data through 

our distribution system. To those' of you who have been 

waiting to acquire maps or data sets, I apologize and ask 

your indulgence. 

Before the Navy announcement, our effort was 

focused on the application of multibeam data to available 

nautical charts. This involved the development of digital 

representation of generalized contours and the computer 

selection of background soundings, which are representative depths from their actual position rather than a selection 

of grid points that are interpolated values. The first nautical 

chart, No. 18520, based on multibeam data from along the 

Oregon coast was issued on April 8, 1989. 

The first step since then has been to revise the NOAA 

Bathymetric Map Catalog 5 and to make ozalid copies of 

existing multibeam maps immediately available for $10. 

Copies can be obtained through the NOAA Distribution 

Branch, 301-436-6990. 

Our second step was to begin the process of publishing the printed bathymetric maps. The first EEZ bathymetric map, Monterey Canyon, was published in October 1989 

and is on display at this symposium. These maps are being 

distributed at a cost of $10. By early next year, maps of 

Pioneer Canyon (off California, northwest of the Monterey 

map), two maps from the Gulf of Mexico in the area of the 

Sigsbee Escarpment, a Gulf of Mexico map in deep water 

off the entrance to the Mississippi River in an area characterized by salt domes, and a map of Shepard's Meander 

(immediately south of the Monterey, Calif., map) will be 

published. These will be followed by six maps covering the 

area southwest of the island of Hawaii. Over the next year, 

we will continue to work on our backlog of about 40 maps. 

The published hard copy maps are being made available 

through NOAA's standard map and chart distribution system, which includes about 4,000 chart agents. 

The next step is distribution of the digital data. The 

contract for NOAA chart distribution, which is with a 

private firm, will eventually be renegotiated to include 

distribution of digital data. 

One of the demonstrations at this symposium is a PC 

that computes and displays three-dimensional depictions of 

portions of a digital 250-m grid. This consists of an entire 

map area loaded from a single high-density floppy disk 

containing about 100,000 grid points. The disk is in Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates rather than Geographic Position, but parameters are given on the disk so the 

data set can be transformed for other depictions. Our intent 

Mapping the Ocean Floor 33 
is to make the digital grid available for distribution as each 

printed map becomes available. 

As each bathymetric map is compiled, the data sets 

are provided as source data for NOAA's nautical charting 

process. Where digital inshore NOAA surveys exist, the 

EEZ multibeam data are supplemented by these data to 

produce complete alongshore maps; this was done for the 

~onterey Canyon map. A data source diagram shown on 

each map and chart provides a depiction that identifies each 

data source. 

The digital data will be an input to NOAA's Automated Nautical Charting System II, which is under development by Intergraph Corporation at this time. The system 

is to be brought on line beginning in 1992. By then, 

round-the-clock satellite navigation that uses GPS will 

become available to the mariner. Mariners will no longer be 

satisfied to know vessel position at timed intervals because 

accurate vessel position can then be displayed continuously 

on an electronic chart. 

The gridded data from a multibeam data set represents about 1 percent of the observed data. NOAA will 

make observed data available through the National Geophysical Data Center. However, doing this for the first 160 

NOAA field surveys will not be easy. Five years ago (when 

34 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Sympqsium on Mapping and Research 

NOAA had classification imposed), I had interim levels of 

processing tapes destroyed to reduce the volume of data that 

we had to maintain under control. In retrospect, this was a 

bad decision. For these surveys, we face a significant 

reprocessing effort (nearly 1 hr of processing per 1 hr of 

data acquisition). We will establish a system to do this, but 

it will take some time. During the 1989 field season, all 

processed data have been retained. Thus, the most recent 

data for the Gulf of Mexico will become available before 

data for California, Hawaii, and Alaska. These data will 

initially be available in a binary format comparable to that 

of the U.S. academic ship operations; that is, ship position 

and crosstrack distances to individual depths. We are 

interested in learning if this is adequate for distribution or if 

there is a need for the position of each depth to be included. 

To do so would markedly increase the size of the data set. 

Availability of USGS and NOAA data to the public 

makes it possible for us to take advantage of a multitude of 

opportunities and challenges. A cooperative effort in support of the JOMAR coordinating mechanism will reap the 

benefits of data and information exchange in our free 

society. It will help us build a strong marine program for the 

United States. 

Thank you. 
Figure 1. Puerto Rico Trench bathymetry. 

Figure 2. Amphitheaterlike landslide scar on the wall of the Puerto Rico Trench. 

36 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Federal-State Partnerships in Exclusive Economic Zone 

Mapping and Research 

Dallas L. Peck 

U.S. Geological Survey 

I would like to welcome everyone to the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) and to the second day of the 

Fourth Biennial Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Symposium. The theme of this symposium is "Federal-State 

Partnerships." 

Our host for this symposium, the USGS-National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Joint 

Office for Mapping and Research (JOMAR) is an example 

of an effective partnership. To make it easier, we just call 

this joint venture JOMAR. I take great pride along with 

John Knauss, Administrator of NOAA, that we have this 

Joint Office. This is a true partnership-the office is staffed 

by USGS and NOAA personnel. The EEZ mapping programs of the USGS and NOAA complement one another 

nicely and are providing remarkable views of the sea floor. 

Digital data collected as part of the USGS and NOAA 

mapping programs allow us to manipulate the information 

and enhance our understanding. One can almost sense 

flying through the Puerto Rico Trench, the deepest place in 

the Atlantic Ocean and also within our EEZ (fig. 1). The 

microtopography on the floor of the trench hints at geologic 

processes occurring on the walls high above. 

A huge landslide scar is present where over 90 km3 of 

the wall of the trench has collapsed (fig. 2). This is only one 

example of spectacular features formed by the geologic 

processes operating on the sea floor, which were unknown 

before the systematic EEZ mapping program. 

As John Knauss mentioned yesterday, integrated data 

and information systems are important in making available 

the results from both of our mapping programs. JOMAR 

has two data sets ready for release at this symposium, both 

of which use optical CD-ROM technology. 

The GLORIA sonar data for the Atlantic Coast 

EEZ-all 200,000 nmi2 of it-is now available. The view 

(fig. 3) of the 4,000-m-high carbonate escarpment of the 

Blake Plateau seaward off Florida, Georgia, and South 

Carolina is part of the data included on the CD-ROM disk. 

Release of NOAA's SeaBeam data includes the 

bathymetry data set off Monterey, Calif. (fig. 4), where 

numerous canyons cut the continental margin. The disk of 

Monterey data includes onshore and offshore topography 

and image data. These CD-ROM disks make a personal 

computer almost as exciting as a video game. The disks 

of the Atlantic Coast EEZ and the Monterey Canyon area are 

available through JOMAR. 

The workshops of the symposium also highlight these 

types of data and the technology available to implement 

their use. As John Knauss mentioned, being able to integrate the digital data sets from the many disciplines 

involved in marine research is the key to understanding the 

vast area of the EEZ. Peter Lucas, representing the National 

Academy of Engineering, Marine Board, will be sharing 

with us the information needs of users of the EEZ. We look 

forward to working with Peter and his committee as they 

obtain this profile of user information needs. 

Our EEZ mapping activities are on schedule. When 

we meet again at the fifth EEZ Symposium in 1991, we will 

have completed the blue water reconnaissance phase of 

mapping the EEZ around the 50 States-a total of 2 million 

nmi2 -and will have begun to map the additional 1 million 

nmi2 of sea floor around the American Flag Islands of the 

Pacific Ocean. 

As we have been exploring the blue water frontier 

areas of the EEZ, we have not forgotten about the green 

water-the coastal ocean. Of the U.S. population, over 50 

percent lives within an hour's drive of a coasi, and that 

percentage is increasing annually; consequently, the pressure on the coastal ocean portion of the EEZ is great. The 

recent skirmish between people and ocean in Charleston, 

S.C., Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands during Hurricane 

Hugo is all too vivid in our minds. The President's initiative 

on the coastal ocean is also focusing attention on the need to 

develop a better understanding and information base on this 

area. His pledge of "no net loss of wetlands" is something 

that will surely echo through our efforts in the coming 

years. As with the deepwater frontier region, the coastal 

ocean portion of the EEZ contains resources that have the 

potential to be economically important, provides an option 

for waste disposal, and is used for manmade objects placed 

Federal-State Partnerships in Exclusive Economic Zone Mapping and Research 35 
Figure 3. GLORIA image of the Blake Plateau Escarpment. 

on or within the sea floor, such as submarine communications cables. 

As Dr. Sallenger described yesterday [paper not in 

volume], the USGS has been requested by Congress to 

develop a National Coastal Program. This program will be 

developed on a regional basis. Input from the Coastal States 

will be used to develop this program. 

As an example of the USGS's concern for coastal 

issues, we opened a new Center for Coastal Geology in St. 

Petersburg, Fla., on the campus of the University of South 

Florida in June of this year. Scientists from the University 

and the Center are working cooperatively on coastal problems. Here again, partnership is our key to progress. Our 

coastal program is very much a cooperative effort with the 

States. 

Mapping in the coastal ocean by using highresolution sonar techniques is underway. This mapping is 

targeted at population centers to develop a coastal information base. This database will tie to the GLORIA image maps 

and multibeam bathymetry data offshore. In the panel 

discussions, two of our studies will be described, one in 

Massachusetts Bay and the other off San Francisco Bay. 

These studies are providing an information base on sediment transport, erosion, and depositional processes, which 

is necessary for addressing such issues as offshore disposal 

and pollution. The four panel sessions highlight a variety of 

activities and studies in the coastal ocean and focus on the 

East Coast, the Gulf of Mexico, the West Coast and Alaska, 

and the islands, including Hawaii. These studies include 

mapping programs, identification of mineral resources on 

the continental shelf [such as aggregate, phosphate, and 

placers (for example, gold)], energy resources, and tracking 

fine-grained sediment transport on the shelf with relevance 

to pollution issues. 

The importance of this symposium is not only in 

sharing information with one another but also in learning 

from one another about opportunities for partnership. We 

appreciate the time and the information that you share at 

these EEZ symposia and value your input. We are here not 

only to join in the excitement of new discoveries, but to 

listen. This is an opportunity to renew and expand our 

partnerships with the States. The vastness of the EEZabout 60 percent of the national domain underwater-highlights the importance of the information we are sharing in 

this symposium and in our work together in our partnerships, 

among Federal and State government agencies, the private 

sector, and academic institutions. 

Federal-State Partnerships in Exclusive Economic Zone Mapping and Research 3 7 
Figure 4. Monterey Canyon bathymetry . 

• 

38 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
The National Research Council's Marine Board 

Committee on Exclusive Economic Zone Information 

Needs 

Peter j. Lucas 

Shell Development Company 

My purpose is to describe the activities of the 

National Research Council's Marine Board regarding the 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). First, I will discuss the 

overall objectives of the Board and then the newly formed 

Committee on EEZ Information Needs. 

The Marine Board sees its task as assessment and 

prediction of future uses of oceans and coasts, as well as 

how they may be affected by present uses. Contrasting with 

the Ocean Studies Board, whose focus is toward fundamental research questions, specific interests of the Marine 

Board include the following: 

• Improving the technical basis for evaluating ocean and 

coastal uses, 

• Evaluating safety and environmental protection in the 

marine environment, and 

• Advancing marine engineering and technology as a basis 

for policy formulation and program management. 

We have heard in various presentations that optimum 

utilization of the EEZ will require a number of tasks to be 

accomplished. These include the following: 

• Assessment of the major areas of future ocean 

development, 

• Identification of technical requirements and program 

development needs, 

• Development of government's regulatory and technology 

promotion roles, and 

• Development of methods for avoiding and resolving 

conflicts among potential uses. 

Yesterday, Armand Silva outlined the challenges and 

choices developed by his Marine Board's Committee on 

Uses of the Sea Floor. As a followup to this effort, the U.S. 

Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are sponsoring a new Marine Board 

Committee that will address EEZ information needs. The 

task of the committee is to provide an external view of the 

Federal plan for activities in the EEZ. To accomplish this, 

we intend to do the following: 

• Assess user information requirements by reviewing all 

the diverse uses; 

• Recommend priorities, data type, and location; 

• Evaluate mapping and resource characterization technologies; and 

• Recommend needs for development of acquisition and 

data handling technologies. 

The committee will focus on what to do, where, and with 

what priority and will advise on what should be done in the 

next phase following GLORIA and SeaBeam mapping. 

Over the last few years, many workshops and symposia attendees have expressed a need for data in several 

areas as an objective basis for decisionmaking. These 

include data for developing resources, for evaluating the 

risk to the environment, for understanding sea-floor processes, for resolving conflicts among uses, and for government sponsorship of research and technology development. 

These data needs combined with the vast area of the 

EEZ define a mammoth task. Clearly with limitations on 

resources, priorities must be set. Through its activities the 

committee hopes to contribute to orderly progress in providing government and public users with the information 

they require. 

Members of the Committee are as follows: 

Robert Chase The Analytic Sciences Corporation 

Donald A. Hull 

Peter T. Lucas 

C. Barry Raleigh 

Robert C. Tyee 

J. Robert Woolsey 

(TASC)/University of Colorado 

State of Oregon 

Shell Development Company 

University of Hawaii 

University of Rhode Island 

Mississippi Mineral Resources 

Institute 

Alan G. Young Fugro-McClellan Engineers 

Five committee members will be participating in the symposium, and we expect to benefit greatly from the discussions. We hope that those who can contribute to our 

understanding of your specific needs and priorities will 

contact members of the committee. 

The National Research Council is the Marine Board Committee 39 
East Coast Sea-Floor Mapping and Information Needs for 

Offshore Dredging for Sand and Gravel 

George l. Marshall 

Engineering Geologists 

INTRODUCTION 

Dredge mining the sea floor for concrete sand and 

gravel materials that will be used in infrastructure and other 

types of construction is "relatively" new to the East Coast of 

the United States. This type of mining, however, was begun 

in the 12th century by the Dutch in their coastal waters for 

land reclamation purposes. Offshore sand and gravel mining is common in many other parts of the world, including 

the United Kingdom, northern Europe, Scandinavia, and 

Japan, to meet market demands that cannot be met by 

dwindling onshore sources. McCormack Aggregates is a 

U.S. company that originated on Long Island. The amount 

of their sand and gravel reserves was limited by local law 

and the "not in my back yard" syn~rome. As those available 

reserves approached depletion, McCormack turned to the 

sea and is now one of the principal North American 

producers of concrete sand from seabed raw material. 

McCormack dredges raw material for concrete sand from 

the sea floor and processes that material at their South 

Amboy, N.J., plant. Their excavation, which is within the 

Ambrose Channel of the Lower Bay of the New York 

Harbor area, is under contract with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, and a royalty is paid to the State of New Jersey. 

This scenario is expected to be played out in the future with 

other producers along the East Coast, as onshore reserves 

become depleted. Accordingly, the necessity of the sand 

and gravel resources as a part of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ) Program is self evident. 

Worldwide production of sand and gravel from 

marine sources is thought to range between approximately 

125 million and 150 million t/yr. Japan, which is the world 

leader, has an annual production of approximately 80 

million t. Approximately 300 individual dredging companies supply about 40 percent of its concrete sand needs. 

Japan is followed by the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries, which supply from 15 to as much as 50 

Presented on behalf of McCormack (Amboy) Aggregates of South 

Amboy, N.J. 

40 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

percent locally from the sea floor. In the future, the U.S. 

East Coast area may be in third place. 

GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND 

The East Coast Continental Shelf is about 3,218 km 

long, averages approximately 120 km wide, and covers an 

area of approximately 150,000 mi2 • The potential sources 

of sand and gravel lying on the shelf are considered to be 

large and primarily occur adjacent to the New England, the 

New York, and the New Jersey coasts; scattered smaller 

sand and gravel deposits are found to the south. 

The majority of the sand and gravel deposits initially 

began as deltas of various sizes and complexity. They 

formed at the mouths of rivers, flowing from melting ice 

into the ocean during the final days of the last ice age. At 

that time, much of the Earth's water was locked up in 

continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers; consequently, sea 

level was much lower than it is today, and the Continental 

Shelf was a large plain. 

MARKET CONSIDERATIONS 

Many major East Coast cities lie near the drowned 

valleys of ice age rivers that built deltas of sand and gravel 

on the Continental Shelf. These cities and environs are the 

principal potential future markets for the materials of the 

marine sand and gravel deposits that may lie within economical shipping distances. 

Sand and gravel are high-volume, low-value commodities. It is of prime importance, therefore, to develop 

future sources of supply as close to the market as possible to 

minimize shipping distances and transportation costs; that 

is, the economy of the operation will govern the capital 

investment for marine sand and gravel mining and raw 

material processing, which is in the millions of dollars. 

Consequently, economic as well as market considerations 

will determine if a given marine sand and gravel deposit 
will be worked, all else being equal. These considerations 

also govern the mapping and the information needs of the 

industry. 

MAPPING AND SUBSEA-FLOOR 

INFORMATION NEEDS 

Usable maps are the first step in locating new reserves 

of construction-grade sand and gravel. They form the base 

on which all other deposit information is built and developed. The most detailed and important sea-floor mapping 

and subsea-floor geological information is needed adjacent 

to the major market areas of the East Coast .. At this time, 

less attention is requried for the seabed areas between those 

markets. The inbetween areas should not be bypassed, 

however, or large sand and gravel deposits may be missed 

that will eventually become essential. 

Sea-Floor Topographic Maps 

Nautical charts, such as the harbor and coast charts, 

which are distributed by the National Ocean Service of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), could be used as base maps expanded seaward, 

where necessary to cover the areas of concern. The 

1:40,000-scale New York Harbor Chart, for example, 

which has 1-fathom bottom contours and soundings in feet 

below mean low water, has been a good base map for 

McCormack's operations. I suggest that this scale be used 

for the desired maps because it is adaptable to exploration 

work and allows sufficient room to add the results of that 

exploration. I also suggest that 1-fathom bottom contours be 

used because this interval readily permits dredging operation planning; their outline may help to locate sand and 

gravel deposits. In addition, all depths should be shown in 

feet below mean low water, which is the standard of the 

U.S. maritime industry. 

Bathymetric Map Coverage 

The oceanward extent of detailed sea-floor mapping 

can be placed at the depth limit of anticipated future 

dredging. The Japanese claim that their new excavation 

equipment is capable of dredging at a maximum depth of 

100m. Thus, the proposed bathymetric maps should cover 

the 110-m line in a band along the East Coast, perhaps 

averaging 110 km or more wide. 

Geologic Maps 

The desired sea-floor bathymetric maps would make 

good base maps for plotting the "ground truth" geological 

information required for a successful dredging operation. 

The geologic maps might be developed as suggested in the 

following steps: 

1. Seismic Profiles 

The initial geologic maps should be based on highresolution seismic profiles so that the stratigraphic and the 

subbottom geologic characteristics of the seabed materials 

can be delineated; pinger and boomer types of seismic 

equipment have been used with good results. The seismic 

profiles could be run in two sequences-widely spaced lines 

on a reconnaissance basis and a more-detailed sequence run 

in those areas showing promise. Several pairs of profiles at 

right angles to each other should be generated to "checkerboard" each area of interest. 

2. Test Holes 

After the acoustic-based geologic (stratigraphic) 

maps have been constructed from the seismic profiles, a 

series of bottom sediment cores should be obtained from the 

more-promising areas. Continuous vibracored test holes to 

at least 30 ft are recommended. Ideally, the cores would 

reach 50 ft, be on a 3,000-ft center, and be logged in 

sufficient detail to substantiate the seismic information. 

3. Samples and Gradation Analysis 

Each successive full 2 ft of each core should be 

sampled, and a gradation analysis run on a representative 

sample split-out (by using a sample splitter) of the 2-ft 

sample; that is, a 50-ft continuous core would yield 25 full 

samples, 25 representative sample splits, and 25 analyses. 

The testing should follow the American Society for Testing 

and Materials (ASTM) Standard Specification for Concrete 

Aggregates No. C33. That specification and its test methods 

are considered to be the standard of the industry. Other, 

more technical, gradation analyses are not ordinarily used in 

evaluating a given deposit area for potential concrete sand 

supplies. 

Figure 1 is a common type of laboratory report sheet 

that is used by the industry for recording and comparing 

sieve test results and is based on ASTM No. C33. Table 1 

shows the ASTM No. C33 grading specification for concrete sand. 

Gravels are commonly considered by the industry to 

be material coarser than 6.35 mm. They should be sieve 

tested separately and noted if found in the core sample. The 

first part of figure 1 lists the regular gravel sizes of the 

industry. Because gravels are desired, it is important that 

they be included in the analysis. 

Gradation testing in successive 2-ft intervals is necessary because the commonly used method of excavation 

removes only a few inches of the exposed top of the deposit 

with each straightline pass of the dredger; each pass 

may cover 1.6 km or more. The gradation variations within 

each horizontal layer from test hole to test hole, consequently, govern where to dredge, how to blend to make 

specification sand, and so forth. 

East Coast Sea-Floor Mapping and Information Needs for Offshore Dredging for Sand and Gravel 41 
GRADATION ANALYSES 

Company a 

Project•--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sample Oescriptionsa __ ..... ____________ -----------------------------------------

Analyses bya Sampled by.e Date Sampled• 

GRAVEL 

SI£VE t Ret'd t Paaa t Ret'd t Pass t Ret'd t Pass \ Rot'd t Paaa 

4. 

---------- ----------------~------- ------- ---------------- ---------------- 3~ 

------------~---~------- ---------------- ---------------- 3 

---------- ----------------~-------- ------------------------ ---------------- 2~ 

---------- ----------------~------- ------------------------ ---------------- 2 

---------- ----------------~------- ------- ---------------- ---------------- 1~ 

---------- ----------------~-------- ------------------------ ---------------- 1 

---------- ----------------~------- ------------------------ ---------------- 3/4 

---------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ---------------- 5/8 

---------- ----------------~-------- ------------------------ ---------------- l/2 

---------- ·----------------!"'------- ------------------------ -------·-------- 3/8 

---------- ----------------~-------- ------------------------ ---------------- l/4 

---------- ·------- --------~-------- ------------------------ ---------------- Pan 

% Gravel 

SAND 

---------- ----------------~------- ------------------------ ---------------- 14 

---------- ----------------~------- ------------------------ ---------------- 8 

---------- ------------------------ ----------------~------- ---------------- 16 

---------- -------·---------------- ----------------~------- ---------------- 30 

---------- ------------------------ ----------------~------- ---------------- 50 

---------- ----------------~-------- ----------------~------- ---------------- 100 

---------- ----------------~------- ------------------------ ---------------- 200 

---------- ----------:-------------- ------------------------ ---------------- Pan 

---------- Wash ------------------------ ------------------------ ----------------

F.H. 

GEORGE L. MMSHALL ENGINEERING GEOlOGISTS R.D. 1, 8oK 4,, Averill Perk, N.Y. 12018 Ar• Code (518)674·2028 

42 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Table 1. Concrete sand gradation specification information 

[The standard fine aggregate gradation specification customarily followed 

by the industry. The size fractions of a processed sand must fall within the 

Percentage Passing limits to be considered as an approved concrete sand. 

Concrete sand gradation specification information is given in the American 

Society for Testing and Materials Standard Specification for Concrete 

Aggregates C33, 1988 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.02, 

Concrete and Mineral Aggregates. The sand grains should be sound and 

free of injurious amounts of deleterious substance] 

Test sieve size Percentage passing 

3/8" (9.5 mm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 100 

No.4 (4.75 mm) ........................ . 

No.8 (2.36 mm) ........................ . 

No. 16 (1.18 mm) ...................... .. 

No. 30 (600 ~J..m) ........................ . 

No. 50 (300 ~J..m) ........................ . 

No. 100 (150 IJ..m) ...................... .. 

No. 200 (75 ~J..m) ........................ . 

4. Isopleth Maps 

95-100 

80-100 

50-85 

25-60 

10-30 

2-10 

0-3 

After the 2-ft core samples have been analyzed, it 

would be very helpful to have the results shown on stacked 

isopleth maps. An isopleth map shows the areal distribution 

and (or) magnitude of a general grain size for a given layer 

of the deposit by depth below the sea floor. These maps 

should be constructed for each area of interest and have the 

general areas of finer and coarser sand (and gravel, if 

present) outlined on each. Together, they would form a 

"layer cake" of sand and gravel gradations. 

Table 2 lists suggested "word" texture descriptions 

for the overall grading of a 2-ft sample that is based on one 

or two significant individual sand-size fractions from its 

analysis. The texture words could be used to outline general 

grain-size areas; for example, coarse sand on each isopleth 

map and the gradation parameters included in the map's 

legend. 

5. Exception 

An exception to the 2-ft sample-based isopleth map 

may be those areas of the seabed where a very thick layer of 

..... Figure 1. This blank form is an example of a typical 

coarse and fine aggregate gradation analysis laboratory 

report sheet. The test sieves sizes follow ASTM No. C33, 

except that a 1/4-in. sieve is substituted for the No.4 in 

the gravel section as a 114-in. screen is commonly 

used in production screening plants. Coarse aggregates are processed gravels (or crushed stone) conforming to a specified gradation and quality. Fine 

aggregates are processed sand materials (concrete 

sand) conforming to a specified gradation and quality. A discussion of aggregate quality is beyond the 

scope of this paper. However, quality tests are only 

run on raw materials potentially capable of meeting 

minimum gradation requirements. That is why sieve 

tests are very important. 

Table 2. A list of sand gradation descriptions that are 

commonly used in the industry 

[The descriptions are to indicate which parts of a marine deposit should be 

capable of making a concrete sand with minimal processing at the onshore 

plant, those parts that may require extensive processing and (or) mixing, 

and those parts that should be used for other purposes. Suggested word 

texture descriptions for general areas of a sand deposit are based on one or 

two significant grains size fractions of a gradation analysis. Combine 

words when a significant grain-size fraction falls in between, for example, 

Medium-Coarse Sand] 

Very Fine . . . . . More than 60 percent passing the No. 50 

sieve. 

Fine . . . . . . . . . . More than 70 percent passing the No. 30 sieve 

and 40 to 60 percent passing the No. 50 

sieve. 

Medium . . . . . . 60 to 70 percent passing the No. 30 sieve and 

30 to 40 percent passing the No. 50 sieve. 

Coarse . . . . . . . . Less than 85 percent passing the No. 16 sieve 

or less than 60 percent passing the No. 30 

sieve and less than 30 percent passing the 

No. 50 sieve. 

sand that is too fine grained to be capable of yielding 

concrete sand completely overlies coarser materials indicated in the seismic survey but not reached in test drilling. 

' In this case, core sampling and isopleth maps might be 

increased to 5 ft or more thick to reduce laboratory and map 

work. 

Geologic Cross Sections 

Geologic cross sections drawn through the areas of 

coarser materials capable of producing specification sand 

would be of great help for long-term planning purposes 

(25-50 yr). The sections should reach to the horizontal and 

depth limits of the coarser materials when known. 

Even thin layers of coarser materials should be 

shown; for example, a 10-ft-thick sand and gravel deposit 

covering 1 nmi2 should yield approximately 10 million yd3 

of raw material for processing and would supply a small 

metropolitan market for several years. 

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 

Water current velocities and directions at various 

depths and on the sea floor, baseline turbidity, and the 

location of ebb and flow channels and (or) patterns for each 

prospective dredging region would be very helpful for 

planning day-to-day dredging operations. 

SUMMARY 

The need to replace dwindling supplies of onshore 

construction-grade sand and gravel materials for metropolitan markets that have nearby offshore supplies is evident. 

The EEZ Program will help to resolve these imminent 

shortages. 

The Marine Minerals Technology Center of the Department of the Interior 43 
The East Coast Continental Shelf is very large and 

likely contains significant volumes of construction-grade 

sand and gravel supplies. Deposits of those materials 

formed near the end of the last ice age from meltwater-fed 

rivers flowing on the shelf during that period of lowered sea 

level. 

Many East Coast metropolitan market areas appear to 

lie near potential offshore sand and gravel deposit regions. 

Detailed sea-floor topographic, geologic, and isopleth maps 

and geologic cross sections are needed to locate and 

delineate usable materials for those markets. The seaward 

limit of that mapping may arbitrarily be placed at the 

maximum depth of dredging of modem equipment. 

44 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

The sea-floor topographic maps could be logical 

extensions of existing NOAA nautical charts used for 

maritime navigation. The sea-floor maps would be used as 

the foundation on which all other deposit information is 

built. 

Descriptive isopleth maps covering areal sand gradation distribution in 2-ft deposit intervals are needed for 

dredge operation planning purposes and to enable the 

industry to make the major capital investments necessary 

for deepwater dredging. 

Deposit descriptions should follow the standard language of the industry so that the information be used most 

effectively and economically. 
Coastal Mapping-Preliminary Results From a Pilot Study 

of Contaminant Transport in Boston Harbor and 

Massachusetts Bay 

Bradford Butman, Michael H. Bothner, Harley J. Knebel, and Carol M. Parmenter 

U.S. Geological Survey 

INTRODUCTION 

The geologic and the oceanographic processes that 

control the transport and the distribution of sediments in 

coastal regions are poorly documented and understood. 

Especially in coastal areas near major population centers, 

where wastes are often discharged directly into the ocean, 

several basic questions need to be answered. What are the 

sources of contaminants to the coastal ocean? How are they 

transported? Where do they accumulate and how fast? Are 

contaminants diluted by natural sedimentation? What are 

the long-term effects on marine resources? Because many of 

the contaminants are particles or are transported on finegrained sediments, the answers require an understanding of 

the geology of nearshore regions and of the processes that 

transport and distribute sediments throughout the coastal 

ocean. 

The Boston Harbor-Massachusetts Bay region was 

selected by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for a pilot 

study of sediment and contaminant movement because 

discharge of wastes to Boston Harbor has created serious 

environmental contamination; a major plan to reduce the 

contamination required additional information on the sediment transport regime, which is complex and poorly understood; studies conducted by the State of Massachusetts, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) presented an 

opportunity to develop a large multidisciplinary program to 

study the complex transport processes; and the coastal 

geometry, the topography, and the sediment distribution in 

the region provided a range of sedimentary and geologic 

environments for study. Thus, results and techniques developed in this study would have broad applicability to other 

regions around the United States. 

BACKGROUND 

Municipal waste from the Boston metropolitan 

area has been discharged into Boston Harbor for decades. 

Effluent from the primary treatment plants located on Deer 

and Nut Islands is continuously discharged into the harbor, 

and sludge from both plants is discharged on the out-going 

tide in President Roads. As a result, the harbor sediments 

are contaminated, shellfish beds are closed to fishing, 

swimming is often curtailed, and there is a high incidence of 

tumors in fish. The MWRA, which is a new independent 

State agency that provides for water and sewer service to the 

metropolitan area, has developed a comprehensive plan to 

eliminate the discharge of wastes to the harbor. By 1992, 

ocean discharge of sludge will end; the sludge will be 

composted on land and recycled. By 2000, a new secondary 

treatment plant will be constructed on Deer Island, the 

effluent from which will be discharged 13 km seaward of 

the harbor mouth into Massachusetts Bay through an 8-mdiameter tunnel drilled in the bedrock about 300ft (100m) 

beneath the sea floor. The average volume of effluent 

discharged into Massachusetts Bay will be about 500 

million gal/d (20 m3/s), which is about twice the discharge 

of the rivers entering Boston Harbor. The cost of this 

construction program is estimated to be $6 billion. 

Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays form a semienclosed embayment to the east of Boston Harbor (fig. 1). 

Stellwagen Bank rises to within about 30 m of the sea 

surface and partially separates Massachusetts Bay from the 

Gulf of Maine. Stellwagen Basin, located to the west of 

Stellwagen Bank is about 90 m deep. The sea floor in 

western Massachusetts Bay contains numerous hummocks 

and hills, which reflect the glacial influence on the region; 

topographic changes of 5 to 10 m over spatial scales of 1 to 

5 km are common. In contrast, the topography in Cape Cod 

Bay is relatively smooth. The sediment texture in the 

western part of Massachusetts Bay is a varied mixture of 

gravel, sand, and fine-grained sediments (Schlee and others, 1973). Sediments in the deeper basins are primarily 

fine-grained silt and clays. The Merrimack River, which 

discharges into the Gulf of Maine to the north of Cape Ann 

• 

Coastal Mapping-Preliminary Results From a Pilot Study of Contaminant Transport in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay 45 
+ 

+ 

0 5N.Mi. I I I I I J 

0 JOKm I I I I I I I 1 I I I 

+ 

Contours in Meters 

+ 

Figure 1. Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. Topography is simplified from a Coast and Geodetic Survey 

(1970) chart. Square indicates present location of effluent and sludge discharge from Deer Island; circles 

• 

46 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

+ 

~·: 

···:.~·.··· .. ··.···•····.· .. 

C A P E · . · ·:· · ·· · : C Q Bathymetry from 

C:a G.S. OSOBN-50 

30' 

20' 

20' 10' 70000'W 

indicate outfalls from Nut Island; rectangle is location 

of proposed new ocean outfall for effluent from new 

Deer Island secondary treatment plant. 
at a rate of about 215 m3

/s is a source of fresh water and 

sediments to the Massachusetts Bay system. 

STUDY COMPONENTS 

The pilot study in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts 

Bay, which began in 1987, consisted of three major 

components-geologic mapping of the sediment surface 

and subbottom, measurements of water circulation and 

sediment transport, and estimates of sediment accumulation 

and mixing rates. A major long-term objective of a continuing study is to provide a regional, basinwide perspective 

of sediment and contaminant transport. The pilot study has 

increased our understanding of the oceanography of this 

coastal region and has been used to help design and locate 

the new ocean outfall. 

PRELIMINARY RESULTS 

Mapping 

Geophysical surveys were conducted in Boston Harbor and selected regions of Massachusetts Bay. These 

surveys collected sidescan-sonar, high-resolution seismic 

reflection, and bathymetric data. Maps have been generated 

that show the morphology and the texture of the sea floor in 

Boston Harbor as well as the thickness of sediments above 

the acoustic basement (Rendigs and Oldale, in press). 

