\.

DOCOMEN7 'RESUME

*ED 180 761 SE 029 378

AUTHOR Hull, E. W. SeabrookTITLE The First Ten tears. National Sea Grant qollege

Program.INSTITUTION National Oceanic and'Atmospheric Administration

'(DOC), Rockville, Md. National-Sea Grant Program?PUB DATE Mar 79NOTE 88p.; PhotOoraphS may not reproduce well

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC04 Plus Po'Stage.DESCRIPTORS *College Programs: C011eges: *Environment;

Environmental Research: *Federal Government: FederalPrograms: Higher Education; Marine Biology; NaturalResources: *Oceanology; Research Projects; ScieneEducation ,.

IDENTIFIERS *Sea-,Grant

ABSTRACTDetailed are the first ten year* of the Sea Grant

Program through 1976. The review is divided into three parts. Part .I,Sea Grant Origin and Process, traces the historical development ofthe program an-d cites the prcgram's philosophy. Part.II, Sea Grant inActiont discusses marine resource development, marine technology, '

research and development, marine environmental research; narinveducation and training, and marine advisory services. Part.III, Sea-Grant Benefits, discusses specific benefits, national needs, ind thefuture' of the program. (BT)

,

fob

-*

* Reproductions supplied bif EDPS are the best that can be. made. .* :

* , from.the original document. ... ,

4************************************,*********************************.', . .

,

,.k

:

MONtyee

CVO"

4E

o nt1f41.4Nt

o 8 OE PAK I ME N Of Ha AL IE.E OIL/CATION a WEL l ANENATIONAL INS T TO T

IOU( A t ION

1.1% Of It I iA 14? ?IA \ lilt N I'Itt)INN t (I I It Al It V A% VI VI 11 I Ft QM

pt. temty Ott ORr.AttlfAlInkl 1/14It514Atit45. 5 1 1'lli14 t it W t)1,5N5()14t,

I A ft I (.11 NO, ) \ SA1451 v 141 "ttN I 5, I Al NA 5lINAI ,N1

I (1151 A I 51)14 \ 5 5t.)14 1M POI 1 v

.

National Sea Grant Col lege Program

The -.

First Ten YearsBy: E. W. Seabrook Hull

For:The OFFICE OF SEA GRANTNOAA6010 Executivo BoulevardRockville, MD 20825

itt-''''''5 t; ""ht

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCEJuionitb M. Kraps, Sirsanstary

National Oceanic and Atmospherio AdministrationFilohard A Frank, Administrator

Office of Sea GrantNer;IA Ostenso. Diractor

II

1

4

Thanks, CreOits and KudosMany people and organizations helped me te know and understand theNational Sea Grant Program. It is not possible to name them all, thoiighnamed or not I am indebted and grateful for their patient efforts and'understanding. Among them are:

. . Bob-Abel and the staff of the NOAA Office of Sea Grant In Washington,with a special note of appreciation to Program Analyst Ernest Greenwaldfor his prompt responses to my many requests for dritta

. Those Sea Grant Directors who took the time and trouble to thought-fully reply to my very demanding questionnaire. In the aggregate, theirreplies provided an extraordinary insight into the thinking and dedicationthat makes Sea Grant the firmly based success it is .. .

... Those many Sea Grant communicators who told me about theirihdividual State's program, who answered repeated requests for informa-tion and pictures with promptness and good humor and, without whom,Sea Grant's light would be very much under a bushel ...

... Those Sea Grant Marine Extension Agents who took the time to explainand show me what they are doing and how they are doing it. They are the-linchpin of the whole Sea Grant effort ...

... Joe Easley, captain-owner of the fishing boat Estop, out of Coos Bay,Oreg., and other fishermen in North Carolina, Maryland, Rhode Island,and elsewhere for the opportunity to talk and go to sea with them ...

... Tom Flor, Marine Science Research Assistantat the Universitfot South.Carolina, for his help in preparinb the tables, proofreadiag the manuscriOt,and critiquing it for flow, organization, and interest.

... Nellie, myvife, for her patience during'what proved to be a rather moredemandingI6ut still fascinatingtask than anticipated and for her alwaysvaluable aSsiOance,in proofing and editing ...' i ..

J ..

,

... And, all those others who went out of their way to help increase my.-understanding of this most remarkable program. ',

A,

414

,

.%

Is

Contents.PROLOGUE THE WORLD OF SEA GRANT vi

PART 1

S.

a

PART /

pART

4.

,-

SEA .GRANIT ORIpIN AND PROCESSliktroductionPhilosophy and Precedent

Education'ExperimentExtensionFinancial SupportLocal.Response to Local Needs.Mo6ilizing Existing ResourcesDirect InvolvementFrom a Proven Base

Sea Grant: Process. Mechanics, and Control,:tbe Sea Grant: Process, Mechanics, and ControlThe Sea Grant Charter

, Three Basic GrantsProgram Quality and Fiscal Control

Getting It GoingMeasure of Success

SEA GRANT IN ACTIONIntroductionMaririe Resource Development

Alvaculture.,Risheries1\;ilarine Biomedicinals and Extracts.Minerals from the Sea

Socioeconomic afid Legal Researchr Marine Technology Research and Development

Marine Environmental ResearchMarine Education and TrainingMaine Advisory ServicesProgram Kolanageinent and Development

17

S A GilANT .BENOITS 65S Grant Benefit's"te Grant Meets National Needs ,

Se Grant FutureDi erent Needs in Dikerent StatesFut

Concl

re Tasks

sion

4.

INSERTS,LOGURES A4b TABLES

Figure 1 Aogram Category Funding History

Table I rogram 5tatus and Funding Summary

Table II ,MarineResoun;es Develofrment . .Case in Point . .i, Ranch Farming Salmon .

Table III / Services to Fishermen/Case in Points Precious CoralTable IV Sea Grant-Supported Fisheries ProjectsTable V Sea Grant-Supported Drugs/Chemicals eo4at&

/Tab VI Sea Grant-Supported Minerale Pro)ects ,

.T ble _VII Marine SocIoeconomic.and Legal Research .

ble VIII Sea Gcant-Supported Socioeconomic and 4gal Projectsable IX Marine Technology Research and bevelOpment

Table X Sea Grant-Supported Technology Research and ,Development Projects

Table Xl Marine Environmental ResearchTable XII Sea Grant-Supported Environment ResearchTable XIII Marine Education and Training __...i

Table XIV Sea Grant-Supported Education and railiTrg ProtectsTable XV Courses Funded by Sea GrantTable XVI Marine Advisory ServicesTable .XVII Sea Grant-SupporteckMarIne Adyisory Services ProjectsTable XVIII Program Management and DevelopmentTable XIX Sea Grant-Supported Program Administration and

Development ProjectsTable XX Examples of Specific Benefits

ly '' . .

t

,

L_

,'AtelAe''ekr1

. .

soxikc', w

',

a.

"Since anone and onb which has necessitated that man search for a.wa 'to harness

le tremi3ndous power of ttie sea for his own benefit. The sea has broughtbot good and bad: It has been.a life source. it has been. Ilse of

death, aid it has brought man new beginnings. The new begirin whichthe sea can now provide have oirerwhelming Implications for an ind'sfuture in terms of future energy supplies and food l'esources. cittistsfeel that the sea wiH provide the answers to these complex pr blem yfsurvivale:and orpgrQsS Which face us in the future.

. , ,':'-The conclusion seems' obvious: We midst continue to support an . T

educational endeavor which is teacbing us to explore and explbit ono ofthe world's greatest natural resources, the treasurehouse of the sea.Thanks tb the Sea Grant College Progriam the great unknown of the sea isbecoming more comprehensible, mor4 manageable and an even moreharmonious and helpful part of ttv) world environment This is ouropportunity to initiate a second decade of cooperative scientific.researhand invesagation in this important area:: .-

.. .Thomas P. O'NeHl, Jr.Speaker of the House of Representatives

nt times man's relationship with the Sea has been aigrificant

. TheVioric of Sea-GrantThere are no hard and fast delimitations to the world of Sea Grant. Ingeneral, it includes coastal lands to some moderate distance inland----say,50 milest--tpeir abutking bays, etuaries and tidal riverS and the offshorewaters, seafloor, and subsoil of three great oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, andthe Great Lakes. This means the coastal zCmes and offshore waters of 30of the 50 States, the United States dependent territories and islands, andthe Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. .

.

The World of Sea Grant has 20,000 miles of general coastline, 93,311miles of detailed tidal shoreline, 600,000 squere miles of land and inlandwaters, more than 60,000 square miles of territor al sea, and some 830,000

ituare miles of water, continental shelf, and su merged lands. The 200-milenomic zone raises that last to more than three million sguare,miles

land includes the resources of the supefjacent waters as well as-of theseafloor and subsoil. In contrast, the land arlea of the 50 U.S. States is3.6 million square miles.

The national continen.tal margin contains the United States' largestuntapped reserves of oil and gas. S.rice 1946, more than 17,000 wells havebeen drilled in the offshore water's of Louisiana, Texas, California, andAlaska. Many more States are being added to the list, and the pace ofexploration is accelerating. Hand-in-hand is the need for expanded refinerycapacity. .

.

There is a similar demand for more electricity generating plants. The,majority of those planned and being built IS in the coastal zone; as the .

number of acceptable sites dwindles, therehis pressure to locate themoffshore. .

Theseme waters contain the world:s richest fisheries. In excess of12 billion,pounds of fish are taken 'from American offshore waters annuallyup from 4,4 billion pounds in 1948. Virtually all of that exPaesion comesfrom increased forgign fishing efforts. le 1973, more than 150,000 full-and part-tima U.S. commercial fishermen operating about 87,000 small andlarge fishing vessels caught 4.7 billion pounds of fin and shellfish with alanded value of $907.4 million. Foreign fleets Just-beyond the 12-mile limit

, caught 7 billion pounds. The World of Sea Grant also contains an estimated3,000 fish-procesSing houses and wholesaling establishments'employing -

some 90,000 people,.

. ..

Some 624 counties and independent citiesa third bf the U.S. total.. .

are entirel4 lar substantially within 50 miled of the shoreline. They containmore than 110 million people, 54 percent of the national totalcbmparedto 46 pel-cent in 1940 and 25 percent in 1850. Of 33 Standard MetropolitanStatistical Areas (a Census Bureau definition) with a population of a millionor more, 23, with more than 63 million people, are in the World of SeaGrant. Twehty-five coastal counties alone accounted for 75 percent qf the

.:

national population growth during the 1960-70 decade. Of some 274- cOunties actually on the ocean, Gulf of Mexico, or Great Lakes coasts, all

but 55 showed-population increases during this perioct..Coastal zone populations earn an average of $500 more a year than

those living inland:Of 15 States with a median family income of $10,000or More, 14 are in the World of Sea Grant. Conversely, of 13 States withjamedian family income of less than $8,000 a Year, only five are there.

vi

ft

'44,

43'1

With fess than 17 percent of the.national land area, the World of SeaGrant contains mare than 40 percent of all manufacturing plants with 20 ormore employees. Some 60 percent of all U.S. refinery capacity is found injust four coaStal-StatesTexas, Louisiana, California, and New Jersey.All of the Nation's 630 million tons (1972) of waterborne foreigh trade passthrough the World of Sea Grant, as do some 243 million tons of domesticcoastwise waterborne trade. Serving this trade are more than 1,600 marine

gterminal facilities in 132 porfs with controlling channel depths of 35 or morefeet. All but two of America's 10 busiest airports arfE in the coastal area... Meanwhile, the United States remainS absolutely dependent on irriportsfor Its energy requirementssome 40 percent of its need in 1975-76. The: . -. tmost efficient way to move this oil over water is inVICCs (Very LargeCrude Carriers). There are more than 590 of theSe giant ships transportingoil from the Middle East and elsewhere, but there is not one American portvihich can accommodate them_ Ports undoubtedly will be built, and theyunquestionably will be built In the World of Sea Grant, as wili the specialfacilities required for offlQading LNG (Liquefied Natbral Gas?.

:: Not counting houses, factOries, docking facilities, offshore oil plat-forms, and the. like, there are moafthan 3,000 major modifying structuresin the World of Sea Grent, including 725 jetties, dikes, and breakwaterswith an avrage length of 930 feet; 464 causeways; 525 pier bridges; and1,165 dred4ft channels of at least 35 feet. It contains more.than 3,500miles of intracoastal waterways. Each year, some 140 million cubic yardsof dredge spoil are dispoded of in the region's-open waters, and another ,C6I million cubic yarddare dumped into speclal containment areas. Eight

billion gallons of municipal wastes are discharged daily into coastal waters,while ocean dumping-of other wastes is officially tallied at 12 million tons ayearmostly along the Atlantic coast, mainly Industrial wastes,and sludgefrom sewage treatment plants. In additiOn, there are icsme 10,000 polluiingspills a year, mostly petroleum products and mostly in the World of 'sea

Grant.if this World of Sea Grant Is where people like to.live and workand

obviously. it isit is also whore many morelike to play. Of 21,724 miles ofU.S. tidal shoreline with a "recreation potential," 19,934 are privatelyowned. Of the publically owned 1,790 miles, access to 581 is restrictedbecause they have been taken over by military baeeS, space stations, andother Federal installations. This leaves only 1,200 miles (less than 6

,percent) for public recreation. ,

About 120 million people spend $15 billion a year on beach and otherwater-related recreation, and both figures are rising rapidly. Siiiimming, .,

sunning, and other beach activities are the most popular coastatrecreatiory!--During Ihe past 20'years,,the number of marine sport fishermen hasincreased at a rate of 10 percent a year, while their expenditures have.

'gone up at a rate of almost 11 perbent, Some 16 million now spend morethan $2 billion a year on this spirt alone. Recreational boaters in theWorld of Sea Grant number over 20 millionof wtiich 40 percent prefersailand their number is rising by at least 200,000 a year.

The World of Sea Grant contains some of the Nation's most importantflywaysand wintering areas for migratory waterfowl. These flyways are

. A -

1

' ,,c.: otl,

, s!4:1*.

s,t1":*1.4'4.1, . tx.Vi

.

. ,.,..

,

gi

essential to survival of the species that use them. yet-become unusable ifoécupied or rnolified by man: 1 hese waterfowl provide recreation for abouttwo million hunters who spend a quarter of a billion dollars a year 05n thisactivity.

Estirvfates vary, but at least two-thirds of the'marine fish caught bysport and commercial fishermen depend absolutely on coastal marshlandsand estuaries for all or critical parts of their lives. Of the original 127 millionacres of wetlands in the United States, only 75 million remaina decline of40 percent. The survival of this rpsowe and of the land and sea animalsthat depend on it requires that lt be !at largely unmodified by human-intervention.

Also in the World of Sea Grant, the National Park Service operates22 major recreational areas-- including 13 national parks and monuments,9 national seashores and lakeshoresand 28 historic. sites. The NationalWildlife Refuge System includes 91 coa4tal refuges totalling some 20Amillion awes. The.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers itself operates numerousrecreational areas as adjuncts-to its flood control and waterways activities.Additionally, there are many State-owned and operated coastal recreationalfacilities.

There emerges in this high-demand market still another compellinguse of coastal and marine resourcesone of potentially great nationalbenefit. That is'aqUaculture, the husbanding of marine and freshwaterplants and,anirnals for the food industry. Where such farms are located,they cannot but restrict the extent to which such areas can be used for otherpurposes.

In addition to oil, gas, fisk and electric power, in addition to marinetrade and recreation, in addition to new housingand industry, in additionto aquatulture and the wetlands conservation impdrative, in addition tothese and other pressures, the offshore and coastal World of $ea Grantalso produces some 18 million tons a year of seashells (for cement andconstruction aggregate) worth more than $50 million and 100 million tonsof sand and gravel (other than that needed for beach replenishment) withan onsite value of.$250 million. Estimated reserves of these resources runto billions of twos:

From Seawater itself we take $180 million a year of magnesium metaland compounds, bromine, salt, and freshwater. A variety of other metalsalid mineralsgold, platinum, titanium, copper, iron, zinc, manganese,glauconite, barite, phosphoriteare either being mined in small quantitiesfrom beaches and submerged coastal lands or have a near-term potential.Some of the Nation's most important phosphate deposits are found beneathcoastal marshlands.

,

This thumbnail sketch does not cover all of the resources and activitiesin the World of Sea Grant. It is not intended to; that would take a book.'Rather, it is designed,to Ohow the diversity and intensityof rising pressureson Our coastal and marine resources, and their importance to the nationalwell-being:Both the World of Sea Grant and its resources are finite.

There is no type of human activity that oCcurs inland that does not also"otcur in the World of Sea Grant. But a number of ocean- and estuarine-related activities occur only there. Add to this the greater complexity of

viii

Tot

1r

t-

SI

_both the human and natural environments, and the crescendO of growth thatcharacterizes the area, and one is faced with a management problem that tsimmense, intricate, and sensitiveand in the resolution of which the stakesare many andtigh. Indeed, it is a public management challenge withoutprecedent both in scope and urgency. It is for the purpose of helping todevelop the knowledge, tools, and skills necessary to this task that SeaGrant exists.

". . the purpose of the National Sea Grant Program is to acceleratenational development of marine resources, including'their conservation,proper management, and economic utilization. This is to beaccomplishedthrough the sponsorship of programs which encompass (1) researchapplied to real and current problems, (2) adequate training and educationof manpower, and (3) transfer of technology and knowledge to thepeople who need it in a form they can use."

Dr. RObert M. WhiteFormer AdministratorNational Oceanic & Atmospheric AdministrationOS. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

..";"

44.74417--

:

"so: -3.4-; ;7a :,"..

k'..'55 .:.: , f.1,

....... .-- -1S-L'; &Ir-i-4-e-4:Si-''' e' - A -1%.-,f,i -'N''''.;', ',-.1411 -.1,4,:i ...' '

`3, li' -.46,44.7: ..t.,..

),". , ',..,-;

'" ''-:ti.):::.:4.04.44: P .-',t,'

' .,'..ilt.1773A511i,' 4-

,?- '1'

:

-44...

* '..:-..--.,. ..!., "... ..... 4..55!.. ,'5.55 '

'./ A. .-'4, , .' :-., 5.1,

....., -,77-..-- _,-.: .., -;-.....',..."-"., ...,.=-1-._.:-4---'i'--,/:::` '5;1.: . ..-'14,'

,-,g: lir-14.- :,.:.7.-14.-4.',7-2,4.:: ..1...,;;--m4 .7.4-----..-E47:-...-,--,.,:.--.,---,....,:is...a...,......

fatzt:::.titt?,.P-',:ir.:::.",';.,: T.'r ',,, '''. S'',4e."1::4-"iiP;-iP7-4-.':--`-'-','-i. ,

.e.

Su-

!-5N

51"V-.11 4 55""5"5:Y5

j '5 -2;t4.4.1ie: t,,

4/opk, - o -5 15 5' _21,

4,45.

. & 5to i, 1 , , s, .s i

4 ' I 5,," .7

,

. ' 1 ' ' 'at a. ; . 1 1 .

11

11,

.1

5,3.15

\ i;.:.--;_211;6'21.

`11

'',1

0?.

Sea Grant, Onginand ProcessIntroduchOn-

jc

The World of Sea Grantthe somewhat statisticalessay.is more than a mere tally of wpm-latiVeS.-li is the diagnosis of a problem-and thosettingdor a challtmge. It describes in geographic,'economic, demographic. and societal terms thetremendous variety and rising intensifies ofpressures of use and nonuse being imposed onthe complex. diverse, delicate, and finite environ-ment where marl, land, and sea meet. America'scoastal seas and bounded land are the locus ofspecial resources of great variety on wfirch theNation increasingly depends fb.:t ftture groWthand well-being. -For many reasons, it iS where

4 More and more people and industries want tosettle% work, live, and play_ It is also, therefore.where th6 greatest protection is quired of thenatural environment if its resources, both livingand nonliving, both economic and abstract, are tobe preserved for the use of thTs and futuregenerations. 4,

The pteblern is to understand the interrelation-ships of 311 these different kinds bf human activ-ities with each other and with the natural milieuon which they are imposed. The challenge is totransfer that understansting to the Nation as awhole and to devise and execute planning and-management Schemes to provide the greatestbenefit to the greatest numbei of people in both.the present and the future. This requires a finebalance beween exploitation and t,toe, on the onehand, and conservation and preservation, on theother hand. This requires management'andregulatory Strategies and institutions which fec-ognize the.needs, expectations, and equities ofthe present without,abrogating responsibilities tothe future. It requires continuous and intimatetwo-wa,), interaction with people and economicentities in ways that ere responsive to needs, yetare neither abrasive nor divisive. It requires leyelsof knowledge and awareness among both man-agers and the general public-that are withoutprecedent. To accomplish these things in the, leastcostly1 Most effective manner, ta-balance the do'swith the ddrv't's,.and to resolve coriflicts without

Point Judith, Rhode Island,

a

1

."

"Just as the scholars in the Land Grant Colleges de-veloped a passion fOr,the land and led not only in waysto benefit by it. but also in the .tiv,ays to preserve itlbemust seek through a welding together of science, art,literature, engineering. Mtklicine, law, piiblic Bdminis-tration. and politics to develop a public which will notonly homestead our new spaces In the sea, but colo-nize and civilize them through an integrated inter-disciplinary education in the Sea Orant Colleges."

Dr. Atholstan Spilhaus416

creating new ones demands a very specialapproach in areas of great ecologic, economic,cultural, and political sensitivityThe first task hasbeen to pl'oduce the processes by which suchgoals 6ould be achieved most logically and mosteconomically. One such process is the NationalSea Grant erdgram of the INapartment of Com-mere's National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA).

In the early 1940's, Dana E. Wallace---as Chair-man of a committee of the Atlantic States 'MarineFisheris4Commission---outlJned the parallel

1 4,

9

etween Arneritsen agriculture- under Land Grant 1inçoln. Twenty-Severvears later, the Hatch Act,find aye negdslot the U.S. national seas., authorized establishmelit of a system of agricul-) In 1963, Dr. Athelstan Spitaus proposed a vys- tural experinient stations, and in 1914--52 yearstern of Sea Grant Colleges to do tor fisheries and

, other marine resources what Land Grant had donefor agriculture and the "mechanic arts- a centuryearlier.

The Sea 'Grant Colleges and Program Act wassigned into law in_12_66, and earlY in calenda'r year

..11967 the Office of Sea Grant'came into being.Today (1977), the National Sea Grant Programtetal5 some $41:3 million a y.tiar, twN-thirds of whichis Federally funded and one-third of whjCh isprovidedlocally by the affected States andcommunities.-As of June 30, 1976, this money

- underwrote 57 grants which, in turn, supported. 692 separate projects. Working on thes% were.3.637 people, including 1,685 faculty and otherprofessionals, .747 graduate students. 395 under-,graduate students, 279 technicians:358 clerical' Why, to promote the relationship between

idernic, State, rederal and industrial institu-workers, and 173 others. Not ail of these peopleti_o s in fisheries, clO we.not do what wise menyvork full-time on SeaGrant projects, hbwever,ha done _for the better cultivation of the land aand The full-time equivalent total was 1,910. These

tury ago? Why not have'Sea Grantf)eople and projects were distributed among moreColleges?, than 200 universities, colleg.'es, junior colleges,

technfcal schools, State agencies, and other The seed thus planted germinated, took rootorganizations in 29 States, the District of and grew into the National Sea Grant Program.

. Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, and the- Even as Land Grant. was respensive to thePacific Trust Territories, great inland trek of America's burgeoning millions,

BUt Sea Grantls neither discerned nor under- so is Sea Grant responsive to the couptermigr;ationstood by statistics alone. The statistics. merely 10 the coastal area and the accelerating extensionindicate Sea Grant's fiscal dimensions. This is the of human activities seaward.StOry behind those figures. There are similarities and there are differences

between Land Grant and Sea Grant..A brief corn-

. after the original Land Giant College Act-=-theSmith-Lever-Act f&malized the AgriculturalCooperative Extension Service:Given thiscountry's then-abundant natural resources andthe.dynarnic ener,DY of its people, the system ofLand.,carif Colleg4s-,:probably morethan anyotttè r. single development.--was responsibJe forthe tremendous growth and excellence of thisNation's,agiculture and industry, a'record yet tobe malched by ariy other nation.

JUst 113 years'aftef Turner's historic proposal;*oceanographer, inventor, and writer Dr. AthelstanSpilhaus on September.12, 1963, asked a meetingof the Arner,ican Fisheries Society in Minneapolis,Minn.:

.,-1

parison Of the two programs serves as a.goodP1) I 1 ()...i.) p 1 y :mid 1--4 recedenf introduction to the rationales and Methods of SeaThough Sea Grant is newthe basic idea comes Grant. The three key words are education.,from an earlier Century. Jonathan B.I'urner in experiment, and extension.185(1 first .pLoposed--!-A.0-lan for-a-State Untiversity--7for the Industrial Classes." It was academie, even Education

,social, heresy. At that time, universities were elitist ,Land Grant extended higher education to theinstitutions turning out a-favored few lawyers, needs and aspiratjons of a whole and uncom-

'doctors of medicine, educators, and members of Monly energetic Nation.'Recognizing education's..the clergy. They were dedicated more to the Apotential role in realizing economic, social, andtransfer of existing knowledge than to the devel- political growth, it introduced great diversificationOpment of new knowledge. Turner proposed new of study disciPlines and degree programs. That itsinstitutions which would be open to all, at which , initial emphasis was on the "agriculture and the.

. agricultural and technologic subjects would be mechanid arts" was a function simPly of $10e,-taught and Where research 'and experimeritation-.-- needs'a'nd opportUnities of the time. lts basic '

. the purytit of nevt; knowledgewould pi) under- principleA apply equally td'the needs ahd oppor-taken.: :. .

:. tunities. of coastal and marine resoufses, whichit was ek 12-year truggle over much. opposition," -is the'firSt rationale of Sea Ekrant. .: ....

but ini1862, Senator Justin S. Morrill's Land:Grant ' -. As dtd Land Grant, See Grant fosters diversifi-Act was Signed into law .py President Abraham

.. cation of study disciplines and degree progiams.!.. .

a

if

2 4..

0,13

, 4

, ,

enmentation at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, LaJolla, California

and basic changes in the ways institutions ofhigher learning think and function. New to thescene., for example, and.of growing value to con7

-.temporary society are interdisciplinary educe-tional programs, interdisciplinary team approachesto problem definition and solution, and the,evolution of Sea Granruniversities as centers ofknowledge responsive to local, State, and regionalneeds. Because of Sea Grant, too, different de-partments within universities now work together inways, and with results, that a few years ago wouldhave been unthinkable. Institutions which oncewere biltterly competitive now work cooperatively.The late Dr. Milner B. Schaefer-put it thus:

Fulfillment of oa destiny in the oceanrequiresa great deal more than the application of scl-

. ence and technology. This strange milieu, thesea, presents problems of economics, sociology,.law, and philosophy to which old solutions andold traditions imperfectly apply. New institutionsand neW ways oflhought require development.Our entry into this new realm requires theintegration of many disciplines in both thesciences.and humanities. We need to havescholars working closely together in the hardsciences such as physics, chemistry, biology,and mathematics; the Soft sciences, Such associology and econoMics; engineering; inlaw; and others. There is an' obvious.need for

:'- ,

the college of the sea to bring together men ofall these disciplines to carry out their scholarlypursuits, research, and education in relation to

......the

The qet eyet of this has been to Increasegreatly the sensitivity ot the participating uni-versities to their public service roles and re-sponsibilities. With this awareness has come awillingness to abandon traditional approaches infavor of Moab which encourage'greater respon-siveness to community needs and opportunities:This, in turn, enhances ,the institution's image inits community. In a very elementary sense, SeaGrant is reSponsible for bringing aboutamott-vation among its participating institutions that isboth exciting and rewarding:

ExperimentIn 1850, Jimathan Turner urged that:

To facilitate the increase and practical appli-cation and diffusion of knowledge, the profes,sors should conduct, each in-his own depart-ment,,a continued serif% of annual experiments.

This philosophy was integral to the Land Grantconcept from the.very beginning: later, Congres-.sional action only formalized what already was inbeing. Similarly, applied_research and develop-mimt is an essential ingredient of Sea Grant. As

1 4

\

wOh the early Land Grant Act, the Sea Grant Actmakes no provision for ocezm or coastal experi-ment stations and, indeed, specifically prohibitsthe use of Sea Grant funds to buy land and

White some Sob Grant institutions have ocean-ographic laboratories, these seldom serve SeaGrant in-the same way that experiment stationsserve Land Grant. Thereis a difference between,experiment,(applied research) and basic tosearch.Oceanographic laboratories are mostly orientedtoward basic research which usually meanshigh-seas research, with no goal other than thequestfor knowledge. Sea.Grant is orientedtoward applied research, specific probleM solving,and it is concerned almost eXclusively with thecoastal zone and contiguous offshore area. Fund-ing for oceanographic research comes fromsources other than NOAA Sea Grantnamely, theNational Science Foundation and the Offiee olNaval R.esearchwhose projects tend to utilizefully the capabilities and resources of laboratoriesfunded and developed for that purpose. Similarly,the majority of the oceanographic research ves-sets was built for high 'seaS work, and Sea Grantprojects suffer under a low priority in the assign-ment Qf ship time.

ExtensionIn 1931, W. J. Kerr, then President of Oregon StateAgricultural College (now Oregoh State Univer-sity), stated that:

The first great task of the Land Grant Collegeswas the development of science and its appli-cation in agriculture and industry. : Except forthe resident instruction and extensibn divisions,the benefit of the discovery might never havebeen put to general use.

fn 1966,-Wilfarn Wick, 1-16Ai Dliectoi ofOregoR State Univerity's*Sea Grant College pro-gram, stated that:,

utting America's oceans to work requires amajor national commitment. The universitiescan play a significant role. Training students,hbwever, is not enough. Applied research on .ocean peoblems is not enough. But insuring thepublic use of knowledge through an organizedadvisory programcombined with training andrbserarchis a first team effart.

The Cooperative Extension Service remains keyto the success of Land Grant. Similarly, MarineAdvisbry Services (MAS), including the MarineExtension'Service (MES), is a core element of

4

ks;

t0.4;444I

s

Marine Advisory Service Agent demonstrates weathergauge to volunteer in Virginia

Sea Grant success. Both assure timely and effec-tive transfor of knowledge to those who need it.They also provide a real-time feedback mech-anism for alerting managers and researchers ofcurrent and upcoming problems and opportunities.The Agricultural Extension Service concentrateson farmers and rural communities. Sea Grant hasa much broader missionproviding research,education, analysis, advice, and-counsel to local, .

State, and Federal agencies and to industry onthe problems, constraints, and opportunitiesinheont in the use and management of theNation's coastal and marine resources. LandGrant brought the widely diversified tmiversity intobeing. Sea Grant enables it to realize its full--5-ervice potential.

At many. institutions, Coolierative Extension,Agents and Sea Grant Marine Advisory Agentswork in close cooperaionmeldinOhe longexperience of the former in extension with theknowledge of the latter in the coastal zone, the

'sea, and the people and machines that make theirway thereby. They make a potent team.

Financial SupportThe way financial sOpport is provided marks adifference between-early Land Grant and earlySea Grant. The Morrill Act gavetand GrantColleges an initial endowment of 30,000 acres ofFederal lands for each 8enator and Member of theHouse of Representatives to which the State was

5

- r

entitled. Subsequently, the- Federal Governmentdenated 11,30.000 acres wader this provision.

hi his early Sea Grant proposals, Dr. Spilhausurged that:

Sea Grant CollegeSshould be given giants ofseashore and lakeshore, seawater and bottomwithin the territorial limits as their experimentalprots_to stiMulate acjuaceiture in the waters andthe prospecting and ways of exploiting thenatural resources of the pea bed. These waterygrants would serve the additional purpose ofpreserving.tracts at seashore and open watersfrom the fiercely competitive pressures due toincrease in population and industrialization-7preserving them not only as natural habitath forecological studies but as important nurseryareas for high seas fish and residences for in-shore food fish and shellfish.

The original Sea Grant Bill proposed that 10percent of "all bonuses, rentals, royalties, andother sums" realized from exploitation of themineral resources of the outer continental shelf

tive way to anticipate4and treat local ..needs.andopportupities. This approach provides local, lcentral, and accessible sources of knowledge,'research, testing. and analysis.. It cpmbines aknowledge/ of Wel conditions, needs, and expec-tations wifh a continuing awaren(ft of develop-mentsltand practices throughout Ihe united Statesand abroad. It can relate distant technologies,equipment, and experience to localrequirementsand, where existing technology or science.is in-adequate, co duct original research.

The local r ponsd capability with basic policy _ .

guidance from, and two-way dialogUe with, Wash-ington assures that Sezi Grant, like Land Grant,also is responsive to national needs_ Active irt-volvement at the local level by scholar-6 andextension agents alike serves as an early Warningsystem ofPincipient nation-al problems, because

*

symptoms frequently are more evident in the fieldthan they are from the remote perspective of theNation's capital. : . .

Mobilizing Existing Resourcpsebe assign'ed to support the Sea Grant program. The wdy Sea Grant functions, if does not soNeither proposal became law, so Sea Granrfund- much create new institutions and capabilities asing is subject to the vagaries of the annual it mobilips those that already exist tetackIe newFederal budgeting process, though with one im- and exating challenges. These are the talenth andportant exception. facilitieS already in being in the Nation's 'colleges

The law sayspat for every two dollars the .and univerSities. Sea Grant serves as the catalystFederal Government puts up at least one dollar and, through.NOAA funding roviag-the incen-must be provided lobally. Contrary te some earlier tive for,bringirig these intell ctual.and phoical

.fears, this matching fund requirement has proved resources to bear on the nee s and opportunitieto be a.blessing. Because the States must put fp of the'comMunities thoseinstitutions serve.their money, Sea Grant enjoys a degree of local BecaUseihey do utilize.largely existing peopleuse and involyement that rnany purely Federal' and facilities, an asset of considerable pragmaticpgograms do not. Because it is their money, the vdluels created ata comparatively !Ow coat to the.8.tates make sure they gekt a fair return on their ',..taxpayer.

A.

investmeht Conversely, because the institutions Direct. Involvement..d6pend on State and other local support--nomatching funds, no Federal funds-4they have a Continuous direct InVolvement is whet makdb both

Land Grant and Sea Grant work. Local educators,special incentive to be responsive to local needs., n'Not only is it an incentive that works well, but the scientists, lawyers, engineers, extensio agentsi.

,and others deal directly with the affected people.results are so good that almoSt from the begin-ning, matching funds have exceeded the statutory .They pose andlry solutions to prgblems. They an

l;

see the results immediately and in reel,' not b3a3 percent and, indeed, averaged out officialnestract, terms. And so can those thdy serve. Theto something above 40 percent and Unofficiall y

(including support provided for.Sea Grantproiects bUt.not tallied.in official totals) 50Vercent,

Local Remionto to Local Needs

situation permits and encourages success. It isnot only.a matter Of peer k,!pproval.; there is adirect.feedback loop which.enables:rnistakes, aslearning experienceS, tà contributeas much tooverall progressAs success. Indeed, continuousonsite participation reduces the possibility of,

An important characteristic in common is that both serious error by encouraging.earlyldentificationLand Grant and Sea,Grant are locally planned, of faults andpermitting theAposition of remediesstaffed, and managed. Land Grant haa proved and. befpre seriousxlamage-is%ne.to eitt)er budgetSea Grant is proving this to be a singularly effec- or reputation. .

:.

f.

4ff

Fronvo Proven BowThroughout, the Land Grant-Sea Grant analogyholds true. The play is the same; only the sceneryarid dimensions are different. In some ways, Sea

.

Grant la played on a somewhat bigger stage, forit addresses Itself to a much broader spectrum oftroblem areas and to a rather more diversifiednstituency..t3ut the principle of local responselocal needs. the-ability to se.e what's needed*,

what workg, and what does not, and the tridentthrust of education, exhipriment, and extension arethe same.

Land Grant Is old, established, and proven. Sea.Grant is Young, still evolving. It is not retracingLand Grant's long trek up the learning curve,however; rather, It starts from that proven, well-founded base---,-adopting, adapting, and innovat-ing to best suit its special purposes. The crisisconditions that already prevail in the coastal zone,We rapidly rising importance of marinb resouzcesto the nationalluture and, simply, the contem-;porarY pace of events in-the latter half of,the20th Century already demand far more of Sea-,Gbrant than was either required or.expeoted of ,Land Grant in the micrdle of the 19th Century.

The record of perfbrmance Sea Grant has been,able to establish in its first decade providesevidence that-its contribution to America's futuremight be every bit as great -as Land Grant's con-tribution to America's present.

Sea-Grant: Process, Me:chanicsand -ControlDr. Spilhaus' propose6i drew an immediateenthusiasIiciesponse. In August 1965, Rhode

, Island Senator Claiborne Pell introduced S, 2439to provide for "the establishment and operation ofSea Grant colleges and programs ot education,training, and research in the marine sciences and

, a program of advisory services relating to activi-ties in the marine Sciences . .." In October of thatyear, under the strong leaderShip of the UnNersity.of Rhode Island's (URI) Dean of Oceanography,Dr. john'A. Knauss, a national conference on"The Concept of a Sea Grant University" Wasconvened at NeWport, R.I.; and gave strUcture andsubstance to Dr. Spilhaus' proposal. The proceed-ingq of that. conference produced the following: ;

A Sea Grant College ryould be an lnstifution orhigher education devoted to increasing our ,

Nation's development of the world's maring re- ".

N.,

11

"A Sea Grant University . . It Is one of the most stimu-lating educational concepts in many yearet .

Senator dlaiborne Pell

sources through activities in areas of education,research, and public service. A Sea Grant College-would specialize in the application of science andtechnology to the sea,. as in underwater prospect-ing, mining, food resources development, marinepharmacology and h7edicine, pollution control,shipping and navigatidn, forecasting weather andclimate, and recreational uses. It would relatesuch applicatlob to the underlying natural sci-\ences: which underly social sciences, as they areaaffected by, and in turn affect, the occupation andexploitation of the sea. Thus, a Sea Grant Collegewould bring to bear the wide variety of intellectualresources usually associated with a university onthe development of marine resources. We are not.suggesting the establishment of new schools,

T;colleges, oruniversities, but rather the develop-:v,ment of this capability in State and private insti-,'; utiong already deeply Involved in the study of

marine scieptes. - 't

Florida's Representative Paul Rogers got theSea Grant ball rolling in the House of Represen-4atbies"with the introduction of H.R. 18659., Support

,

4

11 ,;'

0

":. I urged the Congress to approve this program toexpand the ranks of eur martne brainpower In order todevelop the skills and technology necessary for marineexploration. 0(g.returns will not only be financial, butthis Nation will prosper with the development of theseas ig this century under the SO8 Grant.College Pro-grams, just as AmeriCa has prospered as a result of the'Land grant Collegasystem established in the 19thCentury." .

CongresSman Paul G. Flogers

grew in both Flouses,of Congress, A bill was \passed, and on October 15, 1966, President

-,-Lyndon B. Johnson-signed the-Peth-flogers SeaGrant College and Program Act into Public Law .

0.2-688. Sea Grant started life in the NationalScience Foundation in Februry 1967; and in thefollowing February, the first Sea Grant awards .Were made to Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology, Catifornia Inatifute of Technology, andLouisiana's Nicholls State College.

Since that modest beginning through June 30,1976, 473 gralits including more than 4,000 prat..octs have been awarded witha Federal and localmatching funds total of $217 million. In-October1970,.under Reorganliation Plan IV/1970, the

-,!Office of Sea.Graq (OSG) was.transferred fromthe National Sc4e4e Foundation to the newlycreatöd National Oceanic and Atmospheric

1

Administration (NOAA) of thepepariment ofCommerce, where it has remained.

_ Sea Grant's mission was and is fo aidin the*establishment of Sea GrantColloges-s-a desig-nation which must bo oarnod Lly,eifstiAg institu-tions. A pierequisite is demonstrated servicethrough multidisciplinary approaches to Solvingprobloms.and realizing oppor,tunities in coastaland marine affairs. In 1.971 the University ofRhodelsland, Texas A&M Univprsity, OregonState University, and the University of Washington

The Unive fbecame fiy

of University Wisconsin,rst Sea Grant CollegerSince then,

University of California, State University of NewYork/Cornell University, State University Systemof Florida, University of Delaware, UniverOy ofNorth Carolina, Massachusetts Institute 9fTechnology and Louisiana State University have.-been added to bring the total in 1978 to 13.

The Sea Grant CharterThe Pell-Rogers Act was a pioneering documeIt recognized the functional interrelationshipscomplexities of the human-land-sea system. Iprovided not only for research and developthe natural, engineering, legal, social, and'economic sciences, buj also for them to be con-sidered in interdisciplinary concert as a to I

dynamic, interactive whole. The Act, ther y,anticipated some of the most crucial imp rativesof coastal zone Management.

rytin

The Act provides for "Federal support towardthe establishment, development and op ration ofprograms by Sea Grant Colleges and FOcIlaralsupport for other Sea Grant programs depignedto achieve gainful use of our marine rq-sources ..." Marine resources includO "animaland vegetable life and mineral wealth." The Actemphasizes aquaculture which "can substantiallybenefit the United States, and ultimately thepeople of the world, by providing greater eco-nomic opportunities, including expanded einploy-ment and commerce; the enjoyment and use ofour marine resources; new sources of(food; and,new means.for the development of marine re-sources."

The Act defines "support" of marine develop-ment as:

scientific endetivors, relating to the marine en-vironment, including, but not limited to, the fields -oriented toward development, conservation, oreconomic.utilization of the physical, chemical,geological and biological resourcei of the marine

71 4.

Tochnioal training at the Universityof Rhode Island.

.

a

lit:`",, At tl

>,

,

11,1

"kw

rk;

t, EL:LOH t

,

''1(4C1k1-',4441 17 4. ya-,4-4.4.-.4,--4, 4.44.4J4-4.

" I

i rI

' 1 ,5.,`, `Z

"` ,5 . ,,e'

PSb,s7, I" S \

1

T.1414.4.114"

Researeft at titp University of California Sea Grant College Program.

environment; the fieldS of marine commercó andmarine engineering; the fields related to explora-tion or research in.the recovery of natural re-sources from, and the transmission of energy.in,the Ifirine environmenit; the fields of oceanog-rapMV and oceanology; and the fields-wp resdeectto the study of the economic, legal, medical, or 4sociological problems arising out of the manage-ment, use, developinent,,recovery, and control ofthe natural resources of the marine environment.

In addition to a broad and flexible mahdate, theAct.also decrees to Sea Grant a broad realm a8including:

the oceans; the Continental Shelf of the UnitedStates; the Great Lakes; the seabed and subsoilof the submarine areas adjacent to the UnitedStates to a depth of 200 meters or boyond thatlimit to where the depths of the superlacent watersadmit of the exploitation of the natural resourcesof the area; the seabed and subsoil and.similarsubmarine areas adjacent to the coasts of Islandswhich comprise United States territory; and thenatural resources thereof . . .

This does not mean that Sea Grant must go outand do all these things in all these areas. It is not

, amandate for excess. Rather, it is a rnandaM-for.. flexibility, for responsiveness to local needs and

opportunities of Whatever nature. The Sea GrantAct was not intended to, and did not until after 4

(1) Institutional grants which go to institutions of'higher learning, 'or combinations thereof, with anlegislative mandates for such efforts in 1976, .

produce a national program per se. Rather, the existing broad bas,of competence in:marineaffairs; and a positiVe, long-term commitment to1966 law authorized and encouraged the develop-.

ment of a process, a system of multidisciplinary Sea Grant objectives oas evidenced by commit-

centers of excellence capable of responding effec- ment of the institution's own resources in the'tively in,a great variety of ways according tO local form of matching funds:Creation of the organiza-

and regional demands andin a broad tion necessary for management of the Sea Grantand

10,1

'

111111194-t.,Als

444..-

`:e';AY

"

Ma(ine Advisory Service Agent with boatowner.

of commitment and capabilities in such cl way asto minimize the administrative.load on OSG whileassuring a maximum level of local control corn-mensurate with sound quality control and therealization of Sea Grant objectives. The threetypes of grants are:

interests.The Act also defines the three main elementsef

the Sea,Grant process as:

(1) Education and training in order taassure anadequate supply, of marine-wise, trained profes-.sionals,(2) Research in order to provide the necessaryknowledge arid technolOgy; and(3) Advisory services both to identify Reeds andopportunilies and to transfer knowledge tothose who would use it,

witlyInational Program, establishment of interdisciplinary re-search teams, and development of advisory serv-

Three Basic GrantsSea Grant awards three basic 'types of grants.They are designed to accommodate various levels

9

ice mechanisms for streng interaction with marinecommunities in its region." 8ea Grant Collegesare named from this group.(2) Coherent project grants which go to institu-tions which have some, but not comprehensive,competence inparine affairs. They enable suchinstitutions to apply their expertise teward Seadrant objectives and to develop the broader baseof competence necessary to qualify foi institu-tional support. Coherent Project support may alsobe used "to Oring into the Sea Grant Program, on

more or lOs continuing INEfis, qualified entitieswhich have rare or unique capability.in a special-ized field of marine affairs." Such entitles need not,be.institutions of higher education.

,go

(3) Project grants which go to individuals forcleaply defined activities with outstanding meritand centr Ibuteto fulfillment of Sea Grant otljec-tiveS. Project support is usually, thouglit notexclusively..for ono-year efforts.v

Both Instaiihonal Arid Coherent Project `support. presume*a continuing effort through the years by

the grantee institutions. In return for this commit-ment, an effortis made to assure.conti'nuity ofFedvi support. A college or university must havebeen inlrin institutional grant status for at leastthree years to qualify for consideration ag b SeaGrant College.

4

Program Quality and Fiscal ControlFlpw Sea Grant appears to function to the. casualobserver and how it actually functions are twoquite different things. Technically, Sea Grant pro-vides most support through institutional blockfunding. This implies lump sum payments toinstitutions with which they are free to do prettymuch as they please within often,quite broad

This is not the way Sea Grant works.While the majority of Sea Grant funds is ex-

pended as block 6rants to institutions, the grantsare made for specific programs which, in tugn,consist of numerous individual projects. Beforethey are approved for support, the programs andeach individual piojectundergo seve,ral layersand types of critical scrutiny. Once funded, theyare subject tocontinual review for performance.Typically, the prOcedure is_as follows:

Regular and frequent cOmmunication by staffmembers of the NOAA Office of Sea Grant withthe instit tional Sea Grant directors keeps thedire or current on Federal budget developrnentsand national interefets and constraints. 1;3y the timeproposal f) are-sebet-itted-rmest individ4 p-refects-already have been discussed with OSG'represen-tatives and likely levels of-support are Irtown. This,is the first level ofpontrol.

The local Sea Grant director does neot actunilitteratly or arbitrarily but has hiS oriher ownsystem of advice and review, suCh as: the MarineAdvisory Services, the principarinvestigators; aSea Grant executive committe6 drawn-from within-the institution, and a Sea Grant advisory councildrawn from the community served by the institu-tion and consisting, variously, of industry leaders,labor, civic groups, professional societied, State.agencies, and local governments. Thus,tkoth newand gontinuing projecta are 'subjected individually

to extensive internal and external review andcontrol. The sharp competition for limited fundsitself is a winnowlng,process. It is a tough busknesS. and, generally speaking, only productiveand responsive projects survive.

On the local level, then, the director is a grant-ing center. This gives him or her a higher degreeof control than if the position were merely auniversity.administrator or departmental chair-person trying to coordinate diSparate projectsfor which the principal investigators had gbtainedtheir support independently from.one or moredistant sources in Washington. Indeed, many upi-versity administrations welcome this aspect of SeaGrant as restoring centralized research authorityto the universities. Sea Grant's multiproject grantapproach assures primary review and control atthe local Jevel; it also assures administrativesimplicity for OSG which otherwise would have toadminister more than 10 times the eumberofgrants it does now.

Once the local Sea Grant director forwards hisor her proposal to Washington, a whole newreview process begins. New project proposals aresent by OSG for critical screening to outQicleexperts familiar with the proposed fields of investi-gation. This review frequently includes Federaland State agencies on which the work mightimpatt. Concerrently, OSG staff program monitorscarefully scrutinize the proposals, assUring thatcontinuing projects are Maintaining their focus,are making significant progress, are remainingrelevant, and that national as well as local inter-'ests are being served. The results of these reviewprocesses go back to thd local director;.and it hisor her proposed level of Federal support is.toohigh, 'suggestions pre made for outs.

11111.0.-

Llniveisity ot'Delaware investigator explains researdhproposal to Sea' Grant site visit team.

-

J. 10

Meanwhile, a 6- to 10-person.."site-visit- teamhas been named from the National Sea GrantReview Panel., the OSG staff, wlevant FederalandState agencies and Other Sel'qrant institutions ,including always akspecialtst in advisory sdrvices.Well in acillance of the team's visit to the SeaGrant institution, dopies of the proposal aro sentto team mentors and to various Federal agencies(always including the Natipnal Marine ris NiesService) which- may or may net choose to brepresented on the team.

The aCtual visit IS an intensive 2- to 3-day affair.The first day,.the institutiori staff presents itsprogram and is questioned by the team. Thatbvening the team meets in executive session toreview the program project by projett. The nextday, the team meets with local Sea Grant man-.agement in a candid give-and-take session inwhich team members make their views known andthe local Sea Grant personnel are given an oppor-tunity to respond. This is a critical time irktheproject approval process.

Back in Washington, the NOAA Sea Grantprogram monitor prepares a report on the visit,,obtains corrections and approval from teammembers, apd forwards the finished product toboth the local Sea Grant director and the fullmemberShip of the National-Sea Grant Review '

Panel, which is given an opportunity to_ coniment.This 15-person panel consists of university, gov-ernment, and industry personnel and represents abroad mik of disciplines, interests and geographicregions. It meets,formally,twice a year tO discuss,

f:\advise, endors 'Orid/or criticize both the overall0Sea Grant effort yid its constituent programs.This panel has guided national-Sea Grant man-agement since before the first institutional grantwas awarded in 1968. .

. ,

IONA !. I ; ;

Grant, does not relinquish control. Quite-the con-trary, it assures much closer control and guidanceof both money and projeät quality. At the sametime, however, it encourages great flexibility inlocal responsiveness ond in the development ofuseful knowledge and capabilities. At the institu-tional level; ihe director has both authority andresponsibiliy to manage and mold his or herprogram. As previously noted, the director had asystem of review processes and advice. Havinglocal kmding authority, he or she is able to assurecoherence and coordination emong the variouselements of the program, to attract tep talent, toinstill the Sea Grant essence of service and, whore

*4

,AK,eq`" A ' N', 4.5.4;i:j)

":, . ,,f,s,--cA,,t,

N

b ak,ME1

&

! "hin

.5Afj'AstNA

5

e

". Sea Grant.directors have been chiefly responsiblefor the smooth functioning of the extremely,compli-cated messianic activity necessary to induce vicepresidents, deans, depiiiiment heads, and professorsin myriad scientific and Wchnical fields to subordinatetheir individual aspirations to programs built aroundcommon themes and to pursue these programs in a 4.

totally coordinated manner."

Dr. Robert B. Abel,(Former Director,National Sea Grant Program

S. ,

>. ,.

a

ind4ted, to encourage interdisciplinary, inter-departmental. and interinstitutional team ap

s.« proaches. Add to Nisthe subsequent layers Of..Mview and control at the national level, and theSea °rant management method probablyachieves closer program control than can befound in almoSt any other Federal granting pro-gram. The signif icant point is that this NOAA pro-gram achieves fiscal and quality control without

s imposing Washington's whim and will on localprogram content or method.

Getting It Going

"... Sea Grant directors have been chieflyresponsible for the smooth functioning of theextremely cornpitcated messianicactivitynecessary to induce vice presidents, deans,department heads and professors in myriadscientific and technical fields to subordinatetheir individual aspirations to programs builtaround common themes and to pursue theseprograms in a totally coordinated manner."

Dr. Robert B. Abel. Former DirectorNational Sea Grant Program

At start-up, Sea Grant's first job was to getthe process gping--to explain and sell the con-cept and mechanics, ..

... of new levels of university responsivenessto community needs and opportunities;

... of adaptive education to meet the changingneeds cif contemporary society for new breads ofprofessionals and technicians; _

. . of the quest for solutions rather than merelythe quest for knowledge;

... of the interdisciplinary approach to problem,

... of interdepartmental cooperation Ei n dordination in both research and education;

and of interinstitutional cooperation, ratherthan costly and sometimes duplicative competi-

,..,tion.This process couktnot be done by edict or the

issuance of a handbdok. It required a fine mixof logic, diplomacy, blunt talk, cajolery, pressure.and, of course, the enticement of a new source of'funding. The only perSon.who could do this wagthe local Sea Grant director. Clearly, he or shehad to be a person of very specialtalents.

