App. A— State Management of Seabed Minerals • 291 



The general lack of mining activity means that few 

 of the statutes have been actually tested. But there are 

 several States where recent exploration has spurred a 

 review of existing laws. The Virginia legislature estab- 

 lished a Subaqueous Minerals and Materials Study 

 Commission. Now in its third year, the Commission's 

 mandate is "to determine if the subaqueous minerals 

 and materials of the commonwealth exist in commer- 

 cial quantities and if the removal, extraction, use, dis- 

 position, or sale of these materials can be adequately 

 managed to ensure the public interest." The commis- 

 sion is preparing recommendations for systematic ex- 

 ploration of seabed resources (supplementing the present 

 cooperative effort by the Minerals Management Serv- 

 ice, Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, and the 

 Virginia Institute of Marine Science), a subaqueous 

 minerals management plan, and statutory changes 

 (some already adopted) to guide future development. 



Public debate over a 1984 permit for seismic studies 

 in the Columbia River prompted Oregon to review its 

 laws. In particular, there was concern with protecting 

 established fishing and navigation interests, