National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: STAGE SETTING PAPERS
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

ISSUES

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

COASTAL OCEAN HABITAT MITIGATION STRATEGIES

Introduction

Coastal habitats can be changed by various human influences, as well as by natural processes. These can be physical changes (e.g., placement of physical structures in coastal areas, dredging and filling, and changes in freshwater inflow), chemical changes (introduction of nutrients and contaminants), and biological changes (introduction or elimination of organisms and species). Increasingly, coastal managers attempt to minimize or reverse human impacts on coastal habitats. The following paper and issue group summary present examples of the benefits of coastal habitats and the results of damage to them. They also discuss strategies and techniques for evaluating habitats. The scientific understanding and techniques on which habitat restoration and mitigation are based are still in their early stages and the efficacy of many techniques is largely unproven. Therefore, mitigation techniques should still be considered experimental. Strategies for maintaining coastal habitat integrity should include, first avoidance of impacts, then minimization of those impacts, and finally, remediation of impacts.

Coastal Ocean Habitat Mitigation Strategies

James W. Rote

California Assembly Office of Research

On November 12, 1936, Winston Churchill became so exasperated with the continuing failure of Britain to prepare for Hitler’s impending onslaught that he blasted his government in the following remarks before the House of Commons:

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

The government simply cannot make up their minds, or they cannot get the Prime Minister to make up his mind. So they go on in a strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent. . The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.

Does this sound familiar? It sounds a lot like the gridlock of Washington, D.C. and Sacramento in 1992.

This may seem a strange way to start an issue-framing paper on habitat mitigation strategies, but I feel that the effort to protect habitat for living marine and estuarine resources, as for many environmental efforts, has become the moral equivalent of war. Much ground has already been lost. In fact, few West Coast estuaries remain in their original state. The percentage loss of original acreage along the California coast, an 1100-mile stretch of the continental West Coast, is the highest in the nation. Most remaining estuaries are highly urbanized and many are in danger of total elimination in the face of pressures associated with rapidly accelerating population growth.

According to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), California has lost over 90% of its original 5 million acres of wetland areas, and 87% of its original 3.5 million acres of coastal wetlands. In San Francisco Bay alone, wetlands have declined 80%. NMFS also tells us that of the 1985 U.S. commercial fishery landings, about 77% by weight and 71% by value are composed of estuarine-dependent species (i.e., dependent for reproduction, as nurseries, for food production, or migrations). This estuarine-dependency is not as significant in California (18%) as it is for the Gulf of Mexico (98%) or the Southeast Atlantic (94%) (Chambers, 1992). However, coastal wetlands also function as critical habitat for plants, birds, invertebrates, and other wildlife, as well as serving as buffers from storms, filters of pollutants, a source of plant detritus and energy for broader marine systems, and provide aesthetic and recreational benefits.

Despite the importance of these natural systems, we still drift, procrastinate, enact half-measures, and stick our heads in the sand until a crisis is upon us. And then it is often too late. I expect our panelists will cover this subject in much greater detail, and one of the participants plans to discuss the inability of the state Legislature, and the Governor, to enact any meaningful habitat legislation. One example I can give here, of the sorry state of our government, is found in the continuing saga of the fishery declines in the San Francisco/San Joaquin Bay-Delta system.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Since the 1977 drought, the Department of Fish and Game has been appearing before the State Water Resources Control Board and reporting that the Striped Bass Index is getting lower and lower. Incredibly, Fish and Game officials explain this decline with a standard, “there are fewer adults, because there are fewer juveniles, because there are fewer eggs, because there are fewer adults - - - !”. I fully expect to attend a state board hearing in my lifetime and hear the department announce that they have been monitoring the demise of the striped bass population for 30 (or more) years and can now safely report that there are no more striped bass in the Delta. While many of the habitat issues in Northern California involve anadromous resources, and there are serious declines in our salmon stocks, due in part to lack of adequate freshwater flows and lost spawning grounds, this paper will focus primarily on marine resources. I’ll be very straight with you and tell you right up front that I’m not too wild about this mitigation business. Restoration—yes; mitigation?—I’m not so sure. Its like reparations after a war, or opening up your country’s borders to millions of immigrants and refugees after you have demolished their country. Fortunately, I’m not required to come up with any answers or recommendations today; just frame the issue. This is a very controversial issue, because the jury is still out on whether habitat loss can be offset by attempting to restore previously degraded habitat, or create new habitat.

The focus of this paper is degraded wetlands, artificial reefs, and kelp forests—all coastal ocean habitats. In discussing mitigation strategies for these three types of habitat, I will attempt to integrate our charge to understand the existing interactions between science and decisionmaking better.

In March, 1991, I attended an excellent Symposium in Baltimore, MD, “Stemming The Tide of Coastal Fish Habitat Loss.” In summarizing the proceedings, the co-chairs noted:

Wetland restoration is a new art, and proponents have yet to demonstrate that most biological life-support functions of a natural system can actually be restored. Therefore, it is inappropriate to give the development community the impression that project losses can in fact be compensated by attempted restoration or rehabilitation. Until successful restoration of fishery habitats can be demonstrated scientifically, it should not be relied upon by regulators as a certain trade-off methodology. Rather, it must be considered as an experimental approach until proven for routine application. “Sequenced” mitigation - - avoid, minimize, and, finally, compensate for unavoidable impacts - is essential. ” (Hinman and Safina, 1992)

The term mitigation comes from the latin word “mitigare,” which means to soften, make less harsh or hostile, less severe or painful. In the context of government regulation, this term refers to reducing or eliminating the impact of a regulated

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

activity (Parry, 1992). The President’s Council on Environmental Quality has adopted the following comprehensive definition of mitigation for use in regulatory decisions: (1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action or its implementation; (3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; (5) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. (See CEQ, 40 CFR 1508.20).

If we are going to consider strategies for coastal ocean habitat, we really must consider the entire gamut of protective measures: avoid, minimize, and compensate (=mitigate). Compensatory mitigation should be the last card played; unfortunately, it is very late in the game and we are running out of cards. The best scenario would obviously be avoiding the damage in the first place—or, “Just saying no.” However, as has been previously mentioned, California has already lost nearly 90% of its original coastal wetlands. It’s like a farmer closing the barn door after the cow is out.

At a September, 1990 Symposium, sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), “Restoring the Nation’s Marine Environment,” panelists agreed that the first priority should be placed on protection of habitats so that expensive, cumbersome, and partially-successful restoration solutions might be rendered unnecessary. I was appointed Director of the NMFS Office of Habitat Protection in March, 1979. The NOAA Administrator at the time, Dick Frank, made habitat protection the top priority within NOAA. I quickly found out, however, that there were NMFS Regional Directors and Research Center Directors who had other agendas. They were into fisheries “management” and fisheries research in “blue” water, and they told me that NMFS had no business in coastal waters. They felt that it was the states’ responsibility to deal with wetlands and estuaries. There was little coordination between state fish and game programs, state coastal programs, and the federal government when it came to habitat protection efforts. There is still little interaction between fishery managers and wetland/habitat restoration practitioners.

I left Washington on November 4, 1980, the day Ronald Reagan was elected president. Twelve years later, after budgets were cut and programs were terminated, the NMFS Director has re-established the Office of Habitat Protection. A September 14, 1992 NOAA circular announced that effective October 4, the NMFS Office of Habitat Protection was established to provide executive leadership and policy direction for the NMFS nationwide habitat protection program.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

However, on September 25, the Senate and House Appropriations Committee conferees decided to provide no increase for the National Habitat Protection Program, and slightly reduced the Program’s FY 1992 base funds. The irony here is that because the federal budget is in such bad shape, the Congress has cut NOAA programs across the board, giving the new Habitat Office little to work with. This program, along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state trustee agencies, is the first line of defense. The NMFS program alone reviews and comments on some 10,000 permits and actions nationally per year.

Just when the California Coastal Commission budget appeared to be safe from a budget cut this year, at the last minute, the Governor took his blue pencil to about 20% of the commission’s budget. This is most unfortunate, because each coastal state’s coastal zone management plan must include provisions for the “protection of natural resources, including wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, maritime forests, barrier islands, coral reefs, and fish and wildlife and their habitat, within the coastal zone.” With the recent budget cuts, the California Coastal Commission is going to have a difficult time fulfilling this mandate.

The state Department of Fish and Game’s budget is also in shambles, so it doesn’t look good on the national, or state, front for efforts to avoid habitat loss. That, by default, throws us into the next category: minimize impacts. There is a growing consensus that no number of conditions on a permitted development project can compensate for another acre of coastal ocean habitat dredged or filled. It is no consolation that the applicant is required to conduct educational tours of a new amusement park if it is sitting on what was once prime fishery habitat!

In the Spring of 1991, the Walt Disney Company proposed a theme park and resort development in and adjacent to the Port of Long Beach. Called the Port Disney project, the project included Disney Sea, a theme park with rides and attractions, five new hotels, retail shops and entertainment, boat excursions and rentals, 400 new marina slips, and a cruise ship port. The project would have required 250 acres of fill in the port. A bill was introduced on March 8 in the State Senate (SB 1062) to pave the way for the project. Disney dropped the bill after four amended versions and three months of hearings.

On February 20, 1992, another bill was introduced in the Senate (SB 1677) which would have allowed any publicly-owned deep water commercial port proposing development in subtidal waters to pay an in-lieu fee to the State Coastal Conservancy, in lieu of undertaking any evaluation of impacts to, or mitigation for loss of, subtidal fish habitat value that may be caused by the proposed development. This bill was amended several times and, incredibly, passed the Legislature and was signed into law by the Governor in August. In its final form,

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

the ports may submit a report to the Conservancy that identifies and describes “deepwater habitats” (not defined) that could be enhanced, restored, or newly created as potential mitigation associated with the construction of port facilities in deepwater areas.

One bright spot in all the federal and state budget cuts; NOAA’s Marine Sanctuary Program got a small shot in the arm earlier this fall, when Congress appropriated $7 million, over $1 million more than expected. This particular program seems to be alive and well, with the designation of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary in September of this year. The Monterey Bay management plan’s prohibitions and regulations, covering over 4,000 square nautical miles and 200 miles of the central coast, will go a long way to protect coastal ocean habitat.

There is an urgent need for added protection of remaining marine/estuarine habitat. There must be a greater emphasis placed on protection and management of ecosystems and biological communities, whether it be through the Marine Sanctuary Program, NOAA’s Estuarine Research Reserves, EPA’s National Estuary Program, or the four new marine research reserves, which were mandated by Proposition 132, and will be established prior to January 1, 1994 by the Fish and Game Commission. Each Ecological Reserve shall have a surface area of at least two square miles, and activities in the areas shall be restricted to scientific research relating to the management and enhancement of marine resources. The California Attorney General rendered an opinion earlier this year declaring that all activities (fishing, boating, surfing) would be prohibited in the reserves.

Marine fishery reserves (“harvest refugia”) offer a potential way to protect habitat, while improving fisheries by protecting species composition, population age structure, spawning potential, and within-species genetic variability. Artificial reefs, which I will briefly touch on in a few minutes, could further enhance habitat and mitigate for lost fishing areas. The ideal number, location, and size of reserves necessary to achieve these objectives needs to be determined. It might be noted here that the Florida Keys and Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuaries are considering the establishment of “harvest refugia,” and the concept is spreading to other areas of the country.

Back to the main subject, mitigation strategies, and the controversy surrounding restoration efforts. As an indication of the confusion and misunderstanding (even between experts in the field) in this area, I want to cite a few statements from last year ’s Baltimore Symposium. Dr. Roy (Robin) Lewis, from Tampa, Florida, discussed “Coastal Habitat Restoration as a Fishery Management Tool.” While his expertise lies mainly in the South Atlantic and Gulf, Robin offered the following:

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

The restoration of lost or damaged fishery habitat as a fishery management tool is vastly underutilized. This is not a lack of technology, but philosophical confusion of wetland restoration as a means of regulatory mitigation with wetland restoration solely for restoring lost fish and wildlife habitat. While the technology is well developed for successful marine wetland restoration on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, it is less well developed for the West Coast. The scientific base supporting wetland restoration as a fishery management tool is meager, but no more so than for artificial reefs. Like artificial reefs, restored marine wetlands support sizable fish populations within days of their completion, due to local immigration. In the longer term, permanent resident fish populations become established, and the potential nursery functions have been scientifically demonstrated in restored wetlands. Functional equivalency is not required for wetland restoration to deserve more use as a fishery management tool.” (Lewis, 1992)

The Coastal Society has adopted a policy statement which declares that coastal wetland restoration is not “largely experimental”; that technology is available for most wetland types except seagrass meadows (due to water quality problems). The society feels that restored systems have fish and wildlife populations closely approximating those found in natural wetlands. Robin Lewis disagrees. He says there is no justification to allow coastal wetlands to be filled and replaced by constructed coastal wetlands.

To add to the controversy (and confusion), Dr. Bill Fox, Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service, in his keynote address at the Baltimore Symposium, disagreed with Lewis by saying, “Restoration technology is not well developed. While techniques exist to revegetate salt marsh and seagrass meadows, results have not been fully evaluated.

Confusing? Yes, it is very confusing, and most perplexing. But, these folks are from the East Coast and what do they know? We have Joy Zedler, and Mike Josselyn, and Rich Ambrose to sort it out. I’m really counting on our West Coast experts to agree on some basic principles before we attempt to develop a strategy. We need some consensus on the following issues:

  1. Are we dealing with a scientific problem (i.e., is restoration technology available and accepted for West Coast marine wetlands, or is it largely experimental?); or a philosophical confusion over the use of wetland restoration as regulatory mitigation (i.e., can we justify the filling of existing coastal wetlands or subtidal habitat through the creation of new constructed wetlands?); or both?

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
  1. If the technology does work, or simply needs refinement, should we focus on restoration projects (i.e., pilot/experimental) that are not part of mitigation to offset the effects of a new development?

  2. Is “functional equivalency” necessary for wetland restoration to justify it as a fishery management tool?

  3. Is there adequate data/published documentation of the success of wetlands restoration? Do we know what has worked and what hasn’t worked?

  4. Is there a management problem, rather than a technological one (i.e., compliance monitoring and enforcement)?

  5. Should a strategy be limited to mitigation, or should protection efforts (avoidance of loss) be considered as well? Should the first priority be placed on protection of habitats?

  6. Are habitat evaluation techniques (HEP/WET/BEST) accepted by the scientific community? What are the major unresolved scientific questions regarding the different approaches/systems?

Habitat Evaluation Techniques

The three major habitat valuation methods currently in use all have their shortcomings:

  1. Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) — developed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; little data available for marine species, which makes developing models for marine systems difficult.

  2. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) — developed by the Federal Highway Authority; provides a good screening method, but without quantitative numbers, results only give a qualitative “high/moderate/low” value.

  3. Biological Evaluation Standardized Technique (BEST) — developed by MEC for the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles; too subjective in its approach, and sensitive to small data differences; attempts to equate species from different habitats (i.e., harbor/sand with reef species).

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS)

On February 20, 1974, the California Coastal Commission approved two additional units (Units 2 and 3) to Southern California Edison ’s (SCE) nuclear power plant on the South Coast. A three-member scientific Marine Review Committee (MRC) was impaneled to carry out a comprehensive field study of the effects of SONGS on the marine environment, with the commitment that SCE would make future changes in the SONGS cooling system to address impacts identified by the MRC. Fifteen years of data collection, and $46 million later, the commission received the MRC report in 1989, which noted substantial damage to an offshore kelp bed and to resident fish and their eggs and larvae.

Two years after the MRC study was received, the commission adopted a plan that required SCE to meet three conditions: (1) to improve the plant’s fish behavioral barrier devices; (2) build a 300-acre artificial kelp reef; and (3) create, or substantially restore, a 150-acre coastal wetland somewhere in Southern California. Permit 183-73, dated July 16, 1991, required SCE to evaluate eight wetland restoration sites identified by the commission. SCE employed MEC Analytical Services, Inc. to make the evaluation, and in December 1991, MEC concluded that three sites were most suitable: Anaheim Bay, San Dieguito River Valley, and the Tijuana River Estuary. The U.S. Navy was not happy with the consideration of Anaheim Bay, so the final decision was San Dieguito and/or Tijuana. On June 11, 1992, the Commission selected San Dieguito as the site best suited for the SONGS Units 2 and 3 wetland mitigation requirement.

I am going to leave it to Susan Hansch, the Manager of the commission ’s Energy and Ocean Resources Unit, to explain the details of the San Dieguito project. We are fortunate to have Sue and Dr. Rich Ambrose on the Habitat panel, as SONGS serves as a key case study for our purposes. I will note here that SONGS conditions/mitigation decisions did not come easily. As Peter Douglas remarked in a September 23, 1991 letter to the Ocean Studies Board, “… The major rub with the San Onofre experience is that the scientific input came after the fact rather than before the decision to approve the facility was made. As a result, the adverse impacts of the facility which have now been identified, and which are significant, will be ongoing for the life of the plant. All that can be done at this point is to compensate, to some extent, for the ongoing adverse impact to the marine environment.

This statement pretty much summarizes the situation we’re in: the economic necessity to make development decisions without the benefit of environmental studies or a baseline. This San Dieguito restoration project may be the “big test” of our ability to mitigate unavoidable damages. Does the Coastal Commission condition set a good precedent or a bad precedent? Time will tell.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Because of the paucity of sites in Southern California for such mitigation, the development community (the utilities, the ports, and others) is fighting for “credits” with permitting bodies such as the Coastal Commission. Edison and the Port of Long Beach are actually working together in an attempt to coordinate credits (i.e., intertidal versus subtidal habitat). Robert Kanter, with the Port of Long Beach, as a member of the Habitat panel, will give us an update on their progress.

Artificial Reefs/Kelp Beds

As mentioned earlier, one of the SONGS conditions requires construction of a 300-acre artificial kelp reef. The Marine Review Committee measured adverse effects on the kelp community in the San Onofre kelp bed, including giant kelp, fish, and large benthic invertebrates. The effects, although local, were deemed substantial because kelp is a valuable and limited habitat. As recommended by the MRC, to mitigate for the impacts from the SONGS discharge plume on the existing kelp bed, the Commission adopted Condition C, which sets forth a process through which the artificial reef would be sited and designed in such a manner as to have a high likelihood of successfully replacing the lost resources.

Condition C lays out criteria and standards for: site selection; reef design; reef construction; and monitoring and remediation. At least two workshops have been held, over the past year, to discuss reef siting, design, and construction. Perhaps Sue Hansch will discuss this mitigation condition, as well as wetland restoration, when we get to the panel.

Recognizing the potential of artificial reefs for enhancing sport fish habitat and catch, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 706 in 1985. This legislation formalized the Department of Fish and Game’s (DFG’s) status as the lead agency in California’s reef building process. It authorized DFG to construct additional reefs and to administer reef studies with cooperation and assistance from the California university system and other appropriate academic institutions and organizations. This law also required that information from reef studies be used to formulate long-term plans for improving nearshore fisheries production, and specified several potential sources for funding reef construction and studies.