One map derived from the analyses of the sidescansonar records outlines the areal distribution of modem 

sedimentary environments in Boston Harbor (fig. 2). Areas 

of sediment erosion in the harbor are characterized by 

outcrops of bedrock and till and also by lag deposits; they 

are covered by coarse gravelly sands that have been scoured 

and winnowed by tidal currents and waves. Areas of 

sediment deposition are fo. 1d over shallow subtidal flats 

and in broad bathymetric lows where tidal currents are 

weak. The sediments here are watery, organic-rich, sandy, 

and clayey silts. Areas of sediment reworking reflect a 

mixture of erosional and depositional processes. Reworked 

sediments have divers textures that are transitional between 

those of the other two sedimentary environments. This map 

of the areas of erosion and deposition provides an important 

picture of the locations where contaminants presently accumulate in the harbor and can be used to devise plans to 

sample and monitor these contaminants in the future. 

A sidescan-sonar survey also was conducted in westem Massachusetts Bay in the region selected for the new 

ocean outfall (fig. 3). The sidescan observations were made 

by means of a Klein 100-kHz system, and the data were 

collected digitally by using a Q-MIPS data acquisition 

system manufactured by Triton Technology. The survey 

line spacing was 150 m, thus providing a 50-percent overlap 

in coverage, and navigation was by means of a shore-based 

miniranger system that provided ship position with a precision of about 3 m. 

The sidescan-sonar observations show a complex 

alternating pattern of sediment texture and bottom morphology; texture and reflectivity change dramatically over scales 

of a few tens of meters in many regions of Massachusetts 

Bay (fig. 4). Areas of small sand waves, or megaripples, 

are found adjacent to coarse gravel and areas of fine 

sediments. In many cases, the coarser sediments are highly 

reflective of the sidescan-sonar signal and are associated 

with topographic highs. The finer sediments show lower 

reflectivity and generally occur in topographic lows. Bottom photographs and grab samples have confirmed these 

interpretations on the basis of the remote mapping techniques. The extremely varied topography and the sediment 

texture provide a wide range of environments for biologic 

communities and suggest different rates of sediment and 

contaminant accumulation in areas that are close to each 

other. 

A detailed digital sidescan-sonar mosaic that covers 

an 81-km2 area in western Massachusetts Bay is being 

made. The digital processing allows the image of the sea 

floor to be easily analyzed and displayed. A subsection of 

the digital mosaic, which includes the region where the 

diffuser for the new outfall will be located, has been 

completed (fig. 5A) and merged with the bathymetric 

observations (fig. 5B). This image clearly shows the correlation between the topographic highs and coarser sediments 

that have high sonar reflectivity. 

Circulation and Sediment Transport 

Currents and near-bottom suspended sediment con- • 

centrations were measured in three locations in western 

Massachusetts Bay (depth range 24--72 m) during winter 

and spring 1987. The measurements were designed to 

describe the currents and the associated sediment movement 

in western Massachu-setts Bay when strong storms would be 

most likely to resuspend and transport sediments. The 

near-bottom observations were made by means of an 

instrumented tripod (Butman and Folger, 1979). Current, 

temperature, and light transmission also were measured at 

mid-depth and near the sea surface by using moorings next 

to the tripod. Sediment traps were used to collect material 

suspended in the water column. 

In general, the mean flow (the net vector-averaged 

current calculated over the length of observation) was less 

than a few centimeters per second, and the spatial pattern 

was poorly resolved by the measurements. The mean 

current flow at station A, which is near a location considered for the outfall early in the selection process, was 

toward shore at all levels of the water column (fig. 6); this 

onshore flow suggests an eddy in the region south of Nahant 

Coastal Mapping-Preliminary Results From a Pilot Study of Contaminant Transport in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay 47 
71°04' 71°00' 

0 

SEDIMENTARY ENVIRONMENTS 

[23 EROSION 

.. ' 

~ DEPOSITION 

D SEDIMENT REWORKING 

-- BOUNDARY OF SURVEY AREA 

ooo=: BOUNDARY OF SHIP CHANNEL 

' ,, 

Figure 2. Areas of sediment accumulation and deposition in Boston Harbor based on sidescan-sonar, 

high-resolution seismic reflection, and sediment texture. The tidal currents are sufficiently strong in the 

major channels to prevent fine-sediment deposition. 

and argues that discharge of treated effluent in this location 

would be unwise. In coastal areas that have complex 

topography, however, the excursion of water and particles, 

which are the result of tides and 2- to 10-d wind events, may 

be larger than the residual flow features. In these regions, 

the residual circulation may not indicate the long-term 

trajectories of water or particles. Indeed, the observations 

suggest that the currents caused by storms may be more 

important than the mean flow in determining the transport 

of water and the long-term fate of sediment particles. 

Moored instrumentation sufficient to map the current flow 

48 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

in this complex region will be impossible, and, thus, 

numerical models designed to resolve the complex spatial 

pattern of the flow field are essential to interpret and map 

the residual and storm-driven current field. 

The near-bottom observations showed resuspension 

of the surficial sediments during winter storms (fig. 7). The 

most severe storms resuspended sediments at each of the 

mooring locations, but storms of less intensity resuspended 

material only at the two shallower sites. These data suggest 

that accumulation of fine-grained sediments may occur 

during the summer months when storms are infrequent, but 
+ + 42°30' 

\] 

( 

• 

28 73 

• '--' 

~ 

,_ ... c.\ I 42°20'N ~ 

0 

0 IOkm 

Bathymetry from NOS 0808N-50. 

Figure 3. Western Massachusetts Bay showing the area of 

the sidescan-sonar survey (boxed region), the approximate path of the proposed tunnel, the site of diffuser, the 

area of the perspective mosaic shown in figure 5 (dashed 

box), and the inventory of 210Pb at selected stations 

(numbered boxes). 210Pb inventories in excess of 32 disinthey may then be resuspended and transported toward 

deeper water or protected inshore areas during winter 

storms. All the resuspension events observed were caused 

by oscillatory currents associated with surface waves; some 

of these waves were generated by local winds, but some 

were generated by storms in the Gulf of Maine. 

The 1987 current measurements coincided with the 

largest April discharge on record from the Merrimack 

River, which is located just north of the study area. 

Sea-surface temperature maps, which were obtained from 

satellite observations, were examined to aid in the interpretation of the current measurements; the images showed a 

tegrations per minute per square centimeter in Boston 

Harbor and Stellwagen Basin indicate long-term accumulation sites for contaminants and sediments (fig. 9). Variability in inventories near the site of the proposed outfall 

reflects the extreme variability in sediment texture and the 

geologic environment as indicated in the sidescan survey. 

large surface plume extending southward from the Merrimack River and into Massachusetts Bay (fig . 8). Daily 

average northwestward flow in excess of 30 cm/s was 

observed in association with the western edge of the plume 

at a depth of 8 m (fig. 8). These observations show the 

important influence of nonlocal forcing on circulation and 

sediment transport in Massachusetts Bay and underscore the 

need for a regional perspective in these studies. Long-term 

synoptic observations are also essential to document and 

evaluate the importance of infrequent or catastrophic 

events, such as floods or strong storms, on sediment 

transport and coastal circulation. 

Coastal Mapping-Preliminary Results From a Pilot Study of Contaminant Transport in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay 49 
Figure 4. Typical sidescan-sonar image in Massachusetts 

Bay showing the rapid transition of bottom reflectivity, 

which indicates changes in sediment texture and roughness. The line down the center of the image marks the 

ship track, the image extends 100 m to each side. Dark 

areas are finer-grained sediments; light areas indicate 

coarser sediments. The megaripples have wavelengths of 

between 2 and 3 m and are probably between 25 and 50 em 

high. Note the changes in reflectivity and sediment texture that often occur over distances of only a few 

meters. 

Geochemistry and Sediment Accumulation 

Geochemical and geotechnical studies typically 

examine sediment characteristics that have developed over a 

50 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

time span of years to centuries. Heavy metals, such as Cr, 

Cu, Pb, Zn, and so forth, are significantly enriched in 

surface sediments of the harbor compared to subsurface 

sediments deposited before the Industrial Revolution. A 

critical question is whether these sediments will be a 

long-term source of contaminants to the water column and 

benthic organisms after the present waste discharge is 

reduced or eliminated. 

A number of radioactive isotopes have been analyzed 

to determine the rates of sediment accumulation, the rates of 

sediment mixing (bioturbation), and the potential for contaminant accumulation. 210Pb, which is a sediment-reactive 

isotope that behaves like many contaminants in the marine 

environment, can be used as a contaminant tracer (fig. 9). 210Pb concentrations have been measured in a number of 

undisturbed cores obtained from Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay. Inventories of excess 210Pb are between 0.6 

and 2.3 times that predicted from atmospheric and seawater 

sources (fig. 3). In areas where the inventories are highest, 

preferential accumulation of 210Pb has occurred and accumulation by means of focused deposition or more intense 

scavenging of contaminants by the fine-grained sediments 

of other contaminants would be expected. Other isotopes, 

such as 14C, 234Th, and Pu, contribute to our understanding 

of where sediments are actively accumulating. Areas of 

accumulation identified to date include Stellwagen Basin 

offshore and protected areas of the harbor inshore. These 

areas should probably be closely monitored to evaluate the 

long-term environmental effects of the elimination of waste 

discharge to the harbor and the operation of the new ocean 

outfall. 

FEDERAL-STATE COORDINATION 

The USGS study in coastal Massachusetts is closely 

coordinated with other agencies and research organizations 

through the Massachusetts Bays Management Committee, 

which is composed of representatives from Federal and State 

agencies that have an interest in the coastal environment of 

Massachusetts. The committee, which is spending $1.6 

million for a carefully coordinated research program 

through 1991, has applied to the EPA to include Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays in the National Bays Program. 

FUTURE WORK 

The USGS has established, in cooperation with the 

MWRA, a long-term environmental monitoring station in 

western Massachusetts Bay near the proposed site of the 

new ocean outfall (fig. 1). This station will provide the first 

long-term observations of current, temperature, salinity, 

and suspended-sediment in Massachusetts Bay. The measurements will be used to determine the importance of 
seasonal variability and infrequent catastrophic events in 

sediment movement. Instrumentation has been installed to 

collect samples of suspended material during major storms. 

This new equipment will improve our estimates of the 

concentration and the composition of suspended matter 

during storms, when resuspension and transport of bottom 

sediments (and any associated contaminants) may be most 

significant and when sampling from a surface ship is 

impossible. In addition to the long-term measurements, the 

USGS is conducting numerical studies of the tidal circulation in Boston Harbor to improve understanding of the flow 

patterns and the exchange of water and particles between 

the harbor and western Massachusetts Bay. 

The Massachusetts Bays Program is funding additional field studies, including a major physical oceanographic field program to understand the circulation in the 

bays and the exchange of water with the Gulf of Maine. 

This work is closely coordinated with the ongoing USGS 

program. 

SUMMARY 

Major results from the pilot study conducted in 

Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay in 1987-88 are as 

follows: 

• Mapping of the sea floor by using sidescan sonar has 

shown a complex pattern of sediment texture and 

bottom morphology; the maps indicate areas of sediment and potential contaminant accumulation. Within 

the harbor, finer sediments are found on the shallow 

mud flats and coarser sediment in the deep tidal 

channels. In western Massachusetts Bay, coarser sediments are associated with topographic highs, and finer 

sediment, with local topographic lows. The complex 

sedimentary environments provide a wide range of 

biological habitats and geologic conditions that vary 

over short spatial scales. 

• Remote mapping techniques are essential to determine 

adequately the complex spatial variability of the bottom sediment texture and morphology; accurate maps 

could not be prepared from analyse~ of grab samples 

alone. Digital processing of the sonar observations 

allows sonar data to be easily manipulated, displayed, 

and merged with other data sets. 

• The surficial sediments in western Massachusetts Bay are 

frequently resuspended and transported by winter 

storms. Understanding the transport during these episodic events is essential to determine the movement 

and the fate of particles and contaminants in coastal 

regions. 

• Radioactive isotopes can be used to identify potential 

areas of long-term accumulation of contaminants. 

Increased inventories of 210Pb in Boston Harbor and 

Stellwagen Basin suggest that these areas will preferentially accumulate sediments and contaminants over 

the long term. 

• The current flow pattern is weak and is not well resolved 

by the available measurements; these observations may 

be typical of coastal areas that have complex topography and where the currents are forced locally by wind 

and river runoff as well as by the flow in adjacent 

regions. Numerical models will be essential to interpret the complex spatial flow patterns in these regions 

and to understand the physics of water and particle 

exchange. 

• The geologic mapping of the sea floor, direct in situ 

observations of near-bottom flow and sediment movement, and geochemical measurements carried out as 

part of the pilot study were complementary, and all 

contributed to an increased understanding of long-term 

fate of particles and the processes that transport them 

in the coastal ocean. Similar studies in other coastal 

areas would provide basic information on areas of 

contaminant accumulation. 

Coastal Mapping-Preliminary Results From a Pilot Study of Contaminant Transport in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay 51 
Figure 5. Study areas. A, Mosaic of the sidescan observations for the region within the dashed box shown in 

figure 3; bathymetry is superimposed. The north-southtrending stripes indicate the ship track and are an artifact 

of the data collection . The two open rectangles are proposed outfall orientations; the dark rectangles indicate 

data gaps. B, Perspective three-dimensional map of the 

region near the proposed diffuser site looking eastward 

from an elevation of about 30°; the image is created from 

52 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

the digital sidescan and bathymetric observations. The 

light areas of high reflectivity typically correspond to the 

topographic highs that have exposed gravel and boulders. 

The black-bordered box indicates the corridor selected for 

the location of the diffuser of the new ocean outfall (fig. 

3) . The north-south-trending stripes indicate the ship track 

and are an artifact of the data collection. The dark rectangles indicate data gaps. 
Figure 5.-Continued . 

Coastal Mapping-Preliminary Results From a Pilot Study of Contaminant Transport in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay 53 
MEAN FLOW 

2/8-4/1/87 

0 3cm/s 

Near- surface 

---7mab 

•• • • ·1 mob 

0 

0 

NAHANT 

~ 

A 

<~~.-/ --~ 

IOkm 

Bathymetry from NOS OBOSN-50 . 

Figure 6. Western Massachusetts Bay showing the mean 

flow (the vector-average current over the entire observation period) at three locations-A-C-measured during winter and spring 1987. Although weak, the observations are 

consistent with a mean shore-parallel flow near the sur54 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

face. The mean flow at 1 m above bottom (mab) was weak 

and not statistically significant. Note the onshore flow 

observed at station A south of Nahant at all instrument 

depths. 
Western Massachusetts Bay, Winter 1987 

8 . Wind Stre:s:s at Boston Light::;hip 

7 

6 

NE 5 

<4 * c 3 

-62 

·8 

7 

6 

5 N 

E 4< 

3 * c 

2 -6 

1 1 

0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 

7 12 17 22 27 4 9 14 19 24 

FEB MAR 

1987 

6.0 Beam Attenuation at 2 mab dt Sta A. C · 60 

5.5 

5.0 

4.5 

4.0 

3.5 

z3.0 

~2.5 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

7 

FEB 

1987 

__ sta. A 

12 17 22 4 

MAR 

9 14 19 24 29 3 

APR 

55 

50 

4.5 

4.0 

3.5 

E 3.0 ....... 

2.5 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

05 

0.0 

8 

50 Ca culated Bottom Wave Speed at Sta. A, C 

45 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 0 

40 

35 

0 30 

~25 "' 

s2o 

15 

10 

5 

-- Sta. A 

25~ "' 

20 5 

15 

10 

0 ~7~~1~2~~1~7~~2~2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~77~~~~~~~~ 

FEB 

5 

0 

1987 

Figure 7. Time series of wind stress during winter 1987 at the 

Boston Lightship, beam attenuation at 2 m above bottom 

(mab) (large beam attenuation indicates high suspendedsediment concentration) at stations A and C, and bottom wave 

currents measured at stations A and C (fig. 6) by means of 

bottom instrument systems. Periods of large bottom wave 

currents indicate storms ; note the strong correlation between 

wave currents and beam attenuation, especially at station A 

(27-m water depth), which indicates episodic resuspension of 

the bottom sediment. Only the largest storm (February 9) was 

strong enough to resuspend the sediments at station C in 72-m 

water depth. The near-bottom wave currents do not always 

correlate with the wind measured at Boston ; swell generated 

by storms in the Gulf of Maine enters Massachusetts Bay from 

the east and is often strong enough to resuspend the bottom 

sediments. During nonstorm periods, beam attenuation is 

generally larger at station C than at station A, which indicates 

increased near-bottom suspended sediment concentrations in 

the deep basin. Beam attenuation measurements at station B 

at 37-m water depth (not shown) closely matched those at 

station A. 
0 30Km 

Figure 8. Sea-surface temperature derived from satellite observations showing a plume of warmer water 

extending southward into Massachusetts Bay from the 

Merrimack River (white arrow) . See figure 1 for geographic reference. Large arrows show inferred flow; 

smaller arrows show near-surface (8-m) daily averaged 

56 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

II April 0320 EST 

PLUME BOUNDARY--

INFERRED FLOW ~ 

OBSERVED FLOW .-. 

flow measured by current meters at stations A-C. The 

observations show the importance of distant sources of 

contaminants and sediments to the Massachusetts Bay 

system. (Image courtesy of George Milkowski and Peter 

Cornillion, University of Rhode Island). 
222Rn 1111~ 1111~ 

Fi~ure 9. Schematic diagram showing the 210Pb cycle. 21 Pb is a naturally occurring radio isotoge that forms from 

the decay of 226Ra in the Earth's crust; 2Rn is the source 

for 210Pb in the atmosphere. The flux of 210Pb to the sea 

surface is relatively well known and is about 1 disintegration per minute per square centimeter (dpm/cm2

). If this 

input were evenly distributed over the sea floor, then it 

REFERENCES CITED 

Butman, Bradford, and Folger, D.W., 1979, An instrument 

system for long-term sediment transport studies on the 

Continental Shelf: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 84, p. 

1215-1220. 

Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1970, Massachusetts Bay: Coast and 

Geodetic Survey, Chart 0808N-50, scale 1:125,000. 

would result in an equilibrium inventory of about 32 

dpm/cm2 on the sea floor. 210Pb is scavenged from the 

water column by sediments and thus acts as a proxy for 

other contaminants that behave in similar manner. Areas 

that have high inventories of 210Pb suggest potential 

contaminant accumulation. See figure 3 for inventories 

measured as part of this study. 

Rendigs, R.R, and Oldale, R.N., in press, Results of a subbottom 

acoustic survey of Boston Harbor, Massachusetts: U.S. 

Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Map. 

Schlee, J.S.,d Folger, D.W., and O'Hara, C.J., 1973, Bottom 

sediments on the Continental Shelf off the northeastern 

United States-Cape Cod to Cape Ann, Massachusetts: U.S. 

Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations 

Map 1-746, 2 sheet. 

Coastal Mapping-Preliminary Results From a Pilot Study of Contaminant Transport in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay 57 
East Coast Physiography and Surficial Sediments Along the 

Inner Continental Shelf of Maine 

Joseph T. Kelley 

Maine Geological Survey 

The Maine Geological Survey, with support from the 

Minerals Management Service and in collaboration with the 

University of Maine, has begun a mapping program from 

Maine's shoreline to the 100-m isobath. On the basis of 

several thousand kilometers of seismic reflection and sidescan-sonar profiles, thousands of bottom samples, and 

about 50 submersible dives, the shelf has been divided into 

five depositional environments-nearshore basins, nearshore ramps, shelf valleys, rocky zones, and outer basins. 

The nearshore basins are muddy and connect to intertidal 

mud flats and eroding bluffs of glaciomarine mud. Natural 

gas occurrences associated with occasional slump scars and 

pockmarked fields are common here. Vast areas of rippled 

sand cover the nearshore ramps, which abut sandy beaches 

in southern Maine. Shelf valleys extend from the nearshore 

58 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

region to the 60-m isobath, where the Holocene lowstand 

shoreline is found. The bathymetry of the valleys appears to 

be conducive to transport material from shallow to deep 

water. Modem carbonate sediment is collecting around the 

rocky zones, which are irregular in bathymetry and occur at 

all depths. The outer basins are muddy regions that have 

relatively thick accumulations of sediment. These extend 

seaward of the 100-m depth into the deeper Gulf of Maine. 

For more information regarding Joseph T. Kelley's 

presentation at the Exclusive Economic Zone Symposium, 

read Sedimentary Framework of the Southern Maine Inner 

Continental Shelf-Influence of Glaciation and Sea-Level 

Change by Joseph T. Kelley and others (1989, Marine 

Geology, v. 90, p. 139-147). 
The Georgia-Federal Nonenergy Minerals Task Force 

Roger V. Amato 

Minerals Management Service 

Abstract 

The Georgia-Federal Nonenergy Minerals Task Force 

was formed to evaluate the potential for mining offshore 

Georgia and to recommend future action to State and 

Federal officials. The discovery of phosphate near the 

Savannah Light Tower and the exploration for heavy 

minerals offshore Georgia by industry led to the formation 

of the Task Force in 1986. An economic feasibility study 

was completed by the Task Force in 1988. Hypothetical 

mine sites for phosphate and heavy minerals were selected 

and evaluated. In an effort to better define these potential 

resources, the Task Force has acquired additional geological and geophysical data. These include analyses of phosphate in cores from the U.S. Navy Tactical Air Command 

Test Site platform sites, heavy-mineral analyses of 50 grab 

samples, new vibracores obtained at prospective locations, 

new seismic and neutron activation data, and information 

from several new core holes on Tybee Island for correlation 

with the offshore data. These data are being analyzed, and 

a series of resource maps will be prepared. The data and 

map products will enable the State and Federal Governments to better evaluate the mineral-resource potential 

offshore Georgia and may encourage industry to explore 

and evaluate this area. 

INTRODUCTION 

When the Georgia-Federal Nonenergy Minerals Task 

Force was organized in 1986, industry was actively exploring the Georgia Outer Continental Shelf for heavy-mineral 

deposits. Phosphate deposits have long been known to 

occur in the Georgia Coastal Plain and offshore Savannah. 

Although offshore heavy-mineral deposits have not been 

discovered to date, several deposits are known along the 

Georgia coast. Abundant supplies of sand and gravel, which 

have potential use for beach nourishment and construction 

materials, are available offshore Georgia. The Task Force 

was charged with examining the resource potential of 

phosphate and heavy minerals offshore Georgia, the technologic and economic feasibility of mining these minerals, 

and the environmental constraints to offshore mining; establishing a database of all existing information on resource 

and environmental studies in the area; and obtaining new 

data to fill in gaps in the database. The Task Force consists 

of a Federal cochairman from the Minerals Management 

Service, a State cochairman from the Georgia Department 

of Natural Resources, 6 members from the Department of 

the Interior and State agencies, and 10 to 12 advisors from 

mining companies, other Federal agencies, and academic 

institutions. 

The area of interest selected by the Task Force 

extends from the 3-mi territorial sea line (outer State water 

limit) to the 50-m water depth line, about 125 km offshore 

and spans the entire area off the coast of Georgia, which is 

about 30,000 km2 (fig. 1). 

The first phase of the Task Force project was a data 

compilation and an economic and engineering feasibility 

study; the study was contracted to the Zellars-Williams 

Company (1988). Because specific deposits of phosphate 

and heavy minerals have not been identified off the coast of 

Georgia, hypothetical sites and ore grades were used to 

make the feasibility study. The report concluded that 

considerably more geological and geophysical data are 

needed to adequately evaluate the mineral potential in the 

area of interest and considerably higher prices for phosphate 

and heavy minerals (or much higher grades than those 

assumed) would be necessary for offshore mining to be 

economically feasible. The report concluded that phosphate 

prices would have to rise from the current $25 to $30 to $35 

to $42 per tonne for offshore mining to be profitable. 

Heavy-mineral prices would have to rise from a current 

average price (for five different mineral commodities) of 

$127 to at least $152 per tonne to mine these minerals 

economically offshore. Phosphate mining is considerably 

more capital intensive than heavy-mineral mining in processing and disposing of waste materials. Mining heavy 

minerals and phosphate offshore would be technologically 

possible by using currently available equipment. Mining, 

processing, and transportation system designs are described 

in the report, including the use of an artificial island to hold 

processing and barge loading facilities. 

The Georgia-Federal Nonenergy Minerals Task Force 59 
330 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

GEORGIA 

0 25 

J 

0 

75 100 KM 

Figure 1. Location of the Task Force study area showing sites of coreholes used in the study. TACTS cores 

are "T," Savannah Light Tower is "SL," JOIDES cores are "J," and the small boxes ("GS") are sites of 

vibracores and neutron activation data obtained in 1989 by Georgia State University. 

PHOSPHATE DEPOSITS 

Phosphate occurs in the middle Miocene-age Hawthorne Formation along the coast of and offshore Georgia 

60 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

and in the Pleistocene channels offshore. The Kerr-McGee 

Corporation sought permission to mine phosphate in eastern 

Chatham County along the Georgia coast in the late 1960's 

but failed to obtain all the necessary permits (Furlow, 
1969). Two core holes were drilled in 1962 for the 

Savannah Light Tower, which is 16 km east of Tybee 

Island, Ga. (McCollum and Herrick, 1964). The cores 

encountered about 10 m of sand containing up to 40 percent 

phosphate pellets. Later drilling off the coast of Georgia, 

including AMCOR 6002 and JOIDES No. 2, also indicated 

enriched phosphate zones in the Miocene (Schlee and 

Gerard, 1965; Manheim, 1989). A map of the zone of 

phosphate sediments is shown in figure 2. 

The Task Force received samples of cores from eight 

U.S. Navy Tactical Air Command Test Site (TACTS) 

platform sites offshore Georgia in 1988 (fig. 1). The 

coreholes were drilled by the McClelland Company for the 

U.S. Navy to a depth of about 100 m. Because they are 

widely spaced and penetrate the Miocene section, the 

coreho1es represent important new data for evaluating the 

mineral-resource potential of the study area. The Georgia 

Geological Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

are currently doing geological and chemical analyses on 

these core samples for the Task Force. 

Studies of three of the eight T ACTS cores have 

shown that phosphorite is well developed in the Miocene 

and younger strata and has P20 5 values as high ··as 21.6 

percent. The most enriched phosphate zones occur at or 

near unconformities, probably because of reworking of the 

sediments and the dissolution of the carbonate. Most of the 

phosphate in the Miocene sections appears to be the result 

of primary or in situ formation, and phosphate in the 

post-Miocene strata is probably reworked from the older 

primary beds. The Miocene phosphate beds correlate stratigraphically with the deposits in offshore North Carolina 

and Florida (Manheim, 1989). In addition to the TACTS 

core work, the Georgia Geological Survey drilled and is 

analyzing several moderately deep (50-m) coreholes on 

Tybee and Skidaway Islands through the Miocene phosphate zone. These will provide important data to tie onshore 

data with the offshore coreholes. 

Henry and Kellam (1988) and Henry and Reuth 

( 1986) identified three areas of high phosphate potential 

offshore Georgia (fig. 2). Area I lies inside the 20-m isobath 

and extends from Hilton Head Island, S.C., to Brunswick, 

Ga. It contains primary bedded phosphate and numerous 

potential phosphate-bearing channels and scour troughs of 

Miocene to Quaternary age. Area II lies mostly seaward of 

the 20-m isobath between Ossabaw Island and Brunswick. 

It also contains primary bedded phosphate and channels and 

scour troughs of Miocene to Quaternary age. Area III 

extends from Brunswick to Jacksonville, Fla., and lies 

shoreward of the 20-m isobath. It contains probable Pliocene to Quaternary shallow channels that could contain 

enric:hed phosphatic sediments. 

To determine the extent of the phosphate resource, 

additional data will be needed. These data needs include 

drilling deep coreholes through several of the more promising channels and scour troughs, especially in Area I; 

obtaining a large (1- to 2-tonne) bulk sample for beneficiation testing; and performing an offshore borehole mining 

test to determine if this new technology is feasible for 

extracting offshore phosphate deposits. 

HEAVY-MINERAL DEPOSITS 

Economically valuable heavy minerals in the Southeastern United States include ilmenite, leucoxene, rutile, 

monazite, zircon, and garnet. Heavy minerals, which have 

been known to occur in the Atlantic Coastal Plain and the 

Continental Shelf (Grosz and others, 1986), are being 

mined southeast of Jacksonville at Starke and Green Cove 

Springs (fig. 3). Heavy minerals have been mined on 

Amelia Island, Fla., and at several sites along the Georgia 

coast. Two companies explored areas offshore Georgia in 

1986 for economic deposits of heavy minerals but failed to 

find high-enough concentrations to justify further evaluation (Whitney, 1987). Heavy-mineral deposits are difficult 

to find becasue they tend to occur in small lenticular sand 

bodies, such as well-preserved sand dunes in old barrier 

beach strands and as lag deposits in certain parts of old river 

channels. Large numbers of sample points and closely 

spaced high-resolution seismic data are needed to locate 

these deposits. New geophysical methods, such as induced 

polarization and radioactive spectral measurements that use 

a neutron activation detection sled, also show promise for 

detection pf heavy minerals (Grosz and others, 1986). In 

1985, the USGS announced that concentrations of 3 to 5 

percent heavy minerals were found in two vibracores and 

three grab samples off the coast of Georgia. However, 

further sampling in the same area has not found these 

concentrations to be widespread. 

The Georgia Geological Survey collected 30 vibracores in 1986 in State waters along the coast between Saint 

Simons and Blackbeard Islands. These were analyzed for 

heavy-mineral content and other geological characteristics. 

Eight of the cores were taken in the Altamaha Sound, which 

is an area believed to have high potential for heavy 

minerals. However, only 1 (from Altamaha Sound) of the 

30 cores contained heavy minerals of over 2 percent (Bonn, 

1988). An additional 14 vibralift borings were collected 

from four areas 7 to 35 mi off the coast of Georgia in 1989 

(fig. 1) as part of a heavy-minerals evaluation project 

sponsored by the Task Force. The boreholes were drilled on 

a series of scarps that occur parallel to the coastline offshore 

and could hold heavy-mineral concentrations. Highresolution seismic and neutron activation data also were 

collected over the scarps. These data are being analyzed, 

along with chemical analyses of 50 grab samples taken in 

the study area. In addition, shallow (15-m-deep) cores, 

. which have been obtained along the coast by the Georgia 

Geological Survey, are being evaluated for heavy-mineral 

content. 

The Georgia-Federal Nonenergy Minerals Task Force 61 
GEORGIA 

0 25 50 75 100 KM 

Figure 2. Zone of Miocene and younger phosphate-rich sed iments offshore Georgia showing the areas of 

high potential. Modified from Henry and Kellam (1988). 

When results from these studies are compiled, maps 

will be prepared that show the distribution of heavy minerals offshore Georgia, and predictive models will be made to 

guide future exploration. Additional work to discover com62 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

mercia! deposits will likely focus on a better definition of 

the various heavy-mineral concentrations in sedimentary 

features by using seismic and other geophysical data along 

with vibracoring. 
GEORGIA 

0 25 50 7~ 100 KM 

Figure 3. Areas of high potential for heavy-mineral placer deposits offshore Georgia and parts of Florida 

and South Carolina. From Grosz (1987). 

The Georgia-Federal Nonenergy Minerals Task Force 63 
CONCLUSIONS 

The following summarizes the major points regarding 

phosphate and other nonenergy minerals off the coast of 

Georgia: 

• On the basis of data from a few coreholes, large deposits 

of phosphate are believed to occur offshore Georgia. 

These deposits are shallow enough to be dredged in the 

vicinity of the Savannah Light Tower; further offshore, 

they could only be reached by borehole mining, which 

is an unproven technology. 

• Recent data acquired by the Task Force include an 

assessment of the economics and the technologies for 

mining phosphate and heavy minerals offshore Georgia. The assessment concluded that phosphate and 

heavy-mineral prices would have to rise by at least 35 

percent and perhaps even double for offshore mining to 

be economically feasible. Current dredge technology is 

adequate to recover the near-surface deposits; however, borehole mining technology would have to be 

developed for the deeper deposits. 

• Other new data acquired by the Task Force include 

geological and chemical analyses of eight T ACTS 

platform cores, drilling several deep (50-m) holes for 

heavy minerals and phosphate along the coast of 

Georgia, drilling 14 vibralift holes, acquiring new 

seismic and neutron activation geophysical data offshore, and analyzing 50 offshore grab samples for 

heavy minerals. 

• Although no heavy-mineral deposits have been discovered offshore Georgia so far, there is considerable 

evidence from onshore deposits and a few scattered 

sites offshore that points to the possibility of finding 

such deposits. 

• The current plan of the Task Force is to assemble 

analyses of the data collected to date, make maps of 

mineral concentrations offshore, develop predictive 

models for offshore exploration, and make another 

assessment of the economic feasibility by using the 

newly acquired data. The Task Force is working 

closely with the minerals industry by incorporating 

their advice and information and transferring new data 

and models for commercial application. As each stage 

of work is completed, the Task Force makes recommendations for future actions to State and Federal 

officials. 

64 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

REFERENCES 

Bonn, G.N., 1988, Evaluation of heavy mineral-bearing nearshore 

sands-Altamaha Sound and adjacent environments, Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey, Preliminary Report for the 

Continental Margins Study Program, 13 p. 

Furlow, J. W. , 1969, Stratigraphy and economic geology of the 

eastern Chatham County phosphate deposit: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin No. 82, 40 p. 

Grosz, A.B., 1987, Nature and distribution of potential heavymineral resources offshore of the Atlantic Coast of the U.S.: 

Marine Mining, V. 6, p. 339-357. 

Grosz, A.B., Hathaway, J.C., and Escowitz, B.C., 1986, Placer 

deposits of heavy minerals in Atlantic Continental Shelf 

sediments: Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 

1986, Proceedings, p. 387-394. 

Henry, V.J., and Kellam, J.A., 1988, Seismic Investigation of the 

phosphate-bearing, Miocene-age strata of the Continental 

Shelf of Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin No. 109, 

43 p. 

Henry, V.J., and Reuth, L.J., 1986, Interpretation of the seismic 

stratigraphy of the phosphatic Neogene deposits on the 

Georgia Continental Shelf: Georgia State University Final 

Report for the Georgia Geologic Survey, 52 p. 

Manheim, F.T., ed., 1989, Phosphorite potential in the Georgia 

EEZ-Preliminary results of the TACTS core studies: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open File Report 89-559, 64 p. 

McCollum, M.J., and Herrick, S.M., 1964, Offshore extension of 

the Upper Eocene to recent stratigraphic sequence in southeastern Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

501-C, p. C61-C63. 

Schlee, J.S., and Gerard, Robert, 1965, Cruise report and preliminary core log, MN Caldrill I, April 17 to May 17, 1965: 

U.S. Geological Survey, unpublished Preliminary Report to 

the JOIDES Blake Panel, Woods Hole, Mass., 64 p. 

Whitney, M.S., 1987, The outlook for offshore heavy mineral 

resources, in Gulf of Mexico Region Annual Information 

Transfer Meeting, 8th, New Orleans, 1987, unpublished 

speech: 4 p. 

Zellars-Williams Company, 1988, Georgia offshore minerals 

assessment: Georgia Geologic Survey Project Report No. 14, 

309 p. 

Zellars-Williams, Incorporated, 1978, Evaluation of the phosphate 

deposits of Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina 

using the minerals availability system: U.S. Department of 

the Interior contract report, 65 p. 

---1979, Phosphates-offshore Georgia and South Carolina: 

U.S. Geological Survey contract report, 161 p. 
Quaternary Geology of the Chesapeake Bay 

Jeffrey P. Halka 

Maryland Geological Survey, 

Steven M. Colman 

U.S. Geological Survey, and 

Carl H. Hobbs Ill 

College of William and Mary 

INTRODUCTION 

The Chesapeake Bay, which is a classic coastal plain 

estuary, is located on a trailing edge continental margin. It 

has a surface area of nearly 6,000 km2 and ranges in width 

from 8 to 48 km. The morphology of the bay clearly reflects 

its formation as a response to fluctuating sea level during 

and following the last major continental glaciation. The 

shoreline is highly irregular, the tributaries form an intricate 

dendritic drainage pattern, and a deep axial channel occurs 

along much of its length (fig. 1). Water depths commonly 

exceed 30m in this deep channel, which is flanked by broad 

shallow benches. Overall, the bay is quite shallow and has 

an average depth _of only 8 m. 

The prominent axial channel has been widely viewed 

as the relict Susquehanna River paleochannel that was 

incised into the Coastal Plain strata during the last major 

sea-level lowstand. This channel has been only partially 

filled with sediments during the Holocene transgression. 

Ryan (1953), who used borings taken across the bay for the 

Annapolis-Kent Island Bridge, identified its base at a depth 

of approximately 61 m. A basal sequence of sands and 

gravels identified as fluvial deposits partially filled this 

channel. Overlying these sediments was a sequence of muds 

deposited when true estuarine conditions were established 

in the channel. Ryan (1953) projected the longitudinal 

profile of the channel along the length of the bay and 

estimated the depth to be 91 and 112m, respectively, at the 

bay mouth. 

In the early 1960's, borings were obtained in the bay 

mouth vicinity for the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel. On 

the basis of these borings and the first seismic reflection 

profiles obtained in the bay, Harrison and others ( 1965) 

identified a fluvial channel at a depth of approximately 49 m 

under the northern end of the present-day bay mouth. They 

proposed that a minimum of 12 m of uplift had to occur in 

the bay mouth region relative to the Annapolis region to 

account for the difference in the channel depths observed at 

the two bridge crossings, assuming no channel gradient. By 

using projected channel gradient, Harrison and others 

(1965) suggested that a maximum of 52 m of relative uplift 

had occurred at the mouth. Because of the lack of continuity 

of the axial channel along the length of the bay, the relation 

between the bay mouth paleochannel and the channel at the 

Annapolis-Kent Island bridge remained problematic. Harrison and others ( 1965) argued against the possibility that 

the late Wisconsinan channel of the Susquehanna River 

crossed the Delmarva Peninsula north of the bay mouth. 

Other channels crossing the peninsula have been 

identified or postulated, and multiple generations of channels of the Susquehanna River seemed likely, given the 

cyclic nature of sea level rise and fall over the past 0. 75 

m.y. Hansen (1966) identified a fluvial channel near Salisbury, Md., and suggested that it represented the course of 

the Susquehanna River during the low sea level associated 

with the Illinoian glaciation. However, the full extent of the 

channel was never adequately defined. Harrison (1972) 

identified reworked crystalline gravels along the Atlantic 

shoreline of the Delmarva Peninsula near Metomkin Island 

and postulated that an ancestral channel of the Potomac 

River or the combined Susquehanna-Potomac Rivers 

crossed the peninsula in this vicinity at some point in the 

past. By using seismic reflection techniques, Schubel and 

Zabawa (1973) identified a paleochannel in the lower 

reaches of the Chester River and projected its course 

through the lower reaches of the Miles and the Choptank 

Rivers. They postulated an Illinoian age for this channel and 

suggested that it may connect to the Salisbury paleochannel 

of Hansen ( 1966) and cross the peninsula on its way to the 

Atlantic. In the main portion of the bay, Kerhin and others 

(1980) identified two paleochannels by using seismic reflection techniques. One extended down the eastern side of the 

bay from the mouth of Eastern Bay to Taylor's Island. They 

Quaternary Geology of the Chesapeake Bay 65 
0 20km 0 IOnmi I I I I I I I I I I I 

Figure 1. The Chesapeake Bay from the vicinity of Annapolis to the mouth showing tracklines of the seismic reflection profiles. The profile shown in figure 2 is located along 

section 5. Areas that have water depths of greater than 

18.3 m (60ft) are shaded. 

suggested that this channel was the southern extension of 

the one identified in the Chester River by Schubel and 

Zabawa (1973), which, therefore, did no(tum to the east 

under the Delmarva Peninsula. They further postulated a 

66 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

connection between this channel and one identified to the 

south in the Tangier Sound area. Kerhin and others (1980) 

also placed an Illinoian age on this channel. Because its 

southern extent was never established in the bay, the 

location of its exit to the Atlantic shelf remained in doubt. 

On the Virginia portion of the Delmarva Peninsula, Mixon 

( 1985) identified two· major paleochannels by using borehole data. The trend of these channels indicated that they 

crossed from the bay to the Continental Shelf, and at least 

one probably connected to the channel identified by Kerhin 

and others ( 1980). 

In an attempt to reconstruct the late Wisconsinan 

channel system in the Virginia portion of the bay, Carron 

( 1979) utilized transducer-based seismic reflection techniques. Because the penetration capability of these systems 

was limited, Carron (1979) suggested that the Susquehanna 

River flowed down the eastern side of the bay in Virginia 

and that the western shore tributaries flowed along the 

western side turning to the east and exiting the bay just 

north of Cape Henry and eventually joining the Susquehanna on the Continental Shelf. 

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 

Although it was widely recognized that the Chesapeake Bay formed as the lower reaches of the Susquehanna 

River were flooded during the Holocene transgression, the 

details of the bay's formation in response to this latest and 

the Pleistocene sea-level fluctuations remained to be 

worked out. Several major problems were in need of 

resolution. The present-day axial channel of the bay was not 

continuous along its length; the deeper portions of the 

channels in Virginia were separated from the major portion 

in Maryland. The disparity in channel depths observed in 

borings at the Annapolis-Kent Island Bridge and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel appeared to indicate uplift or a 

lack of continuity of the two channels. The relations 

between the multiple isolated channel segments identified 

or postulated under the Delmarva and in the bay and the 

Susquehanna River drainage system were unclear, as were 

their historical development. Variations in present-day axial 

channel bathymetry strongly suggested differences in sediment depositional centers during the Holocene transgression. In addition, it was felt that improved knowledge of the 

bay's formation and depositional history could assist in 

understanding the present-day sedimentation processes 

occurring in the system and, therefore, in addressing some 

of the management questions arising from the ongoing 

efforts to improve the health and the productivity of the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Researchers within the States of Maryland and Virginia were acutely interested in addressing these problems 

and had made efforts through the studies conducted by 

Carron (1979) and Kerhin and others (1980). They recog-
nized, however, that they did not have the complete 

in-house technical capability to adequately solve these 

problems and that a research program directed at the 

complete bay system was necessary to tie together the 

various pieces of subsurface data that had been collected. 

Through a series of discussions initiated by the Maryland 

Geological Survey with the the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), it was agreed that a cooperative effort should be 

mounted to resolve the Quaternary geology of the Chesapeake Bay. To insure the inclusion of the southern portion 

of the bay and representation by a Virginia institution, the 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science was involved early in 

the planning stages of the study. It was decided that the 

project would initially involve the collection of highresolution seismic reflection profiles throughout much of 

the main portion of the Chesapeake and additional coverage 

up tributaries where deemed appropriate. Each of the 

institutions would provide a coprincipal investigator and 

portions of the profiling equipment. The States would 

provide vessels to serve as the data-gathering platforms, and 

the USGS would provide an electronic technician to maintain the equipment in the field. Travel and per diem costs 

were provided by each institution for their personnel. 

Except for some funding that passed from the USGS to the 

Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences to support vessel time, 

no formal funding mechanisms were established. 

METHODOLOGY 

Over the course of four field seasons beginning in 

1984, almost 2,600 km of high-resolution seismic reflection 

profiles were collected in the main part of the Chesapeake 

Bay from the mouth northward to the vicinity of Annapolis, 

Md. (fig. 1). Data were collected by using a boomer-type 

system supplied by the USGS and 3.5- to 5.0-kHz 

transducer-based systems provided by the State institutions. 

Both types of systems were fired at 0.25- to 0.50-s 

intervals. The boomer system was run at 280 J, and the data 

were filtered between 300Hz and 5.0 kHz. Firing times of 

the two types of systems were offset to minimize crosstalk. 

Loran-e was used as the primary navigation system, and all 

data were recorded on analog tape for archival purposes. 

RESULTS 

The Chesapeake Bay lies within the Coastal Plain 

province of the mid-Atlantic region. Uplands surrounding 

the bay, from its head at the mouth of the Susquehanna 

River southward 260 km to its mouth at Cape Charles, are 

composed of unconsolidated sediments deposited during the 

Cretaceous and later time. These form a series of wedgeshaped deposits that rest on the crystalline basement rocks 

and dip to the southeast at rates of between 1. 9 and 7. 5 

rn!km. The shallow Tertiary seismic stratigraphy prevalent 

beneath much of the bay consists of a series of long, strong, 

continuous subhorizontal reflectors that dip slightly to the 

southeast. These reflectors correlate well with the major 

unconformities observed in adjacent land-based well 

records. 

Incised into these Tertiary strata are distinct paleochannels that have strong basal reflectors and U-shaped 

valleys as shown on the seismic records (fig. 2). Characteristically, the sediments that fill these valleys exhibit two 

forms of seismic reflectors. At the base of each valley, the 

reflectors are commonly strong, discontinuous, and irregular. Above this basal sequence, the fill sediments either 

exhibit weak, long, and smooth reflectors or are nearly 

reflection free. Lithologic data obtained from land-based 

(Mixon, 1985) and bridge boreholes (Ryan, 1953; Harrison 

and others, 1965) indicate that the lower channel fill 

sequence consists of coarse sand and gravels deposited in a 

fluvial environment. In contrast, the upper sequence is finer 

grained and was deposited in estuarine environments as the 

former river valleys were flooded. The environments of 

deposition of this unit range from narrow river estuary to 

open bay and nearshore marine near the bay mouth. 

Lithologies are complex in the estuarine-marginal marine 

unit, especially near the bay mouth, where boreholes 

indicate that the sediments consist of interbedded muddy 

sand, silt, and peat (Mixon, 1985). Further landward, in the 

central part of the estuary, the unit is likely to be finer 

grained, as suggested by the character of the seismic 

reflections (fig. 2); however, no boreholes penetrate this 

portion of the fill sequence. 

Three distinct generations of the paleochannel system 

have been identified beneath the Chesapeake Bay (fig. 3) 

and have been informally named the Cape Charles, the 

Eastville, and the Exmore in order of increasing age. Each 

has a main trunk channel running approximately parallel to 

the axis of the present Chesapeake Bay and numerous 

tributary channels that join the main stem. Seismic reflection and borehole data indicate that the three paleochannel 

systems are of different ages and that the sediments that fill 

them are separated by unconformities. The paleochannel 

systems were incised by the Susquehanna River and its 

tributaries at times of lowered sea level during the mid- to 

late Quaternary. Their relative ages can be determined by 

crosscutting relations on the seismic reflection profiles. 

Although the geometries, the depths, and the seismic 

character of the fill sequences are similar in all three 

channels, which makes distinction in individual seismic 

reflection profiles difficult, the multiple, closely spaced 

profile lines (fig. 1) permitted their courses to be traced 

throughout the length of the bay. 

The Cape Charles paleochannel is the youngest and 

was clearly incised at the time of the last major s·ea-level 

lowstand, which was during the late Wisconsinan. Because 

this channel has been only partially filled with sediment 

Quaternary Geology of the Chesapeake Bay 67 
E 

Figure 2. High-resolution seismic reflection profile 

obtained by using the boomer system and interpretive 

cross section of the Exmore paleochannel. The location of 

profile 8 is shown in figure 1. Depth scale assumes a speed 

of sound in water and sediments of 1,500 m/s. G, record 

obscured by biogenic gas in the sediments; Tm, late 

Tertiary marine sediments; Qc, undifferentiated sediduring the Holocene transgression, it underlies, for the most 

part, the present bathymetric channel of the bay (compare 

deep areas outlined on fig. 1 with fig. 3). In a few areas 

where Holocene spit progradation has occurred, the modem 

axial channel is offset from the paleochannel; for example, 

south of the mouth of the Potomac River. In other areas, 

such as off the mouth of the Rappahannock River, Holocene 

sedimentation has filled the Cape Charles paleochannel to 

the extent that there is no present bathymetric expression of 

the paleochannel location. The most notable change has 

occurred at the mouth of the Bay where the modem tidal 

channel is offset by as much as 12 km from the Cape 

Charles paleochannel (fig. 3). In the vicinity of the mouth, 

the paleochannel underlies the southern tip of the Delmarva 

Peninsula (Cape Charles), and Holocene progradation of the 

peninsula to the south has filled the former paleochannel 

and forced the tidal channels to the south (Colman and 

others, 1988). 

Under much of the bay, the base of the Cape Charles 

paleochannel is obscured by the presence of biogenic gas 

produced by bacterial decomposition of organic matter in 

the Holocene channel fill sediments (Halka and others, 

1988). However, the width can be determined on most of 

the profiles, and depths are known from profiles where 

biogenic gas is absent and from bridge borings at the 

Annapolis-Kent Island Bridge and the Chesapeake Bay 

Bridge-Tunnel. In general, the main trunk channel is 2 to 4 

km wide and is incised into the underlying Tertiary strata to 

68 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

w 

ments correlative with the fill of the Cape Charles paleochannel; Qe, undifferentiated sediments correlative with 

the fill of the Eastville paleochannel; Qx1 and Qx2, basal 

and upper units, respectively, of the fill of the Exmore 

paleochannel. Note the horizontal reflector in the Tertiary 

sediments on the left side of the figure. 

depths of 50 to 70 m. Overall, the channel has only a slight 

overall gradient. 

The Eastville paleochannel crosses the Delmarva 

Peninsula approximately 40 km north of the present bay 

mouth (fig. 3) and is filled with estuarine sediments 

overlain by a barrier-spit complex (Mixon, 1985). This 

complex appears to have been deposited during the last 

major interglaciation (the Sangamon) and the paleochannel 

presumably incised during the preceding major glaciation 

about 150 ka (Colman and Mixon, 1988). Under the bay, 

this paleochannel is generally located to the east of the Cape 

Charles paleochannel, although it crosses that channel and 

lies to its west off Calvert Cliffs (fig. 3). At the northern end 

of the study area, the Eastville channel passes under Kent 

Island and the Poplar Island group. Sediments comprising 

these islands have been identified as estuarine deposits 

belonging to the Kent Island formation, which are time 

equivalent with the barrier-spit complex overlying the 

channel to the south. The dimensions and depths of the 

Eastville paleochannel are better known than the Cape 

Charles because biogenic gas is absent in these older 

channel fill sediments. The channel has similar widths and 

depths as the Cape Charles channel, and the gradient, which 

is very slight, has an overall seaward slope of only 0.038 

mlkm. 

The Exmore paleochannel crosses the Delmarva Peninsula another 40 km north of the Eastville paleochannel 

(fig. 3). This channel is the oldest of the three and along 
1s•4o'w 

39•oo'N 

38°40' 

37"00' 

0 20 km 

75°40' 

EXPLANATION 

liE Cape Charles 

E!B'II Eastville 

~Exmore 

" Modern Tidal 

0 IOnmi 

Figure 3. The three major Quaternary paleochannel systems of the Susquehanna River and tributaries beneath 

the Chesapeake Bay and the Delmarva Peninsula and the 

location of the modern tidal channels in the bay mouth 

area. 

almost its entire length is located to the east of the Eastville 

and the Cape Charles paleochannels and passes under Kent 

Island at the northern end of the study area and the western 

side of Dorchester County, Md. As with the Cape Charles 

and the Eastville, the trunk channel has widths of 2 to 4 km 

and is incised 50 to 70 m into the underlying Tertiary 

sediments. Linear regression analysis of the channel depths, 

which is shown on the seismic reflection profiles (fig. 2), 

indicates a very slight overall landward slope, although the 

gradient is probably not significantly different from zero. 

This channel is also overlain by a barrier-spit complex 

where it crosses under the Delmarva Peninsula (Mixon, 

1985); however, the age of this deposit is less certain than 

that overlying the Eastville (Colman and Mixon, 1988). It 

has been suggested that the barrier-spit complex was deposited either approximately 200 or 400 ka and that the 

underlying channel was incised during either of the preceding major sea-level lowstands at about 270 or 430 ka 

(Colman and Mixon, 1988). 

SUMMARY 

In what may be a unique case, a cooperative program 

was established between Federal and State agencies in 

which each institution contributed programmatic funds 

toward a research program with little transfer between 

institutions. The USGS, the Maryland Geological Survey, 

and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science forged a 

working relation that resulted in a significant increase in 

knowledge about the late Quaternary history of the Chesapeake Bay region. 

This effort tied together the various paleochannel 

segments identified in previous studies and showed that a 

series of at least three fluvial paleochannel systems and their 

fills dominate the stratigraphy beneath the Chesapeake Bay. 

Each of the trunk paleochannels identified lies to the west of 

and, on its way to the Continental Shelf, crosses the 

Delmarva Peninsula to the south of its predecessor. The 

southward progression of the channels through time resulted 

from the southward progradation of the Delmarva Peninsula 

when interglacial high sea level filled the preceding paleochannel with sediments. This process is continuing at the 

present time with the displacement of the modem bay 

mouth tidal channels southward approximately 12 km from 

the late Wisconsinan paleochannel. The fluvial channels 

record times of relative low sea levels, the channel fill 

sediments record the formation and filling of estuaries 

during the ensuing transgressions, and the subaerial barrierspit complexes on the Delmarva Peninsula record times of 

sea-level maxima. As such, the Chesapeake area has 

preserved a remarkable record of sea-level changes over the 

past few hundred thousand years and, with it, a record of 

climatic variations over the same time period. As interest in 

deciphering the history of climatic changes increases, the 

record from the Chesapeake area can be expanded to supply 

data for deciphering that history. The cooperative program 

established between the Federal and the State agencies has 

provided a solid base of information that can be utilized to 

further our understanding of recent climatic changes occurQuaternary Geology oi the Chesapeake Bay 69 
ring on Earth. The success of this cooperative program 

indicates that informal cooperatives can provide significant 

information without direct transfer of funds and can offer 

advantages to all the institutions involved. The question 

remains- how much more could be accomplished with a 

formal agreement and appropriated funding for similar 

studies? 

REFERENCES CITED 

Carron, M., 1979, The Virginia Chesapeake Bay-Recent sedimentation and paleodrainage: Gloucester Point, Va., College 

of William and Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, 

unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 83 p. 

Colman, S.M., Berquist, C.R., Jr., and Hobbs, C.H., III, 1988, 

Structure, age, and origin of the deposits beneath the shoals 

at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, Virginia: Marine Geology, 

v. 83, p. 95-113. 

Colman, S.M., and Halka, J.P., 1989a, Quaternary geology of the 

southern Maryland part of the Chesapeake Bay: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 

MF-1948-C, 3 sheets. 

--1989b, Quaternary geology of the northern Maryland part 

of the Chesapeake Bay: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1948-D, 3 sheets. 

Colman, S.M., and Hobbs, C.H., III, 1987, Quaternary geology 

of the southern Virginia part of the Chesapeake Bay: U.S. 

Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 

MF-1948-A, 3 sheets. 

---1988, Quaternary geology of the northern Virginia part of 

the Chesapeake Bay: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous 

Field Studies Map MF-1948-B, 3 sheets. 

Colman, S.M., and Mixon, R.B., 1988, The record of major 

Quaternary sea-level fluctuations in a large Coastal Plain 

70 Proceedings, 1989 EE~ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

estuary, Chesapeake Bay, eastern United States: Paleogeography, Plaeoclimatology, and Paleoecology, v. 68, p. 

99-116. 

Hack, J. T., 1957, Submerged river system of Chesapeake Bay: 

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 68, p. 817-830. 

Halka, J.P., Hill, J.M., and Colman, S.M., 1988, Control of 

methane gas ebullition from estuarine sediments by paleodrainage patterns: EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 69, p. 379. 

Hansen, H.J., III, 1966, Pleistocene stratigraphy of the Salisbury 

area, Maryland, and its relation to the lower Eastern 

Shore-A subsurface approach: Maryland Geological Survey 

Report of Investigations No. 2, 56 p. 

Harrison, S.C., 1972, The sediments and sedimentary processes 

of the Holocene tidal flat complex, Delmarva Peninsula, 

Virginia: Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University, Coastal 

Studies Institute, Technical Report 112, 107 p. 

Harrison, W., Malloy, R.J., Rusnak, G.A., and Terasmae, J., 

1965, Possible late Pleistocene uplift, Chesapeake Bay 

entrance: Journal of Geology, v. 73, no. 2, p. 201-229. 

Kerhin, R.T., Halka, J.P., and Conkwright, R.D., 1980, Identification of a paleochannel system under the eastern flank of 

Chesapeake Bay: Bulletin of the Geological Society of 

America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 12, no. 7, p. 461. 

Mixon, R.B., 1985, Stratigraphic and geomorphic framework of 

uppermost Cenozoic deposits in the southern Delmarva Peninsula, Virginia and Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1067-G, 53 p. 

Ryan, J.D., 1953, The sediments of Chesapeake Bay: Maryland 

Department of Geology, Mines, and Water Resources Bulletin 12, 120 p. 

Schub~l, J.R., and Zabawa, C.F., 1973, Susquehanna River 

paleochannel connects lower reaches of Chester, Miles, and 

Choptank River estuaries: Chesapeake Science, v. 14, p. 

58-62. 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Multibeam Mapping in the Gulf of Mexico 

Albert E. Theberge, Jr. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been systematically mapping the Gulf of 

Mexico since early 1988 as part of its multibeam mapping 

program of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This 

program is managed by NOAA's Office of Charting and 

Geodetic Services (C&GS). Forty-eight surveys covering 

over 19,000 nmi2 have been conducted during this program 

by using the sophisticated sea-floor mapping systems SeaBeam and Hydrochart II. Unprecedented accuracy for 

large-area bathymetric surveys has been attained by the use 

of satellite-based navigation systems and mediumfrequency navigation systems for horizontal control. Many 

multibeam survey techniques and quality-control methods 

have been developed by C&GS during this project. Large 

areas of the Gulf of Mexico are being imaged in great detail, 

and many new discoveries are being made. The better 

management of our Gulf Coast resources and environment 

will result from this program. 

MAPPING PROGRAM 

Goals of the Gulf Coast Mapping Program 

NOAA's mapping program in the Gulf Coast area 

addresses seven distinct goals. Attainment of these goals 

will help all segments of the Gulf Coast oceanic community. These goals are as follows: 

• Build the foundation of a marine environmental geographic information system for solving global and 

regional change problems. 

• Improve targeting of scientific and engineering efforts 

that involve manned subsmersible investigations and 

remotely operated vehicle operations. 

• Manage the living and the mineral resources of the EEZ. 

• Model the physical oceanography of the Gulf of Mexico, 

including factors affecting water mass movements, 

acoustic propagation paths, and sediment transport 

regimes. 

• Model geological and geophysical hazards that affect 

coastal regions and offshore construction. 

• Discover and (or) define unique or previously unknown 

marine environments for designation as marine sanctuaries or protected areas. 

• Improve and enliance nautical charts and bathymetric 

maps. 

Progress and Accomplishments 

NOAA has mapped over 19,000 nme off the coasts 

of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana in the Gulf of 

Mexico by using multibeam sounding systems (fig. 1). All 

areas shown on figure 1 are available in preliminary 

blackline copies or published maps. To date, NOAA has 

defined domes on the upper slope southeast of the Mississippi River Passes (fig. 2), the upper reaches of the 

Mississippi Fan, large symmetrical basins on the eastern 

side of the Texas-Louisiana Slope (fig. 3), lineations 

running for tens of miles in the same area as the basins (fig. 

3), and over 150 mi of the Sigsbee Escarpment. 

Mapping Methods 

In conjunction with the U.S. Geological Survey and 

after consultation with the Minerals Management Service 

(MMS), NOAA has established as its highest priority 

surveying the Texas-Louisiana Slope from 88° W. to the 

Continental Shelf break off the coast of Texas. Surveys are 

being conducted between the offshore limit of the EEZ and 

the 150-m isobath (fig. 1). To date, over 19,000 nmi2 of 

this area have been surveyed by NOAA multibeam survey 

vessels. Following completion of this area, NOAA vessels 

will proceed to the east from 88° W. until completing the 

entire U.S. portion of the EEZ in the Gulf of Mexico. It will 

take an additional 5 yr of surveying to complete the Gulf at 

the present rate of progress. 

The NOAA Ship Mt. Mitchell is equipped with 

SeaBeam, which is a hull-mounted, narrow-beam, multibeam sounding system. NOAA uses this system in water 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Multibeam Mapping in the Gulf of Mexico 71 
~----~-------------------.------------------.32N ;! 

. 

? 

Mississippi Alabama f ------------~31N 

\L OUlSJana . . ~....._r-...j (\ ~p~~~ola ~-..r..~--:- ·-

<, -- --~~ 

. """'t..v--~·~4 ) 

~L-.._t ~c.--,_ ~~ ~:c -~ ..... ";) ~ ~ ~"-\_ 4>c 

~~ L/ \ /1 l., .. ~ ;~t~~r..rs~~~40~JS~~~>c LM140 Dorsey Canyon N290088W 

Ml41 Mitchell Dome N285088W 

-

"' >9 Hl41 

Ml42 Chandeleur Valley N280088W 

Ml43 Researcher Basin N270090W 

Ml44 Mitchell Basin N265090W 

M145 Farnella Canyon N260090W 

Ml46 Mexico Basin NE N255090W 

LM147 Miss.issippi Canyon SW N280089W 

LM148 Mississippi Slope N275089W 

LH149 Sigsbee Escarptment E N270089W 

LMlSO Atwater Valley N275088W 

LM152 Escarptment N25509l\¥ 

~M143 

-

.)( 

X .XX .A 

~LMis2J2Sl 

) 

)( 

-- HI42)c 

.£ 

~ (Y' 

x; ~ 1\ Uuso ~ ~ 

~ 

These maps are available in Blueprint form. 

M designates map compiled from Multibeam Survey data. 

l designates map with LORAN-e overprint. 

Hl46 ~zs ~~ 

------------------------

-30N 

r-29N 

~ 28N 

t-27N 

r-26N 

i 

92W 

~--~~---------------------~--~~----~~~25N 91W 90w 89W SSW 87W 86W 

m Area Surveyed 

Figure 1. Gulf of Mexico bathymetric map index. 

72 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Figure 2. A three-dimensional view of an area that has salt domes on the upper continental slope off the LouisianaMississippi coast. Vertical exaggeration is 6:1 , and the viewing angle is 35° from horizontal. The image was made from 

measurements of the sea floor obtained from NOAA ships that used multibeam echo sounders to map the EEZ. 

depths of between 1,000 m and full oceanic depths. The 

NOAA Ship Whiting is equipped with the Hydrochart II 

multibeam sounding system and is normally used in 

between 150 and 1,000 m water depth. The mission of both 

ships during survey operations is to attain 100-percent 

bottom coverage (that is, all the bottom has been ensonified) of the survey area and to maintain International 

Hydrographic Organization standards for map accuracy. 

NOAA strives to maintain navigational accuracy, such that 

90 percent of all soundings obtained during EEZ surveys 

have a horizontal positioning error of less than 50 m and 

sounding accuracies within 1 percent of true depth. To those 

ends when using a medium-frequency navigation system, 

calibrations are performed with the Global Positioning 

System on a daily basis. While in the working area, 

gyrocompass drift is monitored to assure proper swath 

alinement, and sound velocity tables are periodically 

updated by conductivity, temperature, and depth (CTD) 

observations supplemented by daily expendable bathythermograph (XBT) observations. 

Data Processing 

Shipboard data acquisition and processing is accomplished on a Micro VAX II that has acquisition software 

written by the University of Rhode Island's Ocean Mapping 

Development Center in conjunction with NOAA's System 

Technology Division. This software allows generation of 

contour, point sounding, colored symbol, and navigation 

track plots; these aid the field unit in determining whether 

the data are error free . Once inspection of these various 

plots assures the bathymetrist of the veracity of the raw 

data, the ship proceeds to select statistically significant 

soundings from the total raw data set. This step is required 

because of the huge size of the multibeam sounding data 

sets relative to conventional hydrography. Maximum, minimum, and average depths are selected for unit areas 

approximately 250 m on a side throughout the survey area. 

These representative soundings are plotted to further assure 

total bottom coverage before the data are submitted to the 

Ocean Mapping Section (OMS) for verification and product 

generation. 

Verification is an independent review of the data to 

assure that proper procedures were followed during data 

acquisition, that no blunders had occurred during shipboard 

processing, that no erroneous data had been inadvertently 

passed forward, and that full bottom coverage had been 

attained. When a survey has passed the verification stage, it 

is accepted into the OMS database. The selected sounding 

data are then further processed to develop a 250-m latitude, 

longitude, depth (XYZ) Universal Transverse Mercator 

(UTM) grid. The gridded data are used to develop contour 

files, three-dimensional imagery, and other specialty products. 

Products 

Standard National Ocean Service (NOS) products 

developed from the gridded data include 1: 100 ,000-scale 

printed maps, three-dimensional perspective and orthographic plots of each printed map, and the UTM grid on a 

high-density floppy disk. Future products will include 

full-resolution sounding data (each individual sounding and 

its accompanying geographic position), variable color contour maps of selected areas, and electronic maps incorporating contours, Loran-C lines of position, bottom characNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Multibeam Mapping in the Gulf of Mexico 73 
~ 

-.:1 

l 

:r 

'!'! 

... 

~ 

"' m 

~ 

!:f 

3 

~ ;:· 

3 

0 

:I 

i 

"C 

:r 

(IQ 

.. 

:I 

c. 

"' 

.., 

~ :::r 

Figure 3. Three-dimensional plot of NOM's multi beam data collected by the NOM Ship Mt. Mitchell on the Sigsbee Escarpment, Gulf of Mexico, in 1989. This 

plot was made by the the Ocean Mapping Section of the National Ocean Service. 
teristics, and MMS lease block diagrams. Other possible 

products include sue}) items as an atlas of imagery of 

scientifically interesting "type localities," slide sets of "type 

localities" for students and teachers, and videos of "flying" 

through the spectacular scenery of our continental margins. 

A movie, The Gulf of Mexicq, will be a very real possibility 

within a few years. 

New maps, blackline copies of preliminary map 

manuscripts, and revised editions of maps shown on indices 

will be reflected in the annual NOS publication of Bathymetric Mapping Products Catalog 5. These new maps and 

copies of the catalog can be ordered by contacting: 

Distribution Branch (N/CG33) 

National Ocean Service, NOAA 

650 1 Lafayette A venue 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

Telephone 301-436-6990 

Additional information about bathymetric products 

may be obtained by contacting: 

Graphic Mapping Unit (N/CG2241) 

National Ocean Service, NOAA 

6001 Executive Blvd. 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Telephone 301-443-8855 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Multibeam Mapping in the Gulf of Mexico 75 
Minerals Management Service Data Inventory and 

Mapping Programs-Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental 

Shelf Region 

J. Courtney Reed 

Minerals Management Service 

INTRODUCTION 

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the 

Department of the Interior administers all activities associated with mineral-resource development on the Federal 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the Gulf of Mexico (fig. 

1). These activities include exploration, leasing, develop-

-.-.-.-.-.-·-· ~ -·-_...., . I \·-.__.. ______ -4 

i \ . ' MS. 

\ i 

·, ~·( 

\ l' 

\-----·--, 

LA '· \ . I . ·, \ TX. I. 

ORLE~NS ... 

ment, and production of oil, gas, sulphur, and hard minerals. The Gulf of Mexico OCS Region has 14.5 percent of all 

submerged lands in the United States. There were 5,595 

active leases in the Gulf as of November 27, 1989. Of these 

leases, 1,163 are productive and yield 90 percent of all 

domestic production of oil and natural gas and 100 percent 

of the sulphur from the OCS. This totals approximately 11 

AL. 

l 

~ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

i 

! 

\ 

GA. 

M ----·-.. --_.; I"*' 0 Bl L E L_ ________ \ 

~ v 

MEXICO 

Figure 1. Physiographic provinces of the northern Gulf of Mexico. 

76 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
percent of the Nation's annual oil production and 25 percent 

of the annual gas production. 

DATABASE 

The mission of the MMS Gulf of Mexico Regional 

Office is to lease apppropriate areas for resource development, determine fair-market value for acreage leased, and 

ensure that pre- and postlease operations are conducted 

efficiently and safely and in an environmentally sound 

manner. To accomplish this mission, the MMS collects 

geological, geophysical, engineering, and production information relating to mineral resource activities. Most information is acquired pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), especially Title 30 CFR 250 and 251. 

Proprietary data is releasable to the public in a time frame 

based on the type of information and the data acquired. 

The MMS acquires geological and operational information, such as well logs (electrical, radioactive, acoustic, 

dipmeter), core descriptions (sidewall cores), paleontological summaries and reports, applications to drill, reports of 

drilling operatiol)s, and well completion reports. Approximately 27,250 wells have been drilled by oil and gas 

companies since 1954. Well logs from these wells are 

releasable either when the lease expires or 2 yr after 

completion of the well. Approximately 90 percent of the 

well logs are publicly available. Since 1968, 14,000 paleontological reports have been acquired. Companysubmitted reports are releasable either when the lease 

expires or 10 yr after completion of the well. Paleontological reports prepared by the MMS from well cuttings are 

releasable either when the lease expires or 2 yr after 

completion of the well. Approximately 45 percent of the 

paleontological reports are available to the public in microform or paper format. 

Geophysical information has been collected by the 

MMS since 1968. It consists of processed Multichannel 

Common Depth Point (CDP) seismic reflection data that is 

stacked, migrated, and enhanced for relative amplitude 

(bright spot); well velocity surveys; high-resolution profiles; and interpretations by contractors. Processed seismic 

(CDP) data mileage acquired from the Gulf of Mexico OCS 

region amounts to 512,500 mi [234,500 offshore Louisiana, 

157,000 offshore Texas, 121,000 offshore Mississippi, 

Alabama, Florida (MAFLA); fig. 2]; the data,which are in 

the form of mylar films and magnetic navigation tapes, are 

releasable 25 yr after submittal. Except for 356 mi acquired 

in an exclusive contract and released through the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC), the first CDP data will be 

releasable in 2001. Approximately 2,000 well velocity 

surveys have been received by the MMS since 1970 and 

will be releasable either when the lease expires or 10 yr after 

submittal. Over 60 percent of these well velocity surveys 

are publicly available. High-resolution profiles acquired 

from 1972 to 1980 through exclusive contracts with the 

MMS total 80,200 mi and are available from the NGDC on 

microfirm or vellum. Information on oil and gas reserves in 

the Gulf of Mexcio is available as original recoverable 

reserves, cumulative production, and remaining recoverable 

reserves and is published in annual open-file reports. As of 

December 1988, there were 632 proven oil and gas fields 

(166 in Texas, 466 in Louisiana), 163 new, undeveloped 

fields (49 in Texas, 112 in Louisiana, and 2 in MAFLA), 

and 46 depleted or abandoned fields in the Gulf of Mexico. 

To date, 500 fields and 17,000 reservoirs have been 

mapped. A total of 7. 5 billion bbl of oil and 84 trillion fe 

of gas have been produced offshore Gulf of Mexico. The 

remaining recoverable reserves in the Gulf of Mexico are 

conservatively estimated at 3.39 billion bbl of oil and 42.4 

trillion ft3 of gas. 

MAP INVENTORY 

A variety of proprietary and nonproprietary maps are 

prepared and maintained by the MMS Gulf of Mexico 

Regional Office, although not all are publicly available: 

Map Format 

Nonproprietary public information 

Well location ............. . 

Leasing (blocks, operators, 

bids, and so forth). 

Protraction diagrams ...... . 

Bathymetric .............. . 

Pipeline .................. . 

Environmental1 •••••••••••• 

Printout, tape 

Do. 

MMS Denver, print out, tape. 

USGS, National Ocean Survey, 

scale 1:250,000. 

Print out, tape 1 in. = 2,000 ft. 

Scale 1:1,200,000. 

Proprietary 

Prospect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 in. = 4,000 ft. 

Drainage ................. . 

Field .................... . 

Regional ................. . 

Contractor interpretations ... 

Do. 

1 in. = 2,000 ft/4,000 ft. 

1 in. = 4,000 ft; 8,000 ft; 

16,000 ft. 

Do. 

1

The environmental maps include historic leasing and infrastructure, 

commercial fisheries and endangered and threatened species, recreation 

and areas of multiple use, bottom sediments and vegetation, geologic and 

geomorphic features, and index of environmental studies. 

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE MAP 

APPLICATIONS 

The MMS mapping program has the following maj~r 

applications: 

Minerals Management Service Data Inventory and Mapping Programs-Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region 77 
·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·--·-., U.S. Oepanmenl of lhe lntenor 

• .. ~ Minf!rafs Management Service 

lrl¥lti:l Gull of Mexico OCS Reg.on 

so 100 2~0 

wj 

~!S 

TX. 

2 

~zooO"' 

EX PLAN ATtON 

MS. 

I 

i 

i 

I AL. \ 

\ 

\ 

i 

! 

\ 

GA . 

·'--------~·~ • TALAHAS;EE 

(GRIDS IN MILES) 

1 - 1 X 1 

2 - 2 X 1 TO 3 X 3 

3 - 4 X 4 TO 4 X 6 

4 - 6 X 7 TO 6 X 15 

5 - 24 X24 TO ZERO 

GULF OF MEXICO 

cusA 

Figure 2. The Gulf of Mexico region Common Depth Point seismic data coverage. 

• Lease sales-Assure fair market value for oil, gas, and 

sulfur resources. 

• Oil and gas field studies-Determine reservoir potential. 

• Reservoir determinations. 

• National assessment of oil and gas resources-Determine 

resource potential of the country. 

• Unitization of fields-Regulate efficient development of 

resources. 

• Approval of well and platform sites-Ensure safe drilling 

and producing operations. 

• Regional geologic studies and publications-Promote 

public awareness and geologic knowledge of the Gulf 

of Mexico. 

Recent (1988) publications related to resource evaluation activities include Correlation of the Cenozoic Sediments, Gulf of Mexico, Outer Continental Shelf and Estimated Oil and Gas Reserves, Gulf of Mexico. 

Correlation of the Cenozoic Sediments includes a 

series of regional cross sections delineating 26 production 

trends in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico Study Area 1 on 

figure 3; 247 well logs and 2,000 line mi of seismic 

data appear on the published sections. A well data summary 

78 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

is included for each well on the section; also included are 

183 paleontological reports and 142 well velocity timedepth charts. The correlations of regional stratigraphic 

horizons are presented on closely parallel electric log and 

seismic cross sections (fig. 4). The correlation grid includes 

7 regional east-west and 12 north-south electric log cross 

sections, which are presented on 33 sheets. The seismic 

cross sections include 6 east-west and 12 north-south lines, 

which are presented on 38 sheets. A text and maps are 

included that present the geology of the northwestern Gulf 

of Mexico (fig. 5). An open-file report on estimated oil and 

gas reserves includes reserve data by area and geologic age 

for approximately 800 fields in the Gulf of Mexico (Mast 

and others, 1989). Data are presented on field- and 

reservoir-size distributions, production rates, and discovery 

trends. 

The Gulf of Mexico OCS will remain a very attractive 

oil and gas basin; leasing and drilling will remain active 

well into the next century. The most important cause of 

active leasing in the Gulf of Mexico is the complex geologic 

structure and stratigraphy coupled with improvements in 

exploration technology. Future exploration activity in the 
DUTIH DOME 

FLORIDA MIDDLE DE IOTO CANYON GROUND 

ATWATER LLOYD THE ELBOW 

ALA WINO I KEATHLEY WALKEII. RIDOE 

CANYON CANYON LUND HENOERION VERNON HAIIBOR 

SCALE IN MILES 

~0 1~p 150 

117 

Figure 3. 

are from 

overlay. 

Study areas of the Gulf of Mexico (parts 1, 2, 3). Part number indicates order of publication. Names in blocks 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration bathymetric maps that have lease block locations as an 

HARRIS 

HOUSTON 

* AO (~A· 

0 ..•. ~ .. o 

0 

··~· 0 

LEGEND GEOLOQIOAL CROSS SECTIONS 

GEOPHYSICAL CROSS SECTIONS 

SCALE IN MILES 

LOCATION OF CROSS SECTIONS 0 10 20 30 

Figure 4. Location of electric log and seismic cross sections. TL, Texas-Louisiana seismic cross sections. 

Minerals Management Service Data Inventory and Mapping Programs-Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region 79 
HARRIS 

HOUSTON 

• 

~ REGIONALFAULTSYSTEM 

- GEOLOOICAL CROSS SECTION 

·----· GEOf'HYSICAL CROSS SECTION .n INDEX WELLS 

CHAMBERS 

Figure 5. Principal structural elements. 

JEFFERSON PorL 

TEXAS 

Gulf can be predicted by comparing the Federal OCS with 

the geologically similar and highly developed onshore 

southern Louisiana region. The first discovery well in south 

Lousiana was drilled on the Jennings Dome in 1901. For the 

past 50 yr, onshore southern Louisiana has experienced 

continuous exploration and development, punctuated by 

many peaks of accelerated activity. Many of these peaks 

followed a major advance in technology-from the development of the torsion balance, which was first used to identify 

buried salt domes, to refraction and reflection seismic 

methods. Parallel to the advances in seismic technology 

were major improvements in drilling and well logging 

capabilities. Each technological advance created new ideas 

and prospects within an already "thoroughly" explored 

hydrocarbon basin. 

Similar cycles of development, but on a much larger 

scale, can be expected on the OCS. The OCS has greater 

80 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

CAMERON 

Abb .. ll!e 

• VERMILION 

MILES 0 10 JO 

10 ao ao •o 

high-side potential than most onshore areas. The Gulf of 

Mexico offshore is more attractive for oil and gas exploration than most onshore areas because of lower exploration 

and land acquisition costs. The acquisition of geophysical 

data is approximately lO times cheaper offshore than 

onshore; this results in improved mapping capability that 

reduces drilling risk. 

Consequently, independent operators have become 

more active with new exploration ideas, resulting in the 

continued drilling and development of smaller structural 

and stratigraphic traps and deeper plays. The offshore 

information database has expanded significantly during the 

past 5 yr with additional well control, accurate deep seismic 

data, and three-dimensional seismic data. The recent decision by the Department of the Interior Solicitor's Office to 

release all well log data on wells drilled before 1976 

provides an important database previously unavailable to 
the industry. This should provide an opportunity for 

increased "close-in" development drilling by smaller companies. 

. Inquiries concerning the availability of offshore data 

from the MMS Gulf of Mexico regional office should be 

directed to the following address: 

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region 

Public Information Unit (OPS-3-4) 

1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard 

New Orleans, LA 70123-2394 

The public information unit may be reached by 

telephone at (504) 736-2932 or FfS 680-9932. 

REFERENCE CITED 

Mast, R.F., and others, 1989, Estimates of undiscovered conventional oil and gas resources in the United States-A part of 

the Nation's energy endowment: U.S. Geological Survey and 

Minerals Management Service, 44 p. 

Minerals Management Service Data Inventory and Mapping Programs-Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region 81 
Oregon's Perspective on Ocean Resource Research and 

Mapping 

Jeff Weber 

Oregon Department of land Conservation and Development 

Abstract 

With the exception of bathymetry, Federal agencies 

emphasize research and mapping activities that facilitate the 

extraction and the use of marine resources. Without Federal 

support, oil and gas development, fishery management, 

marine mammal protection, and many other ocean resource 

uses would not be possible at today's levels. Coastal States, 

however, must manage the environmental and the social 

effects of resource uses that are supported by Federal 

research and mapping programs. Such environmental and 

social disruptions are predictable, given the appropriate 

information. 

States cannot afford to independently develop the 

necessary information systems to predict environmental and 

social disruptions that occur on a regional basis. In addition, 

the need to share resource-management responsibilities and 

to communicate in the long term requires that State and 

Federal agencies use a common database. The Federal-State 

partnership in the Exclusive Economic Zone mapping must 

be based on the ability to predict the effects of a given 

activity and the willingness to prohibit or otherwise mitigate 

a Federal resource-use initiative. Otherwise, its effects will 

be too disruptive to coastal communities. In short, the 

partnership must reflect the resource-management needs of 

the States. It must be commensurate with a growing 

Federal-State partnership in Exclusive Economic Zone 

resource management. 

INTRODUCTION 

The interest in mapping the sea floor of the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is astounding. The entrepreneurial and the scientific attention on the ocean floor 

makes it look like low tide now delineates the edge of a 

frontier. Land resources have been so depleted that the 

ocean and the submerged lands are increasingly cited as 

sources of hard minerals, food, and energy resources. As 

we cross into this frontier- as researchers, resource managers, or entrepreneurs-our first responsibility is to ensure 

82 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

that we have fully learned the land-resource-management 

lessons of the 20th century. 

The first lesson is that the ocean is a frontier only to 

certain users. For others, it is no more of a frontier than 

Manhattan is for us today. Many individuals and businesses 

already depend on the steady productivity of the Nation's 

ocean waters. Cultures far older than ours have been 

harvesting from the ocean for ages. They, along with 

countless contemporary fishermen, put a premium on the 

resources in and under those rich and productive waters. 

On the basis of the observation that many of our 

resources on land have not been properly managed, current 

users have sufficient reason to be concerned about the 

consequences of new ocean uses. They must be assured that 

the alleged returns to society from a new ocean use do not 

represent, in reality, a transfer of resources from one user to 

another. 

The State of Oregon's perspective on sea-floor and 

EEZ mapping derives entirely from its broader effort to 

develop and implement a comprehensive ocean resourcemanagement program. The comprehensiveness of Oregon's 

program sets it apart from other efforts to manage ocean 

resources. Rather than emphasizing the use of a single 

ocean resource to the possible detriment of other uses, 

Oregon seeks balance among all ocean uses, once their real 

benefits and total costs are known. The State is accomplishing this by coordinating and balancing the mandates, the 

policies, and the programs of every State agency that has 

some responsibility or concern for the use of ocean resources. 

The balance Oregon seeks to strike is distinctly 

different from that sought elsewhere. Consequently, Oregon's playing field may appear to outsiders to have a 

decided tilt. Indeed, it does. Oregon's law gives clear 

priority to the protection of renewable ocean resources over 

the use of nonrenewables. This decided tilt is designed 

specifically to protect the State's long-term economic interests. 

If Oregon's responsibility is simply to respond to 

Federal resource initiatives, then it will be satisfied with 
whatever research is necessary to make an economic decision. If, however, Oregon is to further its own vision of 

how resources are to be used to best benefit its citizens, then 

it should be as fully informed as possible before making a 

decision. 

Oregon's perspective translates directly into research 

priorities. The rule guiding Oregon's offshore mapping and 

research priorities is as follows: Research programs that 

facilitate the extraction of a nonrenewable resource from the 

ocean must be complemented by research on the effects of 

such extraction on existing ocean users. In Oregon's view, 

such research is a cost of business that must be borne by the 

party that stands to gain the most. 

BACKGROUND-THE OREGON OCEAN 

RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ACT 

For the past 2 yr, Oregon has been developing 

policies and priorities to guide the future use of its ocean 

resources. Research and mapping have been an integral part 

of the policy development process. Research shows where 

specific policies and management practices are needed or 

where they need to be changed to meet Oregon's resource 

objectives. The systematic look at the future use of the 

ocean also has revealed large areas where research must be 

completed before policies can be adopted. Consequently, 

Oregon's policy development process, supported by a 

considerable amount of research, will likewise guide future 

mapping and research. 

Oregon's process of developing ocean-resource policies is largely an exercise in coordination and information 

trading. At least a dozen distinct interests participate in the 

process. Nine State agencies manage programs that do or 

that could affect ocean uses. 

Several Federal agencies are acutely interested in how 

the State intends to manage its ocean resources. Several 

ports support commercial and recreational fishing fleets, 

and three support international maritime traffic. Every 

coastal community has a comprehensive land-use plan, 

developed according to State law, that affects the location 

of support facilities for offshore activities. These land-use 

plans reflect Oregon's mandate to conserve the natural 

resources that are the basis of the State's economy. Finally, 

Oregon's tradition of open decisionmaking means that 

citizens and interest groups participate in the policy development process from beginning to end. 

Obviously, all the actors and the interests do not want 

the same thing. Some are intent on beginning oil and gas 

exploration without any further understanding of its effects 

on Oregon's fishing industry and, therefore, its coastal 

economy. Others take such a cautious approach to oceanresource use that they would prohibit all future marine 

mineral research and exploration. The State's responsibility 

is to balance those demands, and the result of that process 

will be determined, in part, by a law that was passed by the 

Oregon Legislature in 1987. 

This law resulted partly from the State's participation 

in the Federal process to lease offshore lands for oil and gas 

exploration and development. To make a long story manageable, Oregon was repeatedly dissatisfied with the Federal response-or lack of appropriate response-to the 

State's comments, concerns, and need for information 

throughout the Federal process. Although the State's participation in the prelease process was hampered by the bias 

in the process for Federal prerogatives, the real disagreements concerned the nature and the amount of information 

available to make sound resource-use decisions. Consistently, the State has held that Federal resource managers 

lack sufficient information to proceed with decisions that 

lead to a lease sale. 

These disagreements, which continue in some form to 

this day, led the legislature to take unprecedented measures 

to protect Oregon's interest in the management and the use 

of its ocean resources. 

In 1987, the Oregon Legislature enacted the Oregon 

Ocean Resources Management Act, apparently the first law 

of its kind in the United States. Since then, several Western 

States have considered legislation modeled on Oregon's 

law. 

At the outset, the legislature noted the following: 

• The Pacific Ocean and its many resources are of environmental, economic, aesthetic, recreational, social, 

and historic importance to the people of this State. 

• Exploration, development, and production of ocean 

resources likely to result from Federal agency programs in Federal waters and initiatives of private 

companies within State waters will increase the chance 

of conflicting demands on ocean resources for food, 

energy, and minerals, as well as waste disposal and 

assimilation, and may jeopardize ocean resources and 

values of importance to this State. 

• The fluid, dynamic nature of the ocean and the migration 

of many of its living resources beyond State boundaries extend the ocean-management interests of the 

State beyond the 3-mi territorial sea limit currently 

managed by the State pursuant to the Federal Submerged Lands Act. 

• The 1983 Proclamation of the 200-mi U.S. EEZ has 

created an opportunity for all coastal States to more 

fully exercise and assert their responsibilities pertaining to the protection, conservation, and development 

of ocean resources under U.S. jurisdiction. 

The legislature also noted that the Coastal Zone 

Management Act of 1972, the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976, and the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978 all 

provide for State participation in Federal ocean-resourcemanagement decisions. 

Oregon's Perspective on Ocean Resource Research and Mapping 83 
Many Oregonians use the ocean and its resources. 

They derive from it sustenance and pleasure. They recognize the responsibility of stewardship. They know that the 

marine ecosystem, complex and vast as it is, is vulnerable. 

Oregonians also know that the consequences of many 

ocean-resource uses and activities can be felt many tens, 

even hundreds, of miles away. Although these statements 

are the basis for an Oregon law, they apply equally in any 

Coastal State. 

All this sets the stage for legislative policy. The 

legislature stated that Oregon will conserve the long-term 

values, benefits, and natural resources of the ocean within 

the State and beyond by giving clear priority to the proper 

management and the protection of renewable resources over 

nonrenewable resources. 

This policy is the cornerstone of Oregon's oceanresource-management program. (The legislative policy, in 

effect, restates Oregon's Statewide Planning Goal 19, 

Ocean Resources, which was adopted by the State on 

October 19, 1984.) All ocean-resource-management decisions must meet its test-Does the decision guarantee the 

protection of renewable resources? 

The legislature also said that Oregon will assert its 

interests as a partner with Federal agencies in managing 

ocean resources and will promote research, study, and 

understanding of ocean resources, marine life, and other 

ocean resources and acquire the information necessary to 

understand the impacts and the relation of oceandevelopment activities to ocean and coastal resources. 

Oregon law requires the conservation of its renewable 

ocean resources. Oregon vows to assist Federal research 

efforts and to become a comanager of resources in the EEZ 

with the U.S. Government. 

THE OREGON OCEAN RESOURCES 

MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The 1987 Legislature also created the Ocean Resources Management Task Force and directed it to prepare an 

Ocean Resources Management Plan for adoption in 1990. 

In October 1989, the Task Force completed its draft 

ocean-resource-management policies and distributed them 

for public review. In keeping with a tradition of open 

decisionmaking, Oregon insists that those most likely to be 

affected by a decision have more than a cursory or obligatory opportunity to participate in the decisionmaking process. 

Oregon's conservation policy expresses the major 

difference between Federal and State ocean-resources-management responsibilities. In Oregon, regardless of a State 

agency's mission, its ocean-resource-management activities shall ensure that renewable resources are conserved. 

The task force defines conservation to mean that "the 

integrity, diversity, stability, complexity, and productiv·ity 

of marine biological communities and their habitats are 

84 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

maintained or, where necessary, restored." Because Oregon's welfare relies, in part, on the long-term use of 

renewable ocean resources, the State's responsibility is to 

ensure that nothing impedes their continued production. 

Conservation is also the mandate of some Federal 

agencies. However, those agencies tend to be severely 

underfunded. In recent years, if an agency is adequately 

funded, then the chances are good that its primary responsibility is not the conservation of a natural resource, but 

rather the sale of public resources to feed the Federal 

treasury. 

States have the ability to coordinate agency policies 

to make conservation a primary resource-management 

objective. Coordination is one of the primary objectives of 

the Task Force and the Ocean Resources Management Plan. 

Oregon agencies meet with sister agencies to weigh and 

balance their apparently contradictory mandates. Given the 

size of Federal agencies, the same coordination would be 

exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, without direction 

from the President. 

At the State level (at least in Oregon), apparently 

differing interests are easier to coordinate and subsume 

under a single overarching policy. Consequently, States are 

able to replace a single-resource approach to system management with a systemic approach to resource management. 

In a highly compartmentalized resource-management 

framework, as the Federal Government's, the singleresource approach prevails and shall probably prevail for 

years to come. 

OREGON'S OFFSHORE MAPPING AND 

RESEARCH NEEDS 

The draft Ocean Resources Management Plan 

addresses the research and the information needed to make 

sound ocean-resource decisions. The plan was compiled in 

consultation with State and Federal agencies, industry 

experts, and university researchers. Each chapter referred to 

research that was necessary for proper resource management. All these research requirements have some bearing on 

mapping and research off Oregon. 

For the purposes of research, the ocean off Oregon 

can be separated into three zones-the intertidal, the continental margin, and the area westward off the margin to the 

EEZ boundary. The need for information varies according 

to the level of activity or potential for conflicts with other 

uses in the zone. The intertidal zone and the rocks, the 

islands, and the estuary mouths require research and mapping in the greatest detail. On the continental margin, 

research and mapping must allow State and Federal agencies to balance their resource-management mandates. The 

need for great detail falls off dramatically beyond the 

margin because few new ocean uses will occur there in the 

foreseeable future. 
The needs for information off Oregon are varied 

andextensive. Naturally, their priority depends on the likelihood that a given activity will occur. Some data, such as 

substrate composition, bottom currents, meteorological 

averages, seasonal currents, upwelling, water temperature, 

and water chemistry, may be utilized in nearly every 

decision. These parameters will be correlated with data on 

the location of many marine species and will provide a basis 

for managing marine habitat. 

Oregon's marine birds and mammals need to be 

counted and monitored. Over one-half the marine birds on 

the West Coast spend at least some part of their life on the 

rocks and the islands along the Oregon coast. Anything that 

affects Oregon's coastal ecosystem will affect bird populations along the entire West Coast. 

The objectives of State-Federal cooperative research 

programs need to be developed cooperatively, so the data 

serves the needs of all interested parties. Without exception, 

the data needs in State waters are identical to-perhaps even 

greater than-those in the EEZ. 

Oregon will need data to protect current viable ocean 

uses from new ones, so as to protect the integrity and the 

vitality of the communities that depend on such resource 

uses. When approached with a proposal to develop a new 

ocean resource, Oregon will ask, "What will our coastal 

communities be expected to give up or forego to accommodate this new activity?" Although it may not hold true in 

other States, Oregonians believe that returns to the State 

from offshore oil, gas, or mineral development will be far 

less than the returns from existing ocean uses. Furthermore, 

such returns would be distributed to only a handful of 

people. 

CONCLUSIONS 

With proper management, the ocean can continue 

indefinitely to provide resources for the livelihood of 

hundreds of coastal communities. Any restriction of an 

existing economically and ecologically sound resource use 

or any appropriation-whether by consumption, contamination, or destruction -of a resource best left for future use 

constitutes poor resource management. It is also poor 

economics. The fact is, economic health depends on a 

healthy ecosystem. 

Oregon's sea-floor mapping needs evolve from its 

ocean-resource-management priorities. The State's top 

ocean-resource-management priority is quite simple. Oregon law recognizes and acknowledges the long-term economic value of its renewable ocean resources. The Oregon 

Legislature has found that the proper use and development 

of renewable ocean resources creates more jobs and keeps 

more revenues in the State than does the development of 

nonrenewable ocean resources. Consequently, Oregon's top 

ocean-management priority is to protect the long-term 

productivity of its renewable ocean resources. Oregon's 

priority is economically sound in any State, but it is 

especially sound where communities still rely absolutely on 

the use of natural resources for their economic well-being. 

Without exception, Oregon's research and mapping priorities will reflect the need to protect the present and the 

potential use of its renewable ocean resources. 

At this moment, Oregon continues its efforts to 

incorporate its information needs into Federal agency work 

programs. Contrary to some protests, Oregonians do not 

want information for the sake of information. Rather, they 

need information for the sake of management. At least in 

some cases, Oregon's ocean-management concerns appear 

to be vastly different from those of Federal agencies. Its 

research needs will differ to a corresponding degree. 

Oregon's Perspective on Ocean Resource Research and Mapping 85 
A View of Sea-Floor Mapping Priorities in Alaska From the 

Mining Industry 

Mark A. Bronston 

Western Gold Exploration and Mining Company 

INTRODUCTION 

The shallow waters off the coast of Alaska, which are 

defined as water depths of less than 100 m, represent a 

tremendous potential resource for the exploitation of hard 

minerals from the seabed. The Exclusive Economic Zone 

(EEZ) Proclamation of 1983 provides the framework for 

exploring and commercially developing potential marine 

placer ore bodies. 

The vast extent of the metalliferous regions known to 

be glaciated makes the task of focusing on the most 

prospective areas a difficult problem for industry. Although 

it is not the intent of this paper to suggest that Federal 

agencies should take an active role in proving ore reserves, 

it is in the interest of the United States to inventory the 

hard-mineral resources within the EEZ. In this regard, the 

mapping and the evaluation of potential offshore placer 

deposits within the EEZ should be a priority for the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

This paper outlines the criteria necessary for the 

mining industry to prioritize those areas in the Alaska EEZ 

in which to conduct sea-floor mapping programs. Three 

specific high-priority areas are outlined, and recommendations regarding geophysical and drilling equipment, data 

processing, and resource evaluation also are discussed. 

CRITERIA FOR EXPLORATION PRIORITIES . 

For the purposes of hard-mineral exploration within 

the Alaska EEZ, the areas of greatest economic interest 

have been selected by using the following criteria: 

• Areas adjacent to known mineralized terrains on land. 

• Areas where Quaternary glaciation would be the principal mechanism for offshore sediment transport. 

• Areas that have water depths of less than 100m. 

The areas of primary interest, which fulfill the criteria 

outlined above are as follows, in order of priority: 

• Offshore Nome on the southern coast of the Seward 

Peninsula. 

86 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

• Offshore northeastern Gulf of Alaska from Cape Suckling to Cape Fairweather. 

• The shelf area south of Kodiak Island and east of the 

Shelikof Strait. 

AREA 1-0FFSHORE NOME 

Near Nome, the area within a 6-mi radius of Anvil 

Mountain has produced approximately 5 million oz of gold 

from glaciofluvial and glaciomarine placers (Nelson and 

Hopkins, 1972; Cobb, 1984b). Glaciated areas east of 

Nome near Solomon and Bluff also have recorded significant gold production from placer deposits onshore. Figure 1 

illustrates the known occurrences of lode and placer gold 

and platinum in the coastal regions of Alaska. 

Since 1985, mining activity by Western Gold Exploration and Mining Company, Limited Partnership (West 

Gold), has verified the existence and the viability of 

glaciomarine gold placers offshore Nome within lands 

administered by the State of Alaska (Bronston, 1990). In 

excess of 100,000 oz of gold has been recovered from the 

seabed by the Mining Vessel Bima during the first full 3 

production years of the West Gold operation. 

The presence of economic gold concentrations in the 

offshore environment within the 3-mi State limit and the 

favorable potential for additional deposits in the adjacent 

EEZ make the Nome area from Cape Rodney on the west to 

Cape Darby on the east (fig. 2) the first priority for sea-floor 

mapping and exploration within the Alaska EEZ. 

AREA 2-NORTHEASTERN GULF OF ALASKA 

The presence of gold on the beaches from Cape 

Yakataga to Yakutat Bay has been documented since the 

early 1900's. Although relatively unexplored, regional 

bathymetric studies by NOAA indicate the area possesses a 

broad continental shelf that extends well into the EEZ. The 

adjacent coastal regions have been heavily glaciated during 

the Quaternary. Figure 3 illustrates the maximum extent of 
Coastal Occurrences of Gold and Platinum 

Alaska 

Gold Occurrence 

• Platinum Occurrence 

;{ 

Figure 1. Coastal occurrences of gold and platinum. Modified from Cobb (1960, 1984a, b). 

Quaternary glaciations in Alaska superimposed on the gold 

and the platinum occurrences in figure 1. The area from 

Cape Suckling on the northwest to Cape Fairweather on the 

southeast (fig. 4) is of particular interest for gold and 

heavy-mineral placers. 

AREA 3-SOUTHERN SHELF OFF KODIAK 

ISLAND 

This area is located on the Continental Shelf south of 

Kodiak Island and within the 100-m isobath (fig. 5). 

Although this area is virtually unexplored for its marine 

placer potential, it is included because of its proximity to 

potential epithermal lode sources in heavily glaciated terrain. Gold in beach sands has been reported in 'the Trinity 

Islands south of Kodiak Island. 

The high-energy sea state and tidal forces may 

represent efficient physical processing conduits for the 

concentration of precious-metal and heavy-mineral placers. 

However, this area is known for its difficult sea conditions, 

which could make exploration and mining activities difficult logistically. 

EXPLORATION METHODOLOGIES 

In any sea-floor mapping program, the primary tools 

are geophysical; these are supplemented by drills and other 

sea-floor sampling devices for verification. The use of 

modem digital recording and signal processing equipment 

and techniques for high-resolution sea-floor mapping applications (Graul and others, 1989; Matthias and Newton, 

1990) should become the mainstay of future USGS and 

NOAA mapping efforts. The following geophysical instrumentation should be utilized: 

• Two- and three-dimensional, multichannel, high-resolution, digital, seismic surveys. 

• Digital swath bathymetry. 

• Digital sidescan sonar (Q-Mips). 

• Digital 3.5- to 7.0-kHz subbottom profiling. 

• Digital marine magnetometer. · 

All systems should be recorded in the appropriate 

industry standard format on media, which can be readily 

utilized by the public, such as nine-track magnetic tape, 

floppy disk, and CD-ROM. Line spacing should be regional 

in scope, and the emphasis should be placed on evaluating 

large areas of potential mineral-bearing sea-floor sediments. 

A View of Sea-Floor Mapping Priorities in Alaska From the Mining Industry 87 
Proioo84td MMS Offshore Mineral Lease Sale A Major Gold Occummce 

0 Areu With Possible Economic Gold Mineralization 

Figure 2. Nome priority exploration areas. 

DRILLING AND SAMPLING 

Following geophysical evaluations, prospective areas 

should be evaluated to determine the areal size, the grade, 

and the mineralogy of potential placer deposits. Sea-floor 

sampling programs may be reconnaissance in nature if a 

pipe dredge or a bottom grab sampling technique is used. 

Although these techniques do not provide a reliable pointspecific grade of the deposit (as they are restricted to the 

relatively unconsolidated surface sediments), they do give a 

relative indication of the abundance of the mineral of 

interest in a given area. These techniques are quick and 

relatively inexpensive compared to offshore drilling programs. 

In areas where sea-floor surface sampling indicates 

that a placer of considerable economic importance may 

exist, a drilling program is the most effective means of 

determining the three-dimensional distribution of the 

resource. Drill types that have been shown to be effective in 

sampling marine placers are as follows: 

88 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

• The Becker hammer drill is used off the ice and in 

relatively calm, shallow water (Daily, 1969; Bronston, 

1990). The Becker drill is particularly effective in 

glacial terrains that have indurated sediments and 

coarse sedimentary lithologies. 

• The remote placer drill is used for reconnaissance and 

development drilling in rough seas and rocky substrates to a maximum of 6 m depth (Woolsey and 

Noakes, 1989). 

• The vibracore is used in well-sorted sediments in deep 

water. 

• The vibrahammer is used in coarse sea-floor sediments in 

deep water. 

SAMPLE PROCESSING 

Sea-floor samples collected during bottom sampling 

and drilling programs should be processed by using mining 
r.::::J 

LJ BXTBNT OP QUATERNARY GLACIATIONS IN ALASKA 

Gold Occurrence 

+ Platinum Occurrence 

Figure 3. Maximum extent of Quaternary glaciations superimposed on gold and platinum occurrences. Modified from 

Cobb (1960, 1984) and Pewe (1975). 

industry standard procedures. In particular, precious-metalbearing placer sediments should be concentrated by using 

gravity separation techniques, and the gold particles 

counted, amalgamated, and weighed. Other analysis techniques, such as fire assay and atomic absorption, should be 

avoided because they do not accurately represent the grades 

that would be recovered by gravity methods on a mining 

vessel. Ore grades should be reported as metal content per 

standard unit volume; for example, in milligrams per cubic 

meter or ounces per cubic yard. 

BULK SAMPLING 

If a potential mineral deposit is discovered during 

exploration and resource evaluation programs and if it is of 

major economic significance, then a bulk sampling program 

may be invaluable in verifying the drill-indicated grades and 

the physical nature of the deposit. Bulk samples may be 

taken by using a hydraulic clam shell excavator mounted on 

a barge or by a robotic underwater miner; the latter is 

similar to the alluvial mining "tramrod" tested at Nome by 

West Gold in 1989. Bulk sampling programs, though 

expensive, will confirm the horizontal and the vertical grade 

distributions of the deposit and may be useful as prototype 

mining tests. A bulk sampling system should be interfaced 

with a gravity separation system similar to those used on 

commercial mining vessels so that accurate metal recoveries 

may be calculated. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The EEZ adjacent to Alaska represents a large potential resource for hard minerals that are concentrated in 

marine placer deposits. The mapping and the evaluation of 

these deposits should be a priority for the USGS and 

NOAA. 

Geophysical and bottom sampling surveys should be 

conducted in areas adjacent to known mineralized terrains 

where water depth is less than 100 m and where glaciation 

would be the agent for the transport of metal-bearing 

sediments offshore. On the basis of these criteria, the areas 

offshore Nome, the northeastern Gulf of Alaska, and the 

shelf south of Kodiak Island should be of particular interest. 

A View of Sea-Floor Mapping Priorities in Alaska From the Mining Industry 89 
142 

:

/_ ....... .r···-·········-·.,· .... , •. 

{'·· .......... ) i 'a• \, • .. , 

.... -···) 

;(:.~:~ ;~~: .. :::::':.·::;::.:.:_)'· •.• __ / ___ •... !-- ·-·--·--·--······--2oao.M\ . .._ 

9······'otJLF OF ALASKA \ ... ./ 

mgh Priority Mineral Exploration Area 

Active Olacier A Oold Occurrence 

Figure 4. Priority exploration area for the northeastern Gulf of Alaska. 

::: ~ ::: :-: (: :))~ )jj ,;..oI- 56 

·:-::: '/"' • ... T ... 1 .... "" ... Tnmty • .:-. ........ L." :~ 

~ // . .J :S: 

Figure 5. Priority exploration area for the Kodiak Shelf. 

90 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

0 401an 

148 

0 40 km 
State-of-the-art, digital, geophysical, acquisition 

hardware should be utilized for reconmiisance surveys and 

followed by bottom sampling for verification. Deposits of 

potential economic importance should be drilled to define 

the extent of the resource and bulk sampled to verify 

drill-indicated grades. Evaluation of the resources discovered should be completed to standard mining industry 

specifications. 

Following the criteria stated in this paper, a sea-floor 

mapping program in Alaska would establish an inventory of 

hard-mineral resources within the Alaska EEZ and would 

benefit the United States by expediting the development of 

hard minerals from the seabed, thereby decreasing our 

dependence on foreign supplies. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Bronston, M.A., 1990, Offshore placer drilling technology-A 

case study from Nome, Alaska: Mining Engineering, v. 42, 

no. 1, p. 26-31. 

Cobb, E.H., 1960, Chromite, cobalt, nickle, and platinum occurrences in Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Investigations Resource Map MR-8, scale 1:2,500,000. 

---1984a, Map showing occurrences of lode gold and silver in 

Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Investigations 

Resource Map MR-84, scale 1:2,500,000. 

---1984b, Map showing occurrences of placer gold in Alaska: 

U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Investigations Resource 

Map MR-83, scale 1:2,500,000. 

Daily, A.F., 1969, Off-the-ice placer prospecting for gold: Annual 

Offshore Technology Conference, 1st, Houston, 1969, OTC 

Paper 1029, p. 277-284. 

Graul, J.M., Bronston, M.A., and Williams, C.D., 1989, Highresolution seismic exploration for gold: Annual Offshore 

Technology Conference, 21st, Houston, 1989, OTC Paper 

6023, p. 579-592. 

Matthias, P.K., and Newton, F.L., Jr., 1990, A practical 3-D 

seafloor and sub-bottom mapping system: Annual Offshore 

Technology Conference, 22d, Houston, 1990, OTC Paper 

6235: p. 307-313. 

Nelson, C.H., and Hopkins, D.M., 1972, Sedimentary processes 

and distribution of particulate gold in the northern Bering 

Sea: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 689, 27 p. 

Pewe, T.L., 1975, Quaternary geology of Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 835, 145 p. 

Woolsey, J.R., and Noakes, B.G., 1989, The remote placer drill 

and application for reconnaissance of marine precious metal 

placers: Annual Offshore Technology Conference, 21st, 

Houston, 1989, OTC Paper 6023, p. 493-496. 

A View of Sea-Floor Mapping Priorities in Alaska From the Mining Industry 91 
Exclusive Economic Zone Scientific Activities in the 

Branch of Pacific Marine Geology, U.S. Geological Survey 

David A. Cacchione 

U.S. Geological Survey 

INTRODUCTION 

Throughout the later half of the 1980's, the scientific 

staff in the Branch of Pacific Marine Geology (BPMG) of 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been deeply 

involved in mapping and research activities in the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The initial field program 

in this region came shortly after the 1983 Proclamation of 

the EEZ by President Reagan when a unique and comprehensive sea-floor mapping project was initiated by BPMG 

in 1984. This project was supported by a funding augmentation to the Offshore Geologic Framework Program of the 

USGS and was designed to provide for mapping and 

followup research of the entire EEZ over a long-term period 

(greater than 10 yr). 

To accomplish the mapping goals of this project, a 

long-range sidescan-sonar system, GLORIA, was obtained 

from the Institute of Oceanographic Sciences (lOS), a 

British research laboratory, through a long-term cooperative 

agreement for scientific studies in the U.S. EEZ. GLORIA, 

which is a one-of-a-kind instrument system, provides 

sidescan-sonar images up to a maximum of 60 km across 

the ship's tracks (typically operated to cover 45 km in the 

EEZ project) and is capable of resolving geological features 

of 50 to 100 m in horizontal dimensions. Because the sonar 

data are acquired digitally, a variety of USGS-developed 

computer-image-processing techniques are applied to render geometrically corrected images that are enhanced for 

clarity and definition. 

GLORIA MAPPING OF THE PACIFIC U.S. 

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE 

In 1984, scientists from BPMG and lOS mapped the 

entire EEZ area off California, Oregon, and Washington by 

means of the GLORIA system. These surveys covered 

about 750,000 km2 of sea floor and were accomplished in 

only 100 d. The images obtained had overlapping records so 

that a mosaic of the entire EEZ could be assembled, thereby 

facilitating the interpretation and the understanding of the 

92 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

results. During each of the cruises, other types of geophysical data were collected along the ship's tracks, including 

dual-channel air-gun, seismic reflection profiles, 3.5-kHz 

high-resolution and 10-kHz bathymetric profiles, and magnetic field and gravity measurements. The GLORIA sonar 

imagery and the other data have been processed, analyzed, 

presented in a readily available atlas publication (EEZSCAN 84 Scientific Staff, 1986), and summarized (EEZSCAN 84 Scientific Staff, 1988). 

Since 1984, BPMG scientists have obtained GLORIA 

sidescan-sonar records of the EEZ in the Bering Sea, the 

Gulf of Alaska, and the Aleutian Islands and around the 

Hawaiian Island chain. The data collection effort for the 

latter region is planned for completion in 1991. The Bering 

Sea data have been completely processed, assembled, and 

interpreted; the atlas of GLORIA imagery and ancillary data 

is awaiting publication. The sidescan data for the other 

regions are at various stages of processing and analysis. 

POST-GLORIA INVESTIGATIONS OF THE 

PACIFIC EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE 

Shortly after the initial 1984 GLORIA cruises, investigators at BPMG and their lOS collaborators began followon ("ground-truth") studies of the EEZ by using the newly 

acquired GLORIA results to design the work. Projects have 

been initiated in relating the acoustic backscatter in the 

sidescan-sonar data to geological and physical properties of 

the sea floor and in probing important geological problems 

revealed in the sonar imagery; an example of an ongoing 

study of the geological interpretations associated with the 

acoustic backscatter is the field, laboratory, and theoretical 

work on the Monterey Submarine Fan. This study began in 

1987 with high-resolution seismic profiling, sampling, and 

an underwater photographic/video survey of a distal section 

of the fan by using the Research Vessel Parnella. Since 

then, two other research cruises to the region have been 

undertaken that have included additional surveying and 

sampling and have focused on the physical properties of the 
samples. A fourth scientific expedition to the study area will 

be undertaken in June 1990 by using a towed midrange 

sidescan-sonar system (TOBI), which has been developed 

recently by lOS engineers. This system will provide more 

detailed imagery of the area and sonar data at a higher 

frequency (about 30kHz) for comparison with the GLORIA 

data (nominally at 6.5 kHz). 

Figure 1 shows the mosaic of a GLORIA image from 

the 1984 data; this mosaic is an improved version of that 

shown in the EEZ atlas (EEZ-SCAN 84 Scientific Staff, 

1986). Figure 2 is a simplified interpretation of the mosaic 

in figure 1. These figures have been taken from an article by 

Gardner and others (in press). This intensively studied 

Figure 1. Mosaic of GLORIA imagery taken in 1984 (EEZ-SCAN 84 Scientific Staff, 1986). Images have been enhanced and 

improved by J .V. Gardner (USGS) . The area shown is delineated in figure 2 and includes Monterey Bay, Calif. (upper right 

corner), and the Monterey Submarine Canyon Fan System in the central California EEZ. 

Exclusive Economic Zone Scientific Activities in the Branch of Pacific Marine Geology, U.S. Geological Survey 93 
Figure 2. Interpretation of the mosaic of GlORIA imagery presented in figure 1. Basement rocks are shown in black; 

canyon and channels are delineated by heavy black lines; distal portion of fan sediment is the lighter of the two gray 

shaded zones. Interpretation is courtesy of Gardner and others (in press). 

region, which has been the focus of the "ground-truth" 

effort, is shown by the box in the lower left portion of 

figure 2. 

A second example of the post-GLORIA investigations of the EEZ is the present sea-floor study of the 

continental margin off San Francisco, Calif.; we refer to 

94 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

this segment as the Farallon continental margin. In early 

1986, scientific investigators in BPMG, in cooperation with 

scientific personnel from the Branch of Atlantic Marine 

Geology (BAMG), USGS, Woods Hole, Mass., undertook 

a series of research cruises to the continental shelf in this 

segment. The initial work provided a sidescan-sonar recon-
naissance survey of the shelf followed by a closely spaced 

grid of bottom grab samples throughout the region (fig. 3). 

The sonar used in this survey was a conventional 100-kHz 

system, which obtained across track coverage of about 

400m. 

A smaller portion of the shelf area was selected for a 

closely spaced sidescan-sonar survey and sampling grid, as 

shown in figure 3. In this smaller survey area, a mosaic has 

been completed from the digital data obtained by using a 

120-kHz midrange sidescan-sonar system. This mosaic is 

being readied for publication by BPMG and BAMG scientists. 

Sidescan-sonar data collection will continue during 

summer 1990 when a research cruise to the continental 

slope in the Farallon segment will be conducted by using a 

30-kHz midrange system. It is anticipated that overlapping 

coverage of the upper to middle slope will provide data for 

a detailed mosaic of that area. This mosaic then can be 

Figure 3. Farallon continental margin segment off San Francisco, Calif. Areas of reconnaissance sidescan-sonar survey 

are outlined by the heavy black line. A more detailed mosaic of sidescan imagery was undertaken within the smaller box 

that is outlined by the lighter lines. Bathymetric depths are in meters. 

Exclusive Economic Zone Scientific Activities in the Branch of Pacific Marine Geology, U.S. Geological Survey 95 
compared and contrasted with the available GLORIA imagery to investigate the acoustic returns at two distinctly 

different frequencies along the same section of sea floor. 

During April and May 1990, scientific personnel at 

BPMG completed multichannel seismic profiling on the 

Research Vessel Samuel P. Lee that included tracklines in 

the Farallon continental margin segment. These data are 

being processed at BPMG, and the results will appear later 

in 1990. These data are significant for understanding 

seismic activity and crustal deformation in the active central 

California offshore. 

FUTURE PLANS AND SUMMARY 

The results of the multidisciplinary, multifaceted 

investigations in the Monterey Submarine Canyon Fan 

System and within the Farallon continental margin will 

appear as published articles. In particular, we are planning 

to assemble all the recent work in the Farallon study area 

into a comprehensive atlas-type publication. This volume 

96 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

will include sections on the shelf and the slope sediment 

distributions, geologic framework and structure, surface 

morphology, and sedimentary processes. The results of this 

work will be important for identifying offshore disposal 

sites, determining transport of sediments and incorporated 

pollutants, and predicting seismic activity and bottom slope 

stability. 

REFERENCES CITED 

EEZ-SCAN 84 Scientific Staff, 1986, Atlas of the Exclusive 

Economic Zone-Western conterminous United States: U.S. 

Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series 

1-1792, 152 p. 

---1988, Physiography of the western United States Exclusive 

Economic Zone: Geology, v. 16, p. 131-134. 

Gardner, J.V., and others, in press, Ground-truthing 6.5 kHz 

side-scan sonographs-What are we really imaging?: Journal 

of Geophyical Research. 
Mapping Requirements for Planning the Outer Continental 

Shelf Mining Program Norton Sound, Alaska, Lease Sale 

lrven F. Palmer, Jr. 

Minerals Management Service 

Abstract 

Preparations are being made by the Alaska Outer 

Continental Shelf Regional Office of the Minerals Management Service to conduct the first Outer Continental Shelf 

Mining Program lease sale to be held anywhere in the 

United States-in Norton Sound. Past gold mining activity 

and the present pre lease process, which is being coordinated 

with the State of Alaska, are discussed. The various 

mapping and graphics products used in preparation for the 

Norton Sound mining sale are emphasized. Future mapping 

needs· along the Alaskan coast that would delimit the 

State-Federal boundary are presented. 

INTRODUCTION 

More than 4.5 million troy oz of gold have been 

recovered from onshore placer deposits in the Nome District 

since 1899. Most of the recovery was from strandline 

deposits, such as the modem beach at Nome or the ancient 

beaches further inland. The gold was initially eroded from 

lode deposits on the Seward Peninsula and reworked by 

fluvial, glacial, and marine processes. During the Pleistocene, advancing glaciers moved coarse gold particles onto 

the Continental Shelf of Norton Sound. Enrichment factors, 

such as marine scour and fluvial erosion, have reworked 

some of the gold from the glacial deposits into minable 

placers. Since 1986, gold ore has been dredged in State 

waters within the area covered by glacial deposits. The 

maximum annual recovery to date was 36,700 troy oz in 

1987. 

In the Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), submerged beach ridges occur on the seabottom at depths of 

21, 24, and 27 m. Buried ancient channels also are 

recognizable on seismic profiles. It is possible that enriched 

placer deposits similar to those mined onshore may exist in 

Federal waters. The distribution of glacial deposits is based 

on the mapping of surficial sediments and the interpretation 

of seismic profiles. Because subsurface samples from the 

OCS are sparse, there is little information on ore grade and 

ore-body volume in Federal waters. 

On the basis of available data, the highest potential 

blocks in the proposed sale area are those closest to the 

gold-bearing glacial deposits offshore Nome. The 21- and 

24-m beach ridges occur within these blocks, as well as 

buried channels that may contain gold eroded from the 

nearby glacial deposits. Following Inspiration Gold, Inc.'s, 

very successful 1987 offshore gold dredging season in State 

waters, it was a natural followup for them to begin planning 

the acquisition of more leases. 

PRELEASE PROCESS 

The process was initiated in November 1987 when 

Inspiration Gold, Inc., wrote a letter to the Assistant 

Secretary for Land and Minerals Management of the 

Department of the Interior requesting a leasing program for 

gold mining in the OCS near Nome, Alaska. (Since 1987, 

West Gold has succeeded Inspiration Gold, Inc., through 

reorganization of the company.) West Gold (and its predecessor companies) have conducted offshore gold-dredging 

in State waters near Nome since 1985. In anticipation of an 

OCS mineral sale, the Governor of Alaska, in a letter of 

November 1987, requested that the Secretary of the Interior 

establish a joint Federal-State task force similar to the one 

established in the State of Hawaii for similar purposes. The 

Governor requested a task force: 

... to evaluate the feasibility of development of mineral resources in waters adjacent to our coast and to 

develop technical guidelines and procedures for the 

safe, effective, and environmentally sound exploration and mining of such resources ... review of economic feasibility and look at information needs for 

EIS development ... [and} identify renewable and nonrenewable resources that are present in Norton Sound 

and possible use conflicts. 

The Secretary of the Interior responded to the Governor's request by agreeing to establish a Federal-State task 

force. The Secretary of the Interior designated the Director 

of the Minerals Management Service (MMS) to implement 

the program. The presale process bears some resemblance 

Mapping Requirements for Planning the Outer Continental Shelf Mining Program Norton Sound, Alaska, Lease Sale 97 
to that for oil and gas sales, but there are some substantive 

differences in the leasing process and in the postlease 

operations as set forth in new regulations. 

A Request for Information and Interest and a Notice 

of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) was published. Nominations were received, and an 

area was identified on which to prepare an EIS, a draft EIS 

was published, and a public hearing was held. The remaining steps include a rewrite of the EIS after acquisition of 

new water-quality data, a proposed leasing notice, a review 

by the State of Alaska, the leasing notice, and the sale, 

probably in the first quarter of 1991. 

STATE COORDINATION 

Implementation of the program began with a meeting 

between the MMS and the State Division of Governmental 

Coordination staff to work out details for the Federal-State 

task force. It was agreed that the task force would be called 

the "Coordination Team," or CT. The membership list for 

the CT was finalized in February 1988-31 members from 

Federal, State, and local agencies and interest groups. 

An agreement was signed between the MMS and the 

State of Alaska to transfer $120,000 to the State to cover 

expenses of staff from several State agencies attending six 

proposed meetings through the course of the prelease 

process and for time to review documents. From the 

beginning, the MMS envisioned the CT primarily as a 

forum for the exchange of information and a channel for 

comments on offshore mining policy formulation. The CT 

has been integrated into all major steps of the prelease 

process, including scoping, review of the draft EIS, review 

of the EIS rewrite, and so forth. The coordination process is 

continuing, and it is working. 

MAPPING AND GRAPHICS 

As stated above, preparations for the first OCS 

mining sale have proceeded along steps similar to preparation for an OCS oil and gas sale. The Federal Register 

Notice on the Request for Information and Interest and the 

Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS was accompanied by a 

map of the Norton Sound area that was based upon Official 

Protraction Diagrams (OPD). The OPD maps depict a 

rectangular grid of potential leasing blocks approximately 3 

mi on a side. On the basis of the Universal Transverse 

Mercator projection, the maps are at a scale of 1:250,000. 

These lease block diagrams are sold to the public for 

common planning purposes and are extensively used in all 

planning documents by the MMS (fig. 1). In addition, these 

OPD maps, which show the proposed sale outline, are used 

extensively as illustrations for all comments received and 

for correspondence. 

98 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

Concurrently with the Request for Information and 

Interest, an in-house assessment of the potential mineral 

resource lease was being made by using available geological and geophysical information. In this case, seismic and 

borehole data from proprietary and U.S. Geological Survey 

sources were used. Figure 2 shows a submerged strandline 

and a subsea channel. 

Mter the assessment, subbottom geomorphic features 

were mapped in relation to distribution patterns of particulate gold derived from sea-floor sediment samples. These 

maps were constructed to be compatible with the OPD's 

used to depict the proposed lease sale area (fig. 3). 

During the scoping meetings, maps of the proposed 

sale area are used to portray known oceanographic and 

biological data and to record areas of special concern to 

local residents. During the writing of an EIS, these maps are 

refined and published as part of the EIS and provide the 

reader with essential information needed to clarify the text. 

Figures 4 through 6 are examples of maps in the draft EIS. 

The scale of the maps is adjusted so that the resource can be 

shown in relation to the proposed sale area and to accommodate the normal 8- by 11-in. EIS page size. Other 

examples of graphics used to supplement the EIS maps and 

text are shown in figures 7 and 8. 

The MMS base map requirements are largely being 

met internally. The OPD maps are generated by the MMS's 

offshore survey group in Denver. The geological and 

geophysical data are generally received from OCS permittees at a scale of 1:96,000, or 1 in. = 8,000 ft. The various 

divisions and regions within the MMS then use a number of 

different computer mapping systems to change scales and 

manipulate the data. Computer-assisted design graphics 

applications are also in wide use within the organization. 

Future plans call for the MMS to standardize its 

general-purpose mapping needs by adopting a geographic 

information system. Also planned are evaluations and 

feasibility studies for utilization of interactive computer 

work stations for manipulation of geological and geophysical data. Cartography and drafting throughout the organization are being upgraded to utilize the new computerassisted design programs, such as AUTOCAD. 

FUTURE MAPPING NEEDS 

The State of Alaska and the MMS regularly conduct 

oil and gas lease sales along the coastal zone of Alaska. In 

addition, the State has ongoing offshore mining, and the 

MMS has an offshore mining sale in progress. At many 

places along the Alaskan coast, especially to the west and 

the north, nautical charts either are out of date or have 

inappropriate scales. A vigorous coastal zone mapping 

program to delimit salient points for establishing the StateFederal boundary would be of great help to the State of 

Alaska and the Department of the Interior. Present and 
OCS Mining Program 

Norton Sound Lease Sale 

Figure 1. Lease block locations for the Norton Sound area. 

N 

mm 

NO 3-8 

Proposed Sale Aru 

Official Protraction Diagram 

Number 

MMS, Alaska OCS Region 

s 

ONE KILOMETER 

10- Buried 

Channel 

Erosional 

Scarp 

Backshore Berm Foreshore 

00~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------L 

Figure 2. Line drawing of seismic profile across the 24-m beach from the survey conducted in 1976 by the U.S. Geological 

Survey. The beach deposits are probably 5 to 6 m thick at the berm and nearly 1 km wide. 

future offshore leasing schedules should be used to set 

priorities for this work. At this time, it appears that the 

Alaskan shoreline areas should be surveyed in priority 

order, as depicted on figure 9. 

Mapping Requirements for Planning the Outer Continental Shelf Mining Program Norton Sound, Alaska, Lease Sale 99 
i 

8. o~. "' .,. - g_ ~ 6~~-r-----------------------------T---------------------------~~----------------------------~----------------------------, 

OCS Mining Program 

Norton Sound Lease Sale 

+ .3.3 

NORTON 

0.2 

LEGEND 

0 No Visible Gold 

e Trace Color 

1.4 Gold Content, in parts per billion. determined by atomic absorption analysis 

SOUND 

Figure 3. Distribution of particulate gold in sea-floor sediment samples beyond the 3-mi limit; modified from Nelson and 

Hopkins (1972). Location of submerged beach ridges and gold-bearing glacial drift; from Tagg and Green (1973). 

64° + 

1

lil,l!CJ+I:JI+c::::::-.lllii:::::::Jli Statute Miles 

1

1il2 MI[MII::::il•lllilco=::::S210 Kilometers 

Norton 

I ~Lease Sale Area 

Solllld~--

~2o 

Figure 4. Generalized bathymetry (in meters) of the Norton Sound area. 

1 00 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

Minerals Management Service 

Aluka OCS Region 

OCS Mining Program 

Norton Sound Lease Sale 

162° 

Source: Larsen et al., 1981; NOAA, 1983. 
I s W A R 0 

0 

k'"'llltlond 

Source: Feely, Massoth, and Paulson, 1981. 5-~~0IC::J--=::1--0===--·50 Kilometers 

Minerals Management Service 

Aluka OCS Retlon 

OCS Mining Progr<~m 

Norton Sound Lease Sale 

N NSULA 

Sampling Stations 

Total Suspended Matter ! ppm I 

< 1.0 

1.0- 5.0 

5.0- 15.0 

15.0- 50.0 

> 50.0 

Figure 5. Distribution of suspended matter at 5 m above the bottom in Norton Sound, july 7-18, 1979. 

Mapping Requirements for Planning the Outer Continental Shelf Mining Program Norton Sound, Alaska, Lease Sale 1 01 
Figure 6. Sea-ice zonation in Norton Sound. 

1 02 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

Minerals Management Service Alaska OCS Region OCS Mining Program 

~ 

tm~m Shoretast Ice zone: 

••••• Average 

Max1mum 

- Dev1ation 

Pack Ice Zone: 

/// 

/// Norton /// 

llllllllllce-Fo•m•ng Zone 
I 

I 

Source : Bray, 1979. 

B 

I 

I. I 

I 

f 

Cut Width 1 00 meters 

(may be 60 to 200 meters wide) 

~ <--- ---7 

Figure 7. Bucket ladder dredge. A, Gold mining in sheltered waters. Note: Spuds are used to 

control dredge movement in shallow waters. Anchors would be used to control dredge 

movement in the deeper, more exposed waters of the lease sale area. 8, Operations. 

Mapping Requirements for Planning the Outer Continental Shelf Mining Program NoQon Sound, Alaska, lease Sale 1 03 
@65• 

Island '"' 

. ,. 

.. 

• 

Existing Federal Oil and 

Gas Leases 

Existing Stat• Mining Leases 

Ofhhore Nome and Bluff 

State Offshore Prospecting 

Permit Applications 

A Placer Gold Deposits 

6. Lode Gold Deposits 

(Q] Minerals other than Gold * Potential Port (Cape Da~by) 

Site of Oil and Gas 

Exploration Well 

Road 

5 0 10 20 30 STATUTE MILES 

I 5 0 10 20 --

30 KILOMETERS 

+ 

RroN 

liTE!! 0 0414 

I

E!] 

0 0407 

0 0425 

0 o<t30 

PENINSULA 

+ 

Mine rail Management Senric:e 

Alaska ocs Region 

OCS Mining Program 

Norton Sound Leue S.lle 

(QJwindy Cruk 

Unalak·leet 

Sources: State of Alaska, DNA, 1966, 1987a,b 

+ Bundtzen et al., 1987 • 

Figure 8. Activities and significant mineral deposits in the Nome area that are included in the cumulative case. 

1 04 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
160 o E 180° 160 ° w 

1---i SURVEY AREAS IN PRIORI1Y ORDER Arctic 1 Ocean 

I 

I 

1 Beaufort/Chukchi Shoreline 

(resurvey every 1 0 years) I 

Ch.ulcchi 

Beaufort 

Sea 

2 Bristol Bay South Coast 

(complete shoreline survey) I 

3 Kotzebue Area Shoals I 

(complete survey of offshore features) I 

I 

4 Goodnews Bay Area ~ 

(complete coastal survey of platinum 

prospect) / 

6' 0 (resurvey shoreline) ~ 

Sea 

I 

~I 

~\o "ll>' 

~1Z 

Fairbanks I \~ ~ • c 

S: 5 Yukon Delta ~ _..... .....- _,.~orton 

_..............- Sound 

6 Central Gulf of Alaska .....- 5 ~ 

(survey shoreline) .....- _...... .....- -<~...., 

• I 

....... / ~\ / 

/__,.....-.....- ae'f\.'f\19 

// sea. / 

S.?o // 

/ / / 

\ 

b 

Figure 9. Recommendations for National Ocean Service 10-yr plan, survey priorities for Alaska Federal-State boundary 

needs. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Bray, R.N., 1979, Dredging-A handbook for engineers: London, Arnold Publishers, Ltd., pagination not available. 

Bundtzen, T.K., Green, C.B., Deagen, J., and Daniels, C.L., 

1987, Alaska's Mineral Industry, 1988: Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological and Geophysical 

Surveys, Special Report 40, pagination not available. 

Cruikshank, M., Flanagan, J.P., Holt, B., and Padan, J.W., 

1987, Marine mining on the Outer Continental ShelfEnvironmental effects overview: Minerals Management Service, OCS Report 87- 0035, pagination not available. 

Freely, R.A., Massoth, G.J., and Paulson, A.J., 1981, The 

distribution and elemental composition of suspended particulate matter in Norton Sound and the northeastern Bering 

Sea-Implications for Mn and Zn recycling in coastal 

waters, in Hood, D.W., and Calder, J.A., eds., The eastern 

Bering Sea Shelf-Oceanography and resources: U.S. 

Department of Commerce, v. 1, p. 321-337. 

Labelle, J.C., Wise, J.L., Voelker, R.P., Schulze, R.H., and 

Wohl, G.M., 1983, Alaska marine ice atlas: Alaska Environmental Information Data Center, unpaginated. 

Larsen, M.C., Nelson, C.H., and Thor, D.R., 1981, Sedimentary 

processes and potential geologic hazards on the sea floor of 

the northern Bering Sea, in Hood, D.W., and Calder, J.A., 

eds., The eastern Bering Sea Shelf-Oceanography and 

resources: U.S. Department of Commerce, v. 1, p. 247-261. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1983, Nome 

bathymetric map: National Ocean Service, NQ 3-7, scale 

1:250,000. 

Nelson, C.H., and Hopkins, D.M., 1972, Sedimentary processes 

and distribution of particulate gold in the northern Bering 

Sea: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 689, 27 p. 

State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, 1966, Offshore 

prospecting permits proposed, grid nos. K14-7, K14-6, and 

8, and Kl3-12: Department of Natural Resources, pagination 

not available. 

---1987a, Offshore mining lease, lease no. ADLILAS 22618: 

Auric Offshore Mining Company, pagination not available. 

---1987b, Offshore mining lease, lease no. ADLILAS 22618, 

September 7 ,' 1987: Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, pagination not available. 

Tagg, A.R., and Greene, H.G., 1973, High-resolution seismic 

survey of an offshore area near Nome, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 759-A, 23 p. 

Zimmerman, S.T., editor, 1982, Proceedings: Synthesis Meeting, 

Norton Sound Environment and Possible Consequence of 

Planned Oil and Gas Development, Anchorage, 1980, pagination not available. 

Mapping Requirements for Planning the Outer Continental Shelf Mining Program Norton Sound, Alaska, Lease Sale 1 05 
Case Studies of U.S. Geological Survey's Mapping 

Activities in the Islands' Exclusive Economic Zone 

Monty A. Hampton 

U.S. Geological Survey 

INTRODUCTION 

More than one-half the area of the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) surrounds island territories, commonwealths, possessions, and the State of Hawaii (table 1). 

The geology of the islands' EEZ, as well as the political, 

social, and economic motivation for studying it, are, in 

many ways, distinctive compared to the continental EEZ, 

which commonly necessitates a different approach to the 

planning and the execution of mapping and research activities (Richmond and Morgan, 1988). This section presents 

three case studies that illustrate the special character of ' 

island EEZ mapping and research. 

CASE STUDY 1-0FFSHORE SAND RESOURCES 

OF TUTUILA ISLAND, AMERICAN SAMOA 

(Dingler and others, 1986, 1987) 

Tutuila Island (fig. 1) has strictly limited sources of 

onshore sand because the volcanic island is steep and 

heavily vegetated and the irregular coast contains only small 

pocket beaches. Traditionally, sand was taken from the 

nearest beach, but increased demand for commercial and 

personal uses and a concern for the integrity of the beaches 

prompted a request by the American Samoa Coastal Management Program for a study to ascertain whether exploitTable 1. Approximate areas of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone for the Pacific and the Caribbean islands 

[From Richmond and Morgan, 1988] 

Island(s) Political status Length of Total area of EEZ Geologic type 

coastline square 

miles (km) nautical miles (km2) 

American Samoa Territory 73 (138) 125,000 (428,800) Oceanic island 

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 and Baker Possession 6 (11) 124,100 (425,700) Oceanic island 

Jarvis Possession 4 (7) 94,200 (323,100) Oceanic island 

Johnston Possession 4 (7) 131,000 (449,300) Oceanic island 

Northern Mariana Commonwealth 179 (331) 224,300 (769, 300) Island arc 

Palmyra Atoll- Possession 10 (19) 120,000 (411, 600) Oceanic island 

Kinqman 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% 

1 06 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
TUTUILA ISLAND, AMERICAN SAMOA 

0 2 4 6 

KM 

t 

t 

Figure 1. The study areas on Tutuila Island, American 

Samoa. 

able sources of sand exist offshore, particularly on the fore 

reef, in water depths shallow enough to be dredged (less 

than 30m). In addition, there is a need for siliciclastic (for 

concrete) and carbonate (for beach fill) sands, which 

necessitates identification of sand composition. The investigation began in April 1985 with a reconnaissance sampling of beaches predominantly on the southern side of the 

island. The assumption was that the proportion of siliciclastic grains derived from the volcanic rocks of the island to 

the reef-derived carbonate grains would indicate the composition of fore reef sand deposits. On the basis of existing 

reports and the results of the reconnaissance sampling, 

subsequent geophysical and diving surveys in July 1985 

were concentrated in Fagatua Bay on the southeastern end 

of the island and in Nua-Seetaga Bay area on the southwestern end of the island. High-resolution sidescanning 

sonar images showed areas of sea-floor ripples that were 

interpreted as indicating sand deposits, whereas irregular 

distributions of light and dark areas, which were accompanied by rugged bathymetry, indicated reefs. A third pattern 

of uniform shading indicates fine-grained, muddy deposits. 

Subsequent surveying by using a high-resolution acoustic 

reflection profiler allowed determination of the thickness of 

sedimentary deposits by the appearance of stratification in 

the subbottom profiles. Lastly, divers collected samples for 

textural and compositional analysis and probed the thickness of the unconsolidated sand deposits. 

A subsequent study during February and March of 

1986 was conducted on Nafanua Bank just west of Aunu'u 

Island. The objective of the study was to evaluate the 

potential for sand deposits there as a source of fill at the 

beach of a resort hotel. 

Maps constructed from the geophysical data indicated 

the existence of sand deposits of varied texture and composition in water depths of less than 30m over 400,000 m2 

in Fagatua Bay and 80,000 m2 in Nua-Seetaga Bay. Some 

deposits appear large enough for mining, although their 

thickness is too poorly known for firm estimates of recoverable resource. The subbottom profiles indicate the deep 

extent of some sedimentary deposits, but probes by divers 

encountered a hard surface within a few meters of the sea 

bottom that might indicate the depth extent of recoverable 

unconsolidated sand. Sand composed mostly of siliciclastic 

grains occur at several places near the southwestern end of 

the island, in particular in water depths of less than 15m in 

Nua-Seetaga Bay. The rest of the sampled deposits are 

predominantly calcareous. 