University administrators had to-be sold on theidea that successful S.O.Gr.Int participationwould strengthen the institution's community sup-

Rort, bdng it money and prettige. strengthen theappeal andcontribution of its educational-pro-.grams, and, in general, add a new and vitaldimension to the university's-role in contemporarysociety. Though Sea Grant would requirechanges, these would irrno way derogate theinstitution's traditional standards and respons(-4bilities.

aFaculty members had to be convinced that they

could do useful, exciting, and rewarding work aspart of a coordinated interdisciplinary team. Thiswas riot an easy task and, at some institutions, it isnot done yet.lindividual faculty members hadgrown increapngly independent, both of oneanother arid of their administrations. Professionalrewards.and recognition were attuned to indi-vidual research and publication in highly special-ized professional journals. In contrast, SeaGrant's goal was contemporary problem solving,with results inunediately useful to society to begiven prompt and wide disseminationnot onlyamong planners, managers, legislators, and' busi-ness executives, but also among the generalpublic.

Measures of SuccessHow well thsucceededseen, in par

ational Sea Grant Program hasrealizing these objectives can be

at least, in the figuresthe shiftthrough the years from project award§,toinstitir,tional awards arid the indreaSe in Sea Grant COI7leges. Institutional awards_presume that the

...recipient university system has interdisciplinaryteam approaches and adaptive educational pro-grams, is responsive.to community needS, iscoordinating all applicable university resourceswithin the State; has effective communicationswith its coastal and marine constituency, is co

Iribuling to itS-SIETte's etfolfto rnanage its co.ata-T---and marine resources, is attracting industryinterest and participation, and ts working produc-tively with lboal, State andTederal agencies.Winning the coveted 'Sea Grant College designa-tion says that the institution Is not only doing,'these things, but also is doing thcitm well.

Sea Grant's'record shows that:

In Fiscal Year 1968, a $7.9-million (Federal 11--matching fundS) effort included six institutional,two coherent project, and 21 project grants in18 states and the District of Columbia, with afundieldistribution of 55 percent, 5 percent,,and 40 percent.i-espectively. At that time, therewere no Sea,Grant C011eges. In Fiscal'Year

. ,

2 23

AK,

Axit

-AA',

At . x h _- 1r-.' '''''." x """ ... -7 . ,,,,,,,,,..*,-

:ii 11pie--Uqiliin\t -Pii.".., it ... n'',. .

'...A.-

' '`-`4A ,..,,,-.

4

,A,,. AN , ,\ ,,, 1 '"

" --411111'1.,itt.7.1V0'.:

;.71

h'''' '

\

--.41k.;,....

:..vri-eArk,

,

:61116H r'S

441"l , 4044. ,4,16404641114110C142A

ItitOitztolipiu ;46,411` 1

_ _41P1 ,,.

r

'Y:11,

4

., t. '-' 2, I t',Art ,`,, , 1 k , , ._

1,-1,k :

,\ `t. ? -1-. " -' ''I-Is `" n 1 , t'... ' t 1.."`"ti) ' I ' ',

'1,- , , , , !',,...t.,,,,,,- ,,,-,,,.. -."., i :," 5- -$..."7 T''','',',- - ,f, '4 .,,, ,- ,,A. , 1., 1,, ,,, h x ,,,, ,,,,,, . titt,A,`t?"-2"....""

, ,,, ..,, '' 1'f , -A k ' ""2 ..-- 01',?,_ , ,` ' 4 \ ''' 2 ',',,,, nr... "IL ',Atka amtz,,11,,:gZ,,,,-.12.4"''"Aiiii;:iikatiaTik':,04AAAL-A.4, 4 , t " \ . ,,Atl, , '1...i,h V.! . . . r. t

7. . . J I- '44,- 0.")(x...Y-et.,..,c , ,

..,,efietih,-.1/91111A,&"-4'Lr''''''''''

\OA-

h-

\',44.6`..

t,At,A

_

-

g

Boa Grant Tokio I

. .

STATE/DEPENDENCY

Program Statns and Funding Summary

HldHEST" PROGRAM

STATUS

(Fiscal Year 1976)

FISCAL YEAR 1976.

FUNDING

$1,000

. Federal Matching Total Federal Matching Total

CUMULATIVE FUNDING .-

1967-76

stood

ALASKA

ARIZONA

CAUFORNIA

CONNECTICUT-

DELAWARE

FLORIDA

GEORGIA

AWAII

LOUISIANA

MAINE/NEW HAMPSHIREMARYLAND

MASSACHUSETTS

MICHIGAN'

MINNESOTA

MISSISSIPPI /ALABAMA

NEW JERSEY

NEW YORK

NORTH CAROLINA

OHIO

OKLAHOMA

OREGON

PENNSYLVANIA

RHODE ISLAND

SOUTH CAROLINATEXAS

VIRGINIA

WASHINGTON

WISCONSIN

DIST T OF COLUMBIA:GUAM

AMER AN SAMOA

Coherent ProjectProject

Sea Grant College4Project

Sea Grant CollegeSea Grant CollegeInstitutional ProgramSea Grant CollegeInstitutional ProgramCoherent ProjectProjectInstitutional ProgramInstitutional ProgramProject

oherent Projectoherent Project

S..ea Grant College.

Sea Grant CollegeProjectProjectSea _Grant College

ProjectSea Grant CollegeCoherent ProjectSea Grant CollegeCoherent Project

ta, Grant. College

'Sea Grant -CollegeProject6oherent ProjectProject

I.

VIRGIN ISLANDS

TRUST TERR1TORI$PUERTO RICO

ProjectProject

Project

559.1 524.2 1,083.3 3,192.0 3,774.4 6,966.432.9 51.4 84.3 32.9 .51.4 .84.3

2,767.1 1,936 8 4,703.9 12,993.7 9,913.8 24,907.647.5 24.0 71.5 309.1 638.8 947.9

.-781.2 446.7 1,227.9 4,069.4 2,374.7 6,440.1

1,330.9 1,166.8 2,497.7 8,77b18. 6,799.6 14,570.2683.0 524.5 1,107.5 2.397.1 2,072.5 4,469.6

1,635.6 991.0 2.626.6 9,510.9 6,298.1 15,807.0700.4 616.6 1,315.9 4,747.8 3,999.2 6,747.0

,993.3 622.1 1,615.4 C265.5 3,171.3 8,436.776.4 47.6 124.0 649.1 331.5 980.6

1,423.6 894.9 2,318.5 5,477.7 3,535.3 9,013,0464.8 382.3 847.1 4,814.9 2,626.4 7,441.334.6 36.3 99.7 99.8 55.6 4,155.4

575.0 363.9 9i8.9 2,505,7 1,914.4 4,420.12201. '155.9 .....3Z649 880.2 481.7 1,361.9

1,249.3 812.6 2,061.8 8,248.6 7,823.9 16,072.5835.0 . 417.5 1,252.5 5,002.2 3,945.3 8,947.6

172.5 98.6 271.1

90.0 45.0 135.0 503.0 251.5 754.6c

2,107.6 1,205.4 3,373.0 11,520.7 6,995.3 18,516.0

598.4 298.8 987.21,786.4 884.0 2,670.4 8,389.0 4,441.6 12,830.5

'360.0 191.3 551.3 1,252.2 707.2 1'1,959.4

1,499_0 942.3 2,481.3 9,699.9 5,205.6 14,905.5520.7 292.3 813.0 2,577.6 .1,408.9 3,986.5

1,664.6 ,.819.7 2,384.3 9,894.7 5,702.9 15,597.61,131.3 600.0 1,731.3 7,104.3 3,792.9 :10,897.2

14.7 9.9 29.6. 477.7 270.0 747.71, 200.0 163.9. 363.9

46.7 30.1 76.8 .167.5 99.7 248.2102.6 53.3 155.9

65.1 68.4 123.5 191.4 260.2, 451.630.0 26.0 56.0

14 .

4

.6

1976, a $38.6-rnillien effort included 15 institu-tional, 12 cohetont support, and 25 projectgrants in .27 States, the District of Columbia,American Samoa, and the Trust Territories, withthe tunding Spread at 74 percent-, 19 percent,and 7 percent, respectively_ And, there were,11Sea Grant Colleges (See Table 1).M More than 200 academic institutions are nowinvolveljn Sea.Grant work.

Mor4 than 200 industrial association, and pro-fessional organizations are participating in SeaGrant projects, including many which contributematching ftfnals--a-s-well as time, facilities, andknowhow.a Some 25 Federal and 220 State and local gov-*ernment agencies are involved in Sea Grantprojects, both as clients and as participants.

Sea Grant matching funds are budget lineitems in more than ten states, while in others,university budget increases are specifically fv.1-7.marked as Sea Grant matchingfunds.

Rhode Island, Michigan, anizi Delaware have,named their Sea Grant programs as Statecoastal zone laboratories; New York, California,

1Texas, Louisiana, Oregon, and Washington,-while not loving taken such formal action,nevertheless rely on Sea Grant for the samekinds of services.

4Interstate cooperation creasing---ithe

Mississippi-Alabarna.And Maine-New Hampshirebi-state Institutional programs, for example, aswell as the movement eastward of HawaiCsfreshwater prawn farming technology to Floridaand South Carolina and the transfer of Oregonsalmon-farming Knowhow to New England;

While there is a healthy competition among SeaGrant institutions, there is also a willingnegs tolearn from one another. Oregon led the way indeveloping 3 Marine Extension Service. Rhodeisland led in fisheries training. Others.fearnedirom

Projects begun by Sea Grant are frequently

l

picked up by other agencies for continuedfundingMassachusetts' Institute of Technoi-ogy's.eleCtron beam water purifier:Won schemeis now funded by the National Scieheo Founda-tiOn's HANN program, while the CoastalPlainsRegional Commission is funding aquacultureprojects begun by Sea Grant in the Carolinas.

More Federal agencies are transferring fundsto OSGto support projects in their missionareas.

More Federal agen-cies are going directly toSea Grant-developed capabilities for researchand analysis....

The extent to which a program's capabilities. and resources aroused is a measure of its suc-

cess and utility. Theextent to which it cooperateswith, and defers to, others is a measure pf itsmaturity. On all counts, Sea Grant is building anenviable record. Another measure of success Isthe extent to Ihich a program contributes toindividual, local, regional, and national wealth, -

health and well-being--and, that is what the restof this rep*ort ig all about. .

"One fisherman from Newport came to mewheal l-wasppoiRted director of the Sea GrantProgram. said: 'I hope that when-you getover to the Corvallis caMpils that you willstraighto that place out.' I said, yes, I hopedso tbobut what should I straighten out?His response was that all of the fishermen in, thisport are-rn-aking more money today because ofthe Sea Grant program; they are better fisher-men, and they take better care of their fish. Hesaid that their attitude Is more-optimistic, andtheir understAnding of the environment is I.

better. 'And, they have no idea how they learnedall, this. Why can't you tell them that the univer:sity through Sea Grant is doing this?' "

William Q. WickDirector, Sea Grant College ProgramOregon State University .

-15

.4.

cr. ,

4

I.etikasi.

0011',wsw

1

lk lg.!.60+

40'

a

A

Sea Grant in Action part2

IntroductionSea grant builds no great monuments or citadela.It has no bridges, dams, innerstate highways, ormoon rockets. It is not that kind of program. Ithap numerous accomplishments, but none of theirdimensions is either large or,neatly discrete.Rather, Sea Grant is thousands of small actionsindividuals responding to indWiduals, small groupsinttiracting, problems identified and solved,information sought out and transferred, smallsolution-oriented research projects, subtlechanges in educational pwcesses, n'ew percep-tions of university roles and.missions, and abetter-informed public.

It is in the Aggregate that these activities takeon Imtional substance. Even ffien it is difficult toanswer the question: "What has Sea Grant donefor America today?" How does one measure thesuccess of such an effort? By a great variety ofindicators, such as rising personal incomes,expanded tax bases, community satisfaction_andoptimism, fewer and less divisive conflicts, betterenvironmental management, improved quality oflife, more and. better seafood delivered to theconsumer, new job opportunities, reduced qe-pendenceon imports, higher export earnings,better-prepared professionals andtechnicians,and moie responsive local, State, and nationalgovernment. Some of these-indicators aremeasurable; many are not; and either way, itvirtually is impossible to assign quantifiable creditfor these kinds of progrbas to Sea Grant or anyother program. Too often, the only standard ofmeasurement is what might have been if . . .

For reporting and budgeting purposes, OSGgroups-the several hundred individual projects'-underway,at any given time into seven major Gate:gories, which, in turn, are subdivided into 81clasSifications. The fiscal evolution of Sea Grantand the proportion of effort going Into each majorcategory are shown fn Figure 1. Sea Grantprojects are or have been active in 30 States,the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, theVirgirdslands,'American Samoa, and the PacificTrust Territories..Only Illinois and Indiana, amongthe coastal States, have failed to take advantage

as.

of Sea Grant, while four inland states, Arizona,Colorado, Idaho, and Oklahoma are included.

With more than 750 separate projects in 35different major political entities, without writing a.book it is not possible to revieW the whole SeaGrant program either project-by-project or State-by-State. Neither is it possible to take one State'sprogram and spy, "This is typical." There is no"typical" progi'am. Needs and perspectives varyfrom one region to another. Great Lakes States,for example, are concerned with wafer levels, ero-sion, ice, pollution, maritime transport, electricpower plant siting, aquaculture, and underwatermining,.bUt are in no way affected by the 200-mileoffshore economic zone. The Nation's ocean andGulf of Mexico States, however, are very muchconcerned with the meaning and impact of thatzone. Except fof Alaska and the Great Lakes

1\ ,4,1,.?,

tn,,y0

.17

Milwaukee Harbor

_27

\

g

States, none really is concerned with ice. Atlanticcoast States consider the imminence of offshoreoil explor ation tobe a crisis issue, while Louisl-ana, Texas. and California already have beenthat route. Sea Grant vanes from one State to thenext, also according to how and how well SeaGrant has' developed and what kinds oLcom-munity responsibilities each has assurRd.

What follow§ is a selection of Sea Grant activ-'ities designed to show their yanety, adaptiveness,

Spa Grant Figure I

PROGRAM CATEGORY.

Resources DevelopmentNumber of ProjectsAverage Award/Project ($)Total Psrogram ($1,009)--

Socioeconomic and Legal Research

1968 1969

responsiveness,<Methods, geographic spread. andbenefits. The purpose of this section is to provideunderstanding and insighta "feerfor the SeaGrant process, how it functions, how ittontributesto more effective ang,more acceptable manage-ment, how it promotes more off icieQt exploitationand a better balance between exploitation andconservation, and how thesO things, as localefforts., help to build a sound underpinning fornational well-being.

Program Category Funding History

1970 1971

7679.050

1972

12642.719

.*1973

14550.661

1974

173

46.618

1975

16958.475

1976

15552,817

6.007.8 5,382.6 7.345.8 8,064.9 9,882.3 8,186.6

Number of Projects'Average Award/Project ($) i8

29,90846

27.94267

28,92763

24.34676

26.32957

37,687Total Program ($1,000) 837.4 1,285.3 1,648.8 1,533.7 2,001,0 2,148.2

Technical Research andDevelopment

Number of Projects 40 100 . 107 139 108 118Average Award/Project ($) 68,699 49.548 43.586 34.485 42.537 37.399Total Program ($1,000) 2,748.0 4,954.8 4,663.7 4,793.4 4,594.0 4,413.1

,Envlronmental ResearchNumber of Projects 82 124 163 165 155 180Average Award/Project ($) 53.191 39.062 39,02 34.718 37.948 34,730Total Program ($1,000) 4,361.7 4,843.7 6,442.1 5,728.5 5,881.9 6,251.4

-Education apd TrainingNumber of Proje.-:ts 64 78 79 90 76 85Average Award/Project ($) 59,347 43.944 45.686 -34.298 40,539 48,832Total Program ($1,000) 3,798.2 3,427.6 3,609.2 3,068.8* 3,081.0 4,150.7

Marine Advisory ServiceNumber of grojectsAverage Award/Project ($)

6326,789

71

47,08078

51,901113

47,437101

69,495113'

75,587Total Program ($1,000) 1,687.7 3,342.7 4,048.3 5,360.4" 7,019.0 8,539.1Firogram Management and

DevelopmentNumber of Projects

22 39 38 56 49 44Average Award/Project ($) 75,378 61,548 70,311 54,990 83,939 61,204Total Program 1$1,000) 1,668.3 2,400.4 '' 2,671.8 3,079.4 4,113.0 2,256.9Grand Total4

Number of Projects 375 584 667 799 734 752Average Award/Project ($) 58,264 43.899 34,609 39.808 49,826 47,801Total Program ($1.000) 21,099.1 25,637.1 23,083.9 31,647.1 36,572.2 35,940.0

(1) All dollar figures Include NOAA/Soa Orant funds plus focal matching funds.

1 8 .

Kit m(' Re:()Hrce DevelopniontMarine Resource Development projects are con-.corned with finding, surveying. developing. ex-ploiting, conserving, and Managing the living andnonliving resources of the sea. Sea Grant's rolemay range-from the simPle act of demonstratingthe existence of a resource to the development ofnecessary technologies, demonstration projects,and the eVolution of economic projections andmarketing strategies.

- Sea Grant policy is to seek the maximumcooperation and participation of the private sector

whenever possible. Thus, fishermen give theirtime and their boats at no charge to try out a newnet or piece of gear with their only expectation abetter way for everyone to fish. Mihing companiescontribute botti.money and logistics to help de-velop better methods of underwater.surveying,exploration, and mining.

Marine Resources Development is divided into(1) aquaculture. (2) living resources other thanaquaculture, (3) marine blomedicinals and ex-tracts, aricl (4) minerals. Tal)le I shows theextent of those efforts.

Sort Grant Tab lo Marine Resources Development

Project Subcategory

AquacultureLiving 1404044(cod (1Z4114)()

Mineral ResourcesBiomedicine la, Lxtracts

Category Totals

TotalProgramBudget"'

4.5240.60.7

8.2

Active Projects

AverageCoat Per

Number Project($)

70 64,00054 44,00014 .3.,00017 demo

166 63,000

(Fiscal Year 1976 Awards)

Fodor& 'Funds Matching Funda

Por Cont Par Cantof Total of Total

($-rnillion) Fodoral ProgramSoa Grant'" Budgor"

2.7' 11.7 1.8 401.6 6.7 0.8 360.3 1.4 0.3 460.4 1.8 0.3 38

5-0 -21.6 3.2 39

ill !his muludes NOAA Sea (r'ant funds plus locat matching funds,1?) 1 his is a percentage of the total NOAA Sea Grant budget for all neven malor categories of vtivity(.0 Itits hs the matching fund pe%Ontaue of the total program budget in the far left column

'AquacultureAquaculture is.to water what agriculture is toland. It is farming plants and animsolS that growin waterwhich may be either fresh or salt water.To date, it has consumed the malor share of SeaGrant's marine resources development budget.Abroad, it is a very old business, but most methodsare labor intensive and uneconomic in the UnitedStates. That it can be profitable in this country hasbeen well proven in the case of trout and catfish.,The underlying thrust of Sea Grant-supportedefforts is to increase the variety and profitabilityof the species that can be farmed. To minimizethe economic risk, initial emphasis has been onhigh value speciesthough the long-termpromise is one of largervolume production of low-cost sources Of high-protein foods.

Because most coastal States border saltwater,the primary emphasis is on marine species. TheUniversity of Wisconsin. however, has broughfboth yellow perch and.walleye pike farming vir-tually to commercial feasibility. Other Sea Grant-supported profects will enable marine species tobe raised profitably hundreds of wiles from thesea. Kansas City oysters or lobsters may one daybe as famous as Kansas City steak's!

Tile benefits of siwceSsful aquaculture aremanifold: new sourCes of high-demand, high-protein foods; an augmented national nutritionalbase; new jobs; new opportunities- for vQnturecapital; an expanded tax base; reduced imports;increased exports; and, when used for that pur-pose, enhancement, rebuilding, and transplantingof wild stoCks. .

The first task has been to build a sound tech-nological base. Sea Grant support has been con-cerned with such efforts as: identification of mostadaptable species, selective breeding for "mostfarmable" traits, diets, diseases, parasites, canni-

..

balism, breeding in captivity, spawning on de-mend, and the design and engineering of efficientstructures; materials, and systems. Among,thespecies being studied are"Maine" lobsters(Homarus americanus), giant Malaysian fresh-

.

water prawn§.(Macrobrachlum rosenbergii),penaeid shrimp, salmon, dolphin fish (Coryphaenahippurus), yellow perch, walleye pike, rabbitfish(Siganus canaliculalus), oysters, clams, scallops,lugworms (for bait), giant brown kelp (Macro-cystis), mussels, and frish moss (Eucheuma).

Sea Grant-supported aquacultural research .

rims the gamut froth open-range farming to com-pletely closed cycle system. An exarnple of thefirst is the ranch farming of salmon, first devel-oped in Oregon and now being introduced inWashington;California, Al.aska, and New England.Farmers raise young salmon In hatcheries-andrelease them to the sea. New laws give them apreferential right to the salmon which later return

,,as adults. Despite high natural mortality rates anda substantial catch at sea by both sport andcommercial fishermen, thisis turning out tO be aquite profitable business. A small Sea Grantinvestment is resulting in,many Millions of dollarsof private investment which, in turn, is expectedto produce revenues in the tens of millions. Thistechnique promises to more than offset the recentsharp decline in the natural harvest.of salmon as

20 o

t

4.04e.

4

Ye-

..111111112112:1111IMM

PA

' !2-111r-' :N

-(,L.., .' t!t

f

t.s'e

S. '14 13\

st

,

...-,..',se ' , 1,t ,(, ,34440i

') 1 ' ,'i '5-1,,...i:',t il '''n-cdf'41:-)41'..,'

'4.,it5'":44.4"1:' 55-...,,V,1

:, 0,6'0,4,,,,,,..\ , 4,-,,,c-y ?.,,,(.4,,,N 1,..,t',4'Ick -',i.zo, .,., , ,

..,ki4 , svv L'.-, ', .;, 1'.' ' l'P,V il'" t:' -,),1,. v f..,'" 4 .. v

;1141h. ).3'4;1. \' ,' (.; k l' : s'Y z..!,,,W,; et 04. 11 \,7',i i :A4, c,I.A .,,;./1,\ {,ft\',N, 14?s, 1 > ,3 ,..,,,i',..:q21% ' ,i11,(.7i1A.44 k4=4k .g. ,. ,. . 2., r k. 1,i r ,.,et,s,'V.s.`Iri/s.-?It V '.,,rP- ,) 1,,` N.. k v ,,,, \ , 1,, ,.;1',,t1,5-kt ,.. ,. . kag.

....,,:,...,, . th . ,..

te).

, f,4.1fs

ANA A iv

5,

;!.i

f

aulayslan Prdwn rosoarch ot thoUniversity ot

ig \ I e s:t , .^ e.11\,.44,

:4

' "-

-lit , , ,(k't f Olt

e,

Closed cycle aquaculture systern at the University of Delaware.

21, 3/

4

S.

well as to contribute mat'Perially to the rebuildingof natural stocks. It may well be applicable to-other anadromous species, such as shad, hersing,

nd striped bass.,qe) el cycle systemssuch as those devel-\,.

eclams arid oysters at Delaware and forsalmi* at Rhode Islandare particularly exciting.They' mean that mariculturelfa-rming oceanspecies) can be completely independent ofproximity to the sea. And, because they are closedcycle systems, they eliminate any problems ofpollution which accompany marty farming oper-,ations. Ultimately, they may mean that many .

marine species will be Capable of being prodUced)close by their inland markets, thus bypassingmany problems of preservation, storage, andlranspOrt.

There are many variationa between open-rangeand 6losed-cyele aquaculture. Penaeid shrimphave been reared successfully in saltWater pondsclose by the sea, in tilt) heated cooling wate

from thermal power plants, and in abandonedquarries In West Texas. This last taloa saltwaterfound in naturally occurring aquifers a few footbelow ground level. Pan-sie salmon are nowbeing marketed in the Northwest whish ain pens anchored in Puget Sounda technIquethat is spreading toother parts of the country.North Carolina Sea Grant has found that dolphin(fish, not porpoises) are capable of being raised intanks. Scientists at Woods Hole OceanographicInstitution have developed and demonstrated amultistep, integrated aquaculture system whichuses the high-riutrient effluent from secondarysewage treatment to produce algae and oysters,while simultaneously providing effective tertiarysewage treatment.

The extent of Sea Grcint involvement varieswidely from one pi-oject to another. It may providemost of the support for original researCh, or,itmay step in along the way to provide lesserthOugh cqtical suppart. Multi-Institutional co-operation is a common feature of Sea Grantaquacultural research. Califorrlia, New York, andRhode Island closely coordinate their lobsterfarming workall of which enjoys Sea Gran-tsupport.1-lawali is providing its basic Macro-brachipm knew-how to both Florida and SouthCarolfna and is participating in efforta to adaptthe technology to those States' different climates.Both Oregon State University and the Univejsityof Washington are cooperating in the transfer ofvarious salmon farming techniques to northernNew England.

Frequently, both State and Federal agencies aswell as industry and academia cooperate on.projects. Initial research on the pen-rearing ofsalmon, for example, Was carriedout by theNatioeal Marine Fisheries Service; as the project,progressed, several Washington State agencies,the University of Washington ancrbomsea Farms,.Inc. (a private firm), all bcicame involved. Domseabelieved in what it saw and IS now harvestingmore than 1,000,000 pound's a yearat an averageprice of $1,50 per poundand Is still building;Sea Grant, University of Hawaii's Marino PlantAgronomy Program, and Marine Colloids? Inc., (aprivate U.S. firm) havercooperated in establishingmore dim', ,000 new Irish Moss (Eucheumastriatum) farms In the.Philippines and other

fie Rim countries and U.S. territories. Thiseffor roduced a,terifold increase in one year inwOrld 5rduptioh of kappa carrageenari andsolved a seri() shortage,-whidh wile especially

22

IV

acute inthe United States, whore carrageonan ISan important prepared foods additive.

Sea Grant's aquacUlture program is movinginto the critical phase now, whet() it movePromresearch and experimentation into commercialproduction. With successes already scored inseveral States Ifl salmon, oyster, lugworm, kelp:Irish moss, and clam farming the prognosis isgOod, if not exciting. Already the subject ofmillions of dollars' of investment and multimillion-dollar revenue levels, aquaculture in the UnitedStates and Its dependencies has the potential forb9coming a major sOurce of food and a majornational economic activity. It is an area in whichSea Grant has played and continues to play animportant pioneering role.

FisheriesIn the last 20 years, the world fisheries catch hasgone from 40 million to 70 million metric tons ayear. The U.S. catch has remained static at 2.2million tons, while both per capita fish consump-tion and total population hava increased. TheUnited States supplies less than half of theNation's needs. The import bate make up thedifference is some $2 billion a year. Our con-tiguous ocean waters produce more than enoughfish to fi6 our: needs, but they are either caught by

A SEA GRANT

AQUACULTURE CASE IN POINT

foreign fishing fleets, or they are not caught at all.The newly enacted 200-mile offshore economiczone is expected to give Americans fair and -

reasonable access to stocks which to date.haveboon largely denied to them.

Commercial fishorieS support may come fromany of Sea Grant's major project categoriesgear development under technology research anddevelopment, or marketing under socioeconomicand legal research. Contributions range from dis-covery of new stocks of fish and improved fishingmethods, to assistance in writing legislation,better seafood processing, and waste manage-ment (See Table III). The effort is local andaddresses problemsand opportunities of specificfisheries. It is frequently a cooperative effortamong Sea Grant institutions, State agencies,Federal agencies (such as NOAA's NationalMarine Fisheries SerVice, NOAA's National.Weather Service, Internal Revenue Service, andthe Environmental Protection Agency), the sea-food processing industry and, always, the com-mercial fishermen.

Key to the whole effort is the Sea Grant MarineAdvisory Services which maintain continual, closecontact with the local fisheries community. It spots-needs and opportunities,'proposes solutions, and,where appropriate, brings in.Sea Grant institution

Ranch Farming Salmon

The J10AA Sea Grant investment in ranch farming of salmon was $375,000 over a 9-year periodforilatching techniques, pilot demonstration,- etc. What's the payoff? Several companleg have made acommitment. Others seek licenses. Let's just look at one of themthe wholly owned Weyerhauser sUb-sidiary, Oregon Aqua-FOods. Just about halfway to full output, it has proved the percentages Inpractice. +.

pa

By 1980 and after a $6- to-$10 millIon investment, its Operation wIll look something like this: .)

Each year the company Will hatch and release 40 million chum salmon.smolts (young salmon) te thesea. Of these, roughly 37 million will fall prey to natural predators. Of the remainderl U.S. commercialfi,herMen will catch over one million (market value, $16.1 hillilOn); sport fishermen,'4100,000 ($5.6 mil-lion): and Oregon kaki-Foods will harvest-800,000 (a fish reture ,of 2 poreent worth $112 million).

,

Aside from new jpbs, exciting opportunities for investMent capital, and'a considerfible additlon to ttfenational nutritional base, that is a $26.3 million product from onp Aompany'S efforts 'alone. Multiplythat by 15 to 30 other companies on the United States east and west coasts:k.4

Much of -the new salmon production wIll be exported, helping our balance. of 'payments. and helpingto fIght inflation. And, don't forget the, tax base. 'The poundage taX commercial 'fistierrrien must payon a million salmon is $376,000more taxes in ono year than tho whole Sea ,Grant Invesiment, Thatdoesn't count personal and corporate income 'taxes, and property taxes, at both the State and Federal.levels. Talk about payoff.... . . .

t

f

I

scientists, engineers, technicians, economists,whatever. New information and impreved geararo passed on to the fishermen by the marineextension agent. who then rides herd on its initialapplication to hiap In any debugging that may benecessary.

Sea Grant Table III

Services to Fishermen.Develop greater knowledge of fishery popu-

lation dynamics.irt identify yields and market potentials of under-utilized species.si Expand resources by stock.rebuilding andspecies transplants:

Describe ecological requirements of importantspecies.* Define effects of nattiral and human environ-mental modification. z

* Study fish predators. parasites and diseases,and their control.pi Introduce and test improved fishing gear andmethods.t* Develop better fish handling, processing, anddistribution techniques..41 Explore new fish and fish-product markets athome and abroad.wi Expose fishermen to-better bbokkeepipgandmanagement methods.* Inform fishermen of various sources of capitalfinancing.IA Make fishermen aware of available Federal andState services.

Establish liaison between fishermen and regu-latory agencies.ou:Mediate disputeg with other, users of marineresources.or Be alert to potential conflicts and work to avoidthem.

Assist local, State, and Federal agencies in fish-eries management.* In general, work to upgrade the national corn-mercial fisheries effort.

Sea Grant tries not to reinvent the wheel. Itfirst searches existing teOnology. If this provesfruitless. it then invents to order. It has boon quitesuccessful on both counts. As examples.of tech-nology transfer, Rhode Island Sea Grant intro-.duced European pair trawling to its Point Judithfishorrnenwith spectacular results. By this tech-nique, hue boats hauling one large net betweenthem can catch mbre than three times,what eachcould catch fishing alone. Doing is ppving, andpair trawling is now spreading up and down theeast coast. The cost to Sea Grant was the travelexpense of one Irish fisherman to tile knitedStates to explain it. 5Imilarly, University ofGeorgia Sea Grant.debugged and adapted. thenever-to-then quite successful Gulf of Mexico'twin trawl"substituting two smaller, side-by-side nets for one larger oneto thq needs ofsoutheast Atlanticcoast fishermen, wiPt a 60 per-

' cent improvement in.catch efficiency. Again,itworked, and the practice is being adopted byothers. As yet..another example of successful tech-nology transfer, Hawaii Sea Grant showed.howmodern scuba gear and manned subriorsiblescould be used to survey, manage, and harvestprecious coralresulting in a major expansion ofthis industry while virtually 0in-dilating depend-ence on -reign coral sources. Now this tech-nology, o, is being transferred elsewhere,namely to the U.S. Pacific Trust Territories.

Inventing to order has been equally successful.The Massachusetts Institute of Technology SeaGrant designed; and fishermen have testcessfully, a hookap block for triawls whisimplifies ts operation and reduces the

suc-greatly

ssi-bility of injury. Oregon State University developed,and industry is now producing, a simple and,inex-pensive hydraulic power takeoff for outboardmotors. This increases fishing efficiency andtakes a lot cif the sweat out of the Oregon andWashington dory fisheHes for both coho salmonand dungeness cr'abs. Rhode Island Sea Grant hascombined the fishermen's knowledge of theirprey's habits with wind tunnels, tow tanks, com-puters, and other modern tools to design anentirely new high-rise bottom trawl which, havingproved in practice to be more efficient, has spreadto other Statesincluding Massa6husetts, NewYork, New Jersey, the Carolinas, and Oregon.

- That is the way its goes: problems identified,solutions developed and tried. Usually, the sug-gestions are enthusiastically received by the

244

4

4

A SEA GRANT

MARINE RE4OURCE CASE IN POINT

Precious Coral

The NOAA Sea Grant Investment in Hawaii's coral Industry is $148,500 over a 5-year period to dis-cover new coral beds, develop conservative harvesting techniques, an& establish the bases for re-source management within the bounds of maximum sustainable yield. What's the payoff?

When Hawaii Sea Grant bégan this work In 1971, the main coral collecting company, Maul Divers ofHawaii, Ltd., had 50 employees and gross sales of $500,000 a year. Hawaii's coral jewelry was some90 percent dependont on imports for its raw materials, and supplies were drying up while prices wererising.

In 1974, the company grossed $7.8 million (retail value some $14 million) and had 214 employees. Amuch expanded coral jewelry industry depended oa imports for less than a quarter of Its supplies.Now kinds of precious c&al had been) discovered, and techniques had been developed tor selectiveharvesting% to depths of 1,200 feet. Thilfugh its original investment In 1971-wa5 $101,500, by 1975 SeaGrant was out of it entirely, and the State Of Hawaii and private industry tog9ther had Invested$294,277. Thia is the way Sea Grant is supposed to work: recognize an opportunity, do what is newtsary to show the way, and then step back In favor, of loctilefforts, whether State, private, or both.This one has already more than repaid the investment in new tax revenues and will continue to do soaver and over again. As a case In point, Maul Olvers .patd 9r withheld $556,934 In taxes in calendaryear 1974.

fishermen; they catch more fish, save money, andare safer.

Discovering new stocks of fish and findingmarkets for known but underutilized resources isalso an important Sea Grant function, which notonly helps to meet domestic demands but alsocan strengthen the export potential of the Ameri-can fishing industry. Toward this end, OregonState Sea Grant has identified massive stocks ofanchovy off its shoresenough poSsibly to makethe United States*a net exporter rather than a net(and heavy).irnporter of industrial fish and fishmeal. Texas A&M University is targeting iri) onsome way to land economically the hundreds ofthousands of tons of "trash fish" thrown over-board each year by Gulf of Mexico shrimper.Rhode Island is c(eveloping fishing methods andexploring parketsior squid, which are plentifulin New Erfglar;I:ater.s. California Sea Grant isdefining the et potentials for both squid andsea urchiris, while Wisconsin already is tbstmarketing products made trom such Great Lakesnuisance fish as alewives, burbot, and suckers.

Fisheries management is also an important areaof 4ea Grant research. Several studies of themeaning of, and management strategies for, ex-tended fisheries jurisdiction have been completedcovering different aspects of the problem in

A

different parts of the country. Many were startedlong before Congress passed extended jurisdic-tion (200-mile) legislation. Some are quite com-prehensive. As a result, when the law was passed,much.of the groundwork alreadY had been done.It was a situation that was thoroughly undefstood,and many alternative approachOs to managementand exj5loitation already had been devised,analyzed, and compared.

Sea Grant contributions to fishery management,exploitation, and conservation are many andariedtoe numerous and too diversified to coverthem all here. They range from development oflaser and freeze branding techniques which en-able crabs, lobsters, arid other crustaceans to be_tagged and followed through several. moltingstages, to the development of effective and eco-nomical-acoustic fish counters and computermodels of important fisheries, to the evolution ofmanagement criteria of intertidal resources underin`creasing recreational-pressures, to the develop-ment of more efficient and sanitary seafood proc-essing techniques. Proof that salmon sniff theirway to their home streams and can be imprintedwith artificial odors and drawn back toentirely.different streaMS was developed throughSea Grant research, also. Sea Grant fisheriesprojects by States are shown in Table IV.

2535

sa Grant Tab lo IV

Sea Crant-,Supported Fisheries Projects

ALASKABivalves and Mollusks-BiologySnow Crab-BiologyShellfish Poison TestMarine Organisms-Coding

ARIZONA

CALIFORNIASalmon-Okporeguiation'Anchovy and Herring-In Humboldt BaySquid-MarketingSpiny Lobster-in Surf GrassKelp Bed Fish

CONNECTICUT

DELAWAREDeft:mere Bay Food Resourcgs

FLORIDASpiny Lobster-Biological AttractantsBlue Crab-Migration -

Marine Invertebrates-PathologyBacteria-As Marine PathogensVirology-Protection of Morino OrganismsCommercial Fish-Egg and Larva Abundance

GEORGIAOffshore Fisheries SurveyMariculture Support

HAWAIIPrecious Corals-Resource Survey

Ecology and Growth RatesHarvesting TechniquesManagement Scheme

Fish Eggs and Larvae-EcologyEffects of Pollution

Tuna Bait Resources.

LOUISIANAFinfish, Shrimp, and Crabs-Resources SurveyFisheries Resources-Migration

Distribution

MAINE/NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSORTIUMShellfish-Red Tide ToxinsOysters-Cell CulturesSalmon Pancreas-Infectious DiseasePotential of Fish Disease Service'grabs-Biology

Population Dynamics

MARYLANDShe !Rip Bacteria-Incidence

'SurvivalPethogeneityEstuarine Ecology-

MASSACHUSETTS .

Fish-Effo-ctri of HydrocarbonsFish-Tagging and Population Studios

MICHIGAN

MINNESOTA

MISSISSIPPI/ALABAMA CONSORTIUMArtificial Reefs-DevelopmentMarine Animals-ParasitesCiguatera in Fish

NEW JERSEYShelf Bivalves- Growth

MortalityAge Distribution

NEW YORKClam Industry- ory

Reso wetShellfish-Diseases

Viral FloraFish Protein Industry-Potentio/Fisheries-Economic .Evaluation

Social Value

NORTH CAROLINAEstuarine Delititus- Nutrition.

Bacteria inFood Chains

Green Turtle-Se/Monet/aFungal Diseases of Economic Species

OHIO

OKLAHOMA 4

OREGONAnchovy-Population StudiesFlatfish-Production SysternAlbacore-Research ProgramSalmonids-Immune ResponsesClams and Shrimp-Microsporan DiseasesPelagic Fisheries Environment .

PENNSYLVANIA

RHODE ISLANDRegional Fisheries ManagementFish PathologyUnderutilized Species Develoyment-Red Crab

Squid

SOUTH CAROLINAMenhaden-Population Dynamics

TEXASSport Fish Populations

36

Fish and Shrimp ParasitesMicrobial Diseases

Coastal Waters-Potential Health Hazards

VIRGINIACownose Ray-Management

WASHINGTONResource Assessment-Acoustic TechniquesSalmon-Bases for Management of Fishery

WISCONSINWhitefish-Poputatton Statistica

Environmental RequirementsLake Michigan Sucker PopulatibnsLake Trout and Whitefish-RepmquctionSalmon-Environmental Preferences

dISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AMERICAN SAMOA

GUAMDeep Water Shrimp Studies

4'

TRUST TERRITORIES

VIRGIN ISLANDS

PUERTO RICO

NOTE: This is not a complete listing of all projectareas undertaken during Sea Grant's first 10years..Rather, it is intended simply to be repre-sentative of the nature and variety of,activitiesunder this category.

Everywhere the procedures are the-same:localresponse to local needs. That is where the actionis, and that is where Sea Grant isgeneratingmore and better jobs; increasing efficiency ahdsafety; foStering better.resource management;getting a better 'quality and wider selection of fishto the consumer; spotting, avoiding, and resolv-

ting conflicts.

.Marine Biomodicinals and ExtractsMost 0 today's drugs and pharamaceuticala arederived from studies of land plants and animalsdigitalis from foXgtove, penicillin from the moldsPenicillium notatum and P. chrysogenum. The seais a new and largely unexplbred resource,.whichscientil have only just begun to excithine forthis purpose. Sea Grant plays a small but sig-nificant role in this effort. Screeningand teatingbiologically, active compounds is challenging, but

frequently slow and tedious. The potential, how-ever, is great. Compounds already have been.isoleted which show promise in a wide variety ofapplications ranging from treatment of leukemia,cancer, and heart ailments, to agricultural pesti-.cides, antibiotics, and antifoulants for ships' hulls.

University of Oklahoma scientists, with SeaGrant support, have supplied hundreds of marineextracts for testing by the National Cancer Instl-

. tute--104 of which aro active against leukemia and30 of wbich are active against human cancer. Thisis a very high activity yieldmore than four timesthat realized with terrestrial plants: Extracts from12 marine species have shown bioactivity in car-diovascular systems, indicating potential in thetreatment of heart ailments and hypertension.

University of Washington Sea Grant researchershave started a minor industrial revolution withtheir work on Chitosan, a polymer derived fromthe.shells of shrimp, crabs, and lobsters. It beganas a prOject to solve the waste problem in shell-fish processing houses. The researchers haveconverted an important part of that problem intoan economic asset. They have fourid uses for itin nonwoven fabrics and paper, where a 1 percentaddition hikes wet strength by 44 percent andgreatly improves printability. Scientists at theMassachusetts Institutelof Technology, with SeaGrant support, are using X-ray and electron diffrac-tion techniques to determine the different chitosansource materials and proCessing methods., Univer-say of Delaware investigatomrhave devised tech-niques for prbcipitating chitosan in crystallinefibers with a potential fOr use as food wraps;absorbable surgical sutures, and biologicalmembranes..

Among other products of this research are:

Development at the.Univeraity of Washington ofa fast, sensitive, and inexpensive way to deter.-mine calcium ion concentotion ih 13lood serumusing the protein Aequorin extracted 'from thejellyfish Aequorea aequora:which is being testmarketed by the-Sigma Chemical Company.

Isolation of drganic compounds from.the mac-rophytes Chara foliolosa and Cleocharls mic-rocarpa by University of Southern Mississippiscientists. The compounds inhibit the growth ofblue-green algae and may lead to syntheticproducts for controlling algae in a variety ofapplications:including sewage lagooris, aqua-culture ponds, and sw[mniing pools.

Discovery by researhers. at the Agricultural

at 37

Experiment Station, Geneva, N. V., that anenzyme from the digestive system of surf clamscatalyzes the hydrolytic breakdown of verystable:carbohydratesgiving it a potential inthe treatment of food processing waste§ andthe dissolution of dental plaque.tit Development by University of 'Rhode Island SeaGrant scientists of a rapid, reliiAblethemicaltest for the presence of toxins respoesible forparalytic shellfish poisoning which enablesprecise limits of infected areas to be deter-mined, thus enabling shellfish beds that mightotherwise be closed to be harvested.

Identification.by University of California scien-tists of 48 new marine algal extracts, including

pie first natural terpene, an antifungal hydro.-iquinone, an antibiotic active against Staphylo-

coccus, and a possible system of natural (thus,biodegradable) agricultural insecticides.

Table V provides a brief summary of Sea Grant-supported drugs and chemicals from the sea.projects. ,

Minerals from the SeaAs landside resources of important minerals con-tinue to be drawn down and as environmental andpolitical constraints limit access to those that doremain, the economics of marine.rninerals be-comes more attractive. Signifirant reserves ofmany'important,minerals are known to exist in thedpep ocean, on the continental shelves andslopes, and under the Great Lakes.

Sea.Grant is mainly concerned with compara-tively shallow water deposits. Though this cate-gory of effort is one4of Sea Grant's smallest, it isan activily with exciting potential and one inwhich industry shows considerable intefest:

One of the most active programs is at the Uni-versity of Wisconsin, which includes: devplopmentof a. hydrocyclone for underwater separation ofmagnetite (an iron ore) from sand; a microchemi--cal analysis system for isolating manganese,cobalt, copper7 and _nickel from other materials inmanganese nodules; and More efficient under-water survey and exploration techniques whichhave been used in both the Great Lakes andAlaska. Wisconsin Sea Grant researchers alsohave discovered and assessed both coriper andmanganese nodule deposits in Lake Michiganand Lake Superior.

Elsewhere, New York scientists have discov-ered and evaluated yast deposits of constructionaggregates in Lake.Erie; California researchers

. r

have inventoried its offshore sand and gravelreseuoceis; North Carolina investigators haveidentified recoverable deposits of quartz gravel,shell gravel, peat and clay; Rhode Island scien-tists have analyzed the economics of offshoresand and gravel recovery; and Hawaii reSearchershave discoyered shallow-water manganese noduledeposits within the Hawaiian archipelago With aplatinum and rare-earth content believed to behigh enough to make thorn commercially attrac-tive. The Hawaii program also has pinpointedoffshore deposits of sand for replenishmept of itsvaluable beaches andt under technology researchand development, has developed and tested aprototype of -an underwater sang recovery device.

All of these accomplishments were realiied'under Sea Grant auspices. Table VI shows SeaGrant-supported marine minerals activities.

28

Manganese nodules lromthe sea bottoin.

38t_

Sea Grant Tabie V

Sea Grant-Supported Dru9s/Chemkals Projects

ALASKA

ARIZONA

CALIFORNIAMarine Algae-Antiviia/ ExtractsBacterial Fouling -Antibiotic ControlSeaweed Products Mariculturo Applications

Agriculture Applications

CONNECTICUT

DELAWARECrab Chitin-Utilization

FLORIDASea Squirt Extracts-- Anticancer Activity

lmmunosuppressants

GEOlIGIA

HAWAIICiguatoxin-Detection in Marine Organisms

OriginLaboratory SimulationMechanism of Action

LOUISIANA .

MAINE/NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSORTIUM

MARYLAND

MASSACHUSETTSChitin-Industrial Applications

MICHIGAN

MINNESOTA

MISSISSIPPI/ALABAMA CONSORTIUMAlgal Blooms-lnhibiting'Substances

NEW JERSEYAnticoagulant Drug-Antrrial Sources

EvaluationChitosan-Enzymatic Preparation

Medical,Uses

NEW YORK"Sponge Extracts-As AntibIotidsIndustrial Enzymes-Marine.SourcesMarine Weeds-Potential Uses

NOR:I"H CAROLINA

OHIO/

OKLAHOMAActive Marine Compounds-Extraction

ScreeningTesting

OREGONRadioactive Extracts From Marine Invertebrates

Salmon Culture AntibioticAntitumor Cardiovascular and Aleurotropic Actl*ty

Marine Fungi-Function and Importance in MarthaEnvironments

PENNSYLVANIA

RHODE ISLAND'- Red Tide ToxinS"-Isolation

CharacterizationProtection

Marine Pharmacology

SOU:YH CAROLINA

. TEXASMarine Pharmaceuticals-Development

VIRaINIA

WASHINGTONBiolumines4nt SubstanCes-As Blood Serum

Caltium DetectorsMarine Polymers-Production

CharacterizationUtilization

Bivalves-Byssus Studios.Shellfish Exoskeletons-Utilization

0

WISCONSINBioactive Substances=-Chemistry

Pharmacology

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AMERICAN SAMOA

GUAM

TRUST TERRITORIES

VIRGIN ISLANDS

PUERTO RICO

NOTE: Thls is not a complete list of all projectareas undertaken durjng Sea Grant's fifst 10years. Rather, It Is Intended simply to be repre-sentative of the nature and variety of activities

taunder this category. Is

S.

0

Sea Grant TVA. VI

Sea Grant-Supported Minerals Prekcts

ALASKA

ARIZONA

CALIFORNIAShelf Sand and Gravel Inventory

. Coastal oil and Tar Seeps

'7- .

CONNECTICUT

DELAWAREDelaware Bay Sedimentary Structures

FLORIDA

GEORGIASubmarsh StratigraphyCoastal Aquifer-Confining StrataSand and Gravel Deposits-EvaluationUndersea Mineral Exploration

HAWAIICoastal Sand Resource SurveySand Recovery SystemsManagement Deposits-Economic Potential

LOUISIANA

MAINE/NEW HAMPSHIRE "CONSORTIUM

MARYLAND

A.,4ASSACHUSETTS'Offshore PetroleumAssay of Marine Resources

MICHIGAN

MINNESOTA

MISSISSIPPI/ALABAMA CONSORTIUM

NEW. JERSEY

NEW YORKSand and Gravel-Great.Lakes Survey

AssessmentResource Management

NORTH CAROLINA /Sounds and Estuaries-Erosion and DepositionEstuarine Mineral.DeposItsContinental Shelf-Mineral Deposits

.

OHIO

OKLAHOMA

OREGON

PENNSYLVANIA

RHODE ISLAND

SOUTH CAROLINA

TEXAS*Galveston Island-Sediment Budget

VIREINIA

WASHINGTON

WISCONSINNoble Mettils Exploration-/n AlaskaLode Minerals Exploration-Copper in Lake SuperiorMiinganese Nodules-Lake MichiganSand and Gravel Assessment-Lake MichiganPower Plants-Influence on Sediment Transport

. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AMERICAN SAMOA

GUAM ,

TRUST TERRITORIeS

VIRGIN ISLANDS

PUERTO RICO

NOTE: This is not a complete list of all project\ areas undertaken during Sea Grant's first 10

years. Rather, it is intended simply to be repre-sentative of the nature and variety Of activitiesunder this categdry.

"IP

4

4

.

c

30

IN.

e

4 s, t

t! ir4,1"3

fr

.

Pe

th

2 s

or

'.0 A;.

tki,}, 4.

e,e%.

lor , .10,- )104k,

111010:POtr:N

441110Ppx

'

k

55ssSskS.tlo

, ,eittyee141'''"..

' ;- A'"1"

,

4:2

-";71.

4:r

;1

; 1 , 1,4 r "

31a

Socioeconomic and LegalRasearchWhile Marine Resources Development projectsaddresti the science and technology of exploitingfisheries, minerals, and energy, .socioeconomicand Legal Research examines such questions as:What are the costs? Benefits? Are there Culturalconstraints or impacts? What are the controllingeconoThic factors? Are there any special market-ing problems? Potentials? What are the institu-tional, legal, and regulatory needs? The nature otthe concern may be local, national Or internationalthough the main emphasis is on the first.Table VII sumniarizes 1076 levels at activIly underthis category.

Research tasks supported under this categoryrange.from providing better informational andaAalytical bases for decision-making to develop-ment of "show-how" scenarios for opening up newmarkets for marine products. This requires notonly sound bases, but also elaboration of theeconomic, legal, and'social implications involved.In this way, Sea Grant is contributing to the evolu-,tion of new levels of discipline in public manage-ment processes.

Food from the sea draws considerable attention--both aquaculture and fisheries. In thoSe.Stateswhere it is new, aquaculture seldom fits neatlyinto existing administrative and regulatory striic-1tures. This may be a greater obstacle to a viableaquaculture industry than lack of technology. Sea.Grant assistance in removing this obstacle ranges

from identification of potential resource-use con-flicts and how they might be mitigated to prepara-tion of draft legislation to permit, encourage, andregulate aquaculture, and pro forma financialprojectiops to encourage private investment in it.Such studies have been supported in Oregon,Washington, California, Louisiana,.Florida, RhodeIsland:Massachusetts, and Maine.

Socioeconomic and legal fisheries researchprojects may seek a better understanding of spe-cific local fisheries, or they may tackle bro'adnational and international problems. ThuS, RhodeIsland has produced several species-specificstudies and also has published a fine little bookon the social and cuittgal characteristics of com-mercial fishermen--an often ignored aspect ofcommercial fisheries management:New Yorkseeks to understand and reverse the continuinghistorical decline of its commercial fisheries,while Texas is studying the economics of utilizingthe tremendous tonnage of finfish thrown away byshrimpers. Florida has produced an analysis Ofthe. contribution of its commercial fisheries to theState's ecenomy. It has also examined the politicsand economicsboth domestic and international--of its shrimp and spiny lobster fisheries, the lastwith special regard tO the recent exclusion ofAmericans from the Bahama Banks fishery.

On a broader front, some 20 studies have beencompleted and others are underway on the mean-ing of extended jurisdiCtion to the fisheries andfishermen of the 23 seacoastal States. Because ofthese, when the President signed the 200-mile

Sea Grant jable VII

Project Subcategory

Marine EconomicsOcean LawMarine RecreationSociopolitical Studios

Category Totals

Marine Socioeconomic and Legal Research(Fiscal Year 1976 Awards)

TotalProgramBudget"'

($-million)

Active Projects

AverageCost PerProject

($)

Number

0.6 230.7 170.1 60.6 11

37,00041,00021,00044,000

37,000.

.PFederal Funds Matching Funds

Per Centof TotalFederal

Sea Grant"'

($-mulion)

Per Centof TotalProgramBudget'

0.6 2.7 O.? 240,4 1.7 : 0.3 440.1 0.6 1,. 0.04 320,2 1.0. . 0.3 y 64

-1.-8 ; 1.8 38^

(1,) 'this include.; NOAA Spa Grant funds plus local matching funds.ihls Is a percentage of the total NOAA GrantC budget for all seven major categories of activity.

(3) this is the matching fund percentage of the total program budget In tho far left column.

Mt,

SI

, 32 4 '3

economic zone bill iinto law, many of the problems,needs, and opportunities of extended fisheriesjurisdiction already had been identified. This Isbut one example of Sea Grant's ability to antici-pate upcoming needs.

Many coastal States and tho Federal Govern-ment are better able-to cope with the expansionof oil and gas development to new parts of theOuter Continental Shelf because of 35 separateStudies supported by Sea Grant in 14 different e.

States. Similarly, Sea Grant has supported several-Studie-S.of epwaler por,ts. includir4 one, car-ried out at the request of the Council on Environ-mental Quality, which reported on the probableimpacts of such facilities at 11 different coastallocations.

Virtually every Sea Grant State has one or morerecreation-oriented projects. Coastal recreationis fraught with many dilemmas: opening a recrea-tional resource to too mahy people might destroythe very environmental characteristics that drawthem to it, for example.

The economics of coastal recreation have beenexamined from several Qerspectives. Both Floridaand Rhode Island researchers, for example, havestudied the noneconomic benefits of beach useand tried to develop monetary value schemes forrating individual beach experiments. Texas A&Mhas conducted a socioeconomic analysis of char-

' ter boat operators and consumers, while bothMississippi and New York have examined theeconomics of sport fishing. New York also hasinventoried its Great Lakes marinas abd survejajd.their oPerators. Texas has classified its recreationareas, surveyed and projected recreation prefer-ences, established, a computerized recreational.data bank with a predictive capability, inventoriedrecreation and tourism units in the costal zone,and computed the economic'impact of coastalzone tourism on both the.coastal zone and the

...State as a whole. Studies such as these are essen-tial to sound coastal zone managementespé-cially as more and more coastal resource usedecisions come down to tough "either-or"judgments.

The range of activities under thls category Iswide and diversified, including in additicalto theabove: a comprehensive analysis andforecastof Great Lakes.shipping; existing public rights inland and water resources; alternative offshoremineral leasing arrangements; methods4nd prob-lems of public land acquisition; private vs. j5ublicprovision and operation of recreational facilities;detailed compilations of existing State laws affect-

,

ing marine activities; legal impediments to the useof interstate compacts In fisheries management;demographic characteristits of coastal popula-tions.. and the like.

in Sharp contrast to studies such as these Is theLaw of the Sea Institute founded at the Universityof Rhode Island and now located at the University Cof Hawaii. Sea Grant-supported from the verybeginning, Its annual meetings and periodic work-.shops regularly bring together statesmen, poli-ticians, and legal scholars from all over the world.These meetings and Institutepublications haveplayed a leading role in stimulating debate,Increasing understanding, and encouraging evolu-tion of common perceptions of the evolving newinternational Law of the Sea.

A summary of projects under this category byStates can be found in Table VIII.

, ,;,fkkep )\1

.+^

41:11:1.11

11,

1.4

Ikeilv S4413N..1')

Wistful visitor watchos.ploasure boat sail from marinain Portsmouth, Virginia:

3343"..

Sea Grant Table VIII

Sea Grant-Supported Socioeconomic and LoyalProiects

ALASKALaw of the Sea -Regional Application

ARIZONA

%CALIFORNIAAquaculture- EConomlcs-

. Public RegulationLimited Entry Fisheries-AssessmentPublic Policy-Impact

CONNECTICUT

DELAWAREGroundfish-Forecasting ModelCoastal Industries-AnalysisSeashore Recreation-Sociology

FLORIDASeafood-Fishing and Marketing EconomicsBeachesProtective OrdinancesCommunity Legal Services-Marine Recreation-AssessmentOcean Law FLuctition

GEORGIAFishing Harbors-Economic AnalysisShrimpers-Occupational AnalysisAquaculture-LawCoastal Zone Planning-Mechanisms

HAWAII -

Deep Sea Resources-Response to ExploitationTuna Fisheries-Development Analysis

.......Coastal-Zone-Management-L MethodsPlanningLegislation

'LOUISIANACrawfish Preicessiing-Economjc AnalysisPort, Waterway and Pipeline Development

Site SelectionLegal AspectsPolicy Aspects

Deepwater Port-Environmental AnalysisRecreational Potentials

U.S. Policy Goals-Alternative MethodsEstuarine Land-tRecreational PotentialMaritim.e Labor-InstabilityCoastal. Resources-EconomicsUrban Encroachment

.

MAINE/NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSORTIUMMarino Industry. Recreation and Fishing-

° Potentlat interactipnsSocioeconomic and Legal StudiesEuropean Oysters-Potential in U.S.

MARYLAND

MASSACHUSETTSGeorges Bank Fishery

.

Extended Jurisdiction-TechnOlogy RegulationSon Grant Technology-Decision ProctissesOcean Management and Policy

MICHIGANFishetties-Econornics and MarketingWater Resources-Management

EconomicsRecreation'Behavior PatternsEnvironmental Decision Makers

MINNESOTA

MISSISSIPPI/ALABAMA CONSORTIUMCoastal Zone-Legal ProblemsSport Fishing-Demand and ,Supply Analysis

NEW JERSEY

NEW YORKCoastal Law-ProblemsCoho Salmon-Fishery and Community ImpactCoastal RecreationSupply of Rental Boats.Marina Businesses and UsersSiting Policy-NS-brit and FuturePorts-Activities and Growth

NORTH CAROLINA'Fresh Seafood Marketing ChannelsCoastal Zone Managemiint-Legal AspectsResource Exploitation-Legal Problems

OHIOSeafood Distribution and Marketing-Analysis

OKLAHOMA

,OREGONSeafood Markets-Struefure and PerformanceRegional Law Development-Ocean and CoastalExtended Fisheries Jurisdiction-EconomicsCoastal Areas-Economibs.Industries and Public PolicyLimited Entry-Impact

PENNSYLVANIA

3444

gr,

RHODE ISLANDMarine-Oriented Activities EconomicsExtended Fishery Jurisdiction-Economic ImpactsLaw of Tho Sea 'InstituteCoastal Marina-Ecological ImpactNarragansett Bay-Economics and EcologyNow England Petroleum-AssessmentWaste Disposal-EconomicsClam Resources ManagementFiSheries-SocieecOnomics

.SOUTH CARbLINACooperative Hull Insurance-Feasibility

TEXASShrimp Industry-Costs and ReturnsFinfish Marketing SysteMsOcean Law Changes-Lega/ ImplicationsCharter Fishing-AnalysisRecreation/Tourism-Impact

Needs

VIRGINIA

WASHINGTONPuget Sound Recreational FisheryCommercial Fisheries-EconomicsMarine Environment of Puget Sound

WISCONSINCoId*Water Fish Aquaculture-EconomicsGroat Lakes Fisheries-Economic:6'Water Management-Problems

ApplicationsInternational Cooperation-hist/lotionsRecreation-Behavior and Attitude Patterns

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AMERICAN SAMOA -

GUAM ^

Marine Resources-Exploitation

TRUST TERRITORIES

VIRGIN ISLANDS

PUER10 RICO

NOTE: This Is not a complete list of all projectareas undertaken during Sea Grant's first 10years. Reber, it is intended simply to be rapre-sentative Of the nature and variety of activitiesunder this category.

Marine Tochnology Resexchand- DevekTmentWhile other Sea Grant programs help te find anddefine marine resources or establish their eco-nomic and legal parameters, Marine Technology .

Research and Development projects tackle.themachinery and methods needed to exploit theseresources, minimize their adverse environmentalimpact, conserve thorn, and control pollution asso-ciated with their use and taking. This is whereengineers and technicians shine as they seek toimprove ocean, coastal, and seafloor engineering;

. structures arid materials; large floating platforms;artificial offshore islands; the human capabilityto work and play beneath the sea; commercialfishing gear and ships; aquaculture pens, ponds,and raceways; seafood handlsing, processipg,storage. shipping, and display; underwatei dredg-ing and pipelining; coastal and marine recrea-tional gear and faCilities; and marine transperta-tion including high-speed commuter systems,ports, harbors, and offshore terminalsjust tomention fewv Table IX showsthe 1976 level ofactivity under this category.

Hawaii, a growing island State of small land butvast ocean area, has-designed, built, and sea-tested a large scale-model of a stable floatingplatform which one day may support large, self-contained ocean communities. it has reported onthe technical and economic feasibility of high-speed interisland transport using hydrofoils,hovercraft, or both, and has examined the prob-lems and potentials of linking the major islandswith a centrally located thermal energy source viahigh-voltage undersea cables.

Sea Grant Table IX

t1.

Project bubcategpry

Ocean EngineeringResource Recovery

and UtilizationTransportation Systems

Category. Totals

Floi Ida and others are seeking better ways ofControlling marine corrosion and fouling, while -

Wisconsin'studies freshwater corrosion, especiallywhere heavy pollution and stray currents arepresentas is cornnion around major Groat Lakesports. Wisconsin has reseorched and reported ontechnology's potential roles in Groat Lakes water-borne trade. Both Wisconsin and Michigan areconcerned with coastal erosion, while they andAlaska have problem-oriented projects in iceengineering.

Enginepring studies ef alternative deepwaterport designs have been carried out by Delaware,Texas, and Louisiana. Aquaculture engineeringresearChi ng waste engineering--is under-way in Al a, Massachusetts, Texas, Wisconsin,Virgini , Hawaii, Florida, Delaware, and otherState Responding to the problems and perils of'its b doxposure to the open ocean, Rhode IslandSea Grant has designed, built, and tested aneffective, inexpennive "do-it-yourSelf" floatin9breakwater made of old automobile tires which iseasily deployed and removed. Its use is spreadingto other areas both in the United States andabroad. California also has designed and testeda floating breakwater composed of closely peekedarrays of tethered sphérlcalfloats.. .

Humans-in-the-sea projects cover a wide naivefrom underwater living and work experiments inMichigan and New Hampshire and computermodeling of thermodynamic concepts of decoin-pression sickness in Texds, to development ofdiver standards and training programs In Florida,numerical models of forces on working.divers at,Michigan and Wisconsin and diver pro-grarps in Washington. Coastal structures and their

Marine Technology Rosear4i and Development(Fiscal ear 1976 Awards)

Federal Funds Matching FundsActive ProjectsTotal

AverageCost PerProject

($).

ProgramBudgetw(5-million)

Number

2.2 .. 662.1 68

0.1 4

Cr

Per Cent Per Centof Total of Total

("Ilion) < Federal (S-Inilli°11) ProgramSea Grant" Sea Grant"

39,000 1.3 -. 0.9 4036,000 1.3 6.6 (1.8 38

27,000 0.07 0.3 0,04 ' 33

(1) This includes NOAA Sea Grant funds plus local matching funds.Itda Is a percentage of the total NOAA Sea Grant budget Mr all seven major categories of activity.

(3) This is-the matching fund.percentage of the total program budget in the far left column.

...*

e

'-`.1,

' r

Nas'

tft

V

4 4:

vc. '

A' list's concept 01 a floating city.

z

4

37

4

I 'I*s1

t I

et

.

responses to water forces are being studied atHawaii, Oregon, California, and Wisconsin, whileFlorida has produced a very practical report onhow to build hurricane-proof structures. NorthCarolina,-South Carolina, Virginia, and Florida arotrying.to improve'beach stabilization technology,while Oregon has developed a technique for:greatly extending the life of wooden pilings in themarine environment. Matsachusetts Sea Grant hasshown that high-bnergy electron beams can killharmful f5acter4a and break down<Smplex organic

.

, c.

4 .,' ,1

compounds in sewage and other waste water. NewYork has developed two methods which showpromise in removing mercury from fish, while acontinent away, in Oregon, -a specially adaptedseismograph has proved its worth as a remotesensor measuring sea states over the bars foundbefore the entrances to most harbors along thatcoast.

There are many more protects under this cate-.gory, both past and present. For a more completesummary, see Table X.

'

"-

, -

ruat..

Floating tire breakwater.

;

38

Bea Grant Table X

$ea Grant-Supported Technology Research andDevelopment Projects

ALASKASub-Bottom Arc 'tic StructureSea Ice-DynamicsAquaculture DevelopmentPermafrost-Characteristics, DistributionMarino Organisms-Heavy Metals ConcentrationUse of Marine MammalsHarbor Seals-Biology

ARIZONA

CALIFORNIASalinity Gradients-Power SourceConcrete Construction-Electrical HazardsWave Climate ModificationsDiving Safety ProgramHake Fishery Development -

Fish Products-Histamine ToxicitySeafood TechnologyFishery Products-Quality AssessmentBlack Cod Fishery-Improved MethodsBreakwater Modifications-Reducing Harbor SurgeOcean Construction-Composite Materials

CONNECTICUT

DELAWAREBeach Erosion-Assessment

ControlClosed Cycle MaricultureClosed Cycle Systems-Chem/stryMariculture-DeKelopment ServiceMariculture-Water Recycling

FLORIDAMetal Corrosion-Bridge Pier CrackingCanal and Lake Flushing-HydrodynamicsFlorida Sand BudgetOil Spills-Magnetic RecoveryFishing Gear Design-ModelingMullet-Controlling Rancidity

GEORGIAFinfish Fishery-FeasibilityFisheries-Processing and Maximum Utilization :

Shrimp Meal-Nutrient QualityChitosan-Production, UtIlizationShellfish ProcessingFish and Shrimp ByproductsFish Smoking Processes

HAWAII,' Deep Ocean Cosmic Ray interactions

Seaward AdvancementUndersea Observation StructureHsat Exchanger-Eno/et/Brig Experiment

Pipolinos-Wave AttackWaves-Reef Attenuation and Sot-UpTropical AquacultureHuman Performance in The SeaDecompression SafetyFloating Platforms-FeasibilitySealed Concrete-Additional StrengthRapid Transit-Marine Alternatives

LOUISIANAAntifouling MaterialsCable Insulation-MaterialsSeafood-Quality ControlSuperports and Offshore Facilities-PlanningFisheries-Product Development

MAINE/NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSORTIUMBeach Systems-Management OptionsAcoustic Surveying-Parabolic ReflectorsDynamic Floating BreakwaterDiver Telemetry-Physiological DataFishery Byproducts-In Animal Food

MARYLANDSoft Shell Clams-Viability After Being Caught

MASSACHUSETTSFoundation Design-In Marine SoilsOffshore Structures-AnalysisUndersea Work-TeleoperatersDeepsea Joining, Cutting-TechniquesOcean Wave Energy SystemTrawl Board ImprovementSide Trawl Hookup Block-improvementDogfish (shark)-Skinning Process'Fisheries Products-Lipid CompoundsSeafood-Pressure PreservationCurrent Sensor-DynamicsWater Treatment-High-Energy.Electron Beam

MICHIGANFishing Gear Improvement-Purse SeiningDiving Safety-Resea(ch and Recreation

MINNESOTA .

MISSISSIPPI/ALABAMA CONSORTIUMRaw Oysters-EnteroVirus DetectionIsoelectric Focusing-ApplicationsRemote Underwater Fishery AssessmentUnderwater Reconnaissance Vehicle

NEW JERSEY

NEW YORK .

Submerged Vegetation-Sediment Stabilization :Dredge Spoil Disposal'Underutilized Species-Convenience ProcluctaClam Wash Water-Utilization

39

4 9

Fish Product Qua lity-L/p/dsFish Filleting Waste RecoveryIndustrial Fish-Mercury Removal

NORTH CAROLINASeafoods-MicroconstituentsCrabmeat Processing-QualitySeafood-Pathogen ControlsFish Muscle Tissue-PropertiesMarine Structures-ReliabilityBeach Control-New Method

OHIO

OKLAHOMA

OREGONStructure Do Sign-Wave SimulationWooden Structures and Boats-ImprovementsCrabs-Laser and Freeze BrandingFishing Gear-DevelopmentWooden Pilings-Preserve by FumigationSeatood-Processing Sanitation .

Utilization.% Mechanization

r Nutritional QualityQuality Control

Shellfish Waste-Agricultural UseTunaSafety TestSewage Discharge-Reduced DamageBar Clearance Sensor-Remote Seismometer

PENNSYLVANIA

RHODE ISLANDMetal Reinforced Concrete-DegradationHard-Bottom Combination NetFatal Scuba Accidents-AnalysisCrab Waste Use-In Salmonid AquacultureAssessing Seafood QualityBay Watch-Engineering ServicesScrap Tire Floating BreakwaterFishing near- Hydrodynamics

Improvement

SOUTH CAROLINAMarine Turtles-InventoryShrimp Heads-Automatic RemovalDiked Disposal Areas-UtilizationAquaculture Mechanization

T.EXASOffshore Pipelines-EngineeringCoastal Processes-Numerical ModelsDredge Disposal-Trace ElementsDredge Spoil Islands-Erosion

iSatu ation Diving-Maximum DepthsHyd gen/OxygeeDecompression TablesSeafood Safety and Wholesomenes'sIntracostal Waterway-Environme ntal ImpactOffshore Terminals-Impact on IndustryFishery Products-Sanitation;-Ouality.Control

VIRGINIAProtective Structures-Engineering

WASHINGTONFishing VeSsel SafetyFloating Breakwater ResearchFish Stocks-Acoustic CouritingMarine AcousticsTotal Utilization ConceptChitin/Chitosan-Potentia/ UtilizationFloating Structures-Perlormance Tests

WISCONSINCorrosion-Frosh (Polluted) WaterUnderwater Welding-SteelHarbor Flushing MeasurementsMarinas-Lake Ice

'Harbor/Offshore Water ExchangeFish Production Wastewater- TreatmontUnderutilized Fish --Product Development

Quality ImprovementsDivers-Artificial Gills

Diver Orientation De icesOther DivPhysiol gical Evaluation

Great Lakes Water TransportControlled H ming--Odor Imprinting SalmonSt. Lawr e Seaway-Modeling

Predicting Water Closing

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AMERICAN SAMOA

GUAM

TRUST TERRITORIES

- VIRGIN ISLANDS

PUERTO RICOUnderwater Habitats-

Potential for Resource Management

NOTE: This is not a complete list of all projectareas undertaken during Sea Grant's first 10years. Rather, it Is Intended simply to be repre-sentative of the nature and varie(y of activitiesunder this category. 4

.40

1

"';`C:.;44.:1-1::+...

11:h5;1441

f.

??

Marine EnvironmentalResearchThe foundation ot management is knowledge.When Sea Grant came into being comparativelylittle information existed on the natural resourcesto be managed, and much that did exist was--unuseable because of its forrp and.the narrow Pur-poses (usually scientific) for which it was devel-oped originally. Demographic and other infor-mation on human activities was in pretty goodshape, but how the human system and the naturalsystem interacted was only imprecisely known, thesubject of frequent adversary confrontations, andtotally inadequate for management purposes.

The purpose of Sea Grant-supported MarineEnvironmental Research is to try to fill these gapsto gather data in a consistent and disciplinedmanner and to define system interactions in termswhich pre Meaningful to management and can besubjected to computer analysis and testing. Theultimate objective is to make reliable predictiveanalysis a standard management tool. This offersthe academic community aa exciting opportunityto gtrengthen intellectual excellence while greatlyexpanding public service capabilities. To the indi-vidual States, this research offers the opportunityto obtain a taluable adjunct of the governingproceSs at a quite low cost. In the 13 Sea GrantCollyge Stairsnamely, Rhode Island, Massa-chusetts, Npw York, Delaware, North Carolina,Florida, Wiscoosin, Texas, California, Oregon,Washington, Louisiana ahd Hawaiithis goal hasbeen realized. Other States show varying degreesof progress. Table Xl shows the level of activityunder this category.

In general, Sea Grant-supported projects underthis category acldress the followipg types ofactivities:

Baseline and inventory studies of coastal andmarine areas and their resources and environ-mental features, including, quite frequently.,the incorporation of these data into publishedatlases of the physical, chemical, biological,and other characteristics of relevant bodies ofwater.im Development of specilic use-related baselinedata banksincluding, where appropriate,evaluation of future impacts of decisional altar,nativeshitting such issues as power plantsiting,.public shoreline access, pollution..con-trol onflicting resource uses, dredge spoil

posal, and sewage outfalls.

01 Study of important onVironmental processes,such as nutrient flow through estuaries andmarshes, coastal erosion, littoral transport.subaerial dune erosion, and the scouring andsedimentation in harbors, bays, and channels.

Interactions within the onvironmorksuch 'asfaunal and floral responses to changes In nu- .Went balance, temperature, dissolved oxygen,and light.Ng Studies-of pollution sources, pathways, rosi-dence times, and fatesincluding heat, radio-nuclides, mercury, and other heavy metals;petrolieum, polychlorinated hydrocarbons (DDT,PCB'p, etc.), and other municipal, industrial,and Ogricultural wastes.fla System studies of major coastal and estuarinefeatUres such as Puget Sound, Green Bay,Gr4nd Traverse.Bay, Saginaw Bay, HoustonShip Channel, Biscayne Bay, Santee Estuary,Pamlico Sound, Albermarle Sound, ChesapeakeBay, De lavYare Bay, Long.Island Sound, Narra-gansett Bay, MassachusettS Bay, and a 50-mile 'stretch of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, andMaine coastline.111 Development of numerical models for computeranalysis ancf prediction of natural syttems,human activities, economic systems, and theirinteractions.

Search for ways Ao detect, measure and removepollutants, to reverse human-caused environ-mental damage and to convert wastes intoharmless or profitable products.

IN To provide data bases and analyses in specificsupport of legislative, regulatory and 'permit-ting activities of local,-State, and Federalgovernments.

the nature of individual projects varies widely,according to the most pressing needs of each partOf the country. Louisiana Sea Grant has partici-pated in the environmental assessment of thewhole LOOP (Louisiana Offshore Oil Port) proj-ect, including OffsKbro facilities, tank farm; andpipeline right,of-way, while Texas A&M scienfistshaVe produced a significant four-volume report om

,"Water Quality Characteristics of HazardoLISMaterials" and determined the feasibility of,aerating the Houston Ship Channel.

Rhode Island Sea Grant researchers have con-structed an eldbOrate series of interlocking corn-puter models of Narragankett Bay which are nowused to support State coasVzone managementefforts; it also has developed an infrared tech-nigue for identifying" pollutants. New Hampshireresearcheris are studying the long-terrn envIron-mental effects of dumping baled solid wdstes intothe ocean. Wisconsin Sea.Grant investigators arestudying the environmental preferences of cohosalmon by means of telemetry devices attached tothe fish; they are monitoring and researching awide range of pollutants Common to the Greattrakes; and they are exploring the effects on pri-mates (of which.humans are one species) ofChronic exposure to PCB's.

Sea Grant Table XI Marine Environmental 116,4arch(Fiscal Year 1078 Aliti#1s)

1*,

Matching Funds,

Project Subcategory

Researchkin Support ofCoastal Zone Management

Ecosystems ResearchPolhition StudiesEnyironmental ModelsApPlied Oceanography

Cittegory Totals \

TotalProgramBudget"'(5-million)

Active Projects Federal Funds

Number

AverageCost PerProject

2,2 68 33,000

0.9 32 28,0001.5 47 32,0001.2 22 53,0000.5 11 43,000

-8.-3. -166.

Per Centof TotalFederal (S-million)

Per Cent 1,.of TotalProgram

° Sea Grant'n Budget"'

1.4 6.8 0.9 39

0.5 4, 2.2 0.4 - 421,0 0.5 360.7 2.9 410.3 1.2 0.2- 41

16.3- -T-214

(1) ThisincludeS NOAVA Sea Grant funds plus local matching funds.(Q) This is a percentage of the total NOAA Sea Grant budget for all seven malor categories of(i) This is tho n1atchir4 fund. perCentago of the total program budget in the far left.00l!nnry.

42 ,' '52.

actiVity.

A

k)<- le

.

1\ 4'. I ..,,.- I'

1: -6 -44

Jr 14411Melp,,414,03.:.

sc.:. 3'

4411117,0%

',A

(101it)ii(),1

ft'st.t.;

6

:%-- .1

V

74

rAio,

N44

'

11.

6

Yrt

r

,e,

v

qr1-7

-._ ,,,-, 1,--.:70-f, .(,>1.r4

, ,

V : 6 '

C 4 '

..f . - ti 't.''' 4' - ''' ,

s ,L . keg.

4.;

I Ors (404

r 7"`.

It

4,1

,

Both California and WashingtonSea Grantscientists are looking at the ecological effects oflarge sewage outfalls discharging into large-Caysand the open ocean: Hawaii researchers arostudying the effects of pollutants on the larvae ofimportant species of fish, e.g., tuna. Tho Missis-sippi program has developed techniques torconverting raw seafood wastes into fiSh farmingrations arid for using electrolysis to'purify wastewater. Maine investigators have studied the

#

Son Grant Tablo XII

Sea Grant-Supported Environmental Research(1967-1976)

ALASKAResurrection Bay-Hydrography, ChemistryMarino Planning-EducationPrudhoe Bay-Primary Production

ARIZONA-

CALIFORNIA'Coastal Governance-Issues .