The Department of Fish and Game’s “Nearshore Sportfish Habitat Enhancement Program” (NSHEP) is described in DFG’s Administrative Report 90-15 (Wilson et al., 1990). A detailed report of scientific studies conducted at Pendleton Artificial Reef from 1980-1986 (Wilson and Lewis, 1990) provided much of the basis for the NSHEP report. As with wetland restoration, there is a growing

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

debate over the merits of dumping rubble to create an artificial reef versus kelp bed restoration.

Marine Fish Hatcheries

The Coastal Commission evaluated three options recommended unanimously by the MRC for mitigating bightwide fish losses, as well as a fish hatchery, that had been rejected by the Review Committee. MRC measured a reduction in the local abundance of several midwater fish populations. It was determined that each year, the SONGS cooling intake system takes in 45 tons of fish, and kills at least 21 tons. As this estimate was made in a period of depressed fish abundance, it was felt that over the long-term, the amount killed would be approximately 56 tons per year.

In spite of MRC’s rejection (for lack of scientific justification), at its May, 1992 meeting, the Coastal Commission imposed an additional mitigation measure on SCE for the SONGS impacts—a marine fish hatchery. Approximately $1.2 million from SCE will be used to build the hatchery on lands provided by San Diego Gas & Electric Company in Carlsbad. Slated for completion by the end of 1993, the hatchery is being designed to handle a variety of marine species, with about 50% of its capacity being devoted to white seabass. Various individuals and organizations are donating services, materials, and equipment, all of which is being coordinated by Don Kent of the Hubbs-Sea World Research Foundation.

The California Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program (OREHP) will provide the policy guidance and financial support for hatchery operations. OREHP is supported by a $1 stamp on sportfishing licenses, and raises close to $500,000 annually. These funds will be used to operate the hatchery and conduct field studies to determine the program ’s effectiveness in increasing fish stocks. Assembly Bill 960, signed into law this year, extends OREHP until the year 2003. The Department of Fish and Game submits an annual report to the Legislature regarding the effectiveness of the program (Crooke, 1991 ).

While marine fish hatcheries are still in the R&D phase, and considered “experimental” by the commission, it was considered worth pursuing as a mitigation measure for lost fishery resources. As such, hatcheries should be included in any mitigation strategy developed for coastal ocean habitat. Until proven as a viable mitigation tool, the Coastal Commission is reluctant to give mitigation “credit” for hatcheries to developers, for fear of setting a precedent.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Developing a Strategy

Race (1985) noted the lack of success of mitigation projects in San Francisco Bay. She argues that many wetland mitigation sites failed because natural or planted wetland vegetation died or failed to grow, or there were problems in creating appropriate elevations for marsh vegetation. She also noted problems in determining project adherence to mitigation requirements due to poor permit descriptions. Eliot (1985) found inconsistencies between completed projects in San Francisco Bay and stated goals, most of which could be attributed to lack of enforcement or poor planning and implementation. Kentula (1986) observed similar problems in evaluating wetland mitigation in the Pacific Northwest and criticized the lack of quantitative data necessary to evaluate project effectiveness. Quammen (1986) best described the evaluation problem by distinguishing criteria for compliance (how well permit and regulatory obligations were met), and function (how well the created wetland functions replace those of natural wetlands) success.

A recent report, published by the National Research Council (1992), examined the restoration of aquatic ecosystems, including a chapter on wetlands. A 15-member scientific panel (which included Joy Zedler) concluded that restoration should not be used in exchange for destroying natural wetlands until there is more certainty about the outcome. Practically everything I read and hear on the subject tells me that this is the highest priority for our strategy. It seems that we should be testing restoration techniques, monitoring ongoing restoration projects, developing evaluation methodologies, and conducting more basic wetland and habitat research before committing to credits for new developments that affect existing viable habitat.

The NRC team reported that, “Mitigation efforts cannot yet claim to have displaced lost wetlands, functional values. It has not been shown that restored wetlands maintain regional biodiversity and re-create functional ecosystems.” The group urged scientific studies to answer the unresolved biological questions, but added that “project proponents do not want to know and regulatory agencies cannot afford to find out.” (NRC, 1992).

Quoted in a recent issue of National Geographic, Dr. Joy Zedler summarized the situation as follows: “If we allow all our natural wetlands to be replaced by man-made ones, I guarantee you that we will lose biodiversity. We cannot possibly census everything that was there to know later how much of it we ’ve been able to bring back.” “I’m not suggesting that all wetlands restorations are doomed to failure, but I do want to make the distinction between restoration for its own sake versus mitigation in the regulatory context, where restoration simply becomes a license to destroy habitat somewhere else.. “The lesson is: Don’t

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

do what we (California) did. Don’t wait until it’s too late. It’s going to be incredibly expensive to try to turn back the clock when you’ve lost 91 percent of your wetlands acreage and species are threatened with extinction.” (Mitchell, 1992).

This poses quite a dilemma for our assignment. How do we develop habitat mitigation strategies, when the scientific community does not support the concept? I would offer the following:

  1. Establish a federal/state Task Force (“Blue Ribbon Committee”), comprised of NMFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. EPA, Department of Fish and Game, Coastal Commission, Coastal Conservancy, University researchers, and representatives of appropriate industry to develop research/monitoring protocols, a program of pilot demonstration projects which would test restoration techniques, and a workable habitat evaluation methodology.

  2. Study the success of ongoing restoration projects, such as Talbert Marsh (Huntington Beach, Orange County), Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (eastern side of San Diego Bay), Napa River mouth, South San Francisco Bay (Hayward garbage dump), and Elkhorn Slough (Monterey County).

  3. Evaluate restoration alternatives, such as full-tidal versus muted-tidal flow at Ballona Creek.

  4. Review available reports and manuals, such as “A Manual For Assessing Restored and Natural Coastal Wetlands” (PERL, 1990); “Salt Marsh Restoration: A Guidebook for Southern California” (Zedler, 1984); “Wetland Mitigation Along the Pacific Coast of the United States” (Josselyn et al., 1989); “Implementing Mitigation Policies in San Francisco Bay: A Critique ” (Eliot, 1985); and “Wetland Restoration and Enhancement in California” (Josselyn, 1982).

  5. Differentiate between habitat and environmental (i.e., temperature, dissolved oxygen, subsurface light, salinity, dissolved nutrients, and toxic chemical contaminants) factors when addressing fishery habitat loss.

  6. Investigate the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Center’s Beaufort and Galveston Laboratories research into the “functional equivalency” of manmade versus natural marshes.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
  1. Inventory wetland acreage of California’s major estuaries. Ecosystem research on Pacific estuaries lags behind that of Atlantic and Gulf efforts by several decades. Wetland acreage is known for only 29% of California’s major estuaries in contrast to 69% for the rest of the nation’s NOAA-classified estuaries (Williams and Zedler, 1991).

  2. Develop a system for evaluating a restoration project’s effectiveness.

Conclusion

In developing habitat mitigation strategies, it will be extremely important to communicate information needs from policymakers to scientists, and to translate research results into a form that can be used as a basis for creating informed coastal ocean policy.

In the absence of scientifically-based habitat valuation techniques, the California Coastal Commission has been forced to utilize politically-driven acreage trade-offs when considering appropriate mitigation conditions. Without the necessary scientific input, the state legislature will continue to consider bills that attempt to set a standard ratio (acreage-driven) for mitigation. The decision over 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, etc. will be made purely on who has the political muscle, and unless government agencies and the scientific community work together to develop a scientifically defensible system, science will be left out of the picture.

As was previously stated, the three major habitat valuation methods currently in use all have their shortcomings: lacking the appropriate models, HEP is not useful to the southern California marine environment; WET doesn’t provide numbers for mitigation alternatives; and BEST is not comprehensive enough, and anomalies in data can throw off results.

There is a tremendous challenge here for the scientific community to put an evaluation system in place that decisionmakers can use. For example:

  1. Do we need a “better BEST” (i.e., a modified WET with numerical values)?

  2. Do we need a “scientific ballpark” value to justify political decisions?

  3. Should a “threshold” value be static or changing?

  4. How do we weigh different systems for trade-offs? As ports are filled and degraded wetlands are restored, do values change over time?

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

These questions are ripe for a federal/state Task Force (Blue Ribbon Committee) to tackle. The scientific community may be philosophically split over trade-offs that restore degraded habitat while destroying natural areas, but without a scientifically-based system for such mitigation, we leave these critical decisions entirely to politics. As a scientist who works in the political arena, this troubles me deeply.

References

Chambers, J. 1992. Coastal Degradation and Fish Population Losses. In: R. Stroud (ed.), Stemming The Tide of Coastal Fish Habitat Loss. National Coalition for Marine Conservation. Savannah, Georgia.

Crooke, S. 1991. The Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program, 1991. Department of Fish and Game Annual Report to California State Legislature Sacramento, California.

Eliot, W. 1985. Implementing Mitigation Policies in San Francisco Bay: A Critique Prepared for California State Coastal Conservancy. Oakland, California.

Hinman, K. and C. Safina. 1992. Symposium Summary and Recommendations. In R. Stroud(ed.), Stemming The Tide of Coastal Fish Habitat Loss. NCMC. Savannah, Georgia.

Josselyn, M., J. Zedler, and T. Griswold. 1989. Wetland Mitigation Along the Pacific Coast of the United States. In: Kusler, J. and M. Kentula (eds.) Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science, Island Press.

Josselyn, M. (ed.) 1982. Wetland Restoration and Enhancement in California. Sea Grant Technical Report No. T-CSGCP-007. Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies. Tiburon, CA.

Kentula, M. 1986. Wetland Creation and Rehabilitation in the Pacific Northwest. In: R. Strickland (ed.) Wetland Functions, Rehabilitation, and Creation in the Pacific Northwest: The State of Our Understanding. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington.

Lewis, R. 1992. Coastal Habitat Restoration as a Fishery Management Tool. In: R Stroud (ed.), Stemming The Tide of Coastal Fish Habitat Loss. NCMC. Savannah, Georgia.

Mitchell, J.G. 1992. Our disappearing wetlands. National Geographic 182(4):3-45.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.

Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory, 1990. Strategies for Wetland Construction, Restoration, and Enhancement In: A Manual for Assessing Restored and Natural Coastal Wetlands. California Sea Grant Publication. San Diego, CA.

Parry, C.M.R. 1992. Mitigation for Coastal Development in California. In: Techno-Ocean 1992 Conference Proceedings. Japan International Marine Science and Technology Federation. Tokyo, Japan.

Quammen, M. 1986. Summary of Conference and Information Needs for Mitigation in Wetlands In: R. Strickland (ed.) Wetland Functions, Rehabilitation, and Creation in the Pacific Northwest: The State of Our Understanding. Olympia, WA.

Race, M. 1985. Critique of present wetlands mitigation policies in the United States based on an analysis of past restoration projects in San Francisco Bay. Environ. Management 9:71-82.

Williams, P. and J. Zedler. 1991. Restoring Sustainable Coastal Ecosystems on the Pacific Coast - Establishing a Research Agenda. Sea Grant Workshop. San Francisco, CA.

Wilson, K., R. D. Lewis, and H.A. Togstad. 1990. Artificial Reef Plan for Sportfish Enhancement. Department of Fish and Game Administrative Report No. 90-15. October, 1990.

Wilson, K. and R. Lewis. 1990. Report of Pendleton Artificial Reef Studies with Recommendations for Constructing a Kelp Reef. Department of Fish and Game (NSFHEP). August, 1990.

Zedler, J. 1984. Salt Marsh Restoration: A Guidebook for Southern California. California Sea Grant College Program. Report No. 7-CSGCP-009. La Jolla, CA.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Issue Group Summary

Leader - William Murdoch (University of California at Santa Barbara)

Rapporteurs - William Eichbaum (World Wildlife Fund) and Richard Ambrose (University of California at Los Angeles)

Other Members of Issue Group - Paul Dayton (University of California at San Diego), Steven Goldbeck (Bay Conservation and Development Commission), Susan Hanna (Oregon State University), Susan Hansch (California Coastal Commission), Mike Josselyn (San Francisco State University), Robert Kanter (Port of Long Beach), David Keeley (Maine State Planning Office), Michael Orbach (East Carolina University), James Rote (California State Assembly Office of Research), Michael A. Rozengurt (County Sanitation Districts of Orange County), Donald Scavia (NOAA Coastal Ocean Program), Russ Schmidt (University of California at Santa Barbara), Mary Shallenberger (California State Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee), and John Teal (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

The most obvious technical limitation of science-policy interactions is the lack of basic information about ecosystems and about how to accomplish mitigation of damage to habitats. Habitat mitigation is also constrained by a lack of mechanisms to make scientific information available for policy and decisionmaking.

  • Time scale mismatch — In general, science often has a long-term orientation and management wants short-term answers.

  • Subjectivity of science — Scientists differ in their interpretations of research results and their beliefs about the implications of research conducted by themselves and others. Thus, on many issues, a range of views may be held by different scientists and may be in opposition to one another.

  • Market distortions — The natural resources that we are trying to manage are improperly valued.

  • Imbalance of power — Not only are there scientists for hire who represent the entire range of viewpoints on a given issue, but when issues come up and one side is a large corporation or public interest group, its representatives can simply overwhelm regulatory agency personnel.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
  • Ignoring the future — When there is uncertainty about what is going to happen in the future, the tendency is to make decisions with a very short-term horizon.

  • Fragmentation of authority and responsibility — This problem was also brought up in the cumulative impacts issue group. Often, for example, environmental problems may be regional in nature, but they may be handled by a set of local agencies. Fragmentation is a particular problem in the coastal zone, with overlapping local, state, and federal responsibilities.

  • Reward and incentive structure for scientific participation — It may be difficult to entice scientists, especially but not exclusively, university scientists, to participate in advisory activities.

  • Scientific complexity of these issues — Agencies, even when they obtain good scientific information, are frequently underfunded and may find it difficult to employ well-trained scientific personnel who can evaluate the scientific information.

The group identified four examples of the successful application of science to mitigation in California.

  1. The structure and operation of the Marine Review Committee (MRC) 86 were characterized by a number of qualities that ultimately helped to ensure its success. A key aspect was that the MRC was an independent scientific body. It was given autonomy and funding to evaluate available scientific information, and research carried out by the MRC was designed to develop a consensus about what new observations and scientific research should be conducted to determine the effects of a nuclear generating station on the marine environment. All sides of the dispute were included in this forum and the biases that participants brought to the committee were balanced by its composition. The chairperson was appointed by the California Coastal

    86  

    The Marine Review Committee (MRC) was established by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) in 1974 in response to a proposal by Southern California Edison to construct Units 2 and 3 of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. When the CCC considered the proposal to construct Units 2 and 3, it heard much conflicting testimony, some claiming that the operation of the power plant would have a massive impact and cause a “nearshore desert” and some claiming that there would be little impact. The CCC concluded that the information about the impacts of the power plant on the marine environment was insufficient; the MRC was established to resolve this problem. The CCC allowed the project to proceed on condition that if the MRC discovered adverse impacts, mitigation, compensation, or changes to the power plant would then be required. This was an “after the fact” approach.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Commission (CCC). The MRC included one representative from the utility and one from the environmental community. Many of the arguments that would normally have emerged at a later stage under more adversarial conditions, in a hearing or in board deliberations, surfaced earlier within the MRC.

The MRC had a specific charge and knew its purpose. Susan Hansch (CCC) pointed out that one of the useful results of the long-term interactions between the MRC and staff members of regulatory agencies was that agency staff became familiar with the full complexity of the scientific issues. The MRC concluded that there were significant adverse environmental impacts, but also found that these impacts were not as widespread or devestating as had been predicted. The MRC enabled a major public work to proceed in the absence of complete environmental information relative to potential adverse impacts.

  1. A second example of the successful use of scientific information in the habitat mitigation process, also in response to the San Onofre project, was the process by which San Dieguito wetland was chosen as an appropriate restoration site to offset the adverse environmental effects of the San Onofre nuclear generating station. In this case, too, a panel formed by the CCC took part in the process, the users were involved in the process, and outside scientists provided technical expertise. Although political considerations were taken into account, scientific information was an integral part of the process.

  2. The mitigation at Arcata Marsh included full participation and adequate use of scientific information, resulting in effective habitat creation in association with wastewater management. Scientific input included pilot projects and ongoing involvement of university scientists. Habitat benefits were demonstrated before the full-scale mitigation project began. Completion of the project reduced the cost of wastewater discharge for a small community and, because of the scientific input, had support from state officials and the public.

The issue group developed a list of possible actions for improving the interactions between scientists and policymakers related to the mitigation of damage to coastal habitats. The first involves permit conditions and the details of mitigation projects. The group agreed that knowledge exists about how to improve future mitigation projects significantly, that they really need to be improved, and that there are some reasonably clear procedures that should be followed in planning and implementation. A good example is the CCC permit conditions for

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

new mitigation by Southern California Edison.87 There should be strict performance standards to measure the extent to which mitigation objectives are being achieved, on the basis of good scientific evidence about the resources in question. Long-term, and most importantly, independent monitoring of the mitigation process should be conducted, and the process should allow for remediation. The whole point of the monitoring is to decide if the mitigation works; if it doesn’t work, remedial action needs to be taken. All of this should be included in the project from the beginning.

Mitigation projects should be considered experiments because mitigation is not yet an exact science. Major purposes for conducting long-term monitoring associated with mitigation projects are to measure their effectiveness, to learn from their performance, and to use this information in the process of managing mitigation for a given project and for future projects.

The group’s second suggestion is that mitigation projects be viewed within the physical and biological systems of which they are a part. Mitigation projects now tend to be very site specific. Problems arise when decisions are made about what should be done with a particular site without considering the larger systems. Site-specific decisions may not be optimal in a regional context. There may be some environments, such as some kinds of wetland habitats, that are particularly scarce in a region. In such cases, even though local conditions wouldn’t suggest that a wetland be restored at a particular site, regional considerations may indicate restoration at this site.

The group discussed the formation of two blue-ribbon panels (specific to California) whose membership would include a combination of scientists, policymakers, and resource agency personnel. The first panel would define the information needed for decisionmaking over the long term, define a research

87  

The mitigation program that the CCC established for addressing the adverse marine impacts of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 broke new ground in the development of the CCC’s mitigation practice and policy. The program reflects a recognition that there are uncertainties surrounding the restoration of coastal and marine ecosystems and incorporates scientific evaluation and guidance to minimize this uncertainty.

The main components of the program, restoration of a 150-acre coastal wetland and construction of a 300-acre artificial reef with kelp, must meet siting and design standards. A long-term independent monitoring program will measure the success of the wetland and reef in meeting biological and physical performance standards, and on the basis of the findings, will prescribe any needed remedial measures. An objective of the mitigation projects is to reproduce the functions of natural wetland and reef ecosystems. The mitigation monitoring program promises to advance our understanding of the functioning of coastal wetlands and kelp beds in California. In addition, the program will increase our knowledge of how best to design mitigation requirements.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

agenda to obtain this information, and assess and synthesize ongoing mitigation science. To achieve better mitigation in the future than is achievable now, there are two key activities that need to be carried out. First, decisionmakers and scientists must work cooperatively to determine what information is needed to make better decisions over the long term. This will allow the definition of a research agenda centered around these information needs. Many research plans exist; they should be evaluated to choose those that will be most helpful for decisionmaking.

Second, the group believes that an applied science of mitigation should be developed, although it is not exactly clear what such a science would include. There is a need to develop a set of principles and specific ideas about how particular systems work. Natural systems must be studied to find out what makes them stable and what factors disrupt their stability. This kind of information can be used to develop a scientific approach to mitigation, in contrast to an ad hoc approach, by which mitigation is now carried out. To improve mitigation efforts, it will be necessary to reduce associated scientific uncertainties. A mitigation research agenda would include such issues as

  • Identification of methods for establishing habitat values

  • Development of procedures for evaluating effectiveness

  • Evaluation of existing projects

  • Development of experimental approaches—e.g., funding of pilot projects to study restoration techniques

  • Definition of socioeconomic information that should be collected as part of mitigation projects

Definitions are needed not only for the natural science issues that are involved here, but also for the socioeconomic information that ought to be collected and analyzed during mitigation projects. And there is also the important issue of mechanisms for the translation of science into policy.

Finally, additional funding will be necessary to support all this research, so the second blue-ribbon task force would propose ways to support the research agenda outlined by the first panel. One mechanism suggested is a fee on developers that would go into a fund dedicated to the support of restoration and mitigation science.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

COASTAL SEDIMENT AND WATER QUALITY

Introduction

Millions of dollars are spent annually to monitor the quality of California coastal waters. Population growth has lead to increased levels of contaminants and pathogens in coastal waters, although some success in reducing contaminant inputs has been achieved. Environmental managers need better data to evaluate the ecological and human risks from diffuse source contaminant inputs, and to determine the amount of resources that should be invested to regulate them. Better understanding about the fates of contaminants is also needed. The ability to distinguish between natural variability and anthropogenic impacts on organisms and ecosystems is important. The following paper by Cross specifies the information needed by environmental managers, discusses why managers do not presently receive this type of information, and makes recommendations about how to eliminate these problems. The issue group’s summary presents a number of case studies of successes and failures in interactions between scientists and policymakers related to water quality issues, as well as suggestions for improving interactions.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Marine Environmental Issues in the Southern California Bight

Jeffrey N. Cross

Southern California Coastal Water Research Project

The Southern California coast is a region of multiple demands, including municipal and industrial waste disposal, energy and oil production, marine transportation, commercial and sport fisheries, recreation, and aesthetics. Approximately 15 million people live in the region and their effect on the coastal marine environment has been profound. These changes have been superimposed on an environment that is subject to natural fluctuations at time scales of days to decades.

Each year, millions of dollars88 are spent monitoring the water quality of the coastal marine environment. Some of this information has played a significant role in management decisions in the Southern California Bight (SCB).89 For example, high levels of coliform bacteria in the surf zone in Santa Monica Bay in the 1940s and 1950s prompted the extension of municipal wastewater outfalls into deeper water offshore (Garber and Wada, 1988).

However, most of the monitoring data collected by discharge agencies in Southern California are described in lengthy and detailed reports that are not readily accessible to policymakers and the public. The data are also sent to the regulatory agencies where they are not critically evaluated and summarized for policymakers and the public (National Research Council, 1990a). Environmental managers in California often lament the lack of scientific information when it comes time to make decisions.

This paper examines the major marine environmental issues in the SCB and the interaction between science and environmental decisionmaking in the region. It also offers some recommendations for making marine monitoring data more useful in the decisionmaking process. The list of marine environmental issues is not exhaustive; rather, it represents the biased view of an applied marine scientist that was developed while working in the region during the past decade. The issues on the list confront scientists and environmental managers today; their resolutions will have implications for public policy in the region during this decade. Absent from the list are large-scale, long-term problems, such as global warming (sea level rise and change in climate patterns) and depletion of the ozone layer (increased

88  

Approximately $17 million in 1987 (National Research Council, 1990a).

89  

The SCB extends from Point Conception to approximately Bahia San Quintin, Baja California, Mexico.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

ultraviolet radiation), that are pertinent to the SCB, but are national and international in scope.

Marine Environmental Issues

Coastal Development—The people of Southern California have had a major influence on the physiography of the coastline. Seventy-five percent of the bays and estuaries in the SCB have been dredged, filled, and converted into harbors and marinas (Horn and Allen, 1985). Resident bay and estuarine fishes, which are found nowhere else in the Bight, have lost a significant amount of habitat, and migrating waterfowl have lost a significant amount of resting and over-wintering sites. Bays are the only marine habitat in Southern California where exotic fishes have been successfully introduced by man. Yellowfin gobies, native to Japan, were first collected in Newport Bay in 1978 (Horn and Allen, 1981), but now are one of the most common gobies in the bay. They are voracious predators and threaten the already reduced populations of native fishes.

Compared to the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, bays and estuaries in the SCB were historically small and few in number. They were not the significant nursery areas for coastal marine invertebrates and fishes that they are in other parts of the nation. The nearshore zone, especially semi-protected areas like Santa Monica and San Pedro bays, are nursery areas comparable in importance to estuaries along the Atlantic Coast (Barnett et al., 1984). Concern about nearshore fish and invertebrate populations has intensified in the last decade because of increased human modification of the habitat and the growing importance of recreational fisheries.

Urbanization in Southern California has come at a price. There are increased loads of contaminants and pathogens in the coastal waters. Harbors and marinas have some of the highest levels of contaminants and the most severely degraded habitats (Table 1). Increased surf zone pathogen levels near storm drains in Santa Monica Bay have resulted in the closure of beaches after storms because of public health threats. Anecdotal reports of intestinal infections and more serious illness contracted after swimming in the surf zone have increased the public’s concern over risks to human health. Contamination of local seafood has resulted in closure of one commercial fishery and consumption warnings in the recreational fishery around Los Angeles (Pollock et al., 1991 ).

Inventory of Inputs—For the past two decades, the focus of marine environmental monitoring programs in the SCB has been on point source discharges—specifically on estimating their inputs, and identifying and describing their effects. An extensive database of mass emissions from municipal and industrial wastewater

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

discharges has been compiled and analyzed. In the early 1970s, municipal wastewater discharge accounted for the majority of most contaminant inputs; during the next two decades, the proportion contributed by municipal waste waters significantly declined (Table 2). The decreases in municipal wastewater mass emissions have been due to increased source control (the most important factor), improved solids removal, and increased treatment (Shafer, 1989).

Table 1. Concentrations of contaminants in surface water (microlayer) samples collected at three offshore stations and in three harbors near Los Angeles. PAH1 = low molecular weight polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (substituted and unsubstituted naphthalenes and phenanthrenes). PAH2 = high molecular weight PAHs (anthracene to benzoperylene). PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl ppm = parts per million. Data from Cross et al. (1987). Table used with permission from Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc.

 

Copper (ppm)

Lead (ppm)

Total PCB (ppm)

PAH1 (ppm)

PAH2 (ppm)

San Pedro Channel1

0.8

0.1

nd2

nd

nd

Huntington Beach3

1.8

0.6

nd

nd

nd

Palos Verdes Shelf4

3.4

0.8

nd

0.3

0.6

Redondo Harbor5

14

3.6

nd

0.3

2.4

Long Beach Harbor6

51

37

nd

15

40

Los Angeles Harbor7

119

100

39

14

24

1 15 km from shore.

2 Not detected.

3 8 km from shore.

4 3 km from shore.

5 Primarily small boat marina.

6 Industrialized harbor.

7 Industrialized harbor.

Municipal wastewater treatment agencies in Southern California make hundreds of monthly measurements of contaminants in effluent samples, and

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

hundreds of semi-annual or annual measurements of contaminants in marine sediments and fishes. The data base for inputs from other sources is generally inadequate. For example, between 1984 and 1991, 53 dredge projects dumped nearly six million cubic yards of material at three sites off Southern California, but only 120 dredge material samples were analyzed for contaminants (SCCWRP, 1992a). There are even fewer data for contaminant inputs to the coastal ocean from the atmosphere, although estimates from other parts of the world indicate that it is the dominant source of lead, chromium, copper, and many petroleum and chlorinated hydrocarbons (GESAMP, 1990).

Existing monitoring programs in the SCB do not address all of the sources of contamination. This is especially pressing now since the mass emission from permitted point sources has declined significantly over the past two decades (Shafer, 1989) and inputs from non-permitted sources are comparable or greater than from permitted sources (Table 2).

We need more volume (or mass) and chemistry data for non-point source inputs to make accurate estimates, and to judge their significance against point source inputs. Environmental managers need better data to evaluate the ecological and human risks from diffuse source contaminant inputs, and to determine the amount of resources that should be invested to regulate them.

Contaminant Fates—Contaminants discharged from point sources have become widespread in the SCB. Simulation models predict that about 90% of the municipal wastewater particle mass is carried beyond the outfall area before becoming incorporated into the permanent bottom sediments (Hendricks, 1983). In one study, chlorinated hydrocarbons were found in tissues of scorpionfish collected throughout the SCB. Fish caught nearly 150 km from shore averaged over 5 ppm of DDTs and PCBs (Figure 1). These fish are sedentary, bottom-dwelling rockfish that make only limited migrations for reproduction, but feed near the top of the food web (Love et al., 1987).

Current numerical models developed to predict changes in sediments and bottom-dwelling organisms in response to changes in the characteristics of waste waters and the receiving environment are qualitative at best. Furthermore, these models have little to say about far-field accumulation, and they incorporate biological processes only in a primitive way (SCCWRP, 1992c). We need a better understanding of the behavior of classes of contaminants and their fates in the SCB, including physical factors (transport and sediment resuspension) and biological factors (degradation and bioturbation).

Physical and biological processes mix contaminants from deeper sediments into surface sediments and the water column where they can be transported to

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

distant areas by ocean currents. Particles collected in near-bottom sediment traps off Los Angeles contain a mixture of materials derived from the resuspension of sediments deposited as far back as 25 years or more, and from effluent particles discharged in the past few days or weeks (Hendricks and Eganhouse, 1992).

Before existing models can be used for quantitative predictions of sediment quality, we need more information about: (1) natural and wastewater particle aggregation in the water column, (2) vertical mixing within the wastefield, (3) bioturbation in the sediments, (4) the causes of sediment resuspension, and (5) the decay rate of organic material in the water column and sediments (SCCWRP, 1992c).

Table 2. Estimated annual mass inputs to the Southern California Bight from municipal wastewater discharge, surface runoff, and ocean dumping in metric tons. Estimates within a factor of two or three for a particular compound from a particular source probably are not significantly different. Data for 1970-1972 from SCCWRP (1973); data for 1988-1990 from SCCWRP (1990a,b; 1992a,b). Used with permission from the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project.

   

1970-1972

 

1988-1990

 

Municipal Wastewater

Surface Runoff

Ocean Dumping

Municipal Wastewater

Surface Runoff

Ocean Dumping

Cadmium

54

1.2

14

1.9

1.9

1.4

Chromium

649

25

28

15

31

32

Copper

567

18

28

62

62

56

Lead

211

90

28

11

109

38

Nickel

313

17

28

43

24

9.3

Silver

15

1.1

1.5

10

1

0.6

Zinc

1,680

101

56

127

256

114

Total DDT

19

0.12

14

0.02

0.06

0.052

Total PCB

9.7

0.25

28

nd3

0.10

0.03

1 Not measured

2 Total pesticides

3 Not detected

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Figure 1. Concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons in the livers of scorpionfish (Scorpaena guttata) collected in the Southern California Bight from Anacapa Island in the north to Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico in the south, and offshore to Cortes Bank (approximately 150 km offshore). From Brown et al. (1986). Reproduced with permission from Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc.

Sediment Toxicity—Marine sediments off urban areas accumulate a variety of contaminants that are potentially hazardous to marine organisms. Ecological changes, such as changes in the composition of sediment-dwelling species, may or may not be due to toxic chemicals. Laboratory toxicity tests are conducted with marine sediments to determine their potential for causing adverse biological effects in suspected problem areas (Table 3). Toxic effects are indicated by reduced growth and reproductive output, increased mortality and disease prevalence, and altered enzyme activities. Field collections and laboratory sediment tests, however, provide only indirect evidence for sediment toxicity.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Table 3. Survival and growth of amphipods (Grandiderella japonica) on sediments collected from coastal sites off southern California and tested in the laboratory. Acute bioassay is a 10-day test; chronic bioassay is a 28-day test; growth was measured in the 28-day test. Sediment chemistry data are in dry weight, ΣPAH = total petroleum hydrocarbons. ΣDDT = total DDT; ΣPCB = total PCB. ppm = parts per million. Data are from SCCWRP (1988). Used with permission from the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project.

 

Survival (%)

 
 

Acute

Chronic

Growth(mm)

Copper (ppm)

ΣPAH (ppm)

ΣDDT (ppm)

ΣPCB (ppm)

Newport Bay1

88

62

4.0

2

nd2

<0.01

nd

Palos Verdes Shelf3

67

17

0.6

213

3.21

5.97

1.55

Los Angeles Harbor4

48

40

2.0

82

5.31

0.09

0.22

Huntington Beach5

77

60

2.7

24

0.09

<0.01

0.06

San Mateo Point6

84

49

1.9

14

0.04

0.02

<0.01

San Diego Bay7

68

45

1.8

132

7.63

0.03

0.19

1 Amphipod collection site.

2 Not detected.

3 Near Los Angeles County municipal wastewater outfall.

4 East Turning Basin, inner harbor.

5 Near Orange County municipal wastewater outfall.

6 Outer coast reference site near Dana Point.

7 Near Chollas Creek.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Laboratory toxicity tests assume that the test organisms are surrogates for the large array of organisms that comprise natural communities. The justification for using living organisms to detect toxicity in sediments is that no man-made instrument can do it. Sediment tests are therefore superior to predictions made by chemical and physical measurements alone. But laboratory aquaria are artificial environments that lack ocean currents, sediment movement, and changes in food supply. Furthermore, the physical and chemical characteristics of sediments can change when they are brought into the laboratory. These changes can increase or decrease the availability of contaminants to test organisms, and may ultimately affect the toxicity of the sediments. The confidence that we place in the results of laboratory sediment toxicity tests is directly proportional to their environmental realism.

Two major issues facing scientists and environmental decisionmakers are identification of the toxic component of sediments and estimation of the concentration where toxic effects first occur. The California State Water Resources Control Board has been required by law to submit to the State Legislature, a plan to develop and adopt sediment quality objectives. The State Board is currently evaluating the following approaches for determining sediment criteria (California Water Resources Control Board, 1991).

  1. Equilibrium partitioning—a chemical modeling approach that assumes: (a) that the main route of organism exposure is through water in the sediments (pore water), (b) that contaminants are in thermodynamic equilibrium among the various environmental compartments (water, sediments, organisms), and (c) that California water quality objectives can be applied to pore water.

  2. Apparent Effects Threshold—an empirical approach that is based on correlations among sediment contaminant measurements, laboratory sediment toxicity tests, and the composition of invertebrates in sediment samples; it assumes that a single contaminant is responsible for effects observed at a site although many contaminants may be present in the sediments.

  3. Spiked sediment bioassays—laboratory tests that measure the response of an organism to known quantities of a contaminant mixed into sediment; it assumes that sediments prepared in the laboratory simulate sediments in the ocean.

  4. Weight of the evidence—uses all available chemical and biological data and relies on the preponderance of evidence to indicate contaminant concentrations when effects are likely to occur.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

The geochemistry of anthropogenic contaminants in coastal marine sediments is extremely complex and not well understood. This is a field in the early stages of development, as the above list suggests. Policymakers and environmental managers will probably make regulatory decisions before scientists have established paradigms.

Biological Effects Measures—The environmental quality of the marine ecosystem is ultimately determined by biological criteria. Anthropogenic wastes affect biological systems at all levels of organization (molecules, cells, organs, individuals, populations, communities, ecosystems). Molecular, biochemical, histological, and physiological approaches (collectively known as biomarkers) measure effects closest to the interaction between toxic compounds and biological molecules. Because these techniques are sensitive, toxicological signals at the lowest levels of organization are the least diminished (Stagg, 1991).

It is difficult, however, to relate effects at the lower levels of organization to effects on populations. For example, high body burdens of chlorinated hydrocarbons in white croaker, a dominant species in the recreational marine fishery around Los Angeles, prompted the California Department of Health Services (now the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) to post consumption warnings at recreational fishing locations around Los Angeles (Pollock et al., 1991). It also prompted the California Department of Fish and Game to close the commercial fishery for white croaker off the Palos Verdes Peninsula (landings average about 90,000 kg annually). White croaker from this area exhibit several pathologies, including neoplasms (Malins et al., 1987) and a high incidence of egg destruction in spawning females (Table 4). However, the coastal waters off Los Angeles support the largest population of white croaker in the SCB (Love et al., 1984).

Responses at the molecular and cellular levels are early warning systems alerting scientists to possibility of population and community effects. Ecological approaches are relatively insensitive and only observed after the fact; but the significance of ecological impacts is apparent and understandable (Stagg, 1991). Existing monitoring programs in the SCB focus on ecological effects, which is understandable because population and community effects are the most important. Monitoring programs determine exposure to environmental chemicals by measuring tissue body burdens. However, exposure is difficult to assess because: (1) contaminant uptake can occur via water, sediments, and food; (2) there are large differences in the availability of contaminants in water, sediments, and food; and (3) there are individual and species-specific differences in how contaminants are handled (McCarthy and Shugart, 1990).

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

The use of biomarkers is rapidly increasing in environmental toxicology (also known as ecotoxicology). The National Status and Trends Program of NOAA is currently testing several biomarkers. Monitoring programs in the SCB should incorporate established measures of effects at lower levels of biological organization so predictions could be made about effects at higher levels.90

Table 4. Body burdens of chlorinated hydrocarbon (wet weight) and reproductive success of female white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus) from Southern California. Males and females were collected from San Pedro Bay (contaminated site near Los Angeles) and Dana Point (reference site about 80 km southeast) during the spawning season (winter 1986), and returned to the laboratory where they were spawned. Data are from Cross and Hose (1988). Table reproduced with permission from Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc.

 

San Pedro Bay

Dana Point

Total ovarian DDT (ppm)

2.10

0.31

Total ovarian PCB (ppm)

1.67

0.16

Number of eggs spawned1 (× 1000)

67.4

104.5

Percent fertilization2

80

93

Percent eggs destroyed3

15

2

1 Ovulation was induced with hormones and the eggs were stripped by hand.

2 Percent of eggs successfully fertilized.

3 Percent of eggs in the early stages of development that were being resorbed; determined from histological preparations of randomly selected females.

Cumulative Impacts—As the amount of pollution declines in the SCB, the cumulative effects of diverse inputs on marine resources are increasing in importance (National Research Council, 1990a). National Pollution Discharge

90  

Histopathological examination of fish liver tissue has been incorporated into the 301h monitoring program of County Sanitation Districts of Orange County.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Elimination System (NPDES) limits are established for individual discharges and do not address pollutants discharged from other sources in the same area. Existing compliance monitoring programs do not evaluate the cumulative effects of all the discharges in a particular area. Regulating discharges on the basis of mass loadings is an alternative, but current data are inadequate to estimate loadings from all sources.

One example of the potential for cumulative impacts is Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors, which are among the busiest commercial facilities in the world. These harbors receive about 40% of the recorded hazardous material spills in the SCB, which averaged 20,000 gallons per year from 1985 through 1989 (SCCWRP, 1992d). The Los Angeles River, which accounts for 30% of the total runoff volume and 20-40% of the total runoff contaminant inputs, discharges into these harbors (SCCWRP, 1990c). Approximately 21 million gallons per day of secondary treated municipal wastewater are discharged into these harbors (SCCWRP, 1990b). Industrial development is extensive in the harbor and contributes significant quantities of toxic materials (SCCWRP, 1990d). Several storm drains collect surface runoff from highly industrialized parts of Los Angeles and discharge an unknown quantity of contaminants into these harbors. Fishes collected in this area have body burdens of contaminants high enough to require consumption warnings by the state (Pollock et al., 1991), reduced reproductive success (Cross and Hose, 1988), and neoplasms (Malins et al., 1987). There is no comprehensive program to estimate contaminant mass loadings to Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors, or to monitor the health of the environment; there have been only individual, short-term studies looking at restricted problems and areas.

Natural Variability—The Southern California Bight is a region of large, aperiodic, natural environmental fluctuations on time scales ranging from days to decades. This is due to the position of the Bight near the end of the southward flow of the California Current (Figure 2), and to large scale environmental fluctuations in the North Pacific. The California Current is a transition zone where northern, central, and southern water masses, each with their own biota and chemistry, are blended together by large-scale lateral mixing. Because it is an open system (non-equilibrium), biological interactions are obscured by the physical processes, and environmental fluctuations regulate species abundances (McGowan, 1974). This contrasts to the Atlantic Ocean along the East Coast of North America, which does not have large-scale, interannual fluctuations comparable to the eastern Pacific Ocean (Reid, 1988).

Interannual (low frequency) changes in the physical and biological environment (Figure 3) are coherent over the entire California Current (Bernal, 1981; Chelton, 1981) and have a significant impact on the ecology of the SCB. During El Niño years, transport by the California Current weakens, warm water low

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

in nutrients moves into the SCB from the south, and productivity in the water column and sediments declines. Changes in the biological communities in the SCB during El Niños are equally large. Populations of mobile organisms are redistributed, the production of zooplankton and juvenile fishes declines, and the composition of communities in the California Current and the nearshore zone are altered.

Figure 2. (a) Surface water circulation in the North Pacific Ocean (Dodimede et al., 1963); (b) Water circulation in the upper 100m of the Southern California Bight (Hickey, 1994); reproduced with permission from the University of California Press.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Knowledge of large-scale, temporal and spatial patterns are particularly important for distinguishing and evaluating anthropogenic effects in the nearshore environment off Southern California. The distributions and abundances of water column and sediment animals and plants change in response to episodic events (El Niño and severe storms) and long-term environmental shifts (warming or cooling of nearshore surface waters). The coupling of environmental changes and biological responses underscores the importance of long-term data collection. Monitoring programs should produce data that can differentiate between natural variability of the biota and anthropogenic impacts on the biota (overfishing, habitat degradation, and pollution).

Standardization of Sampling and Analyses—Monitoring programs must use standardized sampling and analytical methods, and produce reliable and adequate data if the resulting environmental assessments are to be used for decisionmaking. Many of the sampling and analytical methods used in monitoring programs in the SCB have not changed during the past decade despite the accumulation of evidence that more accurate and precise methods exist. Take, for example, the measurement of PCBs. There are 209 theoretically possible PCB compounds (congeners) that were synthesized as mixtures under the trade name Aroclor. Each Aroclor mixture is composed of about 50 congeners that differ in their physical properties (e.g., solubility, chlorination), and the compositions of different Aroclors overlap (Figure 4). One to three congeners in each mixture are measured to estimate the Aroclor concentration, and the concentrations of the Aroclors are summed to estimate total PCB. Because several Aroclors were used in industrial applications, the composition of environmental samples is complex. The current method of quantifying Aroclors assumes that the composition in environmental samples is identical to one or more commercial mixtures, which requires the analyst to make a largely subjective decision. The final concentration estimate depends on the commercial mixture the analyst chooses for the match; hence, PCB concentrations can vary significantly. A more recent technique, the congener specific method, measures the individual PCB congeners, produces more accurate estimates of total PCB, and provides more meaningful data for biogeochemical and toxicological studies (SCCWRP, 1990d).

To make monitoring data more useful to decisionmakers, and to gain a better understanding of the state of the marine environment in the SCB, monitoring programs should employ a standardized sampling design; intercalibrated and standardized sampling gear, species identification, and statistical analyses; intercalibrated and standardized chemical analytical methods; and appropriate quality control and quality assurance programs. Techniques and methods that are developed and adopted in the future must lend themselves to quality assurance programs. To maintain long times series of data, new methods should be intercalibrated with old methods where possible, and conversion factors should be

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

developed to transform the old data into comparable new data. The permits and monitoring programs must have the flexibility to incorporate new and improved methods.

Figure 3. Time series values of: (a) average zooplankton volume; (b) the amplitude of the 50 m temperature; (c) the amplitude of the 50 m salinity; and (d) the amplitude of the southward transport of the California Current from 1950 to 1980. The triangles in (d) are the zooplankton time series in (a). A major El Niño occurred in 1958-1959. From Chelton (1981).

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Figure 4. Overlap of chromatographic peaks in a 1:1:1 mixture of Aroclors 1242, 1254, and 1260. Quantitation peaks for Aroclor 1254 are labelled A, B, and C. The number of chlorines (Cl) is shown on the top panel. From SCCWRP (1990d). Reproduced with permission from the Southern California Coastal Water Research Program.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Information Needed by Environmental Managers

Most monitoring programs do not provide environmental decisionmakers with the information they need to understand the condition of the marine environment, or to evaluate the effects of human activities on it (National Research Council, 1990b). There is a “…dearth of information in the environmental decision-making process, a huge vacuum in the process. Scientific information is needed and wanted.91” In many cases, the environmental managers do not have the resources to analyze and evaluate the compliance monitoring data that are submitted to them. Nor do they always have the resources to conduct the necessary scientific studies. Environmental managers often require the dischargers or responsible parties to conduct scientific studies, and then critically evaluate the results.

I did an informal survey of the information needs of environmental managers concerned with the Southern California Bight. The information they need can be broadly divided into monitoring and research, where monitoring is relatively long-term, repeated measurements of the status and trends of the environment. Research involves relatively short-term studies designed to answer specific questions. Their information needs correspond rather well to the list of environmental issues presented at the beginning of this paper.

Monitoring
  1. Identify toxic hot spots or areas with clearly defined environmental problems.

  2. Analyze existing compliance monitoring data, evaluate its significance, and identify gaps in the data or knowledge.

  3. Determine the status and trends of natural resources and the effects of contaminants on these resources.

  4. Develop a regional database with a standardized format for all monitoring data and make it accessible.

Research
  1. Determine the concentrations of contaminants in sediments or water that are protective of beneficial uses and that indicate action levels for cleanup.

91  

Craig Wilson, California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento. September 1992, personal communication.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
  1. Determine if a proposed activity will cause significant adverse effects on beneficial uses of the marine environment.

  2. Determine the risks of a proposed activity to environmental resources and human health.

  3. Establish cause and effect relations between natural physical and biological systems, and human activities including anthropogenic contaminants.

  4. Develop better monitoring tools, including sampling devices and biomarkers.

Scientists need to be involved early in the decisionmaking process to ensure that the available technical information is incorporated. To accomplish this, environmental decisionmakers in California use several approaches: (1) they maintain in-house technical expertise; (2) they establish scientific advisory boards; (3) they form non-profit research groups; (4) they develop informal relations with scientists; and (5) they receive technical input through public hearing process (more technical people and scientists are participating in the public hearing process now than in the past92).

The risks [of taking environmental action] are not always clear. If things were cut and dry, it would be easy to make regulatory decisions. Scientists need to do a good job assessing risks so regulators can do a good job of making decisions.93 This is risk assessment (scientists rank and prioritize risks) and risk management (decisionmakers manage risks). Environmental managers want scientists to agree on conclusions, or at least on the uncertainties. “The Regional Board relies on a certain interpretation of the data. If someone challenges that interpretation, it throws the regulatory process into an uproar.94 Environmental managers must realize that scientists will not always agree on recommendations provided to decisionmakers (especially in relatively new fields like sediment toxicology). And scientists must remember that regulatory decisions are a balancing act95 and science is only one aspect of decisionmaking.96

92  

Dr. Robert Ghirelli, Executive Officer, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. October, 1992, personal communication.

93  

Dr. Robert Ghirelli, ibid.

94  

Dr. Robert Ghirelli, ibid.

95  

Gerard Thibeault, Executive Officer, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. October 1992, personal communication.

96  

Societal needs, science, and economics are considered in every decision; each is no more or less important than the others (Gerard Thibeault, ibid.). The three tests of a decision on any issue: Is the decision legal? Is the decision scientifically accurate? Is the decision fair (reasonable) for people regulated? (Craig Wilson, op cit.).

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Causes of the Problems

Despite spending millions of dollars per year for the past 20 years on marine environmental monitoring in Southern California, environmental decisionmakers have not received the information they require (National Research Council, 1990a). Better technical information is needed on the status and trends of the marine environment to guide management and regulatory decisions, to verify the effectiveness of existing programs, and to shape policy on marine environmental protection (National Research Council, 1990b). These problems are not unique to this region or to this issue. “…[W]e already have much of the [scientific] knowledge and technologies necessary to decrease population growth, increase energy efficiency, reduce and recycle wastes and improve public health and education throughout the world. What we lack are the social and economic systems that can assimilate and use the information and the hardware that are already in our possession.97

Differences Between Scientists and Policymakers—In the planning workshop for this symposium, Professor Michael K. Orbach pointed out the basic cultural differences that exist between scientists and policymakers. They operate in different domains or disciplines, and their respective environments emphasize different styles of interaction, reward structures, and time frames. “Scientists answer to each other as a peer group; their objective is to define knowledge. Environmental decision makers are creatures of law and the public. There is no common ground, no interface, where scientists and environmental managers can meet.98

Science is conservative and scientists are generally cautious. They use controlled and replicated experiments. Before accepting a conclusion as something other than random chance, scientists require that it happen less than 1 in 20 (p<0.05) or less than 1 in 100 (p<0.01) times. They construct confidence limits around their estimates. And they publish their results in peer-reviewed scientific journals, which takes time, but is a prerequisite for acceptance in the scientific

97  

Representative George Brown, Jr., Chairman, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Commentary, Los Angeles Times, September 8, 1992.

98  

Professor David Fischer, Graduate School of Public Policy and Administration, California State University, Long Beach. September 1992, personal communication.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

community. Taking short cuts to bring new ideas into general circulation can be damaging to science and to a scientist’s career (recall the cold fusion fiasco).

In contrast, environmental management is calculating and managers regularly make decisions without full information or under uncertainty. “…Managers go where scientists fear to tread” (Hilborn, 1992:10). Often, the time in which a decision has to be made is much shorter than the time it takes for a scientist to do the relevant studies and reach a conclusion. Or there may not be enough money available to do all the research. Environmental managers are more frequently scrutinized by the media than are most scientists. Society often will not wait until all of the studies are done; the public forces regulators to make decisions, which then depend on perceived relative risks. The scientific process does not always lend itself to the regulatory process.

Unfortunately, policymakers and the public frequently do not understand the limitations of the scientific method (National Research Council, 1990b), which is limited to rather restricted hypotheses, not the expansive hypotheses that are frequently used for illustrative purposes (Cairns, 1992). For example, it would be relatively easy to test this limited hypothesis: As the concentration of contaminant Y increases in sediments in laboratory aquaria, the toxicity to species X increases. On the other hand, it would be much more difficult to test this broad hypothesis: The response of species X to contaminant Y in a laboratory test system will accurately predict the response of populations of species X to the same concentrations of contaminant Y in the environment.

Compliance Monitoring—Most of the nearshore monitoring in the SCB is compliance monitoring required for NPDES permits to discharge wastes. The area covered by the NPDES monitoring programs is less than 1% of the total area of the SCB (approximately 78,600 km2 of sea surface) and less than 10% of the nearshore zone. The NPDES permits are based on numerical effluent standards, and numerical and narrative receiving water quality standards. The emphasis of the compliance monitoring programs is on numbers, not on a comprehensive look at everything that is happening.99 The monitoring programs have been designed to address small-scale, discrete questions, not bight-wide processes (National Research Council, 1990a). Compliance monitoring rarely provides answers about ecosystem health.100

99  

Janet Hashimoto, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, San Francisco, CA. September 1992, personal communication.

100  

Using 15 years of monitoring data, Conversi and McGowen (1992) showed that water clarity near the City of San Diego’s municipal wastewater outfall was not affected by the discharge of suspended solids.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Regional Monitoring—The boundaries of monitoring programs should match the spatial and temporal boundaries of the phenomena that are being described. The boundaries of existing point source monitoring programs in the SCB only match the boundaries of some of the important processes. Existing programs do not provide sufficient information to describe the trends and changes in large-scale, long-term processes. Monitoring programs have the potential to address these processes, but not until they are coordinated and integrated. “Because the existing [monitoring] system focuses on individual permitted activities, it is unable to foster the higher level planning and coordination needed to assess cumulative and larger scale environmental problems....As a result, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the status of the bight as a whole and about whether beneficial uses of the marine environment are being protected”(National Research Council, 1990a: 141).

Recommendations

Adopt the Ecosystem Approach—To improve the environmental decisionmaking process, there must be a fundamental change in our concept of monitoring the coastal ocean off Southern California. We need to incorporate compliance monitoring into a comprehensive, integrated program that combines monitoring and research on a scale that closely approximates the spatial and temporal boundaries of nearshore processes. The application of this concept to monitoring is not a new idea. It was applied more than 40 years ago to the study of the disappearance of the sardine in the California Current by the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI).101

The goal of CalCOFI was to develop a responsible plan for management of the sardine resource; the objective was to determine the relative influence of exploitation and environment on the productivity of the sardine population. This method has become known as the oceanographic or ecosystems approach to fishery research—an effort to relate the physical dynamics of the California Current to the population dynamics of its inhabitants. The goal has changed over the years and is now to understand the changes in the physical and chemical environment of the California Current, to determine the productivity of the California Current, and to make the information available. As a result of CalCOFI and studies at other marine institutions along the West Coast of North America, the California Current is the most intensively studied, and perhaps best known, piece of ocean in the world (Hewitt, 1988).

101  

Cooperative effort by the U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (now the National Marine Fisheries Service), California Department of Fish and Game, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and the California Academia of Sciences.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

A more comprehensive approach to monitoring is being used by the Environmental Protection Agency in their National Estuary Program and in their Watershed Protection Program, and by the State of California in their Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program. The main principles of this approach are: (1) target areas where pollution poses the greatest risk to human health, ecological resources, or desirable uses of the water; (2) involve all of the parties with an interest in the situation in the analysis of the problems and the creation of solutions; and (3) integrate all of the methods and tools available into a coordinated, multi-organization attack on the problems (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991).

The basic objectives of the comprehensive approach are:

  1. Determine the state of the environment and define the known problems;

  2. Define the causes of the problems and the sources of risks to human and ecological health (risk-based approach that emphasizes issues that pose high risk);

  3. Identify the need for additional data, collect it, and revisit steps 1 and 2 in light of the new information;

  4. Develop management options for pollution prevention and control strategies;

  5. Implement the strategies;

  6. Develop scientific indicators for gauging risks and measuring progress in reducing them; and

  7. Develop ecological criteria to use in formulating standards for ecology-based pollution prevention and control. [Adapted from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1991).]

Integrate Science and Management—Communication between scientists and managers must be strengthened. Science can be integrated into the decisionmaking process by bringing together scientists and managers from all of the relevant regulator, discharge, monitoring, and research agencies to tackle the comprehensive approach outlined above.

The process should look like this:

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Narrowly focused, short-term environmental problems, such as siting an outfall or determining the effects of a toxic spill, may be best handled by one or more ad hoc committees composed of scientists, technicians, and managers from the relevant agencies. These committees would have life spans determined by the nature of the problem. Broader, more complex problems, such as development of a regional monitoring program, may be best handled by a more formal and necessarily lengthy process. The objective of these approaches is to involve the scientists early in the decisionmaking process, and to facilitate the communication of information needs from decisionmakers to scientists.

The structure established to find solutions to larger, more complex problems could be patterned after the National Estuary Program. Scientists and managers from all of the relevant agencies would form a management committee composed of general managers, executive officers, and directors to set policy guidelines for the process, and a technical committee composed of technicians and scientists to guide scientific aspects of monitoring and research. The monitoring and research could be accomplished by the agencies involved, or contracted to public or private organizations. The management and technical committees would coordinate and integrate the monitoring and research among the agencies involved. The technical committee would evaluate the significance of the scientific findings, distill it into an easily understandable form, and communicate the results and recommendations to the environmental decisionmakers.

Implement a Regional Monitoring Program—“The ultimate goal of monitoring is to provide data and information to support environmental decision making” (National Research Council, 1990a:134). We need to develop a comprehensive regional monitoring program in the Southern California Bight based on recommendations of the National Research Council. This monitoring program would:

  1. Address the condition of the SCB by determining the spatial and temporal trends in natural resources, contaminant inputs, bight-wide impacts, and nearshore habitat changes;

  2. Incorporate standardized sampling, analytical methods, and data management;

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
  1. Establish a comprehensive data management system for the current and historic data needed to perform bight-wide analyses;

  2. Be facilitated by coordination of local, state, and federal agencies that integrate their management and data needs and responsibilities to optimize available resources;

  3. Be achieved by coordination, integration, and modification of existing efforts;

  4. Include mechanisms to effectively communicate the information to all interested parties; and

  5. Include mechanisms for periodic review and redirection of monitoring efforts when justified.

This is a daunting task to undertake all at once. We can begin by synchronizing NPDES permit renewals for the municipal wastewater dischargers and standardizing their monitoring programs throughout the SCB. Municipal wastewater dischargers operate most of the current monitoring programs, have established field sampling and laboratory analytical staffs, and have an established research group (Southern California Coastal Water Research Project). The regulators and the dischargers realize the benefits of a regional standardized program, and are willing to change.102 With this demonstrated success, it will be easier to obtain the involvement and cooperation of other local, state, and federal agencies, and to develop a comprehensive regional monitoring program. A regional program will produce data to determine the environmental condition of the SCB, its resources, and the effects of human activities on them.