The survey of Nafanua Bank found patches of carbonate sand near Aunu 'u Island and on the western end of 

the bank commonly in water depths of less than 20 m and 

over an area of approximately 68,000 m~. However, the 

total amount of sand was estimated to be enough for only a 

few small beach-fill projects. There are indications of sand 

deposits in water deeper than 30m, but recovery would be 

expensive. 

Several recommendations were made by the participating scientists. Cores need to be taken to determine more 

comprehensively the thickness and the composition of 

unconsolidated deposits. Furthermore, because of time and 

funding constraints, only a few areas were studied; more 

exploration might reveal better deposits. Lastly, the environmental impact of removing sand from the shallow fore 

reef should be evaluated, especially the effect on incident 

wave energy and the exchange of sand between the beach 

and offshore so that beach erosion does not result from the 

mining. 

CASE STUDY 2-COBALT-RICH 

FERROMANGANESE CRUSTS IN THE 

JOHNSTON ISLAND AND THE HAWAIIAN 

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONES 

(Hein and others, 1985, 1987a, b, in press) 

Metallic deposits of various types and origins occur 

on the sea floor and are a potential resource for the future. 

In particular, cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts (hereafter 

referred to simply as "crusts") coat the hard substrate on the 

flanks of volcanic ridges, seamounts, and guyots (Hawaii, 

Johnston Island, Howland-Baker, Wake, KingmanPalmyra) in the U.S. EEZ. The U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) has studied crusts in the Johnston Island and the 

Hawaiian EEZ's, as well as in other Pacific areas, as part of 

a program to understand the distribution, the origin, the 

scientific implications, and the resource potential of these 

deposits. Beginning in 1983, cruises were conducted on 

Necker Ridge in the Hawaiian EEZ and qn Horizon Guyot, 

Karin Ridge, and Johnston Island Ridge in the Johnston 

Island EEZ (fig. 2; table 2). Additional areas in the 

Hawaiian and the Johnston Island EEZ's were studied on 

cruises in cooperation with the government of the Federal 

Republic of Germany, which has carried out its own 

extensive program of crust studies. The U.S. Bureau of 

Case Studies of U.S. Geological Survey's MappingActivities in the Islands' Exclusive Economic Zone 107 
Figure 2. Cobalt-rich ferromanganese crust study areas. 

Table 2. Composition of cabal-rich crusts 

Cobal.t Nickel. 

(%) (%) 

Necker 0.56 0.27 

Ridge 

Horizon 0.71 0.39 

Guyot 

Karin 0.56 0.32 

Ridge 

Johnston 0.72 0.43 

I. EEZ 

Mines cosponsored the cruise to the Johnston Island EEZ. 

The University of Hawaii also has been active in studying 

the Pacific EEZ crusts, especially in the Hawaiian and the 

Kiribati EEZ's. 

The principal mineral of crusts is vemadite ( c;-

Mn02), and the potentially exploitable metals are cobalt, 

manganese, nickel, platinum, and cerium. The cobalt, the 

manganese, and the nickel contents decrease with increasing water depth and increasing latitude. Regional mapping 

of crusts is difficult; no reliable techniques have been 

developed for identifying crust accumulations with reconnaissance instrumentation, although it is believed that crusts 

occur on virtually all hard-rock surfaces. However, knowledge about the formation of crusts suggest several criteria 

that can aid in exploration; for example, cobalt-rich crusts 

form by hydrogenetic processes only in water depths of 

between about 800 and 2,500 m. Because the crusts 

accumulate slowly (a few millimeters per million years) and 

when the substrate is in contact with fresh seawater, 

1 08 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

Manganese Iron Number of 

(%) (%) anal.yses 

19.3 20.1 19 

25.3 17.1 18 

18.3 14.1 40 

21.3 14.6 126 

significantly thick hydrogenetic crusts are found only if the 

substrate is a minimum age of about 20 Ma and is constantly 

swept by strong currents, which prevents accumulation of 

sediment. Moreover, the edifice must not be capped by 

large modem reefs or have unstable sediment-covered 

slopes because these situations might be a source of 

sediment that can cover the substrate or destroy the crusts 

by mass movements. An absence of local volcanism is 

necessary for a similar reason. To be considered as a 

potential resource, the crusts in a particular area must 

average greater than 0. 8 percent cobalt, the average crust 

thickness must exceed 4 em, the small-scale relief must be 

subdued for efficient recovery operations, and a relatively 

large edifice must be present. 

The resource potential of crusts is illustrated in 

calculations made by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, which 

indicate that in water depths of less than 2,500 m, 96,000 t 

of cobalt occur in 12 million t of crust on a single seamount 

in the Hawaiian EEZ. Annual recovery of 1 million t/yr by 
a mining operation could yield over 5,600 t of cobalt, which 

was about 85 percent of reported U.S. consumption in 1986 

(Ritchey, 1988). 

In addition to mapping the extent of crusts and 

determining their chemical composition, the USGS employs a multidisciplinary approach to understanding the 

contributing aspects of physical oceanography and sediment 

dynamics that influence the accumulation of crusts. Basic 

mapping employs high- to medium-resolution acoustic 

reflection profilers to locate sediment-free, topographically 

smooth areas that are likely sources for thick crust accumulations. Detailed mapping and inspection of small-scale 

features is accomplished by using underwater still and 

television cameras. Sample collection uses dredges for 

recovery of large quantities of crust-bearing rock, up to 1 t 

per dredge, and hard-rock corers for spot samples. Oceanographic measurements are made by using current meters 

and sensors for conductivity (salinity), temperature, and 

oxygen at recorded depths. The acoustic reflection profiles 

and the current measurements aid in the sedimentologic 

studies, and sediment samples for laboratory arialysis are 

collected by using gravity corers. In addition, other seamount mineral deposits are collected and studied along with 

crusts; for example, phosphorites and iron oxide deposits. 

Necker Ridge is an elongate volcanic edifice that 

extends more than 600 km along a trend of N. 32° W. It 

rises about 3 km above the adjacent sea floor to a minimum 

water depth of less than 1,600 m. The Necker Ridge 

surveys show that parts of the ridge crest are sediment 

covered and have associated sediment-flow deposits on the 

flanks, whereas other parts are relatively sediment free. 

Crust samples are from 7 to 70 mm thick and average about 

25 mm. The substrate typically is volcanically derived rock 

that, in places, is phosphatized, which indicates a possible 

additional resource if phosphates are locally abundant. The 

crusts have internal thin layering, and a pronounced, 

paper-thin, phosphate layer separates distinct inner and 

outer zones. Cobalt, nickel, and manganese average 0.56, 

0.27, and 19.3 percent, respectively. 

Horizon Guyot is an isolated, flat-topped, volcanic 

ridge about 300 km long and 75 km wide that rises about 

3.5 km above the sea floor to about 1,440 m water depth. 

The flanks of the ridge have a maximum gradient of 19° and 

have well-developed talus aprons at their base. The guyot is 

capped by a deposit of biogenic ooze. that reaches a 

maximum thickness of 500 m. Camera surveys reveal that 

sediment from the . pelagic sediment cap spills onto the 

flanks. They also reveal that sediment occurs in small pods 

on most slopes and, by the presence of small ripples, shows 

evidence of active transportation by ocean currents, which 

implies a repeated covering and uncovering of the crust at 

least in some places. Most of the upper slopes are covered 

with sediment. Although the physical properties of the 

sediment indicate that it is stable under gravitational forces 

on slopes up to 27°, recovery of debris-flow ·deposits 

indicates that downslope, gravity-driven movement occurs. 

Crust samples range up to 50 mm thick and show the 

two-zone internal structure separated by a phosphate layer. 

Cobalt, nickel, and manganese average 0.71, 0.39, and 

25. 3 percent, respectively. 

Karin Ridge extends for about 300 km and rises about 

4 km above the surrounding 5,600-m-deep sea floor. One of 

the primary purposes of the cruise to this area was to collect 

5 tons of crust-bearing samples for development of processing techniques by the U.S. Bureau of Mines and to test 

one of their new dredge designs. These goals were met. One 

recovered crust is 160 mm thick, which is about the thickest 

ever recovered, and most crusts exhibit the two-zone 

internal structure. In addition to volcanic substrate rocks, 

thick crusts also occur on siltstQne and limestone. The 

composition of the bulk (crust and substrate) dredge samples are comparable to an ore that would be collected by a 

rotary rip-up or scrape-up system. The average cobalt 

content for the bulk samples is 0. 21 percent, and surprisingly, the average phosphate (P20 5) is 4.3 percent. The 

average cobalt, nickel, and manganese composition of the 

crusts are 0.56, 0.32, and 18.3 percent, respectively. 

From 20 to 30 Ma of oceanic and atmospheric history 

are recorded within crusts that are from 40- to 80-mm thick. 

Their composition reflects that of ambient seawater at the 

time of precipitation. Initial studies suggest phosphoriteimpregnated crust of the inner zone represent periods of 

high oceanic productivity and phosphogenesis. Crust textures reflect fluctuations in Antarctic bottom water activity, 

where increased activity is represented by botryoidal intervals and decreased activity, by laminated intervals. 

Changes in isotopic and chemical composition of laminae 

reflect seawater chemical changes. Changes in quartz content and detrital particle sizes indicate changes in atmospheric circulation and intensity of winds. 

CASE STUDY 3-RECONNAISSANCE MAPPING 

,OF THE HAWAIIAN, THE PUERTO RICO, AND 

THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS EXCLUSIVE 

ECONOMIC ZONES 

(Scanlon and others, 1988; Moore and others, 1989) 

In 1984, the USGS began a cooperative program with 

the British Institute of Oceanographic Sciences to map the 

U.S. EEZ by using the GLORIA sidescanning sonar system. The program is still in progress, and, to date, completed mapping of island areas includes 222,000 km2 

around Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and nearly 

1 million km2 of the southern Hawaiian Ridge. Although a 

primary objective of the surveys is to provide mediumresolution base maps for guiding future EEZ studies, the 

sonar images and other geophysical data collected simultaneously contain a considerable amount of scientific information on their own. 

Case Studies of U.S. Geological Survey's MappingActivities in the Islands' Exclusive Economic Zone 109 
The GLORIA sidescan-sonar system is a reconnaissance system that produces swath acoustic images of the sea 

floor in water depths of greater than about 300 m and covers 

a net area of about 10,000 km2

/d, not including areas of 

overlap. The system operates by the transmission of a 2-s 

acoustic pulse centered at 6.5 kHz every 30 s that insonofies 

a band of sea floor approximately 22 km perpendicular to 

each side of the ship's track and digitally records the 

backscattered energy. The encoded strengths of the backscattered energy are transmitted to a ship-board recorder, 

computer, and camera that produce a line-by-line (pulseby-pulse) photoacoustic image on which the strongest 

backscatter appears white and the weakest appears black. 

Placement of the images along a properly scaled rendering 

of the ship's tracklines forms a mosaic of the sea floor 

similar in appearance and resolution to Landsat mosaics of 

the Earth's land surface. 

Giant landslides are one of the major geologic features appearing on the GLORIA images of insular slopes; 

for example, north of Puerto Rico is a large amphitheatershaped scarp, which is approximately 55 km across and 

3,700 m high and appears as an area of high backscatter 

(fig. 3). The scarp represents removal of about 1,500 km3 

of strata and probably was formed as a consequence of 

landslide movement induced by gravitational and earthquake forces associated with convergent and left-lateral slip 

along the boundary between the North American and the 

Caribbean plates at the Puerto Rico Trench. Gravitational 

stress has been constantly increasing as the result of a 

northward tilt of the insular slope since Pliocene time. 

Faults that trend into the scarp also may have aided the 

slope failure. If the sliding was sudden and cataclysmic, 

then it might have generated a tsunami that had a major 

impact on the nearby northern coastal areas of prehistoric 

Puerto Rico. 

GLORIA surveys also have documented the presence 

of giant submarine landslides on the Hawaiian Ridge. 

Seventeen major slides appear in images that extend from 

the southern end of the ridge 700 km north to the latitude of 

Kauai (fig. 4). Some of the slides spread debris more than 

200 km from the source, even moving more than 300 m 

uphill on the seaward slope of the Hawaiian Deep. The 

largest slide is about 10,000 km3 in volume. Before the 

GLORIA surveys, the existence of the slides was controversial, and their great extent certainly was unknown. Some 

slide blocks previously had been interpreted as being 

volcanic seamounts; individual blocks are up to .1 .2 km 

above the adjacent sea floor and 17 by 35 km in area. 

Sliding occurs mainly during the growth of the volcanoes 

and continues at a reduced rate after dormancy. The slides 

extend to the upper flanks of the islands, many to elevations 

above sea level, and show an association with faulting (rift 

zones) on the islands. They probably are triggered by 

volcanic activity during dike injection. The widespread 

dispersion and uphill travel of slide debris attests to a 

cataclysmic origin for some slides, which suggests the 

possible generation of a tsunami. A gravel deposit at 365-m 

elevation on Lanai has been attributed to a slide-generated 

tsunami. 

Slide movement poses a hazard if cataclysmic motion 

produces a tsunami, although the possibility of this is 

remote; dating of large-scale slide movement is uncertain, 

Figure 3. Perspective view of a GLORIA sonograph of the amphitheater-shaped scarp north of Puerto Rico. 

110 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
·-·--. :----.... + 

+ + + 

0 100 200 KM 

Figure 4. Map of giant submarine landslides, southern Hawaiian Ridge. 

but most likely the interval between such slides is on the 

order of tens of thousands of years. Another possibility is 

that the slides occur dominantly during low sea-level 

stands, not during high stands, such as at present. A more 

immediate danger is from the small-scale movement of the 

slides above sea level; for example, the Hilina slump on the 

southern flank of Kilauea Volcano subsided up to 3.5 m 

during a magnitude 7. 5 earthquake in 197 5. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Each of the case studies points out a special aspect of 

island EEZ studies. The Tutuila Island example illustrates 

the need to search offshore for a resource that is easily 

obtainable on most land areas but not on many small 

islands. The cobalt-rich crust example points out the unique 

existence of an abundant reserve of strategic mineral resources in island areas, resources that presently are imported 

almost entirely from foreign sources. Lastly, the GLORIA 

mapping example documents the existence of giant landslides that play an important role in the morphologic 

evolution of islands and that pose an environmental hazard: 

Landslides of similar size occur on some continental margins but not with such combined abundance and great 

distance of movement. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Dingler, J.R., Carlson, D.V., and Sallenger, A.H., Jr., 1987, 

Map showing locations and statistical parameters of beach 

and offshore sand samples, Tutuila Island, American Samoa: 

U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 

MF-1875, scale 1:48,000, 1 sheet with text. 

Case Studies of U.S. Geological Survey's MappingActivities in the Islands' Exclusive Economic Zone 111 
Dingler, J.R., Wolf, S.C., and Carlson, D.V., 1986, Offshore 

sand resources along the south shore of Tutuila Island, 

American Samoa: U.S .. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

86-112, 43 p. 

Hein, J.R., Manheim, F.T., Schwab, W.C., and Davis, A.S., 

1985, Ferromanganese crusts from Necker Ridge, Horizon 

Guyot and S.P. Lee Seamount-Geological considerations: 

Marine Geology, v. 69, p. 25-64. 

Hein, J.R., Morgenson, L.A., Clague, D.A., and Koski, R.A., 

1987a, Cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts from the Exclusive 

Economic Zone of the United States and nodules from the 

oceanic Pacific, in Scholl, D.W., Grantz, Andrew, 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: Houston, 

Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and Mineral Resources, 

p. 753-771. 

Hein, J.R., Schulz, M.S., and Gein, L.M., in press, Central 

Pacific cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts-Historical perspective and regional variability, in Keating, Barbara, and Boulton, B. eds., Geology and offshore mineral resources of the 

112 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Sympos-ium on Mapping and Research 

central Pacific region: Houston, Circum-Pacific Council for 

Energy and Mineral Resources. 

Hein, J.R., Schwab, W.C., and others, 1987b, Pamella cruise 

F7-86-HW, cobalt-rich ferromanganese crust data report for 

Karin Ridge and Johnston Island, central Pacific: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 87-663, 34 p. 

Moore, J. G. , and others, 1989, Prodigious submarine slides on the 

Hawaiian Ridge: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 94, p. 

17, 465-17, 484. 

Richmond, B.M., and Morgan, C.L., 1988, Scientific mapping 

and research to characterize the EEZ-Islands, in Exclusive 

Economic Zone Symposium on Mapping and Research- . 

Planning for the next 10 years, Reston, Va., 1987, Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1018, p. 89-100. 

Ritchey, J.L., 1988, Cobalt-rich manganese crust in the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic zone-A potential source of strategic 

metals: Minerals and Materials, October-November, p. 

13-24. 

Scanlon, K.M., Masson, D.G., and Rodriguez, R.W., 1988, 

GLORIA sidescan-sonar survey of the EEZ of Puerto Rico 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands, in Caribbean Conference, 11th, 

Barbados, 1986, Transactions: p. 32:1-32:9. 
Policy Issues for Detailed Bathymetric Mapping in the 

Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone and Hawaii's Marine 

Mining Program 

John C. Wiltshire 

University of Hawaii 

Abstract 

Detailed bathymetric maps are needed of seamounts 

in the Exclusive Economic Zones around Hawaii and 

Johnston Island to carry out exploration and development 

programs for cobalt-rich manganese crusts. Bathymetric 

maps contoured on a 10-meter interval are necessary to 

allow submersible diving, which has been proven to be the 

best tool for detailed exploration of marine minerals. Map 

limitations have restricted submersible mineral exploration 

programs in the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone to 

Cross and Loihi Seamounts. Jurisdictional questions and 

questions of State marine policy may be solved through the 

new Hawaii Council on Ocean and Marine Resources and 

an innovative State-Federal joint Exclusive Economic Zone 

management program known as the Marine Mineral Joint 

Planning Arrangement. The newly created Pacific Mapping 

Program should solve many of the former bathymetric data 

analysis and archiving problems. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), 

which covers one-third of the North Pacific Ocean, 

- stretches from 200 mi southeast of the island of Hawaii to 

200 mi northwest of Kure Atoll (fig. 1). This immense 

ocean area has been the focus of countless marine expeditions, including the current broad-scale GLORIA mapping 

efforts. We are now beginning to see the growth of 

commercial developments in the Hawaiian EEZ. These 

began with precious coral harvesting and moved on to 

deepwater sewer outfalls; we are now looking at emplacements for deepwater ocean thermal energy conversion 

pipes, artificial reefs, anchoring sites for fish aggregation 

devices and a deep-space neutrino detector an underwater 

volcano monitoring station, and a deepwater interisland 

power cable, among other things. All these developments 

demand very detailed maps. 

Since President Ronald Reagan's declaration of the 

EEZ in 1983, the Federal Government has been pursuing its 

mandate to evaluate the resources of the EEZ. This has 

brought an increasing interest on the extractable resources 

of this vast zone. Research carried out by the University of 

Hawaii, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. 

Bureau of Mines, and West German interests has defined an 

attractive resource of cobalt-rich manganese crusts on the 

tops and the sides of seamounts in the Hawaiian and 

Johnston Island EEZ's. 

The shock of price rises and supply disruption for oil 

twice in the 1970's has made the Nation realize the potential 

power of commodity cartels. Several metals critical to steel 

production are not mined in the United States. Two of 

these, cobalt and manganese, are largely supplied by Third 

World countries. The rate of cobalt use in the United States 

is increasing while, even barring supply disruption, the 

potential supply from the known African deposits is slowly 

decreasing. Cobalt-rich manganese crusts may offer the 

potential for the development of a very large domestic 

source of both of these metals and platinum. However, 

before this goal can be realized, a critical need for detailed 

bathymetric maps must be filled. In this paper, I will 

discuss the need for this detailed mapping and the policy 

issues it raises in the context of Hawaii's mineral exploration and development program. 

To effectively follow up on the initial manganese 

crust reconnaissance explorati9n, an extensive deposit mapping program must be undertaken. Unlike the earlier mapping work, which was very broad scale, this new mapping 

work will have to focus on the details that determine 

whether deposits, such as those identified, can, in fact, be 

mined and with what environmental implications. There are 

just over 100 known seamounts in the Hawaiian EEZ. Of 

these only, six are presently mapped well enough to allow 

detailed exploration. 

Work on manganese crust deposits in the Hawaiian 

Archipelago has shown that the best tool for exploring these 

Policy Issues for Detailed Bathymetric Mapping in the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone and Hawaii's Marine Mining Program 113 
HAWAIIAN ISLAND CHAIN 

o Oo ·~ 

N 

1 JOHNSTON 

ISLAND 

170°W 

100 0 200km 

c:::c:::::c:::l 

CROSS SEAMOUNT 

LOI HI SEAMOUNT 

Figure 1. The Hawaiian Islands and the Johnston Island EEZ's. 

deposits in detail is a submersible (Wiltshire and McMurtry, 

1987; Wiltshire, 1988). The major reason for this is that 

competing techniques, such as deepsea camera tows, cannot 

distinguish between thin and thick crust and cannot take 

selected samples or assess topography on large and fine 

scales for minability (a real problem on many Hawaiian 

seamounts). Fortunately, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Hawaii Undersea 

Research Laboratory (HURL) at the University of Hawaii 

has two research submersibles. One of these, the Pisces V, 

is capable of 2,000-m dives and is available for the 

extensive exploration of mineral deposits. However, only 

two of the seamounts in the Hawaiian chain have been 

mapped in enough detail to have been subject to major 

diving programs. 

The notion of detailed mapping for mineral exploration and development programs raises some serious policy 

questions when these· programs are conducted in the context 

of academic and government research. Effectively, this puts 

public sector institutions in charge of selecting mapping 

sites for the purpose of future private sector development. It 

also necessitates a process for mapping site and technique 

selection and a method of archiving and distributing the 

114 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

resulting information. When Federal, State, and local governments have a major stake in the outcome, the issue of 

jurisdictional overlap in itself becomes a significant policy 

issue in any arrangement. To put such policy issues into a 

framework, the background of the State of Hawaii's economic development program and its relation to Federal 

programs needs to be considered. 

The State of Hawaii has a narrow-based economy that 

depends largely on tourism and smaller contributions from 

construction, agriculture (sugar cane and pineapple), and 

military expenditures. For this reason, economic diversification has been a major State goal for many years. In the 

current economic climate, the best chance for such diversification is through new high-tech industries. While the State 

,searches for new industries, it is highly conscious that land 

area is at a premium. Hawaii is the only State in the United 

States that is completely surrounded by water. If the EEZ 

adjacent to Hawaii were actually part of the State of Hawaii, 

then the State would be 99 percent water and less than 1 

percent land. It is clear that some of Hawaii's new 21stcentury industries must come from this large ocean area. 

One potentially significant commodity from the EEZ is hard 

minerals. This potential is well recognized and, in fact, has 
been codified in the State Plan in policy 226-10(b)7 (State 

of Hawaii, 1978), which calls for the development of ocean 

mining and other ocean-related economic activities. The 

State has been interested in an ocean minerals industry for 

18 yr. This interest has a direct bearing on EEZ mapping 

policy. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The opinions expressed in this paper are solely those 

of the author and do not necessarily represent the official 

position of the State of Hawaii. This paper is Ocean 

Resources Branch Contribution No. 86. This work is also 

the result of research (Policy Issues in the Development of 

Manganese Crust Mining, R/OM-4) sponsored by the 

University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program under 

Institutional Grant No. NA85AA-D-SG082 from NOAA 

Office of Sea Grant, Department of Commerce. This is 

publication UNIH I-SEAGRANT -CP-904)4. 

HAWAII'S MARINE MINING PROGRAM 

Since 1972, the State of Hawaii has had a marine 

mining program. Initially, this program was focused on the 

development of a manganese nodule processing industry. 

Following a period of intense research and evaluation, 

industrial interest· in nodules declined, and it became 

apparent that a nodule industry was many years off. At this 

point, the interest of the program was shifted from nodules 

to cobalt-rich manganese crusts. Some of these manganese 

crusts may be world-class deposits of cobalt that have 

grades as high as 2 percent. This is 20 times the grade 

currently being mined in Zaire. The potential for a significant mining operation in the next century is considerable. 

Working with the Federal Government and the University of Hawaii, the State of Hawaii provided oversight 

for a large research program that involved four research 

cruises, two submersible expeditions, and an extensive 

program of laboratory analyses in the EEZ's surrounding 

the Hawaiian Islands and Johnston Island. This work clearly 

showed that a potentially economic resource was at hand. 

The next step involved the commissioning of a series 

of engineering studies. Consultants were hired to examine 

resource potential, mining system technology, transportation technology, and the technology of processing (Marine 

Development Associates, 1987). It was ascertained that, 

from an engineering point of view, the mining, the transporting, and the processing of manganese crusts was feasible. Subsequently, a series of three economic studies gave 

conflicting results as to whether or not the mining of crusts 

would be economic (Japan Resources Association, 1986; 

Ritchey and others, 1986; Plasch and others, 1987). Nonetheless, a task force composed of Federal and State officials 

decided that an investigation into the development potential 

of this crust resource merited serious consideration in view 

of the relevant Federal and State positions with respect to 

securing domestic sources of raw materials and diversifying 

the State economy. The next step was an assessment of the 

environmental effect of the development of a minerals 

industry. 

An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was written for a proposed Department of the Interior minerals lease 

sale (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1990). Within the 

confines of the available data, it indicated that mining could 

be conducted in an environmentally sound manner. This 

will allow a lease sale to proceed, if the U.S. Department of 

the Interior moves forward with its plans. However, with 

respect to mining at sea, there still remain a number of 

unanswered questions. Before any actual mining occurred, 

site- and technology-specific studies would be required. 

Much of what was determined to be lacking will require 

detailed mapping and characterization of seamount benthic 

environments. 

The first phase of these needed benthic studies was 

started on Cross Seamount because it was the only crustcovered seamount that had bathymetric maps of sufficient 

quality to allow the necessary submersible operations. 

Generally, such bathymetric maps require data sufficient for 

contouring at a 10-m interval. The only other seamount 

mapped with this detail to have allowed a major submersible exploration program is Loihi. The results from these 

two very different seamounts emphasize our need for 

detailed maps. 

Cross Seamount 

Cross Seamount (fig. 1) was chosen as a site to study 

the geology of manganese crusts in detail for the purposes 

of the EIS. The seamount is due south of Honolulu at long. 

158°15' W., lat. 18°40' N. Its summit is flat and at a water 

depth of 500 m. Detailed bathymetric mapping was done by 

using a multibeam system from the German Research 

Vessel Sonne. HURL was forced to use this foreign source 

because, at that time, all domestically acquired data were 

classified. (The classification issue of bathymetric data has 

now been largely resolved.) A series of dives on several 

occasions have examined the seamount in great detail. 

Initially, dive sites were picked on the basis of 10 camera 

tows and dredge hauls taken from the University of Hawaii 

Research Vessel Moana Wave. The dives on Cross showed 

a dissected seamount, which apparently has undergone 

continuous mass wasting since its formation. This mass 

wasting has exposed radial or elongate dike structures 

within the edifice and has formed long, wide talus chutes 

extending from the summit to the base of the seamount. The 

seamount is covered with sediment-rich gullies and areas of 

manganese crust, loose basalt, and sand. Many areas had no 

cover of manganese crusts, whereas other areas had signifPolicy Issues for Detailed Bathymetric Mapping in the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone and Hawaii's Marine Mining Program 115 
icant cover. The seamount was not flat topped as anticipated 

but showed major faults and walls on the scale of meters 

and tens of meters. At times, the submersible came into 

contact with 30-m-high walls instead of a smooth slope as 

indicated on the bathymetric map. Manganese crust covered 

a wide range of terrains from a very thin coating on the 

basalt to thick pieces of crust. It became obvious after the 

diving missiort that wide areas of thick crust were quite rare. 

The largest continuous crust patches were along the base of 

talus chutes. 

Having been dissected by a series of tectonic events 

and mass wasting, the seamount appears to be fundamentally unminable. A paleoreconstruction traced Cross Seamount back to its point of origin on the East Pacific Rise 

some 84 million yr ago (Malahoff and Kelly, in press). 

From that distant origin, the seamount has moved across the 

Pacific by traveling with the Pacific Plate to reach its 

present position; in the course of this journey, it went over 

the Hawaiian Arch. This may be one of the factors 

responsible for seamount dissection and mass wasting. If 

the long journey is responsible for this disruption, then it 

may be expected that other seamounts in the same vicinity 

also may have suffered similar mass wasting. This is very 

significant because if a large number of seamounts are 

characterized by such mass wasting slopes, then they also 

may be fundamentally unsuited to mining. 

Loihi Seamount 

Loihi Seamount (fig. 1) is situated about 28 km 

southeast of the island of Hawaii. The summit is in 969 m 

of water. This volcano has been documented as the southernmost extension of the Kahoolawe-Hualalai-Mauna Loa 

volcanic line (Malahoff, 1987). It probably marks the latest 

activity of the Hawaiian hot spot. Most of the volcanic 

activity has occurred through periodic volcanism on a 

northwest- to southeast-striking 31-km rift. The summit of 

the volcano contains a calderalike depression 2.8 km wide 

and 3. 7 km long and steep inner and outer walls. Inside the 

caldera, there are two pit craters; one is 0.6 km in diameter 

and 73 m deep, and the other is 1.2 km in diameter and 146 

m deep. 

Between 1978 and 1981, a series of detailed surveys 

were conducted over the summit and sides of Loihi by the 

NOAA's Survey Ships Fairweather and Rainier. These 

surveys used high-resolution, narrow-beam, echo sounders 

on tracks spaced 400 to 800 m apart. Navigation made use· 

of the miniranger that had the network tied to the old 

Hawaiian datum. Further work was conducted on the whole 

volcanic edifice by using the narrow-beam 64-beam Sonar 

Array Survey System (SASS) aboard the U.S. Navy Ship 

Hess. The combination of this survey work was sufficient to 

allow a map that was an accuracy of 10 fathoms to be 

constructed. This map was refined in the area of the summit 

crater by including detailed photographic work done by the 

116 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute by using their 

ANGUS camera system, which is equiped with an altimeter 

and is navigated by using acoustic transponders. A further 

detailed 10-m-contour interval map was constructed from 

multibeam sonar bathymetry taken in conjunction with a 

1987 Deepsea Research Submersible Vehicle Alvin diving 

program (Fornari and others, 1988). Active hydrothermal 

vents have been discovered at the summit of Loihi Seamount (Karl and others, 1989). Warm hydrothermal fluids 

are venting at a temperature of 30 oc in an area referred to 

as Pele's vents. The active field is characterized by iron-rich 

nontronite deposits, extensive bacterial mats, and the conspicuous absence of large benthic animals; Malahoff and 

others (1982) postulated higher temperatures in the material 

below seabed and active deposition of polymetallic sulfides. 

Measured deposits include elevated concentrations of gold, 

manganese, copper, nickel, lead, and cadmium. Although 

the high concentration of sulfide-forming metals on Loihi is 

not a potentially economic polymetallic sulfide deposit, the 

presence of these materials does make Loihi an excellent 

natural site for studying ore-forming processes. 

POLICY ISSUES 

The detailed characterization of Cross and Loihi 

Seamounts was just the beginning. The detailed maps now 

needed will provide the ability to develop a whole new 

group of EEZ projects. However, the detailed mapping of 

the EEZ clearly raises a number of policy issues, many of 

which are fundamental in nature. A State such as Hawaii, 

which is completely surrounded by water, has a major stake 

in the EEZ. It cannot leave the jurisdiction and the management of this vast resource solely in the hands of the 

Federal Government. Effective management is based on 

knowledge. Gaining and using this knowledge are prerequisites for effective management. For this reason, the State 

needs a role in acquiring detailed bathymetry. 

A related issue-commercial development-is the 

overall reason for mapping. This brings up the question as 

to whether those parties who will undertake the commercial 

development itself should not bear all the expenses. However, given that the prospects for commercialization are far~~ 

in the future, this seems unreasonable. The position reduces 

to a situation of mapping at government expense or not 

having a comprehensive mapping program at all. yet more 

than one government is legitimately involved. In the past, 

the Federal Government has reserved the entire right to plan 

and execute government mapping programs. Although 

States, such as Hawaii, have excellent resources in the form 

of university research vessels and submersibles, such as the 

HURL operation, to undertake mapping programs, they do 

not have the necessary funds to do this mapping. Further, 

the major tax revenues from a future commercial operation 

will largely accrue to the Federal Government in terms of 
Federal and corporate income taxes on the workers in any 

commercial venture, not to mention revenues from the 

rentals, the royalties, and the bonuses paid on the actual 

mineral leases themselves. By contrast, the greatest expense 

liability will be on the local government forced to put in 

new roads, sewers, schools, and so forth, before any 

income is raised from property tax or trickle down from 

State government (Fischer, 1988). This problem could 

create the difficulty so commonly experienced in offshore 

oil and gas leasing-massive local community opposition. 

To help alleviate some of the opposition, administration of ocean resources will have to be delegated to allow 

greater participation by State and local authorities (Fischer, 

1988). Even more important is a clear and open process to 

achieve policy consensus. In the case of detailed mapping, 

policy issues are essentially process issues. The specific 

areas to map, the techniques to be used, and the resolution 

at which to map will all change as technology and perceived 

needs change. However, the decisionmaking processes and 

the forums fGr discussion of needs can be institutionalized 

to insure a consistent and well-thought-out program. 

The State of Hawaii has been innovative in refining 

these processes to ensure that the best decisions are made. 

Hawaii started with a realization that Federal-State cooperation was essential, not only on a policy level, but also on 

a day-to-day government working level. The Joint Federal/ 

State Manganese Crust Task Force was formed in 1984 to 

create a body to supervise crust research and the writing of 

the EIS (Wiltshire, 1984). This successful Task Force was 

further institutionalized in 1988, when the Governor of 

Hawaii and the Secretary of the Interior signed an agreement for joint management of marine minerals in the 

Hawaiian EEZ (Pacific Basin Development Council, 1989). 

The agreement created the Hawaii Marine Minerals Joint 

Planning Arrangement (JPA). This joint management body 

is two tiered- a senior, politically appointed body oversees 

a working-level, technical body. The major questions concerning detailed mapping will be handled by the technical 

committee, which is composed of representatives of all key 

Federal and State departments and a large group of advisors 

selected for specific technical expertise or, in the case of 

representatives of environmental groups, for their environmental concern. 

The questions of how many and which seamounts to 

map and how accurately to map them are decided by the 

technical review panel. The question of which seamounts to 

map is certainly a critical parameter and is totally dependent 

on the purpose of the mapping exercise. Assuming that the 

mapping is geared for mineral exploration, the maps should 

be constructed by using prime mineral targets. An assessment of these targets needs to be made in conjunction with 

the greatest number of interested parties that are know ledgeable about the nature of mineral development. Ideally, this 

would include those industries concerned with crust development. In practice, it is more likely to include Federal and 

State agencies and university scientists. The question of 

how many seamounts to map is a direct fall-out of the funds 

available for the project and the ability of the committee to 

pool and focus the resources of several agencies. A list of 

priorities will be drawn up to map the seamounts in the most 

efficient way. 

Following target selection, a mapping technology 

needs to be selected that is sufficient to give the resolution 

necessary for diving studies. Typically this would be 

SeaBeam, SASS, or a similar multibeam system, depending 

on the ship available. Navigational accuracy is, of course, 

critical. When available, the Global Positioning System is 

used. At the present, time it is available about 12 hr/d in the 

Hawaiian area. It is hoped the this situation will rapidly 

improve in the coming years as new satellites are deployed. 

Nearshore miniranger or other transponder systems have 

been used successfully on most of the Loihi Seamount 

surveys. However, such systems are not applicable to most 

seamount surveys, which are out of range of possible 

shore-based station locations. 

After the surveys are completed, the data need to be 

worked up, maps made, and the data properly archived. In 

the past, this has been a major weak link in the entire 

process. Because of classification problems in the past, 

maps and data were not available as needed, and decisions 

on which seamounts to dive and investigate in detail were 

made not on geological grounds per se, but on the basis of 

map availability; for example, early in 1986, the Governor 

of the State of Hawaii formally requested that the Secretary 

of Commerce authorize the detailed mapping of a series of 

seamounts so that they could become candidates for future 

diving investigations. Unfortunately, the level of detail 

needed was considerable, and NOAA was unable to release 

these maps because of the necessity for military classification. This year, some of these maps have been declassified 

and released as the result of the major easing of classification requirements. 

INSTITUTIONAL INNOVATIONS 

One major institutional innovation to help overcome 

the loggerhead of bathymetric data analysis and archiving is 

the new Pacific Mapping Program, which is at the University of Hawaii and was officially dedicated on March 15, 

1990. This center is a cooperative program between the 

USGS, NOAA, the Pacific International Center for High 

Technology Research, and the State of Hawaii through the 

University of Hawaii's College of Engineering. This program and the Pacific Regional Data Center, which it 

includes, will conduct ocean mapping research. Activities 

will include establishing a database (bathymetry, gravity, 

sea-surface temperature, magnetic, seismic) for the Pacific 

region, analysis of data and systems, establishing mapping 

requirements for resource-rich areas, and providing acaPolicy Issues for Detailed Bathymetric Mapping in the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone and Hawaii's Marine Mining Program 117 
demic training, including a certificate program. The Center 

will emphasize cooperative programs with industry, in 

particular marine mining and fisheries. Having a dedicated 

center to provide guidance on detailed mapping requirements and to collect and analyze all existing data will 

greatly facilitate the work of optimizing Hawaii's marine 

mining exploration program. 

Another institutional innovation is the Hawaii Ocean 

and Marine Resources Council. This body, which was 

created by the State of Hawaii Legislature in 1988, provides 

a forum for comprehensive ocean policy formulation, public and private sector coordination, information dissemination, and planning, coordinating, and facilitating the development of the Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan 

(State of Hawaii, 1990). The body has 11 members representing the heads of 6 State departments, including the 

University of Hawaii's School of Ocean and Earth Science 

and Technology, and 5 members representing commercial, 

recreational, environmental, and research interests. The 

Council has a professional research staff attached to it 

specifically for the development of policy issues and tracking the implementation of the Council's solutions. The 

council responds directly to the Governor and the legislature 

through the State Department of Business and Economic 

Development. The Council will set and review State policy 

for a range of 10 specific areas, including marine minerals, 

ocean energy, waste disposal, and fisheries. Hawaii now 

has a public body directly charged with setting EEZ policy, 

which, in turn, will dictate the framework under which a 

mapping program will operate. This body will provide the 

overall State ocean policy guidance that the Marine Minerals JP A will translate into requirements for the State Marine 

Mining Program, in particular requirements for detailed 

mapping. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The State of Hawaii has an active marine mining 

program that needs high-resolution bathymetric mapping to 

efficiently carry out its function. Although broad-scale 

coverage, such as GLORIA, serves a general reconnaissance purpose, it is primarily of scientific interest to sort out 

large-scale tectonic patterns. For the State to carry out 

specific projects in the EEZ, as is now the intention, 

detailed maps must be available. 

Detailed characterization of mineral deposits has been 

done most successfully by using submersibles. In the 

Hawaiian EEZ, this has focused on Cross Seamount for 

crust deposits and on Loihi Seamount for sulfide deposits. 

These particular deposits were selected largely because of 

map availability. Subsequently, NOAA has mapped six 

other seamounts. 

The State of Hawaii has set up a process to evaluate 

mapping needs in the context of marine mining in the form 

118 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

of the Joint Federal-State Marine Minerals JPA. In addition, 

another legislated body, the Council on Ocean and Marine 

Resources, provides State policy guidance for all EEZ 

matters. A mapping institution, the Pacific Mapping Program, also has been formed to serve the archiving and 

analysis function critical to carrying out the needed mapping programs. With the ominous classification issue now 

behind us, Hawaii has shown the leadership to set up the 

institutional and the policy mechanisms to move rapidly 

forward with the detailed mapping necessary for the commercial development of the EEZ. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Fischer, D.W., 1988, Hard mineral resource development policy 

in the U.S. EEZ-A review of the role of the Coastal States: 

Ocean Development and International Law, v. 19, no. 2, p. 

101-111. 

Fornari, D.J., Garcia, M., Tyee, R.C., and Gallo, D., 1988, 

Morphology and structure of Loihi Seamount based on 

SeaBeam sonar mapping: Journal of Geophysical Research, 

v. 93, p. 15, 227-15, 238. 

Japan Resources Association, 1986, Second report for exploitation 

of cobalt-rich manganese crust: Tokyo, unpublished report. 

Karl, D.M., Brittain, A., and Tilbrook, B., 1989, Hydrothermal 

and microbial processes at Loihi Seamount, a mid-plate 

hot-spot volcano: Deep-Sea Research, v. 36, no. 11, p. 

1655-1673. 

Malahoff, A.M., 1987, Geology of the summit of Loihi submarine 

volcano: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1350, p. 

133-144. 

Malahoff, A.M., and Kelly, K., in press, Development of 

cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts on Hawaiian Seamounts: 

Proceedings of the Circum-Pacific Energy and Minerals 

Conference, American Association of Petroleum Geologists. 

Malahoff, A.M., McMurtry, G., 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. 

Marine Development Associates, Inc., editors, 1987, Mining 

development scenario for cobalt-rich manganese crusts in the 

EEZ's of the Hawaiian Archipelago and Johnston Island: 

State of Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic 

Development, unpaginated. 

Pacific Basin Development Council, 1989, Pacific basin management of the 200-nautical mile EEZ: Honolulu, Implications of 

the EEZ for the American Flag Pacific islands, p. 39-42. 

Plasch, B., Miklius, W., and Leung, P., 1987, Manganese crust 

mining and processing-Economic and demographic 

impacts-Appendix C, Draft EIS-Proposed Marine Mineral 

Lease Sale the Hawaiian Archipelago and Johnston Island 

EEZ' s: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Washington, D.C. 

Ritchey, J., Avery, D., and Denton, D., 1986, Cobalt-rich 

manganese crust in the U.S. EEZ as a potential domestic 

source of cobalt: Bureau of Mines IC. 

State of Hawaii, 1978, The Hawaii State Plan: Honolulu, Department of Planning and Economic Development. 
---1990, Report to the Fifteenth State Legislature from the 

Hawaii Ocean and Marine Resources Council: Honolulu, 

Department of Business and Economic Development. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1990, Final EIS-Proposed 

marine mineral lease sale-EEZ adjacent to Hawaii and 

Johnston Island: Minerals Management Service. 

Wiltshire, J.C., 1988, Deep seabed mining within the EEZ in 

Pacific Basin Management of the 200-Nautical Mile EEZ, 

Proceedings: Honolulu Pacific Basin Development Council, 

p. 153-160. 

---1984, Innovative trends in marine management-Hawaii's 

manganese crust work group: Proceedings of Oceans, Marine 

Technology Society, Washington, D.C., p. 884-889. 

Wiltshire, J.C. and McMurtry, G., 1987, Deepsea sampling of 

consolidated material by submersible: Proceedings of 

Oceans, Marine Technology Society, Washington, D.C., p. 

1052-1057. 

Policy Issues for Detailed Bathymetric Mapping in the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone and Hawaii's Marine Mining Program 119 
High-Resolution Sea-Floor Mapping in Hawaii 

j. Frisbee Campbell 

Seafloor Surveys International, Inc. 

Abstract 

The Exclusive Economic Zone surrounding the principal Hawaiian Islands has been the focus of a variety of 

... high-resolution seafloor mapping surveys. The U.S. Geological Survey has completed GLORIA surveys of the 

southeastern end of the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic 

Zone, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminitration has completed multi beam surveys of part of the area. 

At the State level, several surveys have been conducted that are more project specific in nature. These 

surveys have involved several State agencies and the 

University of Hawaii. These high-resolution mapping 

projects range from the use of the University's SeaMARC II 

to map seamounts that have potential sources of cobalt-rich 

manganese crusts .to the use of Seafloor Surveys International's high-resolution mapping systems to produce maps 

for fishery-resource studies. Most of, but not all, these 

focused mapping projects involved Federal agencies either 

as a direct partner or as a source of funding. 

Although several cooperative programs between State 

and Federal agencies are already in place, some of which 

involve mapping in the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic 

Zone, there is a need for closer cooperation. This is 

especially true for mapping the shallower water areas where 

there is more potential for short-term economic benefit, and 

the State and the Federal Governments have an interest. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) surrounding the 

Hawaiian Islands is about one-fifth of the total U.S. EEZ 

and, at present, the least studied of any part. The State of 

Hawaii extends for nearly 2,500 km from the island of 

Hawaii to Kure Atoll at the northwestern end of the 

archipelago. The Hawaiian Archipelago varies from high 

volcanic islands at its southeastern end, which are still being 

formed by the Hawaiian hot spot, to the inhabited atolls of 

Midway and Kure in the northwest. Most of the islands west 

of the eight major Hawaiian Islands are low islands associated with atolls formed on the eroded remnants of volcanoes 

that moved away from the hot spot. Because of the linearity 

120 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

of the Hawaiian Ridge and the spacing of the islands on the 

volcanoes along the ridge, the Hawaiian EEZ covers a 

swath nearly 400 mi wide along most of its length. 

Aside from the volcanoes on the Hawaiian Ridge that 

. were formed by the Hawaiian hot spot, there are numerous 

other seamounts in the Hawaiian EEZ that were presumably 

formed when this portion of the Pacific lithospheric plate 

was created at the East Pacific Rise. Included in the 

Hawaiian EEZ are portions of Necker Ridge, the Musicians 

and the West Hawaiian seamount groups, and several 

smaller groups of seamounts in the vicinity of Midway. 

Although the major seamount groups are fairly well 

charted, there are likely to be undiscovered seamounts in 

the poorer mapped portions of the EEZ. 

HIGH-RESOLUTION MAPPING 

The charting of the waters surrounding Hawaii most 

likely started with the arrival of the first Polynesians; 

however, the first known published chart dates from 1778 

when Captain James Cook visited the islands. Until the EEZ 

declaration, charts of the Hawaiian area were generally 

prepared for navigation, scientific, and military uses and, in 

most instances, would not now be considered high resolution. Since the EEZ declaration in 1983, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has undertaken a regional GLORIA 

mapping program, which has surveyed the area at the 

southeastern end of the Hawaiian EEZ surrounding the 

principal Hawaiian Islands, and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has begun systematic 

charting of the EEZ by using SeaBeam swath-mapping 

technology. These data sets have not been published as yet; 

however, details already made public, specifically some of 

the GLORIA data, are extremely interesting. The discovery 

of large submarine lava flows and confirmation of large 

landslides surrounding the islands has provided new information on the geologic history of Hawaii. 

These regional scale mapping projects are ongoing 

efforts on the part of the USGS and NOAA and most likely 

will continue for several years. Because the technologies 

being used for these regional mapping projects are not 
particularly suitable for mapping in shallow water, these 

programs are mapping only the deeper slopes of the islands 

and the surrounding sea floor. More site-specific studies of 

individual seamounts have been conducted by the Hawaii 

Institute of Geophysics (HIG) and the Hawaii Underwater 

Research Laboratory (HURL); these surveys involved highresolution mapping that used RIG's SeaMARC II and 

HURL's submersibles. These programs were aimed at 

providing a general assessment of the potential for mining 

cobalt-rich manganese crusts from seamounts in the Hawaiian EEZ. 

High-resolution mapping in the shallower waters 

(0-1 ,000 m) of the Hawaiian EEZ has been done only on a 

project-specific basis. Generally, these mapping efforts 

were in support of State projects; however, these often 

involved some Federal funding. A good example of this 

type of program is the Hawaii Deep Water Cable Program; 

the goal is to determine if it is feasible to design, build, and 

lay an electric transmission cable from the geothermal 

resources on the island of Hawaii to the city of Honolulu, 

where electric power is needed. This project is being 

conducted by the Hawaiian Electric Company with grants 

from the State and the U.S. Department of Energy. Hawaiian Electric's project manager for the study, Parsons Engineering, has relied on the University of Hawaii, Seafloor 

Surveys International, the Scripps Institute of Oceanography (SIO), and Makai Ocean Engineering to provide 

detailed bathymetric charts of various parts of the route. 

Various mapping tools have been used by these groupsSeaMARC II, SeaMARC/S, the SIO Deep Tow, and a 

high-resolution bottom roughness sampler-to provide the 

bathymetric resolution necessary to determine the location 

of a feasible cable route. 

An example of a totally State-supported highresolution survey was the production of a series of detailed 

charts by Seafloor Surveys International for the Aquatic 

Resources Division of the State's Department of Land and 

Natural Resources. These charts were prepared for use by 

the Aquatic Resources Division in determining where to 

position fish aggregation devices. These 1:25,000-scale 

charts had a 5-m contour interval. Because the charts 

showed a series of drowned reefs, they were also of interest 

to bottom fishermen and scientists working on the subsidence history of the Hawaiian Islands. 

High-resolution mapping of Loihi Seamount has been 

carried out by scientists who use SeaBeam, SeaMARC II, 

and submersibles; for mapping potential Ocean Thermal 

Energy Conversion sites, SeaMARC II and submersibles 

were used; and for engineering and the installation of fiber 

optic communications cables, SeaBeam and SeaMARC/S 

were used. Unfortunately, much of the information collected for these project-specific studies is not widely distributed. 

FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATION 

Soon after the declaration of the U.S. claim over the 

EEZ, the State of Hawaii's Department of Business and 

Economic Development and the Minerals Management 

Service of the Department of the Interior formed a task 

force to oversee exploration and leasing of areas that have 

potential for cobalt-rich manganese crusts and other hard 

minerals in the Hawaiian EEZ. This cooperative program 

provided funding to the University of Hawaii to conduct 

preliminary assessment of the resource and to prepare a 

preliminary Environmental Impact Statement. 

The establishment of the Center for Ocean Resources 

Technology at the University of Hawaii is another example 

of a Federal-State cooperative program. This is a joint 

program of the University and the U.S. Bureau of Mines. 

The Center is presently undertaking a program to explore "' 

the feasibility of mining offshore sand deposits as a source 

of aggregate for construction and beach replenishment. 

Although plans for this program are not complete, the need 

for detailed sea-floor mapping by this program is readily 

apparent. Other smaller scale joint efforts, such as involvement of the University of Hawaii personnel in the USGS 

GLORIA mapping program, and cooperation between the 

Office of State Planning and the USGS in setting up a State 

geographic information system are examples of cooperation 

between State and Federal agencies. 

Although these cooperative efforts are commendable, 

it seems as though there is lack of overall coordination. 

There is no single agency, particularly at the State level, 

that is responsible for coordinating an overall submarine 

mapping effort. The USGS-NOAA Joint Office for Mapping and Research (JOMAR) is a logical Federal office for 

coordination of a detailed mapping program. Their work in 

mapping the deeper water areas of the EEZ has been 

successful, although not very well coordinated with State or 

even other Federal agencies. 

At the Hawaii State level, selecting an agency to be 

responsible for coordination with JOMAR is a problem. 

The office containing the State Geologist is the Water 

Resources Office in the Water and Land Development 

Division of the Department of Land and Natural Resources. 

This office has had little experience or interest in submarine 

mapping. Several groups at the University of Hawaii have 

interests in detailed submarine mapping, but they are 

primarily involved with some aspect of their own research 

and not in an overall mapping program. The same is true for 

other State agencies that have been involved in offshore 

mapping efforts in the past. 

The State agency that should have most potential 

interest in a11: offshore mapping program is the Department 

of Land and Natural Resources. Although it does not have 

a mapping branch, its responsibilities in the area of mineral 

and fishery resources make it the most logical office for 

such a program. Another agency that might take responsiHigh-Resolution Sea-Floor Mapping in Hawaii 121 
bility is the Office of the State Surveyor. At present, they 

are primarily responsible for tax maps. 

In the Hawaiian EEZ, it is obvious that there are 

resources of near- and long-term economic interest that 

have a need for high-resolution charts; aggregate is badly 

needed for beach replenishment, fishery resources could be 

better managed, alternate energy sources need to be developed, and the potential of mining hard minerals, such as 

cobalt, should be realized. The regional mapping projects 

presently underway will provide information on where more 

122 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

detailed mapping will be necessary and whether the technology exists to produce the high-resolution maps needed to 

plan and manage the exploitation of these resources. What 

is needed now is a decision on who should be responsible 

for the mapping programs and what Federal-State coordination is needed. If there is a serious interest to produce 

high-resolution maps in water depths between ·o and 1 ,000 

m at the Federal level, then that interest would likely be 

shared at the State level. 
APPENDEXES 1-3 

APPENDIX 1: 

1989 

EXCLUSWE ECONOMIC ZONE 

SYMPOSIUM 

FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERS 

IN EEZ MAPPING 

Implementation of the National 

Plan for Mapping and Research 

in the Exclusive Economic Zone 

USGS-NOAA Office for 

Coordination of Mapping 

and Research in the EEZ 

November 14-16, 1989 

APPENDIX 1 125 
SYMPOSIUM OVERVIEW 

This will be the fourth in a series ofbiennial symposia dedicated to the development and implementation of.a National Program for Mapping and Research for the non-living resources of the 

seafloor of the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Through overview presentations, four 

(4) individual panel discussions, and six (6) technical workshops, a framework for EEZ mapping 

and research will be developed. The 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 Workshops will cover a range of technical and policy issues including: High resolution seafloor mapping, 

image analysis and processing, marine mining l<iws, EEZ leasing considerations, and systems for 

data and information management. A tour of the USGS's GIS Development Laboratory will also be 

available on the last day of the symposium. 

SYMPOSIUM OBJECTIVES 

• Identify seafloor scientific objectives of interest to states and relate these to national needs or 

goals for mapping and research in the EEZ. 

• Recommend specific products and services necessary to meet these objectives. 

• Coalesce, on a regional basis, priorities for collecting data to fill information gaps. 

• Recommend regional implementation and coordi!'lation approaches including cooperative 

projects and the roles of federal, state, academic and the private sector. 

SYMPOSIUM STEERING COMMITTEE 

Chairmen: 

Gary W. Hill, U.S. Department ofthe Interior, U.S. Geological Survey 

Millington Lockwood, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Bonnie A. McGregor, U.S. Geological Survey 

Robert L. Rioux, U.S. Geological Survey 

Christian Andreasen, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Donald E. Pryor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

joseph R. Vadus, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

john W. Padan, Minerals Management Service 

George Dellagiarino, Minerals Management Service 

Edward Kruse, Minerals Management Service 

Peter G. Chamberlain, U.S. Bureau of Mines 

Hendrick G. VanOss, U.S. Bureau ofMines 

Virginia Fox-Norse, Environmental Protection Agency 

Thomas W. Richards, Oceanography ofthe Navy 

Symposium support is provided by Buhler and Abraham, Inc., 8700 First A venue, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910, 301-588-4177. 

SYMPOSIUM SPONSORS 

• U.S. Geological Survey- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationjoint Office for 

Mapping and Research in the Exclusive Economic Zone 

• Association of American State Geologists 

126 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
PROGRAM AGENDA 

Tuesday, November 14, 1989 

10:00 a.m. Reglstradon and Review Eihiblts 

(Lunch available ~t USGS Cafeteria at 11:00 a.m.) 

1:00 p.m. ·welcome (Auditorium) 

Introduction and Purpose of the Symposium 

Millington Lockwood- Deputy, joint Offi.:e for Mapping and Research 

1:15 p.m. Mapping the New Ocean Frontier 

john Knauss - Under Secretary of the Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and 

Administrator, NOAA 

1:45 p.m. Outline of the to-Year Plan- Summary of Goals 

Gary Hill - Chief, joint Office for Mapping and Research 

2:00 p.m. Ongoing Activities 

10-15 min. overview with emphasis on existing or planned State-Federal relationships- Needs 

and Opportunities 

3:15p.m. 

3:45p.m. 

Role of the State Geological Survey 

Kenneth Weaver - Maryland Geological Survey 

View from the Coastal States 

Gary Magnuson - Director, Coastal States Organization 

Cooperative Federal-State Studies in Coastal Regions 

Asbury Sallenger - USGS Coastal Studies Division 

NOAA Coastal Ocean Program 

Donald Scavia - Acting Director 

Department of the Interior's National Marine Mining Technology Center 

j. Robert Woolsey- University ofMississippi 

National Sden~ Foundation Continental Margin Research and Future Plans 

Donald Heinrichs- Oceanographic Centers and Facilities Section 

National Academy of Science's Continental Margin Studies 

john Sclater - Chairman, Ocean Studies Board 

Coffee Break - Review Exhibits 

Our Seabed Frontier: Challenges and Choices 

Armand Silva - University of Rhode Island 

Minerals Management Service's Offshore Activities 

William Bettenberg- Associate Director, Offshore Program 

Environmental Protection Agency's Marine Program 

Ronald Keizenbeck - Acting Deputy Director 

Drowning in Data, But Learning to Swim 

Charles Ehler - NOAA's Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment 

Mapping the Ocean Floor 

Christian Andreasen - NOAA National Ocean Service 

5:30 p.m. - RecepdoDIEihiblts 

7:00p.m. 

APPENDIX 1 127 
PROGRAM AGENDA 

Wednesday, November 15, 1989 

8:00a.m. 

9:00a.m. 

9:15a.m. 

Morning Refreslunents and Review Exhibits 

WelcoJDe 

Introduction to the second day of the Symposium 

Dallas Peck - Director, USGS 

.Assessing EEZ Mapping Requirements 

Peter Lucas - Chairman of the NRC Marine Board Study on EEZ Information Needs, Shell 

Development Company 

The second day of the symposium will consist of a series of four panel discussions by expert practitioners 

in sea floor mapping and information needs. A case study approach will be used to discuss individual activities. Keeping with the theme of the Symposium, each talk should stress Federal/State cooperative activities 

from the point ofview of"users" ofsea floor data and information. A paper will be written by each panel 

member for inclusion in the Symposium Proceedings. 

Panel members have been selected to represent the range of interests from the Federal Government, State, 

local, academic and the private sector. Each talk will be approximately 10 minutes, thus allowing adequate 

time at the end of each session for audience questions. 

Morning Session 

Moderator: Millington Lock wood - NOAA 

Panels: 

9:30a.m. East Coast 

George Marshall- Amboy Aggregates; Brad Butman- USGS-AMG Woods Hole;joseph Kelley 

- Maine Geological Survey; Roger Amato - Phosphate Task Force, MMS; jeffrey Halka -

Maryland Geological Survey 

10:45 a.m. Coffee Break and Review Exhibits 

11:15 a.m. Gulf Coast 

Skip Theberge - NOAA Ocean Mapping Program; Courtney Reed - MMS; Charles Groat -

Louisiana State Geologist; Tom La Pointe- NOAA, Strategic Assessment Atlas Project; 

Environmental Protection Agency 

12:30 p.m. Lunch (USGS Cafeteria) 

Afternoon Session 

Moderator: Bonnie McGregor - USGS 

1:30 p.m. 

2:45p.m. 

3:15p.m. 

4:30p.m. 

West Coast and Alaska 

jeffWeber- Oregon Ocean Resources Program; Robert Wolotira- NOAA, Strategic Assessment Mapping Project; Mark Bronston- West Gold, Alaska; Dave Cacchione- USGS, 

Farallon Islands Mapping Project; Irven Palmer- MMS Alaska Region; Environmental Protection Agency 

Coffee Break and Review Eihibit 

Hawaiian Islands and Territories 

Monty Hampton - USGS Pacific Marine Geology; john Wiltshire - University of Hawaii; 

j. Frisbee Campbell- Seafloor Surveys International; Guam/Western Pacific Islands 

SUJDIDary Discussion- Gary Hill- USGS 

Conclusion of Fortnal SyJDposium 

128 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
WORKSHOPS 

Thursday, November 16, 1989 

8:30 a.m. - Technical Workshops 

12:00 noon 

These workshop sessions will be approximately 1 hour in length with a period for audience 

question and answer. They will be in the Main Auditorium, the Visitors Center or Room BA102-

AB in the National Center. 

There will be 6 workshops. In three topical "Blocks". There will be 2 workshops sessions in 

each block - one from 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., the second will be from 10:30 a.m. to Noon. 

Following lunch in the USGS cafeteria, there will be a 1 hour tour of the USGS's GIS laboratory. 

The following workshops will be given: 

Block t - Room BA102-A/B 

8:30 a.m. NOAA Multibeam Data: Processing and Analysis 

Albert (Skip} Theberge- Chief, Ocean Mapping Section, NOAA 

10:30 a.m. AppUcations of Computer Technology to Interpret Sonar Imagery and 

Multlbeam Data 

Dave Twichell - USGS, Donald Pryor - NOAA, Bob Tyee - University of Rhode Island 

Block 2 - Main Auditorium 

8:30a.m. Leasing Considerations: Assessment and Evaluation Models 

Moderators: Palak Ray and Marshall Rose 

Participants: Carolita Kallaur, Pulak Ray, Barry Dickerson, Thomas Farndon, Marshall Rose -

Minerals Management Service 

10:30 a.m. EEZ and Territorial Sea Mining Laws of the World 

Moderator:james Workman- Minerals Management Service 

Participants: john Padan, james Woolsey, Michael Cruickshank, Anthony Giordano, 

LeRon Bielak 

Block 3 - Visitors Center 

8:30a.m. CD-ROM Tutorial and Demonstration 

Moderator: jerry Mcfaul - USGS 

Examples: GLORIA, SEABEAM, DNAG (Decade of North American Geology), DSDP (Deep Sea 

Drilling Project}, other geoscience data and literature data bases 

10:30 a.m. Management of Data and Information- Computer AppUcations and GIS 

Developments 

Moderator: Douglas Posson - USGS 

12:00 noon Lunch 

1:30 p.m.-

3:00p.m. 

(USGS Cafeteria) 

Tour of USGS's GIS Development Laboratory 

Nich Van Oriel - USGS 

APPENDIX 1 129 
Charter for Coordination of Federal Exclusive 

Economic 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 of the 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 ~ RESEARCH - Coordination 

Working Group in the Committees 

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC 

ZONE 

l Report Staff ~ !Mapping Staff 

• • 

Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 

ATLANTIC G.MEX-CARB. WEST COAST ALASKA 

joint Office for Mapping and Research In the EEZ 

Organizational Chart 

130 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

• 

Region 5 

HAWAIIISLANDS 
EXHIBITS- DISPLAYS- RESEARCH RESULTS 

• EEZ Digital Mapping - U.S. Geological Survey 

• Geological Studies at Low-Level Radioactive Waste Sites in the Atlantic Ocean- U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

• Multibeam Surveys of the Exclusive Economic Zone- National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration's Mapping Program 

• Coastal Geology and Continental Shelf Research - Louisiana Geological Survey 

• Quaternary Geology of the Chesapeake Bay - Maryland Geological Survey 

• Oregon Ocean Resources Program- Oregon Department ofLand Conservation and 

Development 

• Marine Minerals Technology Center - Hawaii Minerals Technology Center 

• Overview of Minerals Management Service's Offshore Activities 

• U.S. Geological Survey's Coastal Erosion Program 

• Seafloor Surveys International's High Resolution Seafloor Mapping around the 

Hawaiian Islands 

• The U.s. Geological Survey's Continental Margin Map Project 

• Minerals Management Service's Overview of Minerals from the Sea 

• Bureau of Mines Minerals Information and Research Pertaining to the EEZ 

• U.s. Geological Survey's Massachusetts Bay Mapping Project 

• Farallon Island Shelf Mapping Using High Resolution Sidescan Sonar 

• The U.S. Geological Survey's Earth Science Data Directory 

• NOAA's Library and Information Services 

• NOAA's Undersea Research Program 

SYMPOSIUM RESULTS 

A symposium proceedings volume will be prepared following the meeting. This will include the 

overview presentations, regional panel member talks and workshop sumn1aries. Each symposium 

attendee will receive a copy of the proceedings upon publication. 

APLPENDIX 1 131 
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, lmown 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 environ:-

ment, 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 confinn 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 detennined, the boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone shall be detennined by the United States and other State 

concerned in accordance with equitable principles. 

Within the Exclusive Economic Zcme, the United States has, to the extent pennitted 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 releue of thia proclamation were a statement by the President (Appendix A) and 

an oceana policy fact sheet (Appendix B). 

132 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
APPENDIX 2: 

LIST OF REGISTRANTS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE SYMPOSIUM 

NOVEMBER 14-16, 1989 

Roger V. Amato 

Geologist 

Minerals Management Service 

381 Elden Street 

Herndon, VA 22070 

Alan D. Anderson 

Staff Assistant 

NCS/C&GS, Nautical Chart Division 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Walter A. Anderson 

Director and State Geologist 

Maine Geological Survey 

Department of Conservation 

State House, Station 22 

Augusta, ME 04333 

Christian Andreasen 

Chief 

Nautical Charting Division 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOAA/NOS/C&GS/NCD 

6001 Executive Boulevard, N/CG2 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Daniel J. Basta 

NOS/Strategic Assessment Branch 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Room 600, N/OMA31 

11400 Rockvill Pike 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

John C. Belshe 

Chief 

Environmental Programs Branch 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CECW-PP, Room 7113C 

20 Massachusetts A venue, NW. 

Washington, DC 20314-1000 

Daniel Gordon Berkshire 

Physical Scientist 

U.S. Naval Oceanographic Center 

Attn: Code GBAC 

sse, MS 39522-5001 

William D. Bettenberg 

Director 

Minerals Management Service 

Department of the Interior 

18th and C Streets, NW., MS 4230 

Washington, DC 20240 

LeRon E. Bielak 

Chief 

Program and Issues Management 

Office of Strategic and International Minerals 

Minerals Management Service 

381 Elden Street 

Herndon, VA 22070 

Bev D. Blackwood 

Washington Representative 

Exxon Corporation 

1899 L Street, NW. 

Washington, DC 20036 

Charles A. Bookman 

Director 

Marine Board/National Research Council 

2101 Constitution Avenue 

Washington, DC 20418 

Mark A. Bronston 

Exploration Manager 

Western Gold Exploration and Mining Company 

184 East 53d Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99518 

Sally Brough 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

WD 136 

1200 6th A venue 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Kevin T. Brown 

Navigational Scientist 

Defense Mapping Agency Systems Center (DMASC) 

12100 Sunset Hills Road, No. 200 

Reston, VA 22090-3207 

Edmund Brunson 

National Ocean Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Bradford Butman 

Chief 

Branch of Atlantic Marine Geology 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Quissett Campus, Bldg. B. 

Woods Hole, MA 02543 

David A. Cacchione 

Chief 

Branch of Pacific Marine Geology 

U.S. Geological Survey 

345 Middlefield Road, MS 999 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

APPENDIX 2 133 
J. Frisbee Campbell 

Vice President 

Seafloor Surveys International, Inc. 

1221 Kapiolani Boulevard, PH-40 

Honolulu, HI 96814 · 

John J. Carey 

Deputy Assistant Administrator 

National Ocean Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW. 

Washington, DC 20235 

Dennis G. Carroll 

Chief 

External Affairs 

National Ocean Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Merlin I. Carter 

Minerals Leasing Specialist 

Minerals Management Service 

1340 West Sixth Street 

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

Peter G. Chamberlin 

Staff Engineer 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

2401 E Street, NW., MS 6201 

Washington, DC 20241 

Norman Z. Cherkis 

Naval Research Laboratory 

Code 5110 

Washington, DC 20375 

David A. Clague 

Branch of Pacific Marine Geology 

U.S. Geological Survey 

345 Middlefield Road, MS 999 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

Charles Clevinger 

Director 

Mississippi Bureau of Geology 

Department of Natural Resources 

P.O. Box 5348 

Jackson, MS 39216 

Wayne Coleman 

Greenhorn and O'Mara 

9001 Edmonston Road, MS 32 

Greenbelt, MD 20770 

Michael J. Cruickshank 

Marine Mining Engineer 

University of Hawaii at Manoa 

811 Olomehani Street 

Honolulu, HI 96813 

Walter D. Cruickshank 

Minerals Management Service 

Mail Stop 4230 

Washington, DC 22040 

134 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

Thomas J. Culliton 

N/OMA31 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

WSC No. 1, Room 220 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Helen Cummings 

Library 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

William R. Curtis 

Oceanographer 

Office of Radiation Programs (ANR-461) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street, SW. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Sara Daly 

Senator Daniel Inouye's Office 

722 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Tudor T. Davies 

Director 

Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street, SW., Mail Code WH-556-M 

Washington, DC 20460 

George Dellagiarino 

Minerals Management Service 

Parkway Atrium Building 

381 Elden Street 

Herndon, VA 22070 

Robert Detrick 

Graduate School of Oceanogaphy 

University of Rhode Island 

Kingston, RI 02881 

Tom Dettweiler 

Technical Specialist 

Meridian Sciences, Inc. 

6430 Dobbin Road-SuiteD 

Columbia, MD 21045-4735 

Barry S. Dickerson 

Minerals Management Service 

381 Elden Street 

Herndon, VA 22070 

Thomas Dolley 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

2401 E Street, NW. 

Washington, DC 20241 

Earl H. Doyle 

Staff Civil Engineer 

Shell Oil Company 

P.O. Box 2099 

Houston, TX 77252 
John J. Dragonetti 

Assistant Director 

Intergovernmental Affairs 

U.S. Geological Survey 

109 National Center 

Reston, VA 22092 

Barry S. Drucker 

Physical Scientist 

Office of Strategic and International Minerals 

Minerals Management Service 

381 Elden Street 

Herndon, VA 22070 

David B. Duane 

Program Director 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Penny D. Dunn 

Program Manager 

Naval Oceanographic Office 

Stennis Space Center, Code PMH 

P.O. Box 479 

Kiln, MS 39556 

Charles N. Ehler 

Director 

Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Blvd, WSC 1, Room 323 

Rockville, MD 20895 

Atef A. Elassal 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

William Erb 

Director 

Marine Science, OES/OSP 

Department of State 

22nd and C Streets, NW., Room 5801 

Washington, DC 20520 

Edward C. Escowitz 

U.S. Geological Survey 

915 National Center 

Reston, VA 22092 

Thomas W. Famdon 

Minerals Management Service 

381 Elden Street 

Herndon, VA 22070 

Carl Fefe 

National Ocean Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Mark Fleury 

Geologist 

Minerals Management Service 

381 Elden Street 

Herndon, VA 22070 

Donald J. Florwick 

Chief 

Mapping and Charting Branch 

National Ocean Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration J 

6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 1016 

Rockville, MD 20853 

David W. Folger 

Branch of Atlantic Marine Geology 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Quissett Campus, Building B 

Woods Hole, MA 02543 

Virginia Fox-Norse 

Marine Operations Division (WH-556F) 

Environmental Analysis Branch 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street, SW. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Donald G. Franklin 

INDEPENDENT 

223 Whitmoor Terrace 

Silver Spring, MD 20901 

Doyle G. Frederick 

Associate Director 

U.S. Geological Survey 

102 National Center 

Reston, VA 22092 

Susan Garbini 

Program Officer 

Marine Board 

National Research Council 

2101 Constitution Avenue 

Washington, DC 20418 

Conrad A. Gazzier 

Director and State Geologist 

Mississippi Bureau of Geology 

Department of Natural Resources 

P.O. Box 5348 

Jackson, MS 39216 

Anthony Carmen Giordano 

Geologist 

Office of Strategic and International Minerals 

Minerals Management Service 

381 Elden Street 

Herndon, VA 22070 

Allen Greenberg 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Andrew J. Griffiths 

Project Manager (GLORIA) 

GEC Marconi Underwater Systems Ltd. 

Croxley Mill 

Blackmoor Lane 

W,atford WD1 8YR 

England 

APPENDIX 2 135 
Paul Grim 

National Ocean Service, Code N/CG 224 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Charles G. Groat 

Director and State Geologist 

Louisiana Geological Survey 

Department of Natural Resources 

Box G, University Station 

Baton Rouge, LA 70893 

Andrew E. Grosz 

Research Geologist 

U.S. Geological Survey 

954 National Center 

Reston, VA 22092 

Henrik Habrekke 

Director 

Geological Survey of Norway 

P.O. Box 3006 

70002 Prondheim 

Norway 

Alma Hale 

American Mining Congress 

Suite 300 

1920 N Street, NW. 

Washington, DC 20036 

Jeffrey Halka 

Maryland Geological Survey 

2300 St. Paul Street 

Baltimore, MD 21218 

Robert B. Halley 

Chief 

Center for Coastal Geology 

U.S. Geological Survey 

600 4th Street, South 

St. Petersburg, FL 33701 

Charles R. Ham 

Branch of Economic Studies 

Minerals Management Service 

381 Elden Street 

Herndon, VA 22070 

Monty Hampton 

Branch of Pacific Marine Geology 

U.S. Geological Survey 

345 Middlefield Road, MS 999 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

Benjamin W. Haynes 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

2401 E Street, NW., MS 6205 

Washington, DC 20241 

Donald F. Heinrichs 

Acting Director 

Ocean Sciences Division 

National Science Foundation 

Oceanography Division, Room 609 

Washington, DC 20550 

136 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

Alexandra Heliotis 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Joseph Henderson 

Office of the Comptroller 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

.14th and Constitution Ave, NW., Room 6114 

Washington, DC 20230 

Douglas George Hennick 

N/CGxll 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Vernon James Henry, Jr. 

Department of Geology 

Georgia State University 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Herbert G. Herrmann 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 07 A 

Hoffman Building No. 2, Room 12N41 

Alexandria, VA 22332-2300 

Donald W. Hill 

Chief 

Project Development and Coordinating Staff 

Office of Strategic and International Minerals 

Minerals Management Service 

381 Elden Street 

Herndon, VA 22070 

Gary W. Hill 

Chief 

Office of Energy and Marine Geology 

U.S. Geological Survey 

915 National Center 

Reston, VA 22092 

Tommie J. Hillman 

National Ocean Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

James Hind 

Director 

J. Marr and Son, Ltd. 

St. Andrew's Dock 

Hull HU3 4PN 

England 

Carl H. Hobbs III 

Assistant Professor 

Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences 

School of Marine Science 

College of William and Mary 

Gloucester Point, VA 23062 

Rob Holman 

Coastal Sciences Program 

Office of Naval Research 

800 North Quincy Street 

Arlington, VA 22217-5000 
Donald A. Hull 

Director and State Geologist 

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries 

State of Oregon 

910 State Off Bldg, 1400 SW. Fifth Ave 

Portland, OR 97201-5528 

Harris Benjamin Hull 

Geologist 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street 

Washington, DC 20460 

Wesley V. Hull 

Director 

Charting and Geodetic Services 

N/CG, WSCI, Room 1006 

National Ocean Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Michael C. Ierardi 

U.S. Geological Survey 

914 National Center 

Reston, VA 22092 

R.M. Iverson 

ESA, Inc. 

1500 Massachusetts Ave, NW. 

Washington, DC 20005 

Chacko J. John 

Chief 

Energy and Mineral Resources Section 

Louisiana Geological Survey 

University Station, P.O. Box G 

Baton Rouge, LA 70893-4107 

Toni M. Johnson 

Program Analyst 

Budget and Administration 

U.S. Department of Interior 

18th and C Streets, NW., MS 4412-MIB 

Washington, DC 20240 

Carolita L. Kallaur 

Minerals Management Service 

Department of the Interior 

18th and C Streets, NW. 

Washington, DC 20240 

Theodore C. Kariotis 

Professor 

University of Maryland 

10201 Haywood Drive 

Silver Spring, MD 20902 

Herman A. Karl 

Branch of Pacific Marine Geology 

U.S. Geological Survey 

345 Middlefield Road, MS 999 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

Haig F. Kasabach 

State Geologist 

New Jersey Geological Survey 

Division of Water Resources, CN-029 

29 Arctic Parkway 

Trenton, NJ 08625 

Mary Hope M. Katsouros 

Staff Director 

Ocean Studies Board 

National Research Council 

2001 Wisconsin Avenue, NW. 

Washington, DC 20007 

Charles D. Kearse 

General Engineer 

Office of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Corps Operations, NC2 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 221, M013 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Frederick R. Keer 

Geophysicist 

Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Region 

Minerals Management Service 

381 Elden Street, Suite 1109 

Herndon, VA 22070-4817 

Joseph T. Kelley 

Maine Geological Survey 

Department of Conservation 

State House, Station 22 

Augusta, ME 04333 

William M. Kelly 

New York State Geological Survey 

Cultural Education Center, Room 3136 

Albany, NY 12230 

John L. Kermond 

National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges 

One Dupont Circle, NW., No. 710 

Washington, DC 20036-1191 

Dana R. Kester 

Professor 

Graduate School of Oceanography 

University of Rhode Island 

Narragansett, RI 02882 

Tom Kinder 

Coastal Services Program 

Office of Naval Research 

800 North Quincy Street 

Arlington, VA 22217-5000 

John A. Knauss 

Under Secretary (Oceans and Atmosphere) 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Department of Commerce 

Herbert Hoover Building, Room 5128 

14th and Constitution Ave, NW. 

Washington, DC 20230 

APPENDIX 2 137 
Dane Konop 

Public Affairs Office 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administtation 

Department of Commerce 

Herbert Hoover Building, Room 6013 

14th and Constitution Ave, NW. 

Washington, DC 20230 

Ronald Kreizenbeck 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street, SW. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Edward W. Kruse 

Physical Scientist 

Office of Strategic and International Minerals 

Minerals Management Service 

381 Elden Street, MS 649 

Herndon, VA 22070 

Muneendra Kumar 

Systems Center, SGG 

Defense Mapping Agency 

8613 Lee Highway 

Fairfax, VA 22031-2138 

Lynda S. Kuntz 

Systems Library 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Michael K. Kutzleb 

Survey Manager 

Oceaneering International, Inc. 

7700 Leesburg Pike, No. 200 

Falls Church, VA 22043 

Thomas F. La Pointe 

Operations Research Analyst 

Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 220 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Francois J. Larnpaietti 

Consultant 

Box 5831 

Purcellville, VA 22134 

Mary Langlais 

National Ocean Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

1825 Connecticut Avenue, Room 610 

Washington, DC 20235 

Bradley J. Laubach 

Physical Scientist 

Office of Strategic and International Minerals 

Minerals Management Serivce 

381 Elden Street 

Herndon, VA 22070 

James P. Lawless 

Ocean Minerals and Energy Division (N/ORMI) 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Room 710 

Washington, DC 20235 

138 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mappina and lletearch 

Dudley W. Leath 

Defense Mapping Agency Systems Center 

U.S. Navy 

8613 Lee Highway 

Fairfax, VA 22031-2138 

Terri M. Lewis 

lntergraph Corporation 

2051 Mercator Drive 

Reston, VA 22091 

Christina J. Lief 

Geologist 

U.S. Geological Survey 

914 National Center 

Reston, VA 22092 

Jacqueline M. Lloyd 

Geologist 

Florida Geological Survey 

903 West Tennessee Street 

Tallahassee, FL 32304 

Millington Lockwood 

National Ocean Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 1006 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Oary L. Lore 

Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region, MS RE 

Minerals Management Service 

1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard 

New Orleans, LA 70123 

Roger Lott 

BP Exploration 

9401 S.W. Freeway 

Houston, TX 77704 

MichaelS. Loughridge 

Chief 

Marine Geology and Geophysics Division,EIOC3 

National Oceanic and AbnOspheric Administtation 

325 Broadway 

Boulder, CO 80303 

Peter T. Lucas 

General Manager 

Exploration and Production Research and Development 

Shell Development Company 

Bellaire Research Center, P.O. Box 481 

Houston, TX '77001 

Maile ·Luuwai 

Senator Daniel Inouye's Office 

722 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Pat Lynch 

OMS, National Ocean Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Jack Mackey 

lntergarph Corporation 

2051 Mercator Drive 

Reston, VA 22091 
Robert Gary Magnuson 

Director 

Coastal States Organization 

444 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 312 

Washington, DC 20001 

Roop C. Malhotra 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Francis L. Marchant 

Physical Scientist 

U.S. Naval Oceanographic Center 

Department of the Navy 

sse, MS 39522-5001 

George L. Marshall 

Engineering Geologists 

R.D. 1, Box 45 

Averill Park, NY 12018 

Richard A. Martino 

Hydrographic Division (Code PPH) 

Defense Mapping Age~y 

8613 Lee Highway 

Fairfax, VA 22031 

Curtis Mason 

Program Director 

Coastal Ocean Program 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Stephen P. Matula 

OMS 

National Ocean Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Michael D. Max 

Naval Research Laboratory 

Code 5110 

4555 Overlook A venue, SW. 

Washington, DC 20375-5000 

Randolph A. McBride 

Louisiana Geological Survey-Coastal 

Box G, University Station 

Louisiana State University 

Baton Rouge, LA 70893 

Jerry McFaul 

U.S. Geological Survey 

904 National Center 

Reston, VA 22092 

Bonnie A. McGregor 

Associate Chief 

Marine Programs 

Office of Energy and Marine Geology 

U.S. Geological Survey 

915 National Center 

Reston, VA 22092 

Joan McKean 

Library 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Clifford E. McLain 

Consultant 

Marine Development Associates 

7816 Manor House Drive 

Fairfax Station, VA 22039 

David L. Mearns 

Project Manager 

Eastport International, Inc. 

501 Prince Georges Center Boulevard 

Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 

Robert M. Mink 

Energy and Coastal Geology Division 

. Geological Survey of Alabama 

P.O. Box 0 

Tuscaloosa, AL 35486 

Carla Moore 

Geologist 

National Geophysical Data Center E/GC3 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

325 Broadway, Mail Code GC3 

Boulder, CO 80303 

Dan B. Moore 

Moore Brothers Gold Prospectors 

2146 Golf Course Drive 

Reston, VA 22091 

Karl W. Muessig 

Division of Water Resources, CN 029 

New Jersey Geological Survey 

Trenton, NJ 08625 

James Neiheisel 

Geologist 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ANR 461 

401 M Street, SW. 

Washington, DC 20460 

John E. Noakes 

UGS-CAIS 

120 Riverbend Road 

Athens, GA 30605 

James J. Olson 

Deputy Research Director 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

5629 Minnehaha A venue South 

Minneapolis, MN 55423 

Ned A. Ostenso 

Director 

Office of Sea Grant 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6010 Executive Boulevard, Room 908 

Rockville, MD 20852 

APPENDIX 2 139 
Ellen S. Overton 

Office of Legislative Affairs 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Herbert Hoover Building, Room 6228 

Washington, DC 20230 

Wadsworth Owen 

College of Marine Studies 

University of Delaware 

Lewis Complex, 700 Pilottown Road 

Lewes, DE 19958-1298 

Hakan Ozalpasan 

Research Assistant 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

School of Marine Science 

College of William and Mary 

Gloucester Point, VA 23062 

John W. Padan 

Senior Technical Advisor 

Office of Strategic and International Minerals 

Minerals Management Service 

381 Elden Street, MS 649 

Herndon, VA 22070 

Andrew C. Palmer 

Director 

American Oceans Campaign 

235 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE. 

Washington, DC 20903 

lrven F. Palmer 

Deputy Regional Director 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th A venue 

Anchorage, AK 99508-4302 

Guy C. Pautot 

IFREMER 

Centre de Brest-DERO/GM 

B.P. 70 

29280 Plouzane 

France 

Dallas L. Peck 

Director 

U.S. Geological Survey 

101 National Center 

Reston, VA 22092 

Richard B. Perry 

NCG224 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Alvetta S. Pindell 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

LISD, E/OC4 

3009 Executive Blvd. 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Chris Polloni 

Branch of Atlantic Marine Geology 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Quissett Campus 

Woods Hole, MA 02543 

140 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

Douglas R. Posson 

U.S. Geological Survey 

801 National Center 

Reston, VA 22092 

Donald E. Pryor 

NOS/C&GS 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Barry Raleigh 

Dean 

School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology 

University of Hawaii 

1000 Pope Road, Marine Science, Building 205 

Honolulu, HI 96822 

Pulak Ray 

Minerals Management Service 

381 Elden Street 

Herndon, VA 22070 

Courtney Reed 

Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region, MS RE 

Minerals Management Service 

1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard 

New Orleans, LA 70123-2394 

Jeffrey C. Reid 

North Carolina Geological Survey 

P.O. Box 27687 

Raleigh, NC 27611-7687 

Donald R. Rice 

Technical Support Staff 

Atlantic Marine Center 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

439 West York Street 

Norfolk, VA 23510 

Thomas W. Richards 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Liaison Officer 

Office of the Oceanographer of Navy 

U.S. Naval Observatory, OP-961C1 

34th and Massachusetts A venue, NW. 

Washington, DC 20392-1800 

John B. Rigg 

Territorial and International Affairs 

Department of the Interior 

MS 4328 

Washington, DC 20240 

Robert L. Rioux 

Office of Energy and Marine Geology 

U.S. Geological Survey 

915 National Center 

Reston, VA 22092 

Marshall B. Rose 

Branch of Economic Studies 

Minerals Management Service 

381 Elden Street 

Herndon, VA 22070 
Thomas John Rowland 

Physical Scientist 

Office of Strategic and International Minerals 

Minerals Management Service 

381 Elden Street 

Herndon, VA 22070 

Pam Rubin 

Office of Oceanography 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Asbury H. Sallenger 

Center for Coastal Geology 

U.S. Geological Survey 

600 4th Street, South 

St. Petersburg, FL 33701 

Richard J. Sandy 

Supervisory Physical Scientist 

U.S. Naval Oceanographic Center 

Department of the Navy 

sse. Ms 39522-5001 

Narendra K. Saxena 

Department of Civil Engineering 

University of Hawaii at Manoa 

2540 Dole Street, Holmes 383 

Honolulu, HI 96822 

John M. Sayre 

Assistant Secretary 

Water and Science 

Department of the Interior 

18th and C Streets, NW. 

Washington, DC 20240 

Donald Scavia 

Director 

Coastal Ocean Program 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Coastal Ocean Program, Universal Building 

1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Room 522 

Washington, DC 20235 

Herbert K. Schneider 

Minerals Management Service 

381 Elden Street 

Herndon, VA 22070 

Edward Jay Schremp 

E.J. Schremp and Company 

226 South Fairfax Street 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

William C. Schwab 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Quissett Campus 

Woods Hole, MA 02543 

Richard A. Schwabacher 

New Jersey Geological Survey 

2318 South Quincy Street 

Arlington, VA 22204 

John G. Sclater 

Chairman 

Ocean Studies Board 

Institute for Geophysics 

University of Texas at Austin 

8701 Mopac Boulevard 

Austin, TX 78759-8345 

Paul Severin 

Falconbridge Limited (Exploration) 

1755 Gemini Crescent 

Sudbury, Ontario, P3D 5W9 

Canada 

Richard Shamp 

Marine Technology Society (MTS) 

1500 Massachusetts Avenue, NW. 

Washington, DC 20005 

John E. Sharrard 

Oregon State Service Center for GIS 

625 Marion Street, NE. 

Salem, OR 97310 

Paul Spence 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

600 1 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Wayne Stuart Shiver 

Senior Program Manager 

Science Applications International Corporation 

1710 Goodridge Drive, MS T-3-5 

McLean, VA 22102 

Alexander N. Shor 

Associate Geophysicist, Manager SeaMARC 

Hawaii Institute of Geophysics 

University of Hawaii 

2525 Correa Road 

Honolulu, HI 96822 

Armand J. Silva 

Professor and Chairman 

Department of Ocean Engineering 

University of Rhode Island 

Narragansett Bay Campus 

Narragansett, RI 02882 

Fran Slazer 

Branch of Data Management 

Information Systems Division 

U.S. Geological Survey 

807 National Center 

Reston, VA 22092 

Gregory Snyder 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Joseph J. Snyder 

2008 Ashley Drive 

Shepherdstown, WV 25443 

APPENDIX 2 141 
Alvetta Spindell 

LISD, E/OC4 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6009 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20716 

Paul R. Stang 

Chief 

Program Development Planning 

Minerals Management Service 

18th and C Streets, NW. 

Room 2525, MS 645 

Washington, DC 20240 

Thomas Stepka 

Office of Core Operations 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Albert E. Theberge 

Chief 

Ocean Mapping Section 

NCS/C&GS, Office of Marine Operations 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, Md 20852 

David C. Twichell 

Branch of Atlantic Marine Geology 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Quissett Campus 

Woods Hole, MA 02543 

Robert C. Tyee 

Graduate School of Oceanography 

University of Rhode Island 

South Ferry Road 

Narragansett, RI 02882 

Edward R. Urban, Jr. 

Staff Officer 

Ocean Studies Board 

National Research Council 

National Academy of Science 

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW. 

Washington, DC 20418 

Joseph R. Vadus 

NOS/OMA 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 316 

Rockville, MD 20852 

James N. VanDriel 

U.S. Geological Survey 

904 National Center 

Reston, VA 22092 

Charles Walker 

Mapping Charting and Geodesy Division 

Naval Ocean Research and Development Activity 

sse. MS 39529 

Ronald J. Walton 

Branch of Sedimentary Processes 

U.S. Geological Survey 

P.O. Box 25046, MS 939 

Denver, CO 80225 

142 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 

Carol B. Watts 

Chief 

Library and Information Services Division 

National Environment Satellite Data and Information Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

6009 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Russell G. Wayland 

4660 North 35th Street 

Arlington, VA 22207 

David Weaver 

Massachusetts GIS EOEA Data Center 

20 Somerset Street 

Boston, MA 02108 

Kenneth N. Weaver 

Director 

Maryland Geological Survey 

2300 Paul Street 

Baltimore, MD 21218 

Jeffrey A. Weber 

Marine Information Coordinator 

Oregon Ocean Resources Management Program 

Department of Land Conservation and Development 

320 SW Stark, Room 530 

Portland, OR 97204 

Conrad G. Welling 

Senior Vice President 

Ocean Minerals Company 

P.O. Box 4660 

Santa Clara, CA 95054--0660 

James G. Wenzel 

Marine Development Associates, Inc. 

P.O. Box 3409 

Saratoga, CA 95070 

Ann M. Wiggin 

Office of Strategic and International Minerals 

Minerals Management Service 

381 Elden Street, MS 649 

Herndon, VA 22070 

Robert J. Willard 

Staff Scientist 

Twin Cities Research Center 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

5629 Minnehaha A venue, South 

Minneapolis, MN 55423 

S. Jeffress Williams 

U.S. Geological Survey 

914 National Center 

Reston, VA 22092 

John C. Wiltshire 

Chief Geologist 

Ocean Resources Branch 

State of Hawaii 

P.O. Box 2539 

Honolulu, HI 96804 
Donald D. Winter 

Commander 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Corps 

Congressional Affairs 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Washington. DC 20230 

Robert J. Wolotira 

National Ocean Service/Strategic Assessment Branch 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

11400 Rockville Pike. Room 600. N/OMA31 

Rockville. MD 20852 

J. Robert Woolsey 

Director 

Marine Minerals Technology Center 

University of Mississippi 

202 Old Chemistry Building 

University. MS 38677 

James W. Workman 

Program Director 

Office of Strategic and International Minerals 

Minerals Management Service 

381 Elden Street. MS 649 

Herndon. VA 22070-4817 

: 

Richard J. Wonfold 

Director 

INCO Exploration and Technical Services 

P.O. Box 44. Royal Trust Tower 

Toronto-Dominion Centre 

Toronto. Ontario MSK IN4 

Canada 

Arthur Wright 

Williamson and Associates of Seattle 

731 N. NorthlakC Way. Suite 104 

Seattle. WA 98103 

William H. Wright. Jr. 

U.S. Goological Survey 

915 National Center 

Reston. VA 22092 

Alan 0. Young 

President 

Fugro-McClelland Marine Geoscience. Inc. 

6100 Hillcroft 

flouston. TX 77081 

. Hendrick 0. van Oss 

Country Specialist 

U.S. Bureau of Mines · 

2401 E Street, NW .• MS 5205 

Washington. DC 20241 

APPENDIX 2: 143 
APPENDIX 3: 

Workshop Block 1- Room BA-102A/B 

(basement near cafeteria) 

Session 1 -Thursday, November 16- 8:30- 10:00 a.m. 

~~-~~mlaBIIIitJ.~11f:111~~'=•iiJ.P.i~111!9~11!1111 

Moderator: Cdr. Skip Theberge, NOAA, National Ocean Service, Ocean Mapping Section 

This workshop will consist of an overview presentation of the steps involved in processing and production of maps and digital data 

sets from the NOAA multi-beam surveys of the Unites States EEZ. The objective is to get a consensus from attendees at the 

EEZ Symposium regarding data form and formats to serve as a "guide" in the development of NOAA's multibeam mapping 

system. 

Following a brief tutorial on NOAA's multibeam ocean survey program, including a description of the flow of data from the ship 

to the paper (map) product, there will be discussion (with audience participation) on the following subjects: optimal formats for 

data exchange, for example: selected individual soundings, single swath, merged geographical positioned data sets, contoured 

soundings. 

There will also be discussion about the procedures NOAA is developing for the release of the data and maps to the general public, 

the preferred media (Magnetic tape, floppy disc, CD-ROM etc.) and an evaluation of the 250 m gridded data se~s as appropriate 

for geological and geomorphic applications. 

Session 2- Thursday, November 16, 10:30- Noon 

Moderator Don Pryor, NOAA-- Participants Dave Twitchell USGS, Bob Tyee, University of Rhode Island, Roger Bowen, 

Consultant 

Discussions at this workshop will cover new developments in sonar mapping systems, integration and analysis of data from 

varied types of data, and techniques for handling seafloor mapping data on a small computer seafloor. 

Bob Tyee will provide some insight into new survey technology that is becoming available. Results of the recent Seafloor Mapping 

Workshop in Lake Powell, Arizona, suggests that the direction of further development will be toward calibrated systems producing 

multi-dimensional, quantitative results. A short video, "Cruise Without Water," will be shown to demonstrate the impact of 

visualization of the single dimension of bathymetric data. 

Dave Twitchell will discuss multi-dimensional data integration and analysis using examples from GLORIA and SeaBeam surveys 

of the Fiorida Escarpment. The combination of such data types has great potential for improving our understanding of the 

geologic processes active in complex terrains. 

Roger Bowen will provide a demonstration of a version of the MIPS software that was used for integration of these data and has 

been adapted for operation on a personal computer. 

Don Pryor will summarize some of the other tools and techniques available for manipulating high-resolution mapping data in a 

small computer environment. 

144 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research 
Workshop· Block 2- Main Auditorium 

Session 1 - Thursday, November 16 - 8:30 - 10:00 am 

lllin&~iBiilct:it.!fii.m~~jr~~j~~~~~~~~~~~j~i~~ll!iJ.u@ninjKiwl.im 

Moderators: Pulak K. Ray, Marshall B. Rose, and Carolita Kallaur - Minerals Management Service. 

This workshop will cover four areas: EEZ Resource Assessment and Evaluation, Hydrocarbon Resource 

Evaluation models, Hard Minerals Mining and Economic Considerations. 

A decision to lease Federal OCS lands involves balance between the expected resource and their impact on the 

environment. There are three critical elements to be addressed: 1. Is the commodity present?, 2. How much 

is present?, and 3. Where is it concentrated? In frontier areas, answers to such questions are sought through 

probabilistic models based on several sources of data and analog studies. It is the responsibility of MMS to 

assure that the U.S. Government receives a fair share through bonuses and royalities. This workshop will 

include discussions of the various considerations that are incorporated into the models used at MMS in assessing 

and evaluating resources. These considerations are grouped into three categories: 1. geologic, 2. engineering, 

and 3. economic. 

Discussions will address hard minerals modeling, hydrocarbon resource evaluation models and economic 

considerations of lease terms. Speakers will discuss various approaches to assessing resource potential, 

exploration and development costs, and operating costs. Computer simulation models are used to assist in 

resource economic value calculations and resource assessments for the hard mineral commodities offered for 

lease. Models include a sulphur model, a placer deposit model, PRESTO and ROCKV AL, and a sand and 

gravel model that is in the process of development. 

Session 2- Thursday, November 16, 10:30- Noon 

D.ll~j~IB.§II9!119mii§;ilfl&ii.~j~114W.~~1~ii1\I!IItitl.B~1tt 

Moderator, James Workman, Program Director, Office of Strategic and International Minerals, MMS. 

This workshop will review United States, State, and International laws and regulations that govern exploration 

and development of hard minerals of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, the seabed under the jurisdiction of the 

respective coastal States, and the seabed under the jurisdiction of the other countries of the world. 

Anthony C. Giordano, Geologist from MMS will discuss a compilation of State laws recently published by the 

MMS's Office of Strategic and International Minerals including the similarities and differences, highlight State 

initiatives, and discuss the laws and regulations. LeRon E. Bielak, from MMS will outline the OSC Lands Act 

and recent hard minerals regulations for prospecting, leasing and operating. There will be a discussion of an 

alternative legal regime as developed by the EEZ Hard Minerals Working group and H.R. 2440, the "Jones 

Bill". John Padan, Senior Technical Advisor, with the OSMI will discuss foreign offshore Sand and Gravel 

Mining Laws, especially European and Japanese laws and practices, as observed by the speaker. Jim Woolsey, 

Director of the Mississippi Mineral Resources Institute will discuss exploration for placer and phosphate deposits 

in the South Pacific and offshore Africa and commen.t upon laws and practices with which he has had experience. 

Michael J. Cruickshank, Technical Director, Ocean Basins Division of the Marine Minerals Technology Center 

at the University of Hawaii, will discuss mining of offshore tin placers in a large industry in S.E. Asia. 

APPENDIX 3 145 
Workshop Block 3 - Visitors Center 

Session 1- Thursday, November 16- 8:30- 10:00 a.m. 

at.lll~:\wi.t.it~li:~a~Iiiii§~:Buon. 

Moderator: David Traudt, USGS. Participants, Russ Ambroziak, NOAA, Carla Moore, NOAA and Carol Watts NOAA. 

The CD-ROM as a data and information publication medium has revolutionized the distribution of digital data. With a capacity 

nearing 1 million megabytes, and at a fraction of the cost of conventional media, the CD-ROM is becoming accepted as the standard 

for information dissemination. Two recent articles on this subject are attached. 

During this workshop session we shall be demonstrating four CD-ROMs' containing data and textual information of interest to the 

Earth. ·science Community. 

East Coast GWRIA Data: These data were collected by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1987 as part of the GLORIA sidescan surveys 

of the United States. The CD-ROM contain the digital GWRIA imagery collected off the East Coast of the United States during 

the winter and ~pring of 1987. The data sets consist of the T square mosaicked data, the individual6-hour segments of "raw" data, 

ship trackline information, and magnetic anomaly data. The data will be displayed by software developed through JOMAR by Russ 

Ambroziak of NOAA's National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service. 

Deep Sea DrillinG Project: During 16 years of operation the Drill Ship Glomar Challenger drilled over 1000 holes at 624 sites in the 

global ocean. With the release of this CD-ROM any researcher can access the full suite of digitized DSDP data, including geophysical, 

geological, and downhole logging data, compiled by the Data Management Group in La Jolla, California. Carla Moore, Project 

Director from the NOAA National Geophysical Data Center in Boulder, Colorado will demonstrate the CD-ROM and the capabilities 

of the specialized software available to display the information on a personal computer. 

Geophysics of North America: This disc consists of a consolidated collection of land and marine geophysical data for North America 

collected under the auspices of the Geological Society of North America's Decade of North American Geology - including magnr:tic, 

gravity, earthquake, seismology, thermal aspect, and stress data. Satellite imagery data, topography, and additional grids of magentics 

and gravity are also included in this compilation. 

NOAA's Library Collections: This CD-ROM contains "Card Catalog" from NOAA's office of Library and Information Services. It 

contains over 1 million references to various types of published and unpublished literature dealing with meteorology, oceanography, 

living marine resources, and hydrology. 

Session 2- Thursday, November 16, 10:30- Noon 

~~ll~~~~m:il9ril\liltoolilii.P.t.9rm~t1P.m:i\il2mPYI~r\l~:~P.:Pljl.!i!l\l\fltllilill.fiiB&iJ.P.Rm;n.l 

Moderator: Douglas Posson, USGS, Information Systems Division 

During this session we will be demonstrating three areas of computer applications and GIS Developments: 

Arctic Data Interactive CADI) -This is a pre-prototype CD-ROM from which the following types of information pertaining to the 

Arctic can be linked: The Arctic Environmental Data Directory, bibliographic information, selected data sets, text, images, tables, and 

other information useful to Arctic researchers. The powerful search, retrieval and presentations capabilities of this system will be 

demonstrated 

Oregon Ocean Resource Program - Pilot GIS Proiect - John Sharrard, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 

The Oregon Ocean Resource Program is exploring the use of GIS technology as a "tool" to assist in the decision making process for 

the development of Oregon's ocean resources. A pilot GIS project was undertaken to investigate the feasibility of developing a 

comprehensive GIS database for Oregon's entire coastal zone. The pilot project is limited to a small section of the coastal zone and 

utilized only pre-existing geographical data from a variety of sources. 

USGS Geographic Information System Research Laboratory- Nick Van Oriel. Chief. GIS Laboratory 

The USGS GIS Research Laboratory in Reston, Virginia is a shared bureau resource operated by the National Mapping Division. 

The Lab supports studies in Spatial Data Research, GIS Development, Image Processing, Visualization, and Spatial Data Collection 

and Exchange. Scientists from all of USGS's divisions use the GIS and image processing facilities of the lab to advance their research 

projects. The laboratory's state-of-the-art software and hardware systems are used in cooperative demonstration projects among USGS 

Divisions, Federal Agencies, and state, regional, and local agencies. The lab hosts tours and demonstrations for a wide variety of 

visitors, and it is the training site for several application specific courses including map scanning, GIS, and visualization. A tour of 

the USGS GIS Laboratory is scheduled for Thursday at 1:30. Please sign-up at the registration desk. 

146 Proceedings, 1989 EEZ Symposium on Mapping and Research