Coastal Development -ManagementCoastal Planning-MethodsSan Francisco Bay-BiologySea Urchins Fisheries-AssessmentBeaches and Dunes-VegetationNutrient Quality-EnhancementFood Resources-DynamicsPlankton-Inshore Food SourceKelp Grass-MetabolismWaste Heat Effluents-EffectsStress Induced Fish ParasitismChemical Pollution-BioassayMicrobial Pollutants-Ana/ysisFish Population-PollutionEffeptsCoastal Planning-Criteria

CONNECTICUTHeavy Metals-Oyster. UptakeHeavy Metals-Circeilating, Distributiob, and

ConcentrationLong Island Sound-Circulation PatternsConnecticut River Rime

. DELAWAREWave Damage-PredictionCoastal Development-ImpactTrace Metals7In Shellfish

,Estuaries-Nutrients, Energy, ProductionBarrierS-Structure, Evolution, DestructionWetlands Vegetation

effects on baltworms.of thermal discharges. fromeleCtric power plaMts, while Florida scientistt havelooked at tho impact of thermal and radioactivepollution on shrimp and other important marinespecies.

And so it goes. Responses to local needs andopportunities are what doterMine the makeup ofSea Grant projects at any given point in time.Table XII provides a, more complex Sumtnary of.activities under this category.

FLORIDA

4.V"

Estuarine Environmental StudyPrOductivity-Energy Flows arid PatternsPesticides-Effect On FfsherleiSewage Pollution Abatement-/mpactCirculation and Dispersion-Mode/1wShoreline EvolUtionThermal Pollution-HearingsCoastal Exchange Processes

GEORGIAOceanographic Atlas SeriesMarsh Condition IndexEstuarine Hydrography-Data CompilationEstuarine Environmenta-Subtidal

HAWAII.Reef Fish-Commercial ExploitationLegislative Assistance-EnvironmentalCoastal Decision-Baseline DataCoral Reef ManagementOceanic Pathogens-VirusesExtreme Wave Conditions-Statistics

LOUISIANAMarsh Recreational DwellingsCoastal Resources-Analysis

. Marine-Fresh Water ExchangePrimary Productivity-OffshoreMetropolitan Metabolism-Coasta/Wetlands-Soil-Nitrogen TransformationSpartina/Cellulose TransforolationCypress Swtmp-ChemIcal EcologyShelltish-"Hydrocarbon Content

...HydrocarbOn-Estuarine Carbon FluxFood Chain ConcentraVon

Water and Sediment-Chem/stryMarsh-Estearine System-Models

MAINE/NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSORTIUMLand tjse Planning v.Reactor Rtidionuclides4n Oysters

and Sediments

44

Marine Worms-Thermal Pollution EffectsHydrodynamic and EnvironMental Modeling,Estuarine Nutrients-DistributionOil Slicks-Remote Sensing

MARYLAND.

MASSACHUSETTSFluviatile Salmonids-/ntoractIonsOil Slick ControlBedford Harbor-Sediment Dispersal .

. Water Movement and Dispersion-Mode/s. Sediment Transport-Longshore

Inlet StabilityRed Tides-Trace Mellls Role

MICHIGANShoreline Protection-PrivateErosion Damage-AnalysisCoastal Zone EngineeringFisheries-Groat LakesShorelands-Pranning and ManagementLake Curr.ents-MogplingSewage Treatment-Technology,Water Quality-Regiona/ SurveyPhytoplankton-Nutrient Enrichment

MINNESOTA

MISSISSIPPI/ALABAMA CONSORTIUMMarshes-Managennifit PlanningCoastal Zone Capability-AnalysisSeafood Wastes-Marketable CommoditiesShrimp Processing-Waste TreatmentMobile Bay-Physical EnvironmentGulf Coast-Environmental &mutation

NEW JERSEYHeavy Metals and Nutrients-DistribufionMetal Pollutants-Biological EffectsMercury-BiomagnificationCoastal Waters-Numerical Simulation

- Plankton-Physiochemical EcologyPolliaant Transport Patterns-

By Sulfate ChlorinityNewark Bay-Renewal Rite

I.NEW YORK

'Coastal Management:/nstitutions, PublicParticipation .

Coastal Waters-ManagethentLake OntarioEnvironmental AtlasErosion/Depositioh-BalanceCoastal Zone-Visual Quality

RecreationPower Plant Si,tingSeafood Processing Effluents-gltrafiltrationIslankton-Pollution EffectsVirUses-Surt/Atmgsphere Transfar

NORTH CAROLINACoastal Management-Ecological DeterminantsDredge Spoil-Marsh RegenerationShore Environments-CIassilicationCoastal Birds-PopulationsDune StabilizationShellfish Viruses-DetectionOnslow Bay-Physical StudiosBeach Grass-Destruction By InsectsPest Control AnalysisPamlico Sound-Numerical Model

OHIO

OKLAHOMA!'

OREGONPublic Boating-Space Demands

tt

Sea Lions-AssessmentMarinas7I-lydraulic CharacteristicsClam Populations-SubtidalEstuarine Plankton-DynamicsSpit Erosion

PENNSYLVANIA

RHODE ISLANDCoastal Resources CenterMenhaden/Sport Fish-RelationshipeErosion Inventory-PhotogrammetryCoastal Ecosystem ModelPhytoplankton BloomS-Causes.

..Bottom'Community-Carbon FluxHydrocarbons-in Sediments -

In SeawaterCoastal Areas-Analytical ModelingHydrodynamics/Salinity/Temperature-ModelEstuarine Deposits-Three-dimensional Study.

SOUTH CAROLINACoastal Erosion-Inventory t.

. Dredge Spoil-Pest Management

TEXASResource Management -

Channel-Harbor Complex-EnyironmentatManagement

Itidustrial Wastes-Ocean DumpingWater Quality-Artificial Aeration.Estuaries and Shellbsh-larus EnumerationCoastal Canals-Water QualityBromine Chloride-ToxicityBulk Shipping-Hazard Rating SystemOil and Tar DepositsCoastal Engineering Research

VIRGINIA t

Wetlands Management-Alternatives.'Wave Réfraction-SynthesIsContinental Shelf Bathyrri-etry

45

. 55

WASHINGTONCoastal Resources- Governance

MethodsAdvisory Services

Ports-Development .and OperationsPuget Sound-Environment

Mae Analysis, ApplicatiortSFish EcologyResource Management

Resources-Total System Approach

WISCONSINWatershed Phosphorus-Policy ImplicationsPower Plant SitingCoastal Resources-Cultural and HistoricLand Interest Information-CoastalShoreline Erosions-Lake MichiganPlant Communities-CoastalCoastal.Slumps-MechanicsShoreline Mapping-ComputerizedCoastal Zone-Remote SensingShrimp-Population DynamiqsDeep-Living PhytoplanktoriFish-Energy Requirements, GrowthFish Populations-Acoustic Estimating MethodsPesticides-in Food ChainsSalmonids-MicrocontarninantsThermal Effluents-Dispersion, EffectsTrace Metals-Transport and DistributionPaper Mill Effluent-iToxicity

Lake Trout-PCB EffectsAir Pollution Input-Lake Michigan.Salmonids-PCB Metabolism--Surface *Microlayer-Microcontaminants

InfractionsOrganic Microcontaminants-AnaiysistPrimates-PCB ResponseFlash Control ModelSalmon Management-Odor Imprinting

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AMERICAN SAMOA

GUAMTumon Bay-BathymetryCoastal Zone-Ecology

TRUST TERRITORIES

VIRGIN ISLANDS

PUERTO RICO

NOTE: This is not a complete list of all projectareas undertaken during Sea Grant's first 10years. Rather, it is intended simply to be repre-sentative of the nature and variety of activitieSunder this category.

Marine Educatid'n and TrainingNew imperatives of coastal and marine resourceexp)oitation and management require people withnow capabilities. Ten years ago, There were vir-tually no programs offering the necessary educa-tional opportunities. Sea Grant's Marine Educationand Training initiatives.seon remedied that, andin the 1972-76 period alone some 1,500 oceanengineers, more than 4,000 technicians, and 300lawyers, marine economists, and marine affairsspecialists graduated from Sea Grant-supportededucational programs. In the spring of 1976 these

^programs had161 graduate students and 291technician trainees, of whom 127 were in fish-eries-related programs. This category's 1976levet of activity is shown in Table XIII.

Sea Grant's mission is not to support educe-tional programs indefinitely. Its mission is toprovide financial help in starting a program forwhich there is a clear need. The primary criterionof nee4I is the employability of graduates. SeaGrant's role is to assist university administrations

to undertake new programs. It is assumed that, ifthere is a student demand and if its graduates areadvantageously employed because of that educa-tion, the program will become self-supporting.Thus, the proportion.of Sea Grant support beginsdiminishing from the beginning and eventuallyends. If preprogram estimates of demand for theskills thus provided prove to be erroneous or if themarket for that skifl becomes saturated, Sea

Grant support is terminated forthwith. WhereasSea Grant once supported 20 different techniciantraining programs, by 1976 that number wa§ downto 15.

As a result of rigorous cgntrols, the record ofemployment of graduates of Sea Grant-supportedprograms is excellent. Many run 100 percent con-sistently year after year. For the life of Sea Grant, .

the average for all programs is more then 80 per-cent. Many in the unemployed 20 percent chooseto go on to higher degrees, while others pursuenew careers.

Sea Grant Education.and Training has three

'46.56

AP

. 1 .

Sea Grant Table XIII Marine Education and Training(Fiscal Year 1976 Awards)

Project Subcategory

TotalProgramBudget")

Active Projects Federal Funds4.-

Matching Funds

Number

AverageCost PerProject

Per Centof TotalFederal ($"milii°4)

Por Centof Total .

Program

($) Sea Grant"' Budget"'\

College Lovel 0.8 31 27,000 0.3 1.2 0.5 66

Vocational 1.1 17 67,000 0.3 1.3 0.8 74

Retraining --- ... _ .._ _

Othor Education 2.2 37 - 69,000 1.4 6.9 0.8 37

C-atlIgory Total° 4-.2 .--13. -44:666 , "-TO -61 "-2.2

,s4.

(1) This includes NOAA Son Grant funds plus local matching funds.(P) This is a percentage of tho total NOAA Son Grant budget for : all sovon major categories of activity.(3) This is the matching fund percontage of the total program budgetlin the far loft column.

47

Graduate student at the University ot Wisconsin pre-.pares tor an experiment.

basic objectives: (1) To train specialists such ascernmercial divers, boat and ship handlers, com-mercial fishermen, marine and oceanographictechnicians: natural resources agents, mariaeveterinarians, ocean and ceastal engineers, andaquaculturists; (2) to produce interdisciplinary,mission-ori(fhted professionals to fill the demandfor coastal zone managers, marine resourceeconomists, environmental and economic impactanalysts, and others who can understand and cor-relate different scientific and engineering discl-Wines as yvoll as a wide range of human activitiesfor systems management purposes; and.(3) tocreate a bettor public understanding and appre-ciation of the oceans, their challenges, and theiropportunities.

The need for educational programs such asthese has catalyzed exciting changes within theparticipating ,universities. The need to developand administer interdisciplinary and interdepart-mental degree programs has exposed faculty and

r administrators alike to whole new perspectives ofthe roles and techniques of 'higher education. Italso has provided the concdtptual base and ad-minitrative machinery for the Sea Grant multi-capability, team approach to problerfi solving. Inturn, the experience of ,such team members in therealities, complexities, deadlines, and require-ments for useable results gives thorn new percep-tions and knowledge for use in the classroom and,indeed, frequently suggests new courses anddegree programs. The Sea Gtant closed-loopfeedback process benefits the whole system.There is also an indirect but worthwhile payoffin the greater prestige and visibility the universityenjoys in its community.

Sea Grant Education and Training projects in-,,clude everything from single courses and slimmerprograms to two-year, four-year and graduatedegree programs (See Tables XIV and XV).Among the earliest were the introduction of fish-eries technology programs at Oregon State Uni-versity, an undergraduate degree in OceanEngineering at -Florida Atlantic University,the Master of Marine Affairs (MMA) prograknat Rhode Island, and the Master of Laws inocean law at the University of Miami. During itsfirst few years, Sea Grant also supported oceantechnician programs at Cape Fear Technical In-stitute, North Carolina, and the Southern MaineRegional Vocational Institute. Support for' the last-tWei inStitutions was'halted when the demand ferocean technicians failed tO justify further support.

48

The MMA prooram at the University of RhodeIslanc.1 In a way seryed as a prototype to theInterdisciplinary approach -to graduate education.

Core courses were drawn from the Geography,.Oceanography. Economics, and EnginberingDepartments, Mille electives could be taken In alldepartments. Many of.the course bfferings werenew to URIe.g., Marine Geography, Marine Re-source Economic& OCoan Engineering, Interna-tional Law. The purposeof the program was toexpose administrators and policyrnakeis to the

reblems of science and engineering in the42 coon, of ocean law, and of marine operations7ener8lly: and to (*pose ocean scientists and.tengineers and, as It turnod out, Naval offieers tothe'politics4and economics of Marine affairs. Theobjective was to begin the process of providingthe international negotiators, coastal zone rpana-gers,. Federal and State admipistrators, and busi-ness executives who would be needed to manageAmerica's coastal and contiguous marine re-sources and protect her interests world-wide.

Sint Grant Table XIV,

Sea Grant-Supported Education and Training Projects

ALASKAFishing Technology

'Seafood Processing. :-

Sea Grant Lecture ProgramMarine Science Public Television

ARIZONA

CALIFORNIACommercial Diver Training.Sea Grant InternsCoastal Decision-MakingMarine Eduoation CurriculumMarine Resouree ManagementTechnology Assessment Training

CONNECTICUT.

DELAWAREMarine Editcation-L.Public SchoolsMarine Environment StudiesFisheries.-Managenwnt Economics

3r

FLO-RIDAOcean and Coastal LawUnderwater TechnicianMarine Technology Program.

4-H Marine Program

GEORGIAMarine Resource Education '.(1

HAWAIIOceanographic Technician TrainingCruise Experience-Secondary StudentsMarine Option ProgramAquarium OperationsMarine Education ExpositionMarine Technology-Teacher TrainingMarine Curriculum-Secondary Schools

Elementary SchoolsMarine Pathology-Courses

:)

LOUISIANANautical Mathematics TextbookNautical Scieoce-Vocational ProgramTransportation Systems ModelingHigh School Teachers-Marine Training

MAINE/NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSORTIUMAquaculture-Graduate Study-Ocean Projects-UndergraduateMarine Technicians TrainingMarine Training-For Teachers

MARYLAND

MASSACHUSETTSOcean Enginewing-Curricula

LaboratoryTextbook

Commercial Fisheries ProgramDeep Submersibles-Launch/RetrievalStable Ocean PlatformsMultidisciplinary Products-Marine Sciences

Coastal Management, Systems Design

rMICHIGANUnderwater Technology EducationCommercial Divers-Operating Standards

MtNNESOTA4

MISSISSIPPI/ALABAMA CONSORTIUMMarine Law and Science,

49

v.

NEW JERSEY

KW YORKCoastal Law TraineeshipsSea Grant Tt-aineeshipsPublic Swirl Legislationkngineeri and Marine TechnologyMarine Industries Studies

NORTH CAROLINIACoastal LawPublic School Mar1ne Program-Teacher Training

Teaching MaterialsTeaching Guides

43

Some programs, not 'necessarily degreeoriented, are quite innovative. serve theinterdisciplinary educational need. and produce avaluable service. Massachusetts Institute ofTochnology, for example, has since 1973 teamed

te up lawyers and engineers to tackle a variety of .

i:/ital current marine issues. They have learnedabout and from each other arid to work together*as an interdisciplinary team with a singleobjective. This program has produced a series ofresearch reports on such topics as offshore oiland gas, offshore nuclear power; maritime trafficcontrol, ocean mining. and deepwater ports.

Technical and vocational training programs. %are mission-oriented and market-dependent.

These determinations are made locally by the

OHIO

OKLAHOMA

OREGONMarine/Maritime StudiesOcean Law TrainingMarine Resources ManagementCommercial Fisheries- TechnicianMarhie Technician ProgramSeafood Technology

PENNSYLVANIA ,

RHODE ISLANDMaster-of Marine AffairsMarine ResourceEconomicsOceiin Engineering.Fist*ries and Marine Technology

SOUTRGAROLINA ,

TEXASOcean Engineering ProgramsCrustal Evolutions-High SchoolOceanic and Winne TOChnologyMarine Recreation SpecializationMarino Teacher CertificationSeminars-Coastal ManagementAquatic Animal HealthMarine Resource ManagementMarine Diving Training

VIRGINIA

WASHINGTONMarine'Resource EconomicsCoastal and'Inkxnational Ocean LawFisheries EducationOcean Systems Design 444..

41.1.46.

Sea Grant Director..Projects may upgradeexisting skills or fill the demand for quite newones. Tp its seamanship and navigation trainingifor example, Texas Sea Grant has added marine'.firefighting. With an eye on the completion of theAlaska pipeline, the University of Washingtoninstituted a program in petroleum transportatibnand handling. Cape Fear Technic& Institute(CFTI) serves as a regional training center forschools throughout North Carolina which offermarine programs but have no access to the sea orships. CETI ships and students regularlyparticipate in major oceanographic expeditions.

Programs offered under Sea Grant auspicesrun the gamut, including coastal and marinerecreation, wildlife management, mcgine law

Underseas Technician ProgramMarine Science Technician-Fish and Game TechnologyCommercial Fishermen's EducationPetroleum Technician ProgramCurricula Development-InterdisciplinarySeafood TechnologyMarine Affairs SeminarAdvisery Service Educational Projects

WISCONSINProblems in OceanographyGreat Lakes-Natural HistoryBasic Scuba Div ingMaritime TransportationMarine Commu oations Program

DISTRICT OF C LUMBIAOcean Engin eringMarine Tech ology TrainingFisheries Schb&rthip

AMERICAN SAMOACommeroial Fisherie Development

GUAMManpower Ssurvey-MarIno-ReIated

TRUST TERRITORIES

VIRGIN ISLANDS

PUERTO RICO

NOTE: This is not a complete list of all projectareas undertaken during Sea Grant's first 10years. Rather, it is intended simply to be repre-sentative of the nature and variety of.activitiesunder this category.

......5,.., 50

enforcement, commercial fishing, commercialrocreational diving, small boat and ship

handling. navigation and command, mar ino elec-tronics and n1001,1111CS, seafood technology, and,others. The employment.rate is very high, withmany employers specifically seeking participantsin these programs Many graduates are self:-employed, particularly fishermen and charterboat.operatOrs.

Many Sea Giant institutions offer programsdirected specifically to primary and secondaryschool teachers who want to be able to exposethen' students to coastal and marine subject-matter. In most of these cases, the Sea Grantinstitution also develops coUrse materials.

The State University System of New York offers

Sea Grant Table XV

STATE

ALASKA

COURSE

programs in coastal law, coastal zone,manage-merit for lo,cal government officials, marinebusiness mditiOoment:for industry, and marinetransportation and communications. Courseformats vary from regularly scheduled classes atinstitutiOns of highei'learnIng to traveling seminarsthiat take the courses to the studentswhicheverbest suits the needs'of the participants.

Sea Grant has not solved all the manpowerneeds of coastal and marine resources manage-ment, but it has made a major cOntribution.

While much of the early educational emphasisin Sea Grant centere&on technical and profes-siOnal training, the fundamental necessity ofcreating a better public understanding about theoCeans has not been overlooked. Working willh

Aquatic Science and Engineering ProgramMarine'Technology Program

CALIFORNIA Coastal Environmental Managerial InstituteMarine Technician Training ProgramPractical Oceanography for UndergraduatesTransactional Planning Seminar for Coastal Zone

Decision7MakersSea Grant Scholars ProgrramEducational Training AsSignrnents and. Technology

Assessments ProgramSea Grant Trainees and Intern Program

DELAWARE Marine Education

FLORIDA Economics of Living ResourcesJuris Doctor Specialization in Ocean and Coastal Law

GEORGIA Marine Resource Education

HAWAII Marine Technician Training 'Program -

Marine and Freshwater Aquaria II: Public Educationand Public Involvement

Marine Option ProgramBlue-Water Marine LaboratoryPlanning for Coordinated Kindergarten-through-

High School Marine Education Program

-LOUISIANA Nautical Sciences Vocational TrainingMarine Sciences Education

51

Courses Funded by Sea Grant(As of July 1, 1975)

INSTITUTION

U. of AlaskaKodiak C.C.

U. of Southern CaliforniaSanta Barbara City CollegeU. of California, San Diego

U. of Southern CaliforniaU. of Southern California

Stanford U.U. of California

U. of Delaware

Florida State U.U. of Miami

U, of Georciia

Leeward C.C.

U. of HawaiiU. of HawaiiU. of Hawaii

U. of Hawaii

Louisiana State U. .

Louisiana State U.

the colleges and universities in the system, SeaGrant has made major strides in introducinqoceanic studies to elementary and high schools inthe Nation and in providing marine-relatedcourses to adults. The Sea Grant educationaloften has been one of rapidly expanding aetivities

in the program.Sea Grant recdgnizos the significancb of

developing greater oceanic educational opportun-ities for(ill Amer icans and is hopeful that it can .

.bring a wider introdUctjon of oceanic studies toschool systems throughout the United States.

Sea Grant Table XV-2

MAINE/NEW HAMPSHIRE Graduate Courke in AquacultureCONSORTIUM Undergraduate Ocean Projects Course

MASSACHUSETTS Ocean Engineering Curricula

Student Foreign Laboratory (Engineering Experiments)

MICHIGAN

4

Interdisciplinary Systems Design

Underwater Technology Laboratory.Recreational _Scuba Diving Population/Safety

Survey and Public Education

MISSISSIPPI7ALABAMA. Development of Oceanographic InstrumentationCONSORTIUM Course

NEW YORK

OREGON

er.

RHODE ISLAND

Coastal Zone Management Training for Local OfficialsAquabusiness Management Training SeminarsSea Grant TraineeshiesPublie Service Legislative Studies by Students

and Their Professors

Professional Training in Ocean LaWProfessional Training in Marine Resource ManagementCommercial FiShing Technician Training °Marine Technician Training

Ph.D. in Economics Marine Resource EconomicsOption

Ocean Engineering-Graduate ProgramMaster of Marine AffairsFisheries and Marine Technology

Ocean Engineering ProgramAquatic Animal HelpInstitutional Seminar Series in Coastal Zone

ManagementTeacher Certification in Marine SciencesRecreation Managernent/Development in the

Coastal ZoneCrustal Evolution Module for 8th Grade InstructionOceanic and Marine Technology

/

4'

U. of MaineU. of New Hampshire

MassachusettsInstitute of TechnologyMassachusettsInstitute of TechnologyMassachusettsInstitute of Technology

U. of Michigan

U. of.Michigan

Mississippi State U.

State U. of New YorkSUNY/Cornell .

SUNY/Cornell

SUNY/Cornell

U. of OregonOregon State U.Clatsop C.C.Clatsop C.C.

U. of Rhode IslandU. of Rhode IslandU. of Rhode IslandU. of Rhode Island

Texas A&M U.Texas A&M U.

Texas A&M U.Texas A&M U.

Texas A&M U.Times A MTexas A

62 62

t.

SCUBA class at the University of Maryland.Is

Sea Grant liable XV-3

WASHINGTON

WISCONSIN

r

Marine StudiesMarine Resource EconomicsLaw and Marine AffairsNew Courses in FisheriesInterdisciplinary Ocecin Engineering Systems

Design Courseinterdisciplinary Curricula Development and ResearchAlternative ImPacts of the Law of the Sea on Organi-

zation of Policies in Marine AffairsProgram and Marine Technology AffairsUnderseas Technician ProgramEcological Baseline Monitoring Study for Central

Puget Sound/Marine Technician TrainingPetroleum Transportation and Handling ProgramMarine Mechanics Career Training

Problems in OceanographyBasic Scuba Instruction

. Maritime TrirsportationSpecial Education ProgramMarine Communications Training Program

AMERICAN SAMOA Commercial Fisheries Development

GUAM Marine-Related Manpower Survey _ _ _

53 63

U. of WashingtonU. of WashingtonU. of Washington

U. of WashingtonU. of Washington

U. of WashingtonU. of WashingtonHighline C.C.

Shoreline C.C.Seattle Central C.C.Clover ParkEducation Ctr.

U. of WisconsinU. of WisconsinU. of WisconsinU. of WisconsinU. of Wisconsin

1

Grays Harbor C.C.(Washington)

U. of Guam

54

Marine Advisory SdievicesTho II-Rogore Act called for the establishment

and operation of a Marino Advisory Service(MAS). Not only would MAS draw on the experi-ence and philosophy of the Agriculture Coopera-tive EXtension Service, but it also would addressa broader range of interests and, of course, wouldconcor n itself with coastal and marine matters.Still underscoring the principle of local responseto local needs, it would be operated by tho SeaGrant institutions themselves, Table XVI sum-.marizes the 1976 level of activity under thiscategory.

MAS's basic role is to prdvide effective two-waycommunications between the users and producersof knowledge. Though not the only one, MASshould be a main source of information for theSea Grant Director on the needs and opportunitiesthe institution should, address. On the other sideof the loop, once the Sea Grant scientists andengineers.have done their jObs, the MAS Job is topass the information on to those who need it.Actually, a properly functioning and fully utilizedMAS is integral throughout the loop. MASuncovers and defines the problem. It communi-cates this to the Sea Grant Director. It works withscientists and engineers or puts them in touchwith one or more of the user groups who will workwith the Sea Grant team while the team seeks ananswer. This helps to keep the effort realistic encl.:.on track. Then, once MAS personnel have passedthe information, technology, gear, whatever, onto those who need it, they will stick with it throughits initial application to hell) clear any snags thatmay develop.

The core effeLl..of the Marine Advisory Serviceis the Marine Extension AgentSea Grant's manor woman on the spot. Usually, the agent is amember of the community he or she serves.Deperlding on the character of that community,the agent works closely with commercial lisher-ment, fish farmers, sport fishers, charter boatcaptains, marina operators, boatyard operators,port managers, other marine industry, primary andsecondaiy school teachers, civic groups,municipal and county governments, and State andFederal agencies. He or she is a participant aswell as observer. The agent becomes known and...trusted and develops a reputation for being onhand when needed, for understanding the prob-lem, for being sympathetic, and for making &feeleffort to help.

64

a

Sea Grant Table XVI

Project Subcategory

Marine Advisory Services(Fiscal Your 1976 Awards)

1 ot di

ProgramBudget"'

(5-million)

Active Projects

Number

AverageCost PerProject

($)'

Federal Funds

Per Centof TotalFederal

Sea Grant'''.