Conclusions

In the last two decades, we have made substantial improvements in our use of the ocean for waste disposal in Southern California. The mass of most contaminants in municipal and industrial waste waters has declined by an order of magnitude. We no longer dump industrial or military wastes at sea. Contaminant

102  

The SCCWRP Commission adopted a resolution in 1992 endorsing the concept of regional monitoring and they adopted goals and objectives for a regional monitoring program. The Commission is composed of representatives from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, California State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Boards from the Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and San Diego regions, the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego, and Los Angeles and Orange Counties.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

concentrations in sediments and animals around Los Angeles have declined. And our understanding of environmental problems has improved. However, the population in Southern California will continue to increase in the future creating new problems in the coastal marine environment and exacerbating existing problems. It is important that we take a broad, balanced view and make informed decisions about how best to protect the marine environment.

We can facilitate the incorporation of scientific information into marine environmental decisionmaking for Southern California by devising systems that force policymakers and scientists to interact early in the process. We need to develop a comprehensive regional monitoring and research program, establish oversight boards composed of representatives of all concerned agencies, and select an agency to coordinate the program. In the end, scientists must take a more active role in the discussions leading to policy formulation and decisionmakers must seek out scientific input early in the policy process.

Literature Cited

Barnett, M.A., A.E. Jahn, P.D. Sertic, and W. Watson. 1984. Distribution of ichthyoplankton off San Onofre, California, and methods for sampling very shallow coastal waters. Fish. Bull. (U.S.) 82:97-111.

Bernal, P.A. 1981. A review of the low-frequency response of the pelagic ecosystem in the California Current. Calif. Coop. Ocean. Fish. Investig. Rep. 22:49-62.

Brown, D.A., R.W. Gossett, G.P. Hershelman, C.F. Ward, A.M. Wescott, and J.N. Cross. 1986. Municipal wastewater contamination in the Southern California Bight: Part I-Metal and organic contaminants in sediments and organisms Mar. Environ. Res. 18:291-310.

Cairns, J., Jr. 1992. Paradigms flossed: The coming of age of environmental toxicology. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11:285-287.

California Water Resources Control Board. 1991. Workplan for the development of sediment quality objectives for enclosed bays and estuaries of California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA. 26 pp.

Chelton, D.B. 1981. Interannual variability in the California Current--Physical factors Calif. Coop. Ocean. Fish. Investig. Rep. 22:34-48.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Conversi, A. and J.A. McGowan. 1992. Variability of water column transparency, volume flow and suspended solids near San Diego sewage outfall (California): 15 years of data Chemistry and Ecology 6:133-147.

Cross, J.N., J.T. Hardy, J.E. Hose, G.P. Hershelman, L.D. Antrim, R.W. Gossett, and E.A. Crecelius. 1987. Contaminant concentrations and toxicity of sea-surface microlayer near Los Angeles, California. Mar. Environ. Res. 23:307-323.

Cross, J.N. and J.E. Hose. 1988. Evidence for impaired reproduction in white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus) from contaminated areas off Southern California. Mar. Environ. Res. 24:185-188.

Dodimead, A.J., F. Favorite, and T. Hirano. 1963. Salmon of the North Pacific Ocean. Part II. Review of the sub-Arctic region. International North Pacific Fisheries Commission 13:1-195

Garber, W.F. and F.F. Wada. 1988. Water quality in Santa Monica Bay, as indicated by measurements of total coliform. In: D.A. Wolfe and T.A. O’Connor (eds.), Oceanic Processes in Marine Pollution. Vol. 5. Urban Wastes in the Coastal Marine Environment. Krieger Publ. Co., Malabar, FL. pp. 49-55.

GESAMP. 1990. The State of the Marine Environment. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, England. 146 pp.

Hendricks, T.J. 1983. Numerical model of sediment quality near an ocean outfall. Final Report to National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach. 149 pp.

Hendricks, T.J. and R.E. Eganhouse. 1992. Sediment model verification. Final Report, California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento.

Hewitt, R.P. 1988. Historical review of the oceanographic approach to fishery research Calif. Coop. Ocean. Fish. Investig. Rep. 29:27-41.

Hickey, B.M. 1994. Physical oceanography. In: M. Dailey, D. Reish, and J. Anderson (eds.), Ecology of the Southern California Bight: A Synthesis and Interpretation. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, pp. 19-63.

Hilborn, R. 1992. Can fisheries agencies learn from experience? Fisheries 17:6-14.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Horn, M.H., and L.G. Allen. 1981. Ecology of fishes in upper Newport Bay, California: Seasonal dynamics and community structure. California Dept. Fish Game, Marine Resour. Tech. Rep. 45, 102 pp.

Horn, M.H., and L.G. Allen. 1985. Fish community ecology in Southern California bays and estuaries. In: A. Yáñez-Arancibia (ed.), Fish community ecology in estuaries and coastal lagoons: Towards an ecosystem integration. DR (R) UNAM Press, Mexico, pp. 169-910.

Love, M.S., G.E. McGowan, W. Westphal, R.J. Lavenberg, and L. Martin. 1984. Aspects of the life history and fishery of the white croaker, Genyonemus lineatus (Sciaenidae), off California. Fish. Bull. (U.S.) 82:179-198.

Love, M.S., B. Axell, P.A. Morris, R. Collins, and A. Brooks. 1987. Life history and fishery of the California scorpionfish, Scorpaena guttata, within the Southern California Bight. Fish. Bull. (U.S.) 85:99-116.

Malins, D.C., B.B. McCain, D.W. Brown, M.S. Myers, M.M. Krahn, and S.-L. 1987. Toxic chemicals, including aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons and their derivative, and liver lesions in white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus) from the vicinity of Los Angeles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 21:765-770.

McCarthy, J.F. and L.R. Shugart. 1990. Biological markers of environmental contamination. In: J.F. McCarthy and L.R. Shugart (eds.). Biomarkers of Environmental Contamination. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 3-14.

McGowan, J.A. 1974. The nature of oceanic ecosystems. In: C.B. Miller (ed.). The Biology of the Oceanic Pacific. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR, pp. 9-28,

National Research Council. 1990a. Monitoring Southern California’s Coastal Waters. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 154 pp.

National Research Council. 1990b. Managing Troubled Waters. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 125 pp.

Pollock, G.A., I.J. Uhaa, A.M. Fan, J.A. Wisniewski, and I. Witherell. 1991. A study of chemical contamination of marine fish from Southern California. II. Comprehensive study. Off. Environ. Health Hazard Asses., California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento. 161 pp. + Appendices.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Reid, J.L. 1988. Physical oceanography, 1947-1987, of the oceanographic approach to fishery research. Calif. Coop. Ocean. Fish. Investig. Rep. 29:42-65.

SCCWRP. 1973. The ecology of the Southern California Bight: Implications for water quality management. Tech. Rept. 104. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, El Segundo. 531 pp.

SCCWRP. 1988. Toxicity of contaminated sediments to the amphipod Grandiderella japonica. In: J.M. Nelson (ed.), Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Annual Report 1987. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach, CA, pp. 65-69.

SCCWRP. 1990a. Characteristics of effluents from large municipal wastewater treatment plants in 1989. In: J.N. Cross (ed.), Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Annual Report 1989-90. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach, CA, pp. 8-15.

SCCWRP. 1990b. Characteristics of effluents from small municipal wastewater treatment plants in 1989. In: J.N. Cross (ed.), Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Annual Report 1989-90. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach, CA, pp. 16-24.

SCCWRP. 1990c. Mass emission estimates for selected constituents from the Los Angeles River. In: J.N. Cross (ed.), Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Annual Report 1989-90. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach, CA, pp. 25-36.

SCCWRP. 1990d. Sources and magnitude of error associated with PCB measurements. In: J.N. Cross (ed.), Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Annual Report 1989-90. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach, CA, pp. 58-69.

SCCWRP. 1992a. Estimates of ocean disposal inputs to the Southern California Bight. In: J.N. Cross (ed.), Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Annual Report 1990-91 and 1991-92. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach, CA, pp. 39-48.

SCCWRP. 1992b. Surface runoff to the Southern California Bight. In: J.N. Cross (ed.), Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Annual Report 1990-91 and 1991-92. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach, CA, pp. 19-28.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

SCCWRP. 1992c. Sediment model verification. In: J.N. Cross (ed.), Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Annual Report 1990-91 and 1991-92. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach, CA, pp. 61-69.

SCCWRP. 1992d. Hazardous material spills in the Southern California Bight. In: J.N. Cross (ed.), Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Annual Report 1990-91 and 1991-92. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach, CA, pp. 29-38.

Shafer, H.A. 1989. Improving Southern California’s coastal waters. J. Water Pollut. Contr. Fedr. 61:1395-1401.

Stagg, R.M. 1991. North Sea task force biological effects monitoring programme. Water Sci. Tech. 24:87-98.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. The Watershed Protection Program: An Overview. EPA/503/9-92/002. Office of Water, US EPA, Washington, D.C. 8 pp.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Issue Group Summary

Leader - Craig J. Wilson (California State Water Resources Control Board)

Rapporteur - Tim Eichenberg (Center for Marine Conservation)

Other Members of Issue Group - Alessandra Conversi (National Science Foundation), Jeff Cross (Southern California Coastal Water Research Project), John Farrington (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution), Madelyn Glickfeld (University of California at Los Angeles), John Goll (Minerals Management Service), Tami Grove (California Coastal Commission), Irwin Haydock (Orange County Sanitation District), Susan Hamilton (Clean Water Program for San Diego), Janet Y. Hashimoto (Environmental Protection Agency), Robert Howarth (Cornell University), Wesley Marx (freelance science writer), Karen Taberski (San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board), and Mia Tegner (Scripps Institution of Oceanography)

The panel was characterized by spirited conversation, diverse points of view, and an extensive discussion of successes and some examples of failures in science-policy interactions. The group focused on five case studies in California that illustrate a range of approaches to the science-policy interface and on mechanisms for improving science-policy interactions.

Case Studies

National Estuary Program—The first case study is the National Estuary Program (NEP) model. There are two NEPs in California: the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project and the San Francisco Estuary Program. There are also other smaller projects based on this model (e.g., a project at Tomales Bay in cooperation with the California Coastal Conservancy and the Morro Bay Task Force). The group focused on the advantages and disadvantages of the science-policy interaction using the NEP model. One of the most important advantages of this model is that is makes integrated management possible. All agencies and interested parties are invited to participate in the management. The Management Committee for the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project has 54 members, including members of public resource management agencies, regulatory agencies, environmental groups, discharger agencies, local, state, and federal legislative bodies, and the scientific community. Each of these NEP management committees is supported by some form of scientific and technical advisory committee. Attendance at meetings of these scientific committees typically ranges from 20 to 45 scientists, depending on the topic being discussed at the meeting. The management committee and technical committees generally have common goals that were developed early in the program. The goals of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project are focused

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

on safe swimming, safe seafood, protection of the ecosystem, and the preservation of special habitats (such as wetlands). The project has completed its plan, although the success of the plan’s implementation is not yet known. The fate of the plan will depend on resources available from the state and federal governments. NEP projects are operational for at least 5 years and request input from scientists at each stage of the project.

There are also some disadvantages of the NEP model. Typically, it is difficult for these large committees to make decisions. In fact, in some cases there is decision gridlock. Committees spend a significant amount of time discussing and interacting on a variety of topics (both significant and trivial), but decisions are rarely brought to conclusion. There is a perception among the scientists involved in these projects that no one is in charge and that there is no clear leader of these efforts. For at least some NEP sites, one of the disadvantages is the extreme complexity of the issues that are being addressed, like the freshwater flow issue for the San Francisco estuary. It is very complex and it is very difficult to deal with such issues in a large and sometimes politically charged forum. As some of the panel members pointed out, providing technical advice through this process is often unrewarding. There were three participants in this issue group that had resigned from technical advisory committees of this type.

The Long-Term Management Strategy—Another example of science-policy interactions is the involvement of scientists in the long-term management strategy (LTMS) in the San Francisco Bay area. Among other activities, the LTMS is focused on locating sites for the disposal of dredged material. The active and early involvement of scientists in this activity and influx of funding to do the work were successful aspects of this activity. There was strong scientific support of the activities, and the review committees were small. Unfortunately, the involvement of scientists in the review process was too late to provide effective scientific review and an opportunity for modifying decisions, so that phase of activity does not constitute a positive model for involvement of scientists in management decision processes.

Southern California Coastal Water Research Project—Another good case study is the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP). A real advantage of this project is that managers who oversee the project (the SCCWRP commission) are committed to performing the best research possible. SCCWRP has two groups advising its commission: (1) a Scientific Consulting Board with five technical members (well-known scientists actively engaged in research related to SCCWRP’s mission) and (2) a technical advisory group, some of whose members are technical representatives from organizations that are members of the commission. The commission’s technical advisory group serves a very important function of linking the science and policy aspects of the various agencies with the

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

research performed at SCCWRP. SCCWRP has been very effective in the past at collecting scientifically meaningful information. The disadvantage of the SCCWRP approach is that there has been a perception by the public that SCCWRP research has somehow been biased by the dischargers that provide its funding support. This concern has been largely resolved by the inclusion of both regulatory agencies (state and federal) and dischargers on the SCCWRP commission.

Development of Sediment Quality Objectives in California—The fourth case study that the group thought was important was the process used to develop sediment quality objectives for California. Scientists were involved early in the program design. The staff scientists at the regulatory agency did not know how to approach this task, so the State Water Board staff identified scientists outside the agency who could be consulted on a variety of approaches that could be used. The external scientists did an excellent job of identifying the uncertainties in sediment assessment procedures and in proposing a variety of ways to develop sediment quality objectives. After the scientists were consulted, the state developed an approach that focused on “weight of evidence,” using monitoring and research data to establish sediment quality objectives. One of the reasons for the success of this planning effort was the clear direction provided by the state legislature. It required that an approach be developed and set a deadline for its completion, but it did not set a deadline for developing the numerical objectives. The legislature acknowledged that it would take some time for scientists to gather the requisite information. The disadvantage of this approach is that the policy was far ahead of the science on this issue. Therefore, additional research needed to be completed before this effort could be fully implemented.

Public-Private Foundations—The last case study, mentioned only briefly in the group discussion, is public-private foundations and interactions. The National Water Research Institute in southern California is an example. It is a relatively new mechanism that can fund innovative research on such issues as watershed management. It is supported by water agencies, sanitation districts, and a private foundation, and it is another mechanism for funding long-term research.

Improvements Needed in Sciency-Policy Interactions

The Model—Several mechanisms for improving science-policy interactions were discussed. The group discussed the model for structuring policy presented by Bob Knecht. It also discussed the great importance of using an adaptive management strategy so that policy can be revisited and changed when appropriate (some form of review must be included in the policy development process). There was agreement that the involvement of good scientists (both natural and social) usually improves policy decisions.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

The kind of scientific advice or scientific interaction needed by policymakers, i.e., how interactions can be improved, was also discussed. General meetings such as this or meetings scheduled on a case-by-case basis may be appropriate. The process could involve a one-time interaction, a continuing effort like the NEP (a 3- to 5-year involvement), or proactive warnings. Even advocacy is warranted at times, depending on the severity of the problem. The most effective strategy, whichever approach is chosen, is to show all participants that their time is well used.

Suggestions for Improving the Advisory Committee Experience—Many of the issue group members have served on a variety of advisory committees. The group had three suggestions for improving the advisory committee experience for scientists.

  1. One of the most important things is to ensure that the scientists work on nontrivial, relatively precise questions posed by policymakers. It is not productive simply to ask the scientists what the agencies should do. Policymakers should focus on what they want to accomplish and then allow advisory scientists to react to these needs. Policymakers should be educated about the scientific process and culture, so that they have reasonable expectations about what scientists (often uncompensated) can provide.

  2. Make the advisory board task as intellectually stimulating as possible so that participants can get something out of it.

  3. Establish strong, objective leadership and membership with balanced points of view. Keep the membership of the advisory group broad enough to fulfill the group’s mission, but small enough to avoid the decision gridlock that often occurs in large, diverse groups. Very focused objectives and a defined timeline are also necessary.

Public Education—Another way in which scientists function in advisory capacities (broadly defined) that benefit policymakers is in fostering and supporting public education. The public makes decisions for reasons that often do not include scientific understanding. Scientists need to make an effort to educate the public about the value of science in decisionmaking. Education of the public can be achieved by getting scientific information into the popular press, which requires people who can translate scientific information into an understandable form. Teaching (at all levels) will assist in educating the public in the long term. The group discussed how volunteer monitoring (which includes teaching the public how to perform simple monitoring functions as well as sample collection with proper quality control) can be a means to educate the public about the environment. A mechanism to allow university students to become aware of various

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

decisionmaking processes is also needed, not only in state and regional governments but also at discharger agencies.

It is also very important to provide continuing education opportunities in science for policymakers and legislative staff. If these participants understand the science, even in a rudimentary fashion, they will be more responsive to scientific advice. Some form of continuing education will foster improved interaction.

Support for Scientists Who Advise Policymakers—Scientists can also benefit from interactions with policymakers. They can learn about how environmental decisions are made and help to set priorities for important programs such as the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI). Support for advisory scientists doesn’t only mean dollars. It also means freeing up professionals ’ and academic scientists’ time to advise decisionmakers.

The recruitment, retention, and professional development of scientists in agencies which are responsible for management and regulation of coastal environmental quality should be encouraged, to strengthen the internal scientific structure of the agencies and the legislature. Scientists and students of science should be encouraged to enter environmental management careers so that the dialogue between scientists and policymakers can be improved. The professional standing of agency scientists should be nurtured. Scientists in agencies can become accustomed to bureaucratic systems and less accustomed to the language of science and the understanding of science. These individuals should be supported as scientists and encouraged to maintain their skills, so they can make decisions based on science and defend those decisions.

Policy-Relevant Research—The issue group discussed mechanisms to encourage research useful to policymakers. There were ideas about creating institutes within academic institutions, like the EPA research centers, for fostering the creation of policy-relevant information. There was also discussion about creating nonprofit foundations and using these foundations as a way to focus research in various areas.

Monitoring—The group had a long and spirited discussion about monitoring data and their use. It is important to share monitoring data among agencies and to allow external scientists to interpret the data. These data should be made available to users in some kind of “friendly” format, perhaps one database or several distributed databases. Many different approaches were discussed, but the major point of agreement was that monitoring data held by the agencies should be made available to others. A situation in which a lawsuit regarding environmental damage prevented the release of information and scientists were prevented from evaluating an important environmental concern was mentioned. The information could not be

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

released because of concerns that the information would obstruct the court action.

More attention should be devoted to how to conduct more effective monitoring. It is difficult to design and implement a monitoring program that will provide answers to the questions: (1) Was there an important change in the variable monitored?, (2) Was the policy that the monitoring was designed to measure effective?, (3) Should the control strategy be altered?, and (4) Is the model of the system good enough (e.g., do the monitoring results make sense)? More research needs to be devoted to answering these questions.

Conclusions

There was a consensus that California may be losing ground in protecting the environment and that quick and direct action is needed to enhance the interactions between policymakers and scientists to reverse this trend. There are new needs that are being recognized and new programs to address those needs, such as the nonpoint source control program of the California Coastal Commission and the state and regional water boards. It may be one or two orders of magnitude more difficult to implement nonpoint source control than other water quality programs developed in the past, because so many different scientific disciplines need to be involved. When policymakers need scientific information, they first need to know how to ensure the effective involvement of scientists. Policymakers need some guidance about what is important to scientists and how to prompt them into providing relevant input. An organization is also needed, perhaps modeled after the National Research Council but based in California, that can convene groups of scientists and policymakers and provide the staff and the forum for the effective exchange of ideas. A small amount of support from a variety of agencies could support such an organization. This would be very valuable to agencies, and it would allow them to obtain the necessary interdisciplinary scientific input.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT

Introduction

The various impacts of development in coastal areas are likely to accumulate over space and time. Methods for measuring and understanding the relationships of cumulative impacts to individual impacts are rudimentary. Examples of cumulative impacts on Earth’s atmosphere include the depletion of high-altitude ozone and increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. As pointed out by Douglas et al. in the following paper, the increasing interconnection among the activities of individuals and communities makes the topic of cumulative impacts worthy of greater concern in coastal regions. Concern for reducing cumulative impacts may serve as a catalyst to increase interactions between science and policy. The paper by Douglas et al. discusses issues that the authors believe must be addressed to improve the integrative link between science and public policy. The issue group’s summary discusses impediments to developing interactions between science and policy on the issue of cumulative impacts, describes the critical elements of a rational scheme to manage cumulative impacts, and discusses possible means to overcome barriers to interactions.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Managing the Cumulative Impacts of Development: An Opportunity for Integration?

Peter M. Douglas, Elizabeth Fuchs, and Charles Lester

California Coastal Commission

Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit — in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.103

Garrett Hardin’s well known observation reminds us that society’s concern for the “cumulative impacts of development” extends back at least to the time when the first common pasture was overgrazed through the uncoordinated actions of many herders. One might argue that the “tragedy of the commons” has been a primary catalyst for social and economic change throughout history, from the early demise of entire communities due to the cumulative effects of poor farming techniques, to the current concern for global climate change due to cumulative CO2 emissions. Certainly the last sixty or seventy years of natural resource management, including California’s 1924 attempt to address coastal oil pollution104 our rich history of fishery and forestry management, and the continuing effort to provide clean air for society are all examples of our struggle to manage the cumulative environmental impacts of incremental decisionmaking and action. In short, our concern for the cumulative environmental impacts of development is not a recent phenomenon.

There is a growing sense, though, that the cumulative environmental impacts of development are upon us in ways heretofore unknown, that the activities of individuals and communities are increasingly interconnected, and that the management of cumulative environmental impacts, therefore, is worthy of our increased concern.105 So, while the “new”106 concern for cumulative impacts

103  

Hardin, Garrett. “The Tragedy of the Commons,” 162 Science 1243, 1244 (1968).

104  

See the Oil Pollution Act of 1924.

105  

In the case of marine and coastal resources, this concern has been expressed most recently in sections 309 and 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. Section 309 (16 U.S.C. 1455(b)) identifies the cumulative impacts of development as a priority enhancement area for state coastal management programs. Section 6217 directs the development of coastal nonpoint pollution control programs which, in part, are to implement management measures on land uses that, individually or cumulatively, may cause or contribute significantly to the degradation of coastal waters.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

may raise some old questions, its appearance at this time may be an indication of our heightened sense that the environment can no longer sustain the stresses of our growth without there being more serious ramifications and possibly catastrophic consequences. The destruction of the ozone layer and the prospects of global warming are the examples that come most readily to mind.

At the same time, our renewed concern for “cumulative impacts” may serve as a catalyst for better environmental management in the face of what may seem like overwhelming problems. In particular, the study of cumulative impacts assessment and management may encourage better integration between science and public policy—the subject of this symposium—precisely because the idea of cumulative impacts is explicitly concerned with the interconnections between human behavior, socio-political institutions, and natural systems. To be sure, we will not be able to respond effectively to the threat of increasing cumulative environmental impacts unless we can rationally integrate our governmental institutions and decisionmaking with the findings of rigorous science, and our scientific studies with the desired policies and values of the public.

This paper summarizes some of the key issues that we feel must be addressed if the study of cumulative impacts is to provide an integrative link between science and public policy. They are drawn from our experience implementing the California Coastal Management Program and from a review of the literature concerning cumulative impacts assessment and management. Overall, we have identified three general issue areas:

  1. there is a need to build a common language for the topic of “cumulative impacts” among scientists and policymakers.

  2. there is a need to integrate science and policy in the process of identifying and documenting cumulative environmental impacts. This includes integration in four subareas: (a) the process of setting management goals and research priorities; (b) the identification of methods, indicators, and causal models for evaluating cumulative

106  

A scan of the University of California library system reveals a doubling of titles concerned with “cumulative impacts” or “cumulative effects” in the last five years and a seven-fold increase in the 1980s over the 1970s.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

impacts; (c) the design of monitoring programs; and (d) the design and maintenance of databases and information management systems.

  1. there is a need to integrate science and policy in the evaluation of the capacity of current institutional arrangements to effectively manage cumulative environmental impacts as well as in the design of new arrangements to increase this effectiveness.

Reaching a Common Understanding

The concept of cumulative impact assessment is confounded by inconsistencies in definitions. The lack of standard terminology and the overlapping of definitions continue to impede progress in relating science to regulatory needs.107

The first important cumulative impacts issue for scientists and policymakers to address is the need to develop a common language or understanding of this complex field. The lack of such a common understanding can interfere with the effective integration of science and policy. Much of the cumulative impacts literature begins by cataloging not only the types of impacts that are rightly considered to be cumulative but also the many definitions being used by environmental policymakers, managers, lawyers, and scientists. Table 1 lists the main characteristics and examples of some of the various types of cumulative impacts that have been identified by researchers.

As for definitions, the World Wildlife Fund recently listed ten distinct cumulative impacts definitions.108 These range from the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulation defining cumulative impacts as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of [an] action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions …,109 to a definition identifying the functional pathways that may lead to cumulative impacts (see Table 2), to William Odum’s concern for “the tyranny of small

107  

B.L. Bedford and E.M. Preston. 1988. “Developing the Scientific Basis for Assessing Cumulative Effects of Wetland Loss and Degradation on Landscape Function: Status, Perspectives, and Prospects,” Environmental Management, 12(5):758.

108  

Frances Irwin and Barbara Rodes, Making Decisions on Cumulative Environmental Impacts: A Conceptual Framework (World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C., 1992).

109  

40 CFR 1508.7. This regulation defines cumulative impacts for the purposes of environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) -- 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

decisions.110 Thus, some of the definitions focus on the nature of various impacts while others take a more procedural approach, contrasting incremental decisionmaking with comprehensive analysis and/or planning.

In light of such variety in the discussions of cumulative impacts, it is easy to see how integration between and indeed, among, scientists and policymakers might be difficult. In contrast to the quote that opened this section, however, we suggest that the problem of complexity in cumulative impacts assessment and management is not so much the lack of standard terminologies and definitions but rather, a lack of clear conceptual thinking and/or articulation among practitioners about cumulative impacts, particularly among policymakers. To clarify, we suggest that there is a relatively straight-forward way to approach this topic if we are careful to distinguish three ideas in our discussions: cumulative impact or effect111, cumulative impacts assessment, and cumulative impacts management.

Cumulative Impacts

If we are to be literal, a cumulative impact is nothing more than an impact due to accumulation.112 Granted, many types of accumulation are possible in the natural and social environment including simple addition, biomagnification (concentration), and synergistic reaction (impact of the interactive whole is greater than the sum of the parts). Still, each of these remains a process of accumulation. Our confusion, then, about what constitutes a “cumulative impact,” particularly for non-scientists, may arise out of our not being clear about the nature of an impact.

For example, with some of the examples presented in Table 1, such as “time crowding,” it is clear what the process of accumulation is; in others, such as “time lags,” it is not (is this an accumulation of one or more substances and responses over time, in which case this might be simply a sub-category of “time-crowding,” or is this a delayed yet direct causal response to a discrete event as time “accumulates”?). Similarly, “secondary impacts” are not necessarily “cumulative impacts” strictly speaking. This does not mean that such impacts are not important to identify and respond to but that we should clearly identify in our

110  

William E. Odum. 1982. “Environmental Degradation and the Tyranny of Small Decisions,” BioScience 32(9):728.

111  

We will use the terms impact and effect interchangeably although some have suggested that the term “effect” is more appropriate because it does not carry the same implication of “social significance” as does the term “impact.” See Preston and Bedford (1988).

112  

Webster’s defines “cumulative” as “increasing in effect, size, quantity, etc. by successive additions; accumulated”. Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Edition (1988).

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

discussions what exactly might be “cumulative” about them. Finally, some of the impacts listed may, in fact, overlap. Thus, the effect of “patchiness” leading to the fragmentation of an ecosystem might also be considered as an effect of time or space crowding.

Table 1. Typology of Cumulative Environmental Effects113 Used with permission from the Minister of Supply and Services, Canada, 1993.

TYPE

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS

EXAMPLES

Time Crowding

Frequent and repetitive effects on a single environmental medium

Nonpoint source pollution effects on a watershed

Space Crowding

High density of effects on a single environmental medium

Effects of automobile emissions on air quality in air basin

Compounding Effects

Synergistic effects due to multiple sources in a single environmental medium

Gaseous emissions into the atmosphere

Time Lags

Long delays in effects

Carcinogenic effects

Extended Boundaries

Effects resulting some distance from source

Long range transport of air pollution

Triggers and Thresholds

Impacts to biological systems that change system behavior

Species Extinction

Indirect Effects

Secondary effects resulting from primary activity

Construction grading leading to erosion and wetlands sedimentation

Patchiness Effects

Fragmentation of Ecosystems

Fragmentation of wildlife habitat

113  

Adapted from Katherine Davies, Towards Ecosystem-based Planning: A Perspective on Cumulative Environmental Effects (Minister of Supply and Services, Canada, 1991); and Sonntag, et al., Cumulative Effects Assessment: A Context for Further Research and Development (Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council, 1987).

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Table 2. Functional Pathways of Cumulative Effects.114 Reproduced with permission from the Minister of Supply and Services, Canada, 1993.

PATHWAY

MAIN CHARACTERISTIC

EXAMPLE

Slowly Dissipative

Effects that accrue from single source in additive manner

Effects of salt on roadside vegetation

Magnification

Effects that accrue from single source in a synergistic manner

Biomagnification of PCBs up the food chain

Multiple Effects

Effects that accrue from multiple sources in an additive manner

Effects of CFCs and CO2 on climate

Synergistic Relationships

Effects that accrue from multiple sources in synergistic manner

Formation of smog from NOx and hydro-carbons in presence of UV radiation

Maintaining our focus on the question of accumulation when speaking about cumulative impacts may also help to better integrate scientific and policy discussion because of the emphasis that is placed by policymakers, lawyers, and environmental managers on the aggregative effects of incremental actions and decisions when they are speaking about cumulative impacts. Thus, the idea of accumulation is central to both scientific and environmental policy discussions of cumulative impacts. We believe this commonality is clearly captured in the following definition of cumulative impacts:

. cumulative impacts are those that result from the interactions many incremental activities, each of which may have an insignificant effect when viewed alone, but which become cumulatively significant when seen in the aggregate. Cumulative effects may interact in an additive or a synergistic way, may occur onsite or offsite, may have

114  

Davies, p. 15, citing Peterson et al., Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada: An Agenda for Action and Research (Hull, Quebec: Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council, 1987).

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

short-term or long-term effects, and may appear soon after disturbance or be delayed.115

Distinguishing Cumulative Impacts Assessment from Management

If the process of “accumulation” is the defining feature of cumulative impacts, cumulative impacts assessment is the means by which we identify processes of accumulation and their consequences in the natural and social environment. The process of assessment, however, is not as easily distilled to a simple idea as is cumulative impact. This is because the term “assessment” may be used to refer to the process of identifying causal links between actions and effects—a usage common in scientific circles—or it may be used to refer to a process of decisionmaking such as the evaluation of a discrete project’s contribution of cumulative impacts in an Environmental Impact Statement required by NEPA—a usage common in socio-political and legal circles. Neither of these two ways of understanding the word “assessment” is incorrect. As with our often unclear categorization of impacts, however, our failure to clearly distinguish the type of assessment we are talking about when addressing the issue of cumulative impacts assessment may confound our thinking and thus our attempts to communicate across disciplines.

For example, Table 3 reproduces the World Wildlife Fund’s listing of the commonly identified methods of cumulative impacts assessment methods. In addition to listing such methods as matrix analyses, cartography, and mathematical modeling, the Table also lists “evaluation techniques.” To someone trained in environmental management, the term “evaluation technique” and its description connotes one of the oldest governmental traditions for making collective decisions namely, planning, which is often described as a method for making valuative decisions about how we should make use of the earth’s resources in light of possible future scenarios. Thus, both types of cumulative impacts “assessment”—causal modeling and institutional decisionmaking —are encompassed within the same table.

Again, we are not suggesting that the mixing of the ways of thinking about cumulative impact assessment is incorrect. Indeed, the premise of symposia such as this is that the facts and models of science and the values and decisions of public policy are necessarily related, and thus should be better integrated. What we are suggesting is that it would behoove us to distinguish clearly the more

115  

Dickert and Tuttle. 1985. “Cumulative Impact Assessment in Environmental Planning: A Coastal Wetland Watershed Example,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 5:37-64, 39.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

“scientific” processes of identifying cumulative impacts and causal relationships — what we would choose to call cumulative impacts assessment— from the processes of public decisionmaking designed to respond to present or potential cumulative impacts once identified—what we would term cumulative impacts management. As the later sections of this paper will suggest, maintaining such a distinction may actually help us to identify the concrete ways that scientific and policy judgments are necessarily connected, thereby enhancing the prospects for their integration.

While we believe that the distinction between cumulative impacts assessment and cumulative impacts management needs to be maintained, the recognition that the field of cumulative impacts assessment can be equivalent to a process of planning or collective decisionmaking leads to a recognition of the potentially immense breadth and complexity (and therefore of the great potential for cross-disciplinary integration) inherent in the topic of cumulative impacts. That is, from the perspective of comprehensive cumulative impacts management, cumulative impacts “assessment” involves much more than refining our causal maps of the physical, biological, and chemical worlds. Rather, it entails coming to terms with the entire environmental system, including demographic trends, growth management schemes, and socioeconomic variables.

At bottom, this expansive view recalls the original 1960s understanding of “ecology” as encompassing more than just the physical environment.116 For example, the policies of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972117, which grew out of the ecology movement of the late 1960s, were premised on the real-world connections between economic development, social values, and environmental impacts. Thus, it was one of the first environmental statutes to recognize the need to balance the values of environmental protection and economic development.

This holistic view of the environment, inherent in statutes like the CZMA, is also consistent with the current interest in “integrated environmental management,”118 and our increasing concern for the global environment and sustainable growth and development. Thus, as summarized by the World Commission on Environment and Development:

116  

See Robert Bartlett, “Comprehensive Environmental Decision Making: Can It Work?” in Vig and Kraft, Environmental Policy in the 1990s (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1990).

117  

16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.

118  

See Volume 22 of Environmental Law (1992).

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

the ability to choose policy paths that are sustainable requires that the ecological dimensions of policy be considered at the same time as the economic, trade, energy, agricultural, industrial, and other dimensions on the same agendas and in the same national and international institutions. 119

Table 3. Methods for Assessing Cumulative Effects.120 Reproduced with permission from the World Wildlife Fund.

  • Ad Hoc techniques, used in preliminary assembling of information in early scoping stages of assessment.

  • Checklists, used in initial documentation of cumulative impacts for a particular ecosystem of concern.

  • Matrices, used in displaying initial broad judgments about the causes of problems and identifying interactions between activities and specific environmental components.

  • Networks (also known as system diagrams), used in classifying, organizing, and displaying problems, processes, and interactions to produce a causal analysis of the cumulative impacts situation.

  • Cartographic techniques, used in displaying the sum of natural succession, development, and associated spatial landscape impacts to multiple projects. Time series of maps from aerial photographs have been used to view the cumulative impacts problem over space and time.

  • Mathematical modeling, used to estimate and communicate long-term (future) and indirect effects in conjunction with other techniques.

  • Evaluation techniques, used to compare the impacts of development alternatives; the more preferable alternatives can be identified subjectively.

  • Adaptive methods, make the assumption that no single technique is capable of handling all aspects of impact assessment.

119  

Our Common Future (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 311-313.

120  

Irwin and Rodes, 49.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

In short, many opportunities for cross-disciplinary and cross-jurisdictional integration may be presented through our concern for cumulative environmental impacts.

When we acknowledge that cumulative environmental impacts management includes understanding the relationship between socioeconomic variables, processes of collective decisionmaking, and “environmental” outcomes, we must also address the issue of environmental equity and justice. That is, how we respond to continuing population growth and the associated environmental impacts will necessarily determine the distribution of environmental benefits, including such things as air and water quality, public health and safety, and economic opportunity. For example, if we are to be equitable in our concern for cumulative impacts, we must recognize the causal connections between the decline of the inner city urban environment and the growth of sprawling suburbs, exurbs, and so-called “edge” cities.

Once again, however, this is not a new realization. Section 30213 of the original California Coastal Act of 1976 required that “housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income . be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided…“ as part of the larger question of maximizing public access to the shoreline and coastal waters.121 Although this provision was later repealed by the legislature, recent demographic trends and the growing importance of multiculturalism for California make clear that environmental justice and equity should again become of increasing concern to environmental policymakers and social scientists. In short, it will be increasingly difficult, if not unethical, to address cumulative impacts concerning the natural habitat in isolation from those concerning the “urban habitat.”122

To conclude, the many types, definitions, and techniques of cumulative impacts and cumulative impacts assessment and management illustrate the necessity of building a common understanding of this field. We believe that the complexity of this topic can be simplified by focusing carefully on three distinct ideas: cumulative impacts, cumulative impacts assessment, and cumulative impacts management. Still, we also believe that it is important to recognize that even if we allow our conversations to become muddled, there is hope in the “all-encompassing ” nature of cumulative impacts management inasmuch as the interconnections between natural science, social science, policymakers, law, etc. are inherent in the topic. In short, we should look upon the conceptual complexity

121  

California Coastal Act of 1976, Public Resource Code Division 20, Section 30213.

122  

The Urban Habitat Project in Oakland, California is one center of such environmental, policy and political action.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

of this topic as an opportunity to integrate across specialized disciplines and move forward, not as a barrier to communication, as is the danger in things difficult to understand.

Cumulative Impacts Assessment

Ideas can have strong intuitive appeal, yet not affect decisionmaking because they lack any explicit operational formulation. Cumulative impact is such an idea.123

Another way of framing the question of integrating science and policy is to consider the relationship between facts and values. Scientists are generally concerned with documenting facts and causal relationships, and policymakers or governmental decisionmakers with articulating and promoting values through their decisions. It is increasingly apparent, however, that relying on such a hard and fast distinction in our day-to-day practices may lead to conclusions and causal models of no use to policymakers, and value decisions completely disconnected from scientific knowledge. More important, perhaps, the growing realization of the uncertainty surrounding complex environmental problems makes science and policy that much more vulnerable to manipulation by the other. Our struggle with the global climate change question is a classic example.

The following discussion briefly raises some of the important issues concerning the better integration of facts and values in the process of identifying and documenting cumulative impacts—what we have termed cumulative impacts assessment above. As with the “false” division between assessment and management, though, the issues discussed below are overlapping and discussion of one necessarily implicates the others. For example, understanding causal relationships is crucial to research priority-setting, database design, and monitoring.

  1. Setting Research Priorities. In light of the immensity of the cumulative environmental impacts field, our first concern should be with setting optimum research priorities. The process of setting research priorities is also the point where science and public policy must be integrated most effectively. Research priorities should both reflect and help shape public concerns and values. The finest scientific research will not help a cumulative impacts manager if it does not address the right questions. Thus, agreeing on appropriate research for evaluating cumulative impacts is more than a question of what are the most interesting questions —it is a question of choosing what society values. At the same time,

    123  

    Preston and Bedford. 1988. “Evaluating Cumulative Effects on Wetland Function: A Conceptual Overview and Generic Framework, Environmental Management 12(5):565-583.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

science can help us reach an understanding of what we should value, by providing us with better information about environmental and social risks.

The question of how to integrate public values and scientific research agendas, however, is not easily answered. Given its complexity, the problem of setting priorities for cumulative impacts research is not unlike the general problem of setting priorities in environmental protection based on relative environmental risk. In that case, the mismatch between what EPA scientists have identified as compelling environmental problems and what the public perceives as important to them is well known.124 If the EPA story is any indication, cumulative impacts researchers and policymakers should be particularly attentive to both the relative social value of various problems, and the “value” of scientific research on various problems in light of their significance from a scientific point of view. Implicit in such relative evaluation of problems is much more interdisciplinary research among social and natural scientists.

Tying broad research priorities to public policy needs will also shape the selection of the more specific scientific research methodologies for causal analysis, effective monitoring programs, and database requirements. Because of this, there is a need for research evaluating both the scientific basis for cumulative impacts assessment methods (e.g., do we use water quality or an indicator species or both for evaluating wetlands? see below), and the social value of such methods (is water quality or habitat value more important? equally important?). Such research is particularly critical in times when research and governmental monies are limited —it is increasingly important that scientists and policy managers be working from the same sets of assumptions about what is important.

  1. Assessment Methods, Indicators, and Causal Models. Earlier discussion illustrated that there are many generic methods for conducting a cumulative impacts assessment. Unfortunately, there are also many different and quite specific ways that we may choose to evaluate cumulative impacts within discrete policy areas. If there is any one problem that has been highlighted by researchers as distinctive to cumulative environmental impacts assessment, it may be the problem of setting “boundaries” for the scientific analysis of cumulative impacts.125In particular, cumulative impacts assessment raises a multitude of

    124  

    See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection, SAB-EC-90-012 (Washington, D.C.: EPA, Science Advisory Board, September 1990).

    125  

    See generally, Cumulative Environmental Effects: A Binational Perspective (The Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, and the U.S. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.. 1986); especially, Baskerville, “Some Scientific Issues in Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment,” 9-14.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

questions about the appropriate spatial and temporal boundaries for conducting cumulative impacts analysis.

As with the process of setting research priorities, the need for integration between science and policy is very apparent when considering the process of boundary-setting for cumulative impacts assessment. Thus, the methodological “boundaries” that are chosen to analyze and address a particular question may largely determine both relevant scientific studies, including appropriate experimental designs, and appropriate policy management techniques for addressing a problem. For example, there are numerous ways to consider the cumulative impacts to coastal wetlands. One might focus on the cumulative impacts to the values and functions of discrete wetlands. This approach has been prevalent in both scientific study and policymaking, perhaps because it is relatively easy (albeit artificial from an ecosystem perspective) to draw both analytic and management boundaries around a discrete wetland.126 There are many examples of governmental resource management efforts over the past several decades that have taken this approach, including the California Coastal Act’s special designation of 19 coastal wetlands.

As opposed to individual wetlands, though, one might also focus on the larger watershed in which a wetland is located and indeed, on a system of wetlands within a watershed, in order to assess more fully the cumulative impacts of pollution events, development and other natural processes on the functioning of this ecosystem. Such an approach, of course, would necessitate an entirely different policy management structure than would a “bottom-up” or incremental approach to discrete wetlands. Similarly, one could focus on the landscape or habitat values of a wetland or wetlands system, which may require yet another geographic unit of analysis for assessing cumulative effects, such as the geographic ranges of specific wetlands species or bioregions.

The problem of assessment method is still more complicated, however, for natural systems such as wetlands. If one focuses on the various hydrologic, water quality, and life support functions of wetlands (as opposed to, say, wetland acreage) as the social values of choice, the question of boundaries may vary depending on both the function and within function. Thus:

126  

For a discussion of various wetland evaluation techniques see Kusler and Riexinger, (eds.), Proceedings: National Wetlands Assessment Symposium (Portland, Maine: Association of State Wetland Managers, 1985); also world Wildlife Fund, Statewide Wetlands Strategies: A Guide to Protecting and Managing the Resource (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1992).

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

…the boundaries of study for water quality will differ from those for life support function, and the boundaries for different species of waterfowl or for different pollutants will not be the same. Not all waterfowl have the same migration patterns or feeding behaviors, and not all elements behave the same way.127

Moreover, the size, shape, and landscape position of specific wetlands can effect hydrologic relationships and water quality in wetland landscapes. Wetland functions (and therefore the relative social value of wetlands), then, may vary with the landscape, making regional differences between wetlands ecosystems, even within a single state such as California, a significant factor in determining how to assess cumulative impacts.128 The wetlands case is just one example of the need for more systematic evaluation of the appropriate boundaries and methodologies for assessing cumulative environmental impacts. If this example is any indication, our research and evaluation may need to be two-pronged; that is, we need research on general methods of analysis as well as on context-specific methods, to account for the natural geographic variability of ecosystems.

The problem of setting boundaries for assessment is made more complicated by the fact that policymakers and scientists must address many issues simultaneously, particularly when assessing cumulative impacts. If sophisticated cumulative impacts assessment and management is to occur, there will be a need for “cross-media research and evaluation.129 In particular, policymakers and managers need pragmatic boundaries for multi-issue cumulative impacts management (for example, a regional unit), based as much on scientific analysis as is possible. Thus, there is a need to refine our understanding of the various possible geographic units for assessing cumulative impacts—political and administrative jurisdictions, ecosystems, habitats, littoral cells, air and water basins, transportation and infrastructure service districts, etc. —in order to develop new, more integrated regional units. Scientific research can assist in the identification of the significant causal relationships among issues and within various potential regions to help policymakers do this.

Boundary setting also determines, and is determined by, the sets of causal indicators and relationships that science identifies as being significant in the assessment of cumulative impacts. As authors from the policy side of the fence, we are not qualified to give a sophisticated review of what are in many cases quite

127  

Preston and Bedford (1988), 571.

128  

Ibid., 571-2.

129  

See Environmental Law, Vol.22, No. 1 (1992).

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

technical issues about research design, scientific prediction of impacts, and correct indicators. We can recognize, however, that the process of establishing causal connections is perhaps the central area of concern for cumulative impacts assessment before we can hope to design effective management structures.

We can also see that even from a management perspective, the addressing of cumulative impacts in complex natural and social systems requires a substantial expansion in the number of variables and functional relationships of concern.130 Moreover, as with methodologies for assessment, the number of discrete models of causation will vary by ecosystem, issues, and within issues. This suggests a need for problem- or context-specific integration between policy-managers and scientists to model cumulative impacts. There is also a need for scientists and policymakers to evaluate together the various methodologies for assessing causal connections and impacts within larger environmental systems so that governmental users can identify the most effective and “user-friendly” techniques (see information management section below).131

Finally, understanding the causal links underlying cumulative impacts is also becoming increasingly important to environmental managers due to legal challenges by those representing development or economic interests. Many environmental statutes and policies address environmental effects on a general level. Government agencies, however, can no longer rely on broad assertions of the “public interest” in their day-to-day activities. For example, the California Coastal Act implicitly acknowledges a relationship between coastal development and public access to the beach. The precise causal connection between the anticipated impacts of a particular development proposal and the level of public access, however, may not always be that clear.132 Environmental managers need models of causation and perhaps even case-specific causation maps if their development and implementation of various public policies is to maintain and gain public support in addition to withstanding increased scrutiny from the judiciary. This need is complementary with the need for context-specific integration of efforts mentioned earlier.

  1. Monitoring. The problem of effective monitoring is complex for a single issue let alone for cumulative impacts. The National Research Council’ s recent publication on this subject well summarizes the many concerns for better

    130  

    See Brown, pp. 15-17, in Cumulative Environmental Effects: A Binational Perspective.

    131  

    See World Wildlife Fund (1992).

    132  

    See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987).

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

integration between science and policy.133 Suffice it to say that there are many problems, including how to integrate monitoring requirements effectively into policy decisions or development permits (e.g., how do we standardize monitoring techniques conducted by a variety of consultants?), how to encourage support for this “mundane” research, and how to pay for what can be a tremendous ongoing expense. It should be noted, however, that the issue of monitoring is extremely complex in the case of cumulative impacts, as noted in the NRC’s discussion of a Southern California Bight case study:

The....case study highlighted real-world impediments to developing clearly stated monitoring objectives. In the bight, multiple point and nonpoint sources of contaminants are in close proximity, and effects on a variety of important marine resources overlap. Marine resources in the bight are also affected by regionwide natural disturbances (e.g., El Ninos, storms and population blooms of organisms) that complicate the assessment of changes from human sources. It is much more difficult to document such cumulative effects than it is to measure those from single isolated sources or events. In addition, natural variation of resources and contaminants in the bight frequently occurs on spatial and temporal scales that confound the results of monitoring programs. The limited scientific understanding of how all these processes interact makes it difficult to find clear answers to many of the questions asked by decision-makers and the public. All such impediments must be identified and considered when developing objectives for monitoring programs because they affect whether it is possible to fill the information needs identified in the definition of objectives.134

  1. Information and Database Management. Oftentimes the most significant barrier to effective management of an environmental problem is simply the lack of usable data. As with all the other problems addressed here, this problem is compounded in the case of cumulative impacts analysis. For example, if a state agency desired to address the cumulative impacts to wetlands, it would discover that there are at least nine major sources of maps and wetlands databases on a national level, with varying scales, coverages, etc. In addition, there may be a variety of state and local collections of data.135 It may also be the case that much of the necessary data for wetlands evaluation exists under some other “heading,” such as water quality data or soils information. The agency, then,

    133  

    National Research Council. 1990. Managing Troubled Waters: The Role of Marine Environmental Monitornig. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

    134  

    Managing Troubled Waters, p.60.

    135  

    World Wildlife Fund (1992).

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

would need to assess its data needs based on a specific framing of the cumulative impacts problem and then identify the relevant data sources.

Beyond this, however, the agency may not have the technical expertise or the necessary hardware to use such databases. For example, although Geographic Information Systems (GISs) have been in use for over a decade now, there are still many complex questions concerning data integration, such as matching scales and formats, data manipulation to put it into some useable form, and integrating social, economic, and natural resource information in a single database system. An agency can spend thousands of dollars and years simply getting a GIS up and running. There is a need, then, for scientists and policymakers to assess information requirements by policy area and, in the case of cumulative impacts,across policy areas. Careful attention must be paid to identifying useable time and measurement scales for the type of regulatory decisions managers make.

Cumulative Impacts Management

Successful assessment of cumulative effects must tackle one of the central institutional questions of environmental management, namely that environmental response to impact is integrated, but the institutional responsibility for controlling activities that impact the environment is often fragmented.136

In addressing questions of cumulative impacts “assessment,” the preceding section necessarily raised questions of cumulative impacts management. This section, however, is more explicitly concerned with institutional and policy management questions that must be addressed if we are to meaningfully address cumulative environmental impacts. As already suggested, scientific perspectives and analyses may provide the impetus for our governmental processes of planning and management to change in ways that allow for practical, effective management of cumulative environmental impacts.

Current Capacities: Fragmented Incrementalism

As observed in the quote above, any evaluation of our institutional capacities to manage cumulative impacts must confront the problem of fragmented, incremental decisionmaking. Indeed, in the general field of environmental policy it is becoming common place among political, social, and

136  

Irwin and Rodes, p. 7.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

environmental policy scientists to observe the adverse effects of the incremental decisionmaking of multiple and overlapping political jurisdictions and regulatory agencies.137 To be sure, single jurisdiction and substantive policy fragmentation is not an effective strategy for managing cumulative environmental impacts which, as previously discussed, know no simple boundaries or categories. In short, any truly comprehensive management strategy for cumulative impacts must respond to the causal interdependencies that characterize cumulative impacts.

In particular, policy studies have suggested that the boundaries for the management of cumulative impacts need to be geographically broadened and expanded over a longer time period.138 Yet, regulatory agencies and local decisionmaking bodies typically are not structured to effectively address the cross-jurisdictional nature of cumulative environmental problems. Although there has been some movement to address the concern, there is little agreement on the most effective way to encourage governmental institutions to amend their boundaries, merge, integrate, consolidate, or otherwise alter their structure or jurisdiction to more closely match the boundaries of cumulative environmental impacts. Thus, fragmented decisionmaking structures will continue to be a deterrent to effective cumulative impacts management in the near-term.

Even when we do attempt to consolidate decisionmaking to address cumulative impacts, initiatives are frequently uncoordinated. For example, in California, some local governments have adopted their own form of local growth management that, while well-meaning, provide little coordination among local jurisdictions to respond to problems that tend to be regional in scope.139 In addition, different regional models140 have been offered which range from expanded roles for counties to regional organizations formed around a single functional issue such as beach erosion.141 While some of these efforts are

137  

For an overview, see Bartlett, id. Also, Irwin and Rodes.

138  

Irwin and Rodes, Making Decisions on Cumulative Environmental Impacts; Management of Cumulative Impacts in Virginia: Identifying the Issues and Assessing the Opportunities (Institute for Environmental Negotiation, University of Virginia, 1991 ), p. 18; also, Environmental Management 22(1) (1992).

139  

See Madelyn Glickfeld, Regional Growth…Local Reaction: The Enactment and Effectsof Local Growth Control and Management Measures in California (Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1992).

140  

For example, the Associations of Bay Area and Monterey Bay Area Governments (ABAG and AMBAG), San Francisco Bay Vision 2020 and Los Angeles 2000.

141  

See Draft Shoreline Preservation Strategy for the San Diego Region, San Diego Association of Governments, September 1991.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

making progress towards better regional coordination, local politics can be an obstacle to the allocation of even the smallest real decisionmaking authority to regional actors, even when these regional efforts have well-developed histories and policy goals. Finally, even statewide efforts in California such as the coastal management program, several proposals for a framework for statewide growth management,142 as well as a recent effort to coordinate resource policy within the “bioregions” of California,143are not very coordinated.

The institutional barrier to effective cumulative impacts management created by uncoordinated and fragmented government may be made worse, however, by incremental decisionmaking. For example, there is a bias in the dominant mode of thinking about cumulative impacts, not to mention in our governmental decisionmaking generally, that can be tied directly to the implementation of cumulative impacts assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act and, in the case of California, the California Environmental Quality Act. While these statutes contain expansive definitions of cumulative effects, their implementation over time has tended to be premised on a project-by-project review mentality. Thus, it is not very often that an EIS or EIR takes a truly comprehensive view of the issue of cumulative impacts. Implementation strategies or legal interpretations may restrict project review to “relevant” past, present, and future actions of the same type, or within a limited time frame. More important, such a narrow, legalistic approach to the implementation of these statutes can neglect significant cross-media impacts and important planning scenarios. Scientists may be particularly skeptical of the ability of such an approach to effectively manage cumulative environmental impacts.144

The effects of incremental decisionmaking can be lessened, of course, by placing decisionmaking within the framework of a comprehensive plan which, in theory, provides general policy guidance to manage or even avoid the cumulative effects of incremental actions and decisions. Nonetheless, even when comprehensive planning processes are in place, incrementalism can undermine efforts to manage cumulative impacts. If plans are frequently modified by numerous project-driven amendments or are rarely evaluated and revised, or if there is poor performance in implementing the plans, the ability of the plan to

142  

Antero Rivasplata, Planning and Growth Management (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Governor’s Interagency Council on Growth Management, Sacramento, California, 1991).

143  

See The Sierra Nevada: Report of the Sierra Summit Steering Committee (Sacramento, CA: The Resources Agency, 1992).

144  

See generally, Cumulative Environmental Effects: A Binational Perspective.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

provide a long-term, comprehensive framework for managing cumulative impacts will be undermined. Therefore, continuing long-range comprehensive planning becomes critical to any effective management of cumulative impacts.

Our recent assessment of the California Coastal Management Program highlighted this problem.145 One intent of the Coastal Act was to establish a Local Coastal Planning process that would offer a unique combined state-local vehicle for comprehensively managing cumulative impacts to coastal resources. Most local plans, however, have been amended frequently and the Commission, as a result of severe budget reductions, has been limited in its ability to comprehensively monitor and evaluate implementation of these local plans through a periodic review process. While some plans were approved over 10 years ago, only two periodic reviews have been completed to date. The cumulative effects of such limited oversight on the resources of the coastal zone is unclear. Thus, our experience suggests a specific need to work more closely with the scientific community to identify, assess, and monitor cumulative impacts adversely affecting the coastal and ocean environment as well as a general need to evaluate existing institutional capacities and structures of government evaluation so that we can design new institutional arrangements and mechanisms for effective cumulative impacts management.

Roads to Institutional Reform

In the case of the California Coastal Commission, section 309 of the 1990 amendments to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) offers one opportunity to pursue institutional improvements. In this section of the CZMA, Congress identified the cumulative and secondary impacts of development as a priority area for enhancement of state coastal management programs. While some states have chosen to pursue cumulative impacts assessments of specific geographic areas or issues under the 309 program, responding to the shortcomings of incremental decisionmaking lies at the core of California’s “309 program.”

The goal of the program is to develop a new methodology for reviewing the implementation of local coastal programs described above based on a new regional review process for overseeing the implementation of local coastal plans. Operating under the theory that the review of individual projects by local coastal jurisdictions cannot completely control adverse cumulative impacts, the Commission will be conducting a regional cumulative impacts evaluation that includes an extensive review of local government and Coastal Commission permitting decisions, local

145  

California Coastal Commission, Final Assessment of the California Coastal Management Program, January 17, 1992.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

coastal plan amendments, and other significant governmental decisions affecting important coastal zone resources. Thus, the review will be concerned with both an evaluation of cumulative coastal resource impacts relative to the statewide goals of the California Coastal Act, and the role, if any, that incremental decisionmaking has played in the production of these impacts.

A significant portion of the Commission’s cumulative impact review will be devoted to the development of an “evaluation technique” designed to promote long-range planning and management of cumulative impacts within a region. More important, this effort will concentrate on integrating the perspectives of local governments and communities both with each other and with the scientific and policy analyses conducted by the Commission. Ideally, this regional review will lead to the program changes in the California Coastal Management Program that institutionalize more effective monitoring, evaluation, and revision of local and statewide plans for coastal resource management.