Matohing Funds

Per Centof TotalProgramIludgett"

(5-million)

Marine Extension Service 152 . 53 90.000 3.3 14,3 1.0 36Other Advisory Servicoa 3.4 60 66,000 .2 9.6 .,, 1.1 34

Category Totals 6.6 113 '76:otoo -6:6- ---3.-9. 3,6- as

01 This inch,(2) This is a

(3) This Is tt

u NOAA See Grad funds plus local matching fund*.orcentage of till total NOAA Soff Grant budget for all seven major categories of activitymatching fund percentage of the total program budget In the far lett column.

In this capacity, the Marine Extension Agentsnot only become familiar with problems, but, withthe broader perspectives they bring to the joband3with th'eir knowledge of the reSources avail-able, they are able to recognize opportunitieswhich others may overlook and to anticipateproblems in time to avoid them. Clearly, the SeaGrant Director relies heavily on the MAS.Indeveloping the program to be submitted to theNOAA Office of Sea Grant each year for approval.

While Marine Extension Agents play a vital role,they are nevertheless only a part of a much

" broader mandate to serve the whole Sea Grantconstituency. This mandate includes keeping thegeneral public aware of coastal and marineresoprce issues and alternatives. It includes.theestablishment and maintenance of liaison withState and local governments. And, it includes theorganization and publication of the results of SeaGrant research in such for% that they are madeavailable guickly'and usefully to anyone with aninterest in the topic. Ins carrying out thia mission,the Marine Advisery Se'rvice employs a variety oftools, media, and techniques, such as:

Seminars, workshops, town Meetings, and qhortcourses. .

pew methods and processes,'and announcingnew regulations or services.aimed primarily atthe local user but available to anyone.

Establishment and operation of coastal-andmarine information centers for local, State,regional, national and general public use.

Demonstration projects, usually in cooperationwith the private sectorfloating breakwaters,pair trawling, aquaculture, and others.

Natipnal conferences on domestic and interne-tional ocean law, fisheries issues, ocean mining,coastal zone management, 200-mile offshoreeconomic zone, and onshore impact of offshoreoil development. 1.

Museums, exhibits, lectures, and oilier activitiesproviding high-volume exposure of the general .

public to marine knowledge and issues.\

Continuing education programs both in We fieldand in the classroom and addressing a Widerange of subject matter.

.

a Newsletters and other periodic and serialublications.

Regional information progrvs geared more to \ Press releases and articles for local and"use-me" than ttilove-me" objectives. s national publications.

Continual flow of booklets, pamphlets, andtechnical bulletins discussing issues, describing

Radio, television, and MovkLpublic serviceannouncements and documentaries for publicand commercial broadcast media and forcommunity and.private showings.

55 65

Development and guidance of coastal andmarine programs for 4-II Clubs, Boy and GirlScout Troops, civic, and othpr 9roups.

'And, provision for prompt responses toui r los,

his may sound like a recipe for a massive,,bureaucracy, but it has not workod out thatway.The entire MAS, including Marine Extension-Agents: totals only about 200 people. ThisAI'v,N .contrasts with sorpo 17,000 County Agents in theAgricultae Cooperation Extension Sarvice.

In addition to those serving within Statos, twocooperative regional Marine Advisory Serviceshave boon established: (1) PASGAP (Pacific Sea.Grant Advisory Program) including California,Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, Alaska,Hawaii, and the regional office of the National

" Marine Fisheries Service; and (2) NEMAS (NewEngland Marine Advisory Service) includingMaine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, RhodeIsland, Connecticut, and New York. A third re-gional MAS operation, the Groat Lakes Sea Grantregional MAS operation, the Great Lakes Sea"GrantNetwork, is being planned. It will Include theStates of Michigan, Minnesota, New York, andWisconsin. Additionally, other regions are contem-plating similar assodiations. These organizationshandle projects and publications of regional,rather than strictly local interest and Share uniquefacilities and resources. Though they are inaddition to, rather than in place of, local MarineAdvisory Services,They are operated in such am ner that they provide superior servife at lessost than if the indivdual MAS's tried to do it all

themselves.:" .Professional fishermen listen to. explanation OteVttaxes from Internal Revenue Servioe representative. The nationwide Sea Grant network currently

produces about 50 Informational products a monthproject reports, technical bulletins, atlases, and- other printed materials. The cirwlative total.exceeds 3,000 pplications. As they are issued,these are noted and briefly reviewed in SEAGRANT 10s----a m9nthly neWsletter providingnational Sea Grankoverage and now being pub-lished by the Sea Grant program at VirginiaPolytechnic Institute and'State University. They101-e also listed in the annual SEA GRANT-PUBLI-.CATIONS INDEX, Sea Grant publicati s usaally

f.

56

can be obtained from the issuing insti tion, or IN

they may be examined at or obtained t roughinterlibrary loan from the Naticinal Sea Grantbepository, Pell Memorial Library, Un rsity ofRhode Island, Narragansett, RI 02882c

'

In addition, Sea'Grant institatiOns'Oublishlarge number of newsletters. Most of these servelocal or regional audiences. and some of them arequite restricted in their audience appealsuch aspriMary andsecondary school toechers, localcommercial fisheries, Aid recreational aUdiences.

As a result of Sea Grant, coastal and marineinformation centers love been established inRhode island, New York, Delaware, Virginia, NorthCarolina, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, California,Oregoei, Washinqteii, Hawail,Wiscensin, andMichigan. Some of these employ computerarchiving, indexing, and cross-referencing and areprogrammed to interface with varl'eus tralytical,ecologic, and economic models. `.

The MAS works directly with people. Its actiV-ities.ar:e extremely varied. In the northwest, "tempers were flaring as towboats carried awaysurface markers and other 'gear of dungeness crabfishermen. MAS avoided a serious confrontationby bringing the two, opposing groups together forface-to-face talksresulting in a sharing of theirwaterspace rather thanmarring over it. Similarly,North Carolina Sea 'Grant is working to reduce thefriction between commercial and sporkfishersalon'g the Outer Banksagain simply by bdngingthe two groupi together to talk over their needsand concerns. Basically, the MAS rs a people"-to-:people effort involving hundreds of thousands ofdirect.contacts with tfie public each year,--morethan 50,000 with fishing people aloneandliterally millions of contacts thioughVmediaefforts.

MAS activities range trona sharksworksheab inFlorida to defuse the ignorance ancrear-gyneratedby th movie "Jaws;" a cobia sportfishing clinicin South Carolina, and s telephone "hot line" forsport fishers to Oil in Delaware to parn viihere"they're, biting today' to technical assistanCe toTexaS shipyards in controlling waste discharge, asuryey of_the elver (young eel) resource in Maine,.2-week visits between Oregon and Michigan'charter boat operators (funded by two tacklerliapufacturers) for an exchange of ideas andexperiences; series of rqdio broadcasts in Alaskain the YupikJanguage, advising Alaskan natives

.in their own tongue about new developments Infishing and about significant questions affectingtheir survival and, at.Wisconsin, a continuing.prOgran't of weekly,2-minute "Earth Watch" radiospots covering ecolOgical and environmentalmatters and regularly used by.ovett 100 radiostation's in the Midwest. Table XVII provides tibroader. surnmariof MAS activities.

U.

3.44 tht:!"L',. 2 t,

`'V(4W 94J

ffig10060', Tt:ttViol>31

140.1.01104-t.

Sea Grant-sponsoregViving exhibirat the Urilversityof Hawaii captures the attenDan of a tututa diver..

57

'6 7

.1, 1

I445

ft.'e

4

bl

4

sills-Grant Table XVIISoa Grant-S4Tported Morino Advisory

ncSekes PrOi cts(1967-1976)

ALASKAAdvisory Field ProgramPublic Participation WorkshopAlaska Seas and Coasts

ARIZONA

'CALIFORNIAAdvisory-Extension ProgramMargje Extension ProgramOcean Education for the Public

-Publications and Advisory'ServicesDirectory-Services tor MarinersFinAnce Workshop-Cormercia/ Fishermen

CONNECTICUTAdvisky Services Program

DELAWARE:.Advisory Services ProgramPublic Education Program,,Artificial Reef Project

. Coast Guard-Mariner Liaison

,

FLORIDAMarine Advisory ProgramResearch ,Conference-Gamo FishPublic COnference-Sharks

GEORGIAAdvisory Services-Fisheries

GeneralFishery Cooperative-Feasibility Study

HAWAIIMarine Advisory ProgramPublication Program,Planning SerVices-Research and EducationMarine Atlas-HawaiiInformation Center-,Ocean ?cienceLegislative Workshop-Marine

- LOUISIANAMarine Extension ServicePublications and Information DisseminationAdvisdry Services-Fisheries InterestsAdvisory Services-Legal'Food Studies-Marine

MAINE/NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSORTIUMFisheries Extension ServicePublic EducationAdvisory Services-PublicationsSeafood Industry-Development .

Communications and Information ServicesOcean EngineeringCoastal Zone Management

MAI:Wt.:ANDAdvisory Service ReportBalance of Payments-Ocean s

MASSACHUSETTSAdvisory Services-Development, Operation,

and ManagementMarine Extension ServiceAdvisory Service-Marine IndustryConference---Marino CareersCea Grant LectureshipPublic Education and TrainingCommunications/Information Project

MICHIGANMarine Advisory ServiceCommunications ProgramConference-Shorelands ManagementSea Grant Activities-Visual Display

MINNESOTAMarine Advisory.Sepvices

MISSISSIPPI/ALABAMA CONSORTIUMMississippi Advisory:ServicesAlabama Advisory ServicesSpecialists Support '

Mississippi Sea Grant Newsletter

NEW JERSEYMarine Advisory Service

'P

NEW YORKMarine AdviSory SEA46-New York State

Eastern Lake Erie

NORTH CAROLINAContinuing Education-FishermenAdvisory Services-Marine7ndustry

Seafood Science. Coastal Land Use

Coastal RecreationElectric Shrimp Trawl-TestsMarine Advisory NewsletterCooperative Matketing Informatio7,

OHIO

OKLAHOMA

OREGON srAdvisory Field ProgramAdvisory Education-Oceanography

and EngineeringSeafood ToOno logyMarine Economics

Public EducationCommunications-Marine Advisory

'Diselises-Fish and ShellfishSeafood Science-Information TransferMar ine Data DisplayOcean Law. .Busin9ss Management-Fishermen

4PENNSYLVANIA

RHODE ISLANDMarine Advisory ServiceNational Sea Grant DepositOryDemonstration-Mfdwater TrawlSmall Marinas-Ecological StudyWorkshops-For Public School TeathersWorkshop-Maritime Transit

SOUTH CAROLINAMarine Advisory Service

TEXAS %

Institutional Advisory Services-Advisory Services-Business ManagementFisheries and General Extension .

Marine Education ProgramMarine Resources InformationSea Grant-70s (Now Published at Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State University)Coastal Resources Management

VIRGINIAAdvisory ProArn-Food Science andTechnologyExtension Agents and PublicationsBusiness Management-Seafood Industry

Sea Grant ProfessionalsLending Institutions

Engineering Advisory ProgramPublic EducatiopAquaculture.Information,.

WASHINGTONAdvisory Services Coastal

North SoundField Activities SupportSeafood Technology SupportPuget Sound Fishermen SupportSea SearchCommunications Program -Industry-Student Problem SolvingWorkshop-Artificial Bait

WISCONSINFood Science and Fish ProgramLake Recreation DevelopmentAdvisory Services-AquacultureGreat Lakes HeritageBicentennial âuide-Great LakesShore Erosion-Radio Program

Newspaper ColumnRadio Programming-Ocean SoundingsSea Grant CommunicationsData Fil0

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AMERICAN SAMOA

GUAMMarine Advisory Program .

Marine Products Marketing-FeasibilityGuam-Microneselan Marine Bibliography

TRUST TERRITORIES

'VIRGIN ISLANDS

PUERTO RICO

NOTE:.This is not a complete list of all projectareas undertaken during Sea Grant's first 10years. Rather, it is intended simply to be repro-

.' sentative of the nature and variety of activitiesunder this category.

. -

wo,

1.5

,

yi4'4 +-sit 55f

Program Management andDevelopmentProgram Management and Development isconcerned with Sea Grant program management,exploring and implementing new managementtechniques, expanding participation In Sea Grantefforts, preliminary exploration of proposed majornew projects, and meeting unforeseen contingen-cies. Table XVIII shows the level of activity underthis category.

The NOAA Office of Sea Grant does not have aset formula for the local Sea Grant Managementorganization, and thus these vary among theseveral Sea 9rant institutions. The management'

60

1.!'

ta

h 4

, };,

4 T?

.2B2

r

1s h

.5

goal, however, is consistent: to develop and,operate a structure which functions well withinthe institution and which produces a programwhich is responsive to the needs and opportunitiesof the community it serves.

Ancillary goals include: a broad participation,not only by as many academic campuses anddepartments as possible, but also by Industry andState and Federal apencies; attraction of toptalent to the program; marketing the Sea Grant-developed capability to indu6tries and agenciesoutside of the Sea Grant program; expanding both.the volume and sources of matching funds; and,on the basis of proven performance, establishingSea Grant as a vital and relevant element of the

4

,

t,

t.)

Sea Grant Table XVIII Program Management and Development

.

Project Subcategory

Program AdministrationProgram Development

Category Total

TotalProgramBudgetw

($-mi

4.10.7

4.9

Active Projects

AverageCost Per

Number Protect($)

30 138,00014 63.000

44 111,000

Federal

($-ft-ninon)

2.30.6

?9

. (Fiscal Year 1970 Awards)

Funds

Per Centof TotalProgramBudget'w

4824

40

Funds

Per Centof TotalFederal

Sea Grant'

10.12.4

12.5.

Matching

1.8

0.2

2.0

(1) Thm Includes NOAA See Grint futuiu plut; loco! matching(I) I hhi la a per, outage of the tot& NOAA Seri-Grout budget for ad 3evon maim categories of activity(3) lIde PA the matching fund percentage of the total program budget in the far left column.

coastal and marine resource deVelopment andmanagement effort

Keeping in mind that no two Sea Grant manage-ment structures are exactly alike, a.typical andeffective system might workas follows. There is aSea Grant Director who is in charge of, andresponsible,for, the whole. program. The Directorsreport directly to the institution's (or Stateuniversity system's) top management. There is aninternal advisory body with the Director serving aschairperson and the membership consisting,variously, of institutional department heads, Sea.Grant principal investigators, coordinators atvabous campuses, and otlibr administrators of theinstitution..'" -For external advice and counsel, peavy, relianceis placed on the MAS with its broad andcontinuing contact viiith the user public. Therefrequently is also a Sea Grant Advisory Council,sometimes chaired by the Director and sometimeswith an electecli chairman. The membershipconsists of representatives of user groups and

acommunity leaders outside of the Sea Grantinstitution. New York. for example, has two suchadvisory councilsone for the Garai Lakes whichincludes two Canadian members, and one for theAtlantic niarine district.

There also may be a series of panels ot commit-tees----pt Rhode Island called WAGs (Work AreaGroups)to provide review and advice on .

specific projects and proposals in the area of their..ispecialty (e.g., fisheries, recreation: borts andharbors, wetlands). Membership in such groupsmay be frorn the institutiolfs Sea Grant investigators, marine extensidn'agents, oUtside groups

Vtr1 -

being served, State and Federal gencies. Theyhelp to keep research pragm.atic, technologicallysound, responsive, and on track.

As noted,rno two Sea Grant managementstructures are the same; thus, there are manyvariations. All, however, feature both internal andexternal input, peer review, and constantinteraction with the user groups.

Program Development Serves two basic func-tions. It enables Directors to carry out or authorizeexploratory work (a) to see if a project is worthpursuing without initially having to make a majorcommitment, and (b) to develop sound prOjectdesien in order to produce proposals which areboth relevant and efficient. The philosophy here isto Spend 6 little money first in order to save moremcfney and avoid possible project failure later.

The second principal function of ProgramDevelopment is to provide for contingencies. Thisenables Directors to respond to crisis needs, theresolution of which cannot await the completion ofthe annual cycle of proposal writing, review, andapproval. It also permits directors to takeadvantage of special opportunities which mightnot be around six months or a year later. Suchopportunities include: the chance to participate .

jointlytherefore, less expenslimlyzin a particu-larly desirable project, or:the oCcurrence ofunusual or unique situationSIO'hvironmental,

&perhaps) whin are transient but nevertheless ofsignificance to Sea Grant Interests.

Table XIX surimarizrits the natureof theprojeCts sUpliorted under Program Managementand Development.

61 71.

Sea Grant Table XIX

Soa Crant-Supportod Program Administration andDevelopment Projetts t 1967-1916)

ALASKAProgram AdministrationUniversity-Petroleum Industry Cooperation

ARIZONA 411,

CALIFORNIAProgram Planning and DevelopmentProgram AdministrationAdministration and ManagementRapid Response CapabilityFish Industry Advisory Committee

CONNECTICUT

,DELAWAREProgram Management

FLORIDAProgram AdministrationManagement-Psdmihistrative Functions

.Contingency Funds,.Program Development

GEORGIA.S

Management and Development

HAWAIIProgram ManagementSea Grant College-Management FrameworkPublications Office-Development

LOUISIANAProgram AdministrationField Logistic SupportEnvironmental Studies-Matching Funds

MAINE/NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSORTIUMAdministration and DevelopmentNew Hampshire Component-ManagementSea Grant Library/Computer IndexAdvisory Service Development-New Hampshire

MARYLAND

MASSACHUSETTSProgram Management and DevelopmentInternational Technology-Sharing AlternativesProject Development OpportunitiesOcean Utilization Professorships-Establishment

MICHIGANProgram Administration

MINNESOTA

MISSISSIPPI/ALABAMA CONSORTIUMProgram Management and Development

NEW JERSEYProgram Planning and Management

NEW YORKProgram ManagementCommunications and PublicationsSea Grant Institute-New InitiativeSea Grant Consortium CoordinationLocal Input DevelopmentFood Science Seminar-Taping, Dissemination

NORTH CAROLINAManagement and Development

OHIO

OKLAHOMA'

OREGONAdminiStration cind Development

4r

4N,

62

. -

4

P"

PENN.SYLVANIA

RHODE ISLANDManagement and Development

SOUTH CAROLINAAdministrative Project

TEXASSea Grant Co liege-industrial ActivitiesProgram Direction and Administration

VIRGINIAAdministration, Planning, Coordination

WASHINGTONProgram ManagementContingency Funds

WISCONsSINProgram Administration and Development

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AMERICAN SAMOA

GUAMProgram Management

TRUST TERRITORIES

VIRGIN ISLANDS

PUERTO RICO

NOTE: This is not a coMplete list of all project,..aiwas undertaken during Sea Grant's first .10

years. Rather. it is.intended simply to be repre-senta(ive of the nature and variety of activitiesunder this category,

-To my mind there are two extremely importantareas for Sea Grant In the future: First, workingwith industry, government, and the people atlarge in making extended fisHeries jurisdictionwork. If there is something the ideal Soa Grantinstitution knows how to do, it Is how to makethings work. It has the local routes. It has'accessto the academic community, to local and Stategovernment, and to the Federal governmentand several otthe operating agencies withoutbeing a direct part of those agencies; thus, thestigma of big brother looking over your shoulderdoes not attach to Sea Grant if it works right.

-Secondly. Sea Grant nstitutions can serve in asimirar role in making coastal zone managementwork and making it phase in smoothly withbroader based land use as it must in the future.Here.are two resources: One, the traditionalcommon property resource of fisheries Whichwe want to manage in what aro traditionallyinternational waters with all the 'freedoms' thisimplies. The second resource, our coastalenvironment--at the interface of land and seaand of private and public property rightsisalso an extremely difficult area to manage. Thisis a tremendous undertaking, and if it is goingto be done without excessive fractures inState-local relations and in State-Federalrelations; it is going to take some very carefuland dedicated work in the localities and theregions." )

Niels Rorholrn, Coordinat&Sea Grant College ProgramUniversity of Rhode Island

63 f3

1

#,V

SW.

Sea Grant Benefits

Whoti a $2,400 demonstration of pelagic pairtra.wling enables half a dozen U.S. fishernien,toincreAso their monthly receipts by $40,000, andtho technique is quickly adopted by others ..

Whoa a $2,820.pioof that "pink oysters" are-safe and nutritious results in the sale of $500,000worth of oysters which otherwise woirld have beenrejected....

When a $116.000 underwater survey finds anddescribes economically recoverable sand depositsworth more than $100 million ...

When a 4 year Sea Grant investment of $150,000attracts $300,000 of State and industry funding,and when the combined effortsyroduce increasesin retail sales of precious coral frOm $2.6 millionin 1971 to $11.4 rnillion in 1975 and hikeemployment from 200 to 500 .

.. with track records like these, it is not difficultto show that these were worthwhile efforts withbeneficial and specific cost/benefit ratios.The Sea Grant tally of quantifiable benefits suchas these is growing. Frequently, the Sea 'Gantproject results in an expansion of the tax basewhich produces tax revenues in one year whichare greater than the public investment cost of theproject responsible. And, while that cost is in .

effect, a one-time thing, the added tax revenuescontinue, and usually expand, year after year,Under such cireumstances it is easyto say:"That's good stuff; let's do more of it."

It is not.so easy, however, to place a specifiodollar benefit tag on Sea Grant's contribution tothe creation of a broad base of aquacultUretechnology, on the education of interdisciplinaryspecialists in coastal zone management, marineaffairS, and ocean laws, or on the development ofsounder data bases and predictive analyticaltechniques for better decision-making ingoverement.

It is oven more diffioult, in fact quite impossible,to compute specific dollar benefits from theintroduction of institutions of higher learning tonew and exciting concepts of adaptive educationand to new and challenging roles of communityservice; or from the establishment of a directcommunicatiens link between tihe producers and

users of knowledge; or from the gradual evolution

of a universally better informed and more aware,involved public.

While some Sea Grant activities producemeasurable benefitsusually where specifictechnologies are applfed to specific tasks (SeeTable X X)the majority does not. In the finalanalysis, the Sea Graht goal is to help to produce asociety which is more competent, more confident,and more optimisticor, to resurrect an oldcliche, healthier, wealthier and wiser.

This means crises and conflicts which mighthave arisen but did riot; opportunities which mighthave been missed but were not; irreplaceableresources which might have been destroyed butwere mit; new efficiency and foresight in govern-ment and greater confidence in its decisionswhich might have been lacking but were notallbecause of the Sea Grant process. The worth ofbenefits such as these is no more computable than,are the differences between American agriculturebecause of Land Grant and what it might havebeen without it. .

Many benefits, though Unmeasurable, areidentifiable. They are numerqus and variedfre-quently of an unanticipated, secondary, or fallout'nature. Derived mostly from the Sea GrantDirectors' own perspectives, Table XXIVsummarizes.soMe of these immeaSurables. Noneof them is entirely abstract. They produce tangiblebenefits for the institutions, the faculty, the.students, the local communities, and the Nation.

The payoff is mostly in futures, and so itprobably always will befor whatever Sea Grant'scurrent level of accomplishment, it will alwayshave new and challenging horizons in view. Thisdoes not mean an ever-expansive, runaway bud-get. Rather, it is the straightforward process ofundertaking new tasks as old ones are completed.All of them have as goals: people who are betteroff economically; government which is lessdivisive, less abrasive, and more responsive;resources that are used, taken, and managed .more wisely, and a quality of life that constantlyimproves.

In brief, the ultimate benefit from the Sea Grantprocess is a better America.

Son Grant Table XX

Examples of Specifk Benefits

GEORGIAChallenge Cut 10 percent product loss from sawing frozen fish blocks into smaller pieces

for breadingsome 400 pounds a day in a small plant.Solution Collect, reconstitute and bread fish sawdust.

Benefit Once-wasted product sells for 50%' a pound.Investment* $93,900.

GEORGIAChallenge. Improve economic efficiency of Georgia shrimp fishermen.

Solution Debug and adapt Gulf of Mexico twin trawl (two small, side-by-sIde netsreplace one larger one) with fishermen's cooperation, demonstrate method.

Benefit Increase trawling efficiency by 60 percent. Technique is adopted by others.Investment* $290,500.

HAWAII .

Challenge Expand domestic sources of precious coraL Increase harvest efficiency. De-velop sound resource management program.

Solution Use modern Scuba gear and submersibles (STAR-II) to discover and surveyresources. rmploy same gear for selective harvesting to 1,200-foOt depth.

Benefit Import dependence reduced from virtually 100 percent to less than 25 percent.Retail sales increased from $2.6 million to $11.4 million a year. Employmentup from 100 to 500 people. Federal and State tax revenues up by $500,000a year.

Investment* $148,522 over a 4-year period; matched by $294,277 State and industry funds.

HAWAIIChallenge Find offshore sand deposits for restoring and maintaining beaches.

Solution Conduct survey and assessment.Benefit , Location of six recoverable deposits of 20 to 70 million cubic,yards each.

Itivestment* $290,600.

LOUISIANAChallenge Find way to reverse U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ban on interstate

shipment of baby green turtles because of danger of salmonella infection.Solution Dip eggs in terramycine before incubation.

Benefit Will restore $2.5-million market for 150 growersif FDA can be convinced_ ofthe safety of the process.

Investment* $30,600.

MASSACHIJSETTS-14Challenge Reduce bacterial and viral load in sewage discharged into coastal waters.i

Solution Develop and test high-energy electron irradiation purification technique.Benefit Sea Grant-supported work led to a $113,000 National Science Foundation

grant and a subsequent grant of $198,000 to build full-scale pilot plant 4ncooperation with the MetropOlitan District Commission. '

Investment* $19,300.

66

Challenge

SolutionBenefit

Investment*

Challenge

Solution

Benefit

Investment*

Challenge

Solution

Benefit

Investment*

Challenge

SolutionBenefit

Investment*

Challenge

Solution

Benefit

Investment*

ChallengeSolution

Benefit

Investment*_

Challenge

SolutionBenefit

I nvestrnent*

NEW YORKFind now soucos of constiuction aggregate for concrete.Survey the underwater resources of Lake Ontario.Found several sand deposits, including one worth $90 to $150 million,

$115,766.

NEW YORKFind waytto recover and market some of the 8.000,000 pounds a year of fishfilleting wastes produced in New York City atone.Use poultry dehoning machines to recover 60 percent in form of white meatloft on racks (what's left after fillets are removed); reconstitute and bread it.Marketable at 50e a pound compared to 3t4 a pound as mink food.$26,200.

NEW YORKEnable marinas forced to close when rising Lake Erie water level coveredbreakwaters to reopen.Install a 900-foot floating breakwater using Rhode Island Sea Grant developed"old-tire" design.Marine revenues of $75,000 a year restored.$5,000.

NORTH CAROLINAImprove fishermen's ice-holding and fish-keeping capabilities.Sprayed-in-place polyurethane insulation of fish holds.$100,000 saving in first year for six vessels and two ice-holding facilities.

$6,500.

NORTH :CAROLINAIncrease earning opportunities for commercial fishermen.Help Cievelop local fishery and export market for, eels.

first year 29 fishermen earned $75,000 harvesting eels.-

$10,000.

OREGONImprove fishing efficiencyModify Atlantic Western trawl to increase catching efficiency.Catch efficiency up 30 to 100 percent; local catch up by over $2.5 milHon a year.

$14,000.

OREGONImprove landed quality of fish.Develop superior fish hold liners; also less expensive than old method.Higher quality landed product and $290,000 direct cost.saving for 129 vessels.

$5,000.

77

OREGONChallenge Restore chum 5it1nton fishery depleted by tabainzation and other changes.

Solution Raise salmon in hatcheries; release thorn to sea; and harvest them when theyreturn as adults--called ranch farming.

Benefit Investment by private industry. Four private hatcheries inoperation; 15 addi-tional license applications in. Anticipate 2 to 3 million-pound harvest in 1980with $3 to $5 million to farmers, with add.tional take by offshore commercial andsport fishers of 3.5-5 5 million pounds, and State and Federal tax revenuesincreased by more than $1 million a year.

Investment* $93,500.

RHODE ISLANDChallenge Improve fishing efficiency.

Solution Bring Irish fisherman over to. explain European pelagic pair trawling.Benefit Increased local catcti by 6,000,000 pounds in first three months of its adoption

ancl trial. Practice now spreading up and down Atlantic coast.Investment* $2,400. -

RHODE ISLANDChallenge Develop an effective breakwater that is inexpensive and easily installed and

removed.Solution Design, produce -and proof-test floating breakwater made of old car tires.Benefit A breakwater that can be built and put in place for less than $6 a foot, and

which is enloying wider and wider usee.g., Rhode Island, New York, andWashington. Also helps with the tire disposal problem.

Investment* $54,000.

VIRGINIA'Challenge Outbreak of "pink oysters" and .customer refusal to accept shipments.

Solution Demonstrate safety, nutrition, ,and that cooking eliminates color.Benefit $500,000 shipment accepted.

Investment* $2,820.

VIRGINIAChallenge Improve methods and reduce cost of pasteurizing crabmeat.

Solution Develop flexible film containers to replace cans.Benefit First firm to adopt process saved.$51,000 on 300,000 pounds in first year.

Itwestment*. $3,350.

WASHINGTON- Challenge Demonstrate commercial feasibility of NMFS (National Marine Fisheries

Service,, a INOAA 'agency)-developed techndlogy for pen-rearing, of pan-sizesalmon.

Solution Join wLth Domsea Farms, In&, to conduct full-scale experiments.Benefit Production of pen-reared salmon brought from nothing in 1970 to some

1,700,000 pOunds in 1975 af a market price of $1.50 a pbund; attracted privateinvestinent and increased tv reVenue potentials by more than $700,000 a year.

investment* $100,000.

Investment reprbsents the total of NOAA Sea Grant funds committed to the prOject. It doesnot include matehimi funiis cir private investment.

68 8

Fx(Im'ples of Inimeastirdble

Primary Beneficiary

How Sea Gront Benefits the University

wr Augments roles, missions, and stature of theuniversity In the community it serves.

N Encourages mission-oriented, interdisciplinaryprograms of higher education which ,aréresponsive and adaptable to the changingneeds of society.

i* Fosters the evolution of dynamic, interdisci-plinary team approaches to the fulfillment of abroad range of community needs andaspirations.

110 Capabilities thus produced attract demands forservices and grant and contract funds fromsources other than Sea GrantLe., Federal andState agencies, industry.

tv Opportunity for collego-based researchers towork on marine-oriented problems with apractical short-term payoff convinces many,who at first opposed Sea Grant, that goodresearch can be done within the boundaryconditions of applied goals.

to Starts university faculty and administrators alikethinking in terms of-Overall marine objectivesand of the value of being the State marineuniversity.

This marine commitment attracts capablefaculty and motivated students.

N Interdepartmental and interinstitutional coop-eration favors development of complementary,rather than competitive, courses, services, andcapabilities.

W Continuous feedback loop between faculty andMarine Advisory Service per6onnel keeps thefaculty and the university administra on intouch with the changing needs of soci

le Sea Grant fosters interinstitutional transfer ofinformation and services.

,

ark.,,Qi".1A.

el Provides the university with research opportun-ities which, without Sea Grant, woyld not havebeen possible.

69

4

1 _

\I

'00

A-?)

1 I 4 .1...6;

-

v`. t.

,

7 A

mi Matching fund requirement fosters beneficialcitizen and State involvement in the university

-function, and vice-versa...*

mu Gives the university, the public, and the Statenew perspectives on the marine environmentwhich otherwise would not have been popible.

Permits presentation of marine accomplish-ments as selling points for the university beforethe State legislature.

How Sea Grant Helps the Student

to Presents the students with an exciting diversityof courses and degree programs Whichpreviously did not exist.

Encourages competence among the studentsand enables them to realize diversity in their

'academic experience which greatly enhancestheir subsequent value to society, includingprospective emPloyers.

Gives students the opportunity to participate inprojects and to travel to places which otherwisewould not have been possible.

st Gives students early exposure to the practicalaspects of their academic learning throughproblem-oriented research, work-study, andinternships with both government and industry.

iielps interest students, faculty, and communityin applied marine work.

st Provides the financial incentive to university.. .

administrations to try totally new courses,degree programs, and other innovations Incontemporary education.

Allows and encourages the university educa-tional process to grow, adjust, and adapt tOChanging technologic, ecenomic, and societalneedsthus assuring continued educationalrelevance and,more andbetter job opportunitiesfor the institution's graduates.

Sea Gront's'Role in the Community

wi Enables the comprehensive and diversifiedresources of universities to be marshalled into avariable-response capability to serve vitalcowmunity needs and opportunities.

Opens effettive avenues of communicationsbetween the university and both the community-

It serves and agencies concerned with themarine environment.

Catalyzes beneficial, cooperative, and workingcontact among the,institution, State and Federalagencies, industry, and other groups.

Provides specialized assistance in advanceplanning for the management of coastal andmarine resources and for the implementationof those plans.

Provid4 the governor, legislature, agencies,and others with a quick-response, specializedsource of expertise for dealing with critical orunusual problems.

is 'Offers an independent, objective source ofadvice and counsel which is outside of boththe State and Federal government systems.

Primes the pump for a greater concentration ofState funds in the.area of coastal and marineresearch and education.

Contributes, through its knowledge of and cloSeasSociation with the marine community, togreater effieiiency in the execution of otherFederal programs.

Demonstrates how Federal-local partnershipscan be made to function effectively.

Shows how a minimum Federal Input canproduce maximum local benefits.

By virtue of its chain store characteristic,provides one-stop shopping centering a broad inventory of talents and capabilities.

is Matches local involvement to local responsibilitya major benefit of the matching fund.requirement.

yi Predicates actiyitie'S on the genuine needs ofthe States.

Fulfills critical and emerging needs fOr specialprofessional and technical skills throughadaptive curriculum development

Promotes manpower sharing for.greaterproductivity and lower costs.

n. Contributes to sound economic growth andexpansion of the tax base.

Provides its benefits at a minimum net addedcost to the taxpayer because it largely utilizesexisting personnel and facilities.

70 (5 0

4

to.

;

'4e

Sea Grant Benefits Extenti to 'linings'sond Industry

* Upgrades efficiencY in existing m'arine indus-tries throt,igh positive contributions in tech-nology, methods, resourcdThanagemont,Marketing, and bookkeeping.

_

114 Expedites technology transfer within marineindustries, from one industry to another, fromenv part of the country to another, and from

kabroad.

w Identifies, evaluates, if appropriate, detor-_mines maximum sustainab Id of previously .

unknown or underutilized resources and pro-vides bask; guidance for their exploitation andmarketing.

Geeerates and stimulates new marine industriesas new resources are discovered and as new-technologies and markets are developed.

m Discourages new marine industries where, eventhough the potentials exist, the technologiesand basic marketing infrastructure dapot.

Encourages the development of new domesticand export markets for marine products andserviCes.

111 Fosters the-creatiOn of new marine job oppor-tunities.

Helps tdassure ari adequate and timely supplyof trained professional's and technicians.

Assists in power Plant and other indubtrial sitingso as tfl minimize adverse environmental,economic, and othefimpacts.

II Contributes to improve management of wastesfrom marine industries, including conversion ofwastes into secondary sources of income.

10 Serves as a reactive communications link be-tween the niarine constituency and these Stateand Federal agencies and others which regulateor otherwise may impact upon it.

. 71 Si

I.

G(1111 M :..'t

Npot kSea Grant responds to national needs bothbroadly and specifically. To the extent that ithelps localities and regions of the country togreater economic wealth, sound economic growth,better natural resources management, better gov-ernment, and more relevant educational oppor-,tunities, it provides a broad c_ontribution to the .

national well-being. To the Went that it supportsstudies of Specific_ naional issuessuch aS ex-tended fishery jurisdiCtion, offshore mineral devel-opment, deepwater ports, ocean dumping. Law, ofthe sea, and other significant topicsit directly

'tackles national ptoblerns. This is also true,to theeXtent that Sea Grant-develoPed capabilities arecalled on to satisfy the issue-oriented needs of anumber of other Federal abencies.

A survey by the Office of Sea Grant shows thatfor every four projects concerned-mainly with INlocal matters. there are two that concentrate onnational problems and three which fall in between.Another analysis shdws the allocation of FederalSea Grant funds thus: aquaculVre, .23 percent;coastal zone management, 24)5ercent; fisheries,12 per:cent; engineering, 21 përcer); nd sociO-economic and legal research, 12 pg.?"' &t. Yetanother shows research of all types at 61.5 per-cent, education at 6.2 percent and advisoryservices at 20.8 percent-No doubt all of these arestatisticians' delights, but not only are they oflittle more than transient interest, they miss the.basic Point.

The basic point rs: so long as the Nation is,thet sum of its localitieswhiCh it is----every.thirV_Sea

Orant'does contribujes tattle national well*Fing.Lookat what it does.,

:3

10. It fossters reater economic efficiency'. This." yield5Are( er produCtivity (output per 'uniteffort) e,fights inflation,

. .

ot It provides for greater utrii7ation of domestic.resources. Tins increases supPlfes:reduces

0

: import depelidncei.and increatdorts. %

. This contribtitAs to a faVorable balande of,pal-i- ' Ments'in iniernatioal traVe. This also mal,es ' *!.. <

. the dollar worth mor.e abroad, making imborts i.- 'cost us less and .... fighting inflation at home.:' ., --

g It contributes to the expansiOn of existing, andthe introduCtion,01 new industies. This creates ..-. - - .,-

7 - jg,lA arid AnVestm,ept opportunities;.which'fights., .-I..

1.,.

72

unemployment and fosters economic growth.This expands the tax base, yielding groater taxrevenues at no increase in tax rates.

IR It produces greater knowledge of resources, theenvironment, economics, and activities--andhow they interplay. This permits sounder, more ..

efficient management by both government andindustry. Errors of judgment are fewer, and thecosts therefore, are diminished.This leads tobetter government without a proportional rise\inthe Cost of government. This contributes to-af;alanced budget. Sounder business manage-ment contribules to economic off icieney andgrowth--more jobs, higher personal,and cor-porate incomes, a broadened tax base, greatertax revenues (and/or lower tax rates), asounder, more attractive and healthier environ-ment.

Once begun and allotVed to proceed, the cycleis self-perpetuating. The only requirement is the.z)

continued input of.knowledge as new problems,needs, and opportunities.arise. It is a cycle ofimprovementrather than of de.geheration. 13Y°many different means, in many differenklareas ofactivity and in many different,parts of the country,this is what Sea brant does. It helps to reversethe downward trend and to get the upwarti cyclemoving. Then, it continues to support that national"upward mobility" in the economy, the eriviron-.merit, the population, the locality, the regioa, and.the Nation. And, it is based on the niost provenand fundamenal principles of the Arrierigan cqrn-.Oetitive free enterprise system.

In the final anal*is, Sea Grants greateSt con-k7r Vtribution to the NaCon simply may be. that it

proved itself. Except perhaps that the need dalgreatest there;' that it began in America's coastalStates is irrelqvant, As a means of achievinOtiae(use of resou-rces and more cOnfidence and disci-

"Wine in cr4ticql decision-making, it is a prOcess ,,

that is POsponsive wherever the convergence ofman and nature creates vital problems of demand,allocation, use, conServation, and equity. Seagrant philosophies, tools, and methods are asapplicable,inland as.they are alongshore. The,university sy"Stems Are there, and so, rnol'e or less,are the problerns, the,needs, and the opportuni- -

ties. This.inherent universality of the Sea Grantidea,'of ifself, may bold the greateSt potentiai fornational benefit.

f. .

SN1 rirdnt FutureSea Grant's future can be describecUriefly a$"more of the same and better"concerned Withgrowth and.fine-honing of its public service role.By growth is meant neither galloping bureauctracies nor runaway budgets. Leaness should I

always bila a characteristic of Sea Grant in twinsof both people and money. Rather, by growthmeant development to its full-service potentialiinthose States wtiere It already exists, its initiat*iin those coastal States where it does not existand, throughout the network, constant improvtment of the organizations and methods by whi0Sea Grapt institutions perceive and put-Sue thefrmissions.

By groWth also is m4ant tliq natural extensionof Sea Grant responsibilities commensurate withthe growth of itsCaPabilities. This already takesthe form of a greater cOoperativeness and co- Ithesiveness among the Sea Grant institutions, !

Iautomatically moving them- towdrd a capabilityl torespond effectively as a unit' to national and 'ameninternational needs. More specifically, ii its 1

second decade the Sea Grant network will beginto serve the Federal government in a way that

directly analogous to the manner in which the In-dividual institutions now servo their respectiveStates. One can see the start of this process inthe mounting use of "pass-through" funds byother Federal agencies to have Sea Grant supportprojects of special importance to their misSions.It is also apparent in the increasing extent towhich other agencies arid industry make use of SeaGrant-developed capabilities on a direct grant orcontract .basiswithout going through OSG at all.Gloater coopeiation and coordination arid bettercommunications among the Sea Grant institutions,the encouragement of more multistate Sea Grantprojects, the evolution of a 5-year planning cap"-ability at the institutional level, and the moredirect involvement of representatives from the SeaGrant rettwork in Federal marine policy and plan-ning actOties---all current OSG program goalswill strengthen Sea -Grant's national responsecapabilities.

In a small way and in direct support of itsdomestic rnissions:'Sea Grant is already operatinginternationally--the transfer of European fisheriestechnology to U.S. commercial fishermen:thetransfer of U.S.-developed plant mariculture know-

"

a

'

4

how to the western Pacific Rim countries, thebroad international involvement ot the Law of theSea Institute, PASGAP and the New EnglandFishermen's Forum Which Gegglarly brings to-gether U.S. and foreign (Mainly Russian) fisher-men operatipg in the northwest Atlantic area.,SeaGrant's international involvement will almost.cer-tainly grow with emphasis on the two-way transfer.of knowledge,and.t,oiinology betwben the United

nStates and other ations. The most impolant ofthese transfers f41 ay well be the introduction ofthe Sea Grant process itself. to other countries.Informally, at least, this.last has alreddy begunamong some of the Pacific Rim countries and inthe Soviet Union.

As for specific taSks, Many of the key issues oftoday will demand Sea Grant attention for'someyears to come. New issues are-already -lerging,/and others are in the wings. Some can bepater:I; somp cannot. HoWever, among the tasksSea Grant is..tackling and will be tackling in thefuture are:

03 Survey, assay, and baseS for allocation of con-.tinental sfieff resources.ill Energy from the sea, including not only the off-shore siting of thermal electric power plants,but also the direct extraction of energy from ,

.ocean currents, vertical thermal gradient%winds, Aides, and perhaps others.NI Technology and environmental aspects of off-shore mining of minerals and constructionaggregates.* Optimum development and management offiSheries.* Establishment of aquaculture as an acceptable,compatible: and profitable activity offshore,alongshwe, and in America's heartland.

Determihation of Coastal and oceOrn engineering%......criteria suitable for establishment of standards,`141111R-isurance risk tables, pormitting, and other

.regulatory activities.IP Techniques for restoration of natural environ-

- ments both alongshore and-offshore.* Design and testing ornovel human-made "nat-ural environments" (i.e., Once established they:function in a natural manner with 14ttle br nohuman intervention; artificial reefs are a sim-plistic example) to achieve speciql localobjectives.* Resolution of the.rising number, variety, and

intensity of conflicts between public and privaterights in the coastal and marine environments.

lo and accep ble strategies for solid wastesal.

klk oy par ticipant l'oles in the design. demonstra-*tioh, and avaluation of major and innovativeways to.expand tfm productive capacity of ourcoastal and.marine.resources without further,-ai qstr oying the natural environmente.g.,

iltiple use offshere platforms and artificialisla s for waste disposal- and recycling, indus-trial sitl ct, energy productionNeep-draft andother berthing, aquaculture, integrated com-mercial fisheries cl)rllpiexes, high-intensitymarinb recreation, and other activities for whicha natural etwironment is'not ti prerequisite.

Floating cities.arid underwater factories.ira NOvel and innovative app'roaChes fo marinerecreatiop.ta improved energy economics for,the wholespectrum of marine activities.* Man in the sea, including both underwaterrecreatiosn and underwater work. '

And, in general,`smoothing the acceleratingextension seaward ot many traditionally land-based activities, as well as new and previouslyuntried ventures inspired by civilization's in-creasirfg familiarity with the marine environ-ment and its, growing dependence on thoseresources.

Different Needs In Different StatesThere is no standard size, structure, o'r spendinglevel to which all States are expected to aspire.Thera are too many variaets. Each,State is differ-ent, ancl so are the needs and opportunities whicheAch Sea Grant institution addresses. Size andactivities are established by local requirements.Success is measured by the extent 'to which tVteserequirements ace met.

Men the local Sea Grant program is turninggut professibnals and technicians to meet chang-ing constituent needs, when it is providing the .

knowledge and tools to salve problems.and taleadvantage of opportunities; when it operatA aneffective alert system for crisis avoidance andresolution, when it provides useful input to itSState's coastal and mariiie resources plaeaniag-and managernentiefforts, when it works in coiip-

"eratiorwith iridustry, individuals, and;local, tateEincl Feder,al agenci6s, when a operates an effec-tive progranfef public edOcatleh and Communi-Cations, ancr when it has become an aCcepted,valued, and integral part of the te,tal community

41:

74

444

it servos, this is readily apparent and marks thematuring of Sea Grant. Thd size and complexity ofa particular Son Grant program is quite socon- 'dary. What is of primary importance is that it beappropriate to the need.,

in somQ States, Sea Grant,already approachesthis level of service. In others, it does not.'To .

achieve this level of service in all Stateswhichneed and want it is one..of Sea Grant's most Im-portant second-decade-tasks. Responsibility forthis effort.rests primarily, though not entirely,wtih each State. Congress must appropriate the'necessary Federal funds, and OSG must 'continueto guide and advise. If the States themselves donot seize the initiative, however, no one is goingto drag them lpto the fold.

Future TasksMuc'h of what Sea Grant is doing now it will bedoing for some years to comerespOndir to theneeds of Its constituent communities. There willalways be changes of emphasis, of course; asprograms progress, one set of needs is met andothers emerge. Aquaculture, for example, un-doubtedly will progress to the commercial feasi-bility demonstration phase. Perfection andadaptation of existing environmental models,rather than the,development of neW ones will bestressed. Recreation will get more attention, aswill social, cultural, and economic aspects ofcoastal and marine resources management..Throughout the entire spectrum of tasks, therewill be a special concern with new and innovativeways to take and use coastal and marine re-sources--ways which are not Only economicallyefficient but which provide more benefits withfewer adverse impacts and fewer conflicts.

Bally,,h0W9ver, Sea Grant will continue to`de gist what it iSdoing now. It will continue todevelop the Information and tools to reduce theeleMent of doubt in critical management deci-sions. It will -seek valuation sChemes for ratingthose aspects (e.g., aesthetic) of coaStal aria ma-rine resourtes not customarily priced*by market .processes. It will continUe to expand' the number

. and diversity of User'grOups With-whichit has

.beneficikcOntact. initucatith1 It will work to-keep ccriuses up to date and relevant and toencouragli theintroduction of innovative programs .

in marine affairs, the humanities, the arts, scienceand engineering, including new emphasis on ex-..change prinrims----work-Study. internships-7-with

I

industry, goVernrnent and other Sea Grant institu-tions and involving ipbth studepts and faculty. ftwilt contirwe niid expancl the process of produc-ing an informed electorate.:It will 'keep buildingeconomic efficiency with technology research anddevelopment and new market exploration. And, itwill continue to vsiorksstrotigly and directly Insupport of the States' coastal zone managementefforts. The Sea Grant process already has provedto be effective, low in cost, and highly beneficial.It is not in need of changing, only-of fine,honing.

In short, the overall role of Sea Grant in the -

'future, as nowt is to maintain and develop theprocesses whereby needs and opportunities arerecognized and the talents, technologies, institu-Irons, and laws necessary thereto are provided.By definition, this is a continuous process in'which a goal realized is not an end-attainment.but merely the clearing of an obstacle, beyondwhich new opportunities beckon to contribute tohigher returns on both individual and communityinvestments of time, thought, energy, and wealth.If Sea Grant had a motto, it might well be: torealize the greatest gain from, with the least harmto, marine and coastal resources.

7Ec

k, 114.1i-; 7.--.`";,;

" "1'

f-1, .14 11 tX"3

u o4.41;,41k

V

1,

,

OP'

407

4e7.

6..9400174.

!A'

deffillY

It-t

4'7

: r

7 6 IT'

1

-

-

m o ,0 'V.-

'''t

',:

` ';'Icirlik

1 oNs4X

4 ,.

AriA. ..

0 'of'

.`,

'.--. ,.*, ,,'''''''

i

a

,

-

e.

Sea Grant is a process for. realizing more efficientutilization of heman, economic, and natural re-vources. It ig a process for applying wisdom andforesight to management. It is a process through,which institutions of higher learning can adaptand respond to changing nt1/2eds at both the educa-tional and public service levels of their commun-ity responsibilities. Sea Grant in action enablespeople to realize more from their efforts. It helpsto achieve an acceptable balance in the use andconservationboth short- and long-terrri--of ,

natural resources.Sea Grant embodies the concepts of dynamic, .

-interactive investigation, and response, of adap-tive programs of education, of flexibility andfunctionalism in university approaches to theiroperations without in any,way sacrificing-theintellectual and disciplinary integrity of academiastandards. Sea Grant marks the difference be-tween the institution which serves traditionalapproaches to education 'only and the institution'which Eilso systematically seeks better ways toserve the whole of its constituent community.

This intermingling of Sea Grant educationalefforts with Sea Grant community service rolesand missions is a mutual relationship whichbenefits both. And, of course, the more the insti-tution successfully addresses andhelps to solvecommunity problems and the more it contributesto sound growth and better management, the moremeaningful the institution becomes to its State.

While Sea .Grant is concerned with the coastal.arid marine regions of the Nation, the Sea Gratit.:prOcess and the, benefits it produces are appli--cable anywhere the meeting of people, tech-nology, and nature creates probtems of allocation;exploitation, conservation, and marffigement. Inessence, Sea Grant is simply a process for thefull and relevant utilization of the intellectual andotherresources of a large university system In abroad and adaptable Programof public service.It works as.well inland ;ie. it does by the sea, aswell ih any part Of the world that has or- can bUildthe nececsary intellectual bate as it has in...,America. .

orr.

s,

Though Sea Grant was founded on the original.Land Grant triad of education, extension andexperiment, in practice it has expanded andimproved on the concepts to apPly the meth-odologies to 9.much broader spectrum of thechallenges and obligations of contemporarysociety. The specific nature of needs and oppor-tunities in different localities may vary, but the,methodology.of their treatment is the same, as iSthe potential role of the university. Thus, it maybe that Sea Grant, itself founded on the lessonsof Land Grant,- may alrlbady have.pointed the wayfor Land Grant arid other Institutions of highert.earning-to make their educational and publicservice roles more directly responsive to the com=munities they ,pervewherever their location andwhatever their cultural, environment, anthesourceorientations: After all, Sea Grant is n.othing more

. than a rndre effective warto use that singularhuman'quality, the ability to reason. h.

1'

77

S.

A .

I.

Photo Creditspaw., pow 0

vlx National Oceanic and Atrimnphoric Administration - 31 Exxon

Seabrook Hull 33 Jim ElllottOffice of Sea Grant

3 Scripps Institution of Oceanography 35 Dick Clarke ft

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 37 University of Hawaii

4 Jim ElliottOffice of Sea Grant 3ff University of Rhode Island

7 Mort Kaye Studies, Inc.,41 Texas /kW University

Top. University of Rhode. Isiand,

43 Environmental Protection Agency

i 8 Bottom. Scripps Institution of Oceanography- 47 University of California (San Diego)

9 University of.Rhode Island46 University of Wisconsin

10 Jim ElliottOffice of Sea Grant53 Anita George

13. Seabrodk Hull .

54 Jim ElliottOffice of Sea Grant16 Seabrook Hull

56 Oregon State University

17 University pf Wisconsin

57 University of Hawaii

19 Seabrook Hull

60 Jim ElliottOffice of Sea Grant21 Top. Jim ElliottOffice of Sea Grant

71- Alvin Char

21 Bottom. Jim Elkott---Office of Sea Grant

73 Nationgi Oceanic and Atmospheric AdmInistratiotf. 22 Seabrook Hull

N. 75 University of Wisconsin

Deepsea Venture% frk.3. a

77 Seabrook Hull

'V

A

db

7 8

ast

t3'

1.4

az,

.s