The 309 program will also provide us with an opportunity to integrate across the various natural resource, political, and administrative boundaries relevant to the management of cumulative impacts in the coastal zone. The need for such integration is also becoming more clear through the Commission’s and the California State Water Resources Control Board’s efforts to develop the Section 6217 nonpoint source water pollution program.146 For example, the program may entail establishing a management area for the program inland of the coastal zone boundary to encompass relevant coastal watersheds. The cumulative impacts review for the 309 program, though, will involve a more comprehensive effort to integrate the policies, perspectives, and natural resource concerns of other issue areas in addition to water quality. These include public access to the beach, wetlands protection, and coastal geological hazards management.

While we are hopeful that the 309 program will provide an increased opportunity to break the bad habits and detrimental results of purely incremental decisionmaking, there are several important issues to which the Commission, as well as others attempting to manage cumulative impacts, will need to be attentive. First, in trying to refine the way that we address cumulative impacts, we must assure that our framework is one which can succeed both politically and “ethically,” by which we mean with a sense of environmental equity and justice. Science may help us to document trends and predict changes to natural systems, but if our specific plans and management techniques for cumulative impacts are to succeed, we must first reach agreement on the desired outcomes and scenarios. This will involve coping with both the problems of local and/or political self-interest

146  

See Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

mentioned earlier as well as the equity question—who wins and loses under any given cumulative impacts management plan?

Second, it will also be difficult to maintain such a comprehensive effort given the very real constraints of limited staffing and funding resources—constraints which most public agencies are facing today. When faced with limited financial resources, government at all levels may resort to incremental actions because it is all they can afford to do. An integrated comprehensive framework for managing cumulative impacts, however, will necessarily be more intensive in the amount and level of scientific projections and monitoring needed, not to mention in the amount of resources needed for the planning functions of public agencies, many of which were curtailed over the last decade. A lack of funding could diminish the ability to conduct research to support long-range planning and to develop the information needed to comprehensively control cumulative impacts. How can we increase these resources, use existing resources more efficiently and target them in a manner which fosters a longer term perspective? Developing a new methodology for integrated management of resources will undoubtedly raise issues of how we are going to maintain necessary funding.

To conclude, there is a need for research and evaluation from social scientists concerning both existing institutional capacities and possible strategies for institutional change. Although the issues of institutional fragmentation, incrementalism, local politics, and poor funding are not new, they are particularly prominent in our attempts to manage cumulative impacts. Natural scientists, too, may contribute to the development of new institutions and management techniques by providing rationales for integration across ecosystems and bioregions. Finally, the pursuit of more effective cumulative impacts management may serve as an effective bridge for integration between public values and scientific research generally, precisely because of the many opportunities, links, and issues inherent in the topic.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

Issue Group Summary

Leader - Robert W. Knecht (University of Delaware)

Rapporteur - Richard Hildreth (University of Oregon)

Other Members of Issue Group - Joseph DiMento (University of California at Irvine), Peter M. Douglas and Elizabeth Fuchs (California Coastal Commission), Ira Michael Heyman (University of California at Berkeley), Charles Lester (California Coastal Commission), Douglas Lipka (Environmental Protection Agency), Frederic Nichols (U.S. Geological Survey), John Patton (County of Santa Barbara), Randy Pestor (California State Assembly Local Government Committee), Frederick Piltz (Minerals Management Service), Alison Rieser (University of Maine), Steve Sanders (California State Senate Office of Research), Harry N. Scheiber (University of California at Berkeley), Paul D. Thayer (California State Assembly Natural Resources Committee), William Tuohy (Independent Consultant), Thomas H. Wakeman III (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), and Joy Zedler (San Diego State University)

Cumulative impacts can result from the additive effects of impacts that may be separated by time or space, but which affect the same resource in the same area. Concern with cumulative impacts reflects the desire to avoid the “tyranny of small decisions,” the unintentional and undesirable consequences that can arise from the narrowness of individual perspectives. Cumulative impacts can have a number of important characteristics.

  • Cumulative impacts are those that result from the interactions of many incremental activities, each of which may have an insignificant effect when viewed alone, which becomes significant in the aggregate.

  • Cumulative impacts may interact in an additive or synergistic way (see Douglas et al., this volume).

  • Cumulative impacts may occur onsite or offsite.

  • Cumulative impacts may have short-term or long-term effects.

  • Cumulative impacts may occur soon after the disturbance or may be delayed.

There are two different categories of independent variables: (1) the incremental activities of many different types of developments and disturbance

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

over time, and (2) the incremental activities of one major type of development or disturbance repeated over time.

Regarding the dependent variable (the affected entity), for natural systems, we can think of the categories that were discussed earlier in the plenary session—cells, organs, individuals, populations, communities, and ecosystems. For social systems, we can think of impacts on individuals, families, social groups, communities, states, and nations. An example of the first kind of cumulative impacts on natural systems is water pollution in the Southern California Bight from multiple sources. An example of the second kind of forcing function affecting natural systems might be the effects of many oil platforms on a given type of marine organism. On the social side, the first kind of cumulative impacts can be exemplified by the impact of industrialization on rural areas, including changes in the economic base, character of the social systems, density, crowding, and diversity. The second type of cumulative impacts on social systems might be exemplified by the effects of offshore oil development on communities in the Gulf of Mexico.

Impediments to developing interactions between science and policy on the issue of cumulative impacts include

  1. Impediments related to limiting factors

    • Many scientists work on single issues.

    • Agreed-upon definitions of cumulative impacts are lacking, and statutory mandates are unclear.

    • Good baseline information from which to measure impacts is often missing. There may still be a problem, however, in determining whether the impact is due to natural or human-induced changes.

    • Scientific input into the questions to be answered seldom occurs. Frequently, managers or policymakers frame the questions in a way that makes it difficult for scientists to respond.

    • No one wants to hear about cumulative impacts. There is a fear of learning about the consequences of a cumulative impact problem.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
  1. Impediments related to institutional aspects

    • Information generation and transfer does not favor cumulative impact analysis. Databases are not maintained at the proper geographic and time scales.

    • Compartmentalization of disciplines reduces the opportunity for interactions of practitioners from the relevant disciplines.

    • The academic reward structure does not, in general, reward scientific contributions to applied questions, although this situation seems to be changing in some institutions.

    • Storage and retrieval of historical information is often difficult.

    • Good information about past management decisions and their effects is not collected or made easily accessible.

    • The annual funding cycle of governments makes it difficult to maintain long-term continuous activity.

    • Management structure, leadership, and policy can change as a result of the turnover of personnel.

    • Institutional and jurisdictional fragmentation make actions difficult to coordinate. Various agencies are taking actions that contribute to the cumulative impacts in a given area or with regard to a given resource.

    • Despite the availability of some methods for cumulative impact analysis, other priorities of permitting and regulatory agencies limit their use.

  1. Impediments related to information access

    • Only parts of a given cumulative impact problem are obvious to a given agency because of limited purview.

    • The management responsibilities of existing agencies are often too narrow to deal with all aspects of a given cumulative impact issue; this again is related to functional fragmentation.

    • Technical information may need to be “translated” for use by some decisionmakers.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
  • Proprietary data, even in the public sector, may not be available when needed.

  • Policymakers and managers may have difficulties in gaining access to the right data on a reasonable time scale.

  • The National Environmental Protection Act process and the environmental impact report and analysis processes, in general, tend to encourage fragmented, project-by-project decisions.

Given these impediments, the issue group listed three critical elements of a rational scheme to manage cumulative impacts:

  1. Conceptual clarity of the management goal. The key variables to be measured should be defined on the basis of management goals.

  2. Clear causal relationships to support the calculation of key thresholds. A sufficient understanding of natural and social systems is needed to evaluate the risk and to determine the thresholds of serious impacts. There must be a capability to initiate and sustain the kind of monitoring program that will provide the needed information at the right time. The uncertainty of the estimates must also be assessed, and information about uncertainty must be communicated to policymakers. In a sense, the right kind of monitoring can substitute for a lack of prior scientific understanding.

  3. Adequate capacity for governance. The ability to govern the activities required to achieve the goal must exist. The geographic scale must include all of the area that is a part of the problem. The right time interval for achieving the goal must be available. To explain these governance considerations, an example is provided below.

Clams, cadmium, and cumulative impacts management. We might call this a “cumulative-impact-motivated, adaptive management scheme.” Let’s assume that there is an oil platform in a semienclosed water body. Every morning at six o’clock an employee swabs the platform deck with a mop and he throws the contents of the bucket over the side. Let’s assume there are some heavy metals (e.g., cadmium) in the waste water in the bucket and, furthermore, that this is a biologically productive area for a certain kind of valuable clam. Eventually, concerns that cadmium might accumulate in the clams and pose a danger to human and/or to ecosystem health lead to the formation of measures to control cadmium concentrations. More platforms are built and additional buckets of waste water are dumped into the sea each day. At some point, when a preset threshold of cadmium concentration in the water column has been reached, additional

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

management measures will be needed. The regulator does not have to prevent the development of more platforms. It can be decided that, in the future, the waste water must be put in containers and shipped once a week to the shore and no more dumping is allowed. With this approach, more platforms can be added. Only a modification in the management system is needed.

Now let’s assume that there is an effective monitoring program underway, which monitors the bioaccumulation of metals in the clams. It is then discovered that chromium is also becoming a problem. At that point, sufficient scope must exist in the governance system to allow a new dimension to be added to the management scheme without major alterations.

Hence, a governance system must be broad enough in scope to cover all the activities that will eventually cause a problem. Governance must be sufficiently flexible, so that regulators can modify the terms of permits when conditions warrant such measures.

The key to success of a scheme like this includes

  • Clear management goals;

  • Sufficient prior scientific observations and research to know when a cumulative impact problem exists, to know the geographic scale over which the problem must be managed, and to know the temporal scale (how long the conditions on the permits must be maintained) and the scope (what kinds of changes might be needed later) of the problem;

  • Sufficient legal or legislative authority to operate this kind of adaptive management and regulatory activity, and

  • Sufficient technical capacity to design, operate, and interpret a monitoring system that will substitute for gaps in our “up-front” scientific understanding of the natural system.

Finally, what does this indicate about the science-policy interface? It suggests that there are three aspects in need of attention in connection with the cumulative impact problem.

  1. At the state legislative level, a scientifically grounded case for obtaining the legislation that would permit the three-dimensional flexibility for governance in time, space, and scope needs to be made.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
  1. At the regional and local levels, a science or research program directed to the understanding of important resource- or environment-related issues likely to become the targets of cumulative impact management is needed. This implies a close coupling between the scientific research community and management/regulatory agencies and a stream of long-term, stable funding. This approach can provide the right kind of research, in advance of impacts, to a cumulative impact management system.

  2. Inside the management process itself, an adaptive approach implies a science-driven dimension for identifying the need for cumulative impact management. This will require interaction with the outside scientific community to help set the critical thresholds that would change the management measures, to design and operate the monitoring program, and to recommend adaptive changes in management and regulations based on the monitoring program.

Finally, some ideas that flow out of these concepts are offered. In general, two different approaches may be necessary. We could be starting from scratch with no existing management effort and could put in place a rational scheme, as described above, once enough scientific data and understanding are available. To a certain extent, some of what Alison Rieser discussed in the issue group embodies this approach. Coastal management plans are developed, and those plans are used in the operation of a kind of protocol that works as described above. However, in most cases management systems will be started in the “middle” with considerable management and regulation already underway, requiring a different approach, the transition from a static project-by-project management approach to a dynamic adaptive approach. Designing and motivating this transition will require a substantial amount of good scientific research, both natural and social, but more importantly, practitioners who can translate what is known or what are suspected to be the links between ecological disturbance and adverse effects into clear and enforceable regulatory standards will be needed.

Four possible means to improve the interactions between scientists and policymakers, related to the issue of cumulative impacts, resulted from the group discussions and the group responses to the seven questions given to the issue groups (Appendix III).

  1. Improve conceptual development and the refinement of analytical tools for regional approaches. Cumulative impacts can best be assessed on a broad, regional scale with relatively general patterns likely to be revealed. A region should be biogeographic—for example, for coastal wetlands and coastal fisheries the Southern California Bight is the appropriate scale, although some questions would

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

require a broader purview (e.g., waterfowl questions require a Pacific flyway approach).

The cumulative impacts of development on selected attributes of ecosystem structure and function should be assessed. Possible attributes include (1) numbers of species (select groups with sensitive species such as birds, fish, and macroinvertebrates; economically valuable species; and scientists’ best guesses of “indicator” species), (2) productivity or population abundance (e.g., abundance of waterfowl), and (3) red flags (e.g., increases in the occurrence of exotic species). There still is a great need for some basic information about indicators of ecosystem processes and health. For many ecosystems, factors that control the ecosystem attributes listed above are unknown. It will be necessary to couple good monitoring with good ecosystem-level process studies to achieve a better understanding of the relationship of monitored indicators to desirable ecosystem attributes.

Regional monitoring and assessment programs are rare. At the national level, EPA is developing EMAP (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program) which involves random samples of 12,600 hexagons, only a few of which will be on the coast of California. Perhaps a more intensive program of this type should be implemented for coastal California. A regional organization should lobby for increased sampling intensity within each California region (e.g., regional EMAP). There will be a need for standardized methods and appropriate indicators for each region.

The time scale for monitoring will necessarily differ for indicators. Birds and fish would probably need to be sampled on an annual scale, while vegetation shifts would more likely be measurable on a 5- to 10-year scale or after extreme events. The importance of extreme events in California makes it desirable to have an emergency fund for enhanced monitoring when floods, El Niño, major oil and chemical spills, earthquakes, and other extreme events occur.

A precautionary philosophy should be used when developing schemes to address cumulative impacts, to minimize the risk faced by the most fragile components of an ecosystem. In most cases, risks are not well defined, but if explicit questions are asked, good probabilistic descriptions of key or fragile components of the system can be obtained. Scientists can also offer reasonable guesses (never a flat statement) about thresholds which should not be exceeded. Such thresholds could include the well-being of important species (it is often thought that it is risky to reduce the population of a given species below 55 to 70% of carrying capacity or preimpact levels), processes such as nutrient flow (either too much or too little), food chain or predator-prey relationships, and competitive relationships. Management schemes need to involve precautionary or

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

risk-avoidance processes, reasonable threshold definitions, and a list of priorities for a given habitat and region.

Finally, a forum for objective scientific advice is needed. At present, when a scientist speaks out, he or she is immediately considered to be an advocate and treated like the representative of any nongovernmental organization who really is an advocate. The forum needs to select scientists on the basis of their talents rather than on the basis of their outspokenness.

Fair distribution or allocation of future cumulative impacts is another aspect of the issue. This is sometimes termed “equity” and enables decisionmakers to allot remaining portions of available resources (broadly defined) to future requests. To determine the time interval preceding some undesirable threshold, a rate of impact accumulation must be determined. The rate function can be estimated by an assessment of the past and an extrapolation into the future. To check these assumptions and provide feedback to decisionmakers about the actual rate, monitoring or some form of scientific investigation will be necessary. The time scales for collecting meaningful scientific data will have to be coordinated with the time scales for policy-driven planning horizons. Planning horizons for policy-driven projects may be 25 or 50 years, for example, to justify project costs. However, this may not be the appropriate time frame for the collection of definitive scientific data. The planning horizon may need to be adjusted, if the scientific requirements so dictate. Scientific studies then provide data during the life of the policy-driven projects that will permit reevaluation of assumptions about the impact accumulation rate.

The group also discussed targeted workshops that could be part of a new NRC initiative leading to a report parallel to Managing Troubled Waters. Professional scientific societies could be asked to help develop appropriate analytical tools and methods.

  1. Increase the awareness of decisionmakers about cumulative impact issues. The consideration of cumulative impacts is both a scientific problem and a decisionmaking problem. Increased awareness could be accomplished in a number of ways, including

  • Creating a forum with legislative leaders with a focus on cumulative impacts;

  • Encouraging coastal agencies to employ scientists; and

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
  • Appointing scientists to prestigious technical advisory boards of, for example, agencies like the California Coastal Commission. Appointment to these groups would be a significant professional achievement.

Different approaches may be needed for reaching decisionmakers at the state versus local levels.

  1. Implement incremental changes in decision systems. Joint review panels have worked successfully in Santa Barbara County and some other places, where state and local regulatory bodies conduct reviews of proposed activities and projects jointly, providing an opportunity to incorporate more and better science into the process. The extent to which cumulative impacts might result from particular projects should be assessed in the context of regional considerations before addressing project-specific NEPA and CEQA requirements.147 Some of the money that applicants are required to pay in advance in connection with Environmental Impact Statements under CEQA could also be used for this more general purpose. Policy statements could mandate a change in behavior without waiting for scientific certainty. Ad hoc ways to harmonize the outlooks and actions of multiple agencies operating in ocean and coastal environments may be found.

Environmental disclosure statutes (NEPA, CEQA, et al.) are the principal sources of information available to inform environmental decisionmaking. The information developed is less than optimal for managing cumulative impacts because (1) documents are episodic and triggered by major projects, which may or may not relate in time or space to the occurrence of important cumulative impacts; (2) information is considered in the context of major project decisions and decisionmakers are reluctant to try to solve cumulative impact problems within a single project; and (3) funding constraints limit the scope of analysis in non-project-related environmental documents.

A potential remedy is to alter the statutory requirements for assessment of cumulative impacts at the project level, as well as the requirements for completeness of analysis, avoidance, and mitigation of cumulative impacts at the policy-setting level, so as to shift this effort from the former to the latter level. Some funding could be provided by harvesting some of the savings gained by reducing the project-level analytical requirements and applying them to analysis at the policy-setting level. For example, building fees could be collected to pay for the preparation and update of comprehensive plans as well as for project-specific analysis. Once the planning-level analysis and mitigation strategies are enacted,

147  

NEPA is the National Environmental Policy Act; CEQA is the California Environmental Quality Act.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×

the level of detail and effort required to assess cumulative impacts at the project level would decline significantly.

Mechanisms for conditioning individual projects to address cumulative impacts identified in the planning analysis would need to be developed. A framework for determining project-specific impacts and evaluating changed circumstances would also be needed. The one-time cost for a good plan analysis may not be met easily by project fees. Finally, projects in commercially zoned areas vary dramatically in nature and impact and are not easily addressed at the planning level.

  1. Effect institution redesign to deal with cumulative impacts. The group discussed the possible use of the coastal zone management consistency concept in state and local general plans that had been formulated to take account of cumulative impacts. Means of integration and harmonization of actions of multiple agencies should be mandated. Also discussed was the role that regional governance schemes could play in dealing with cumulative impacts as, for example, in the San Francisco Bay and Lake Tahoe regions. Monitoring systems related to adaptive management should be established.

Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 206
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 207
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 208
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 209
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 210
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 211
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 212
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 213
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 214
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 215
Suggested Citation:"ISSUE GROUPS." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9856.
×
Page 216
Next: APPENDICES »
Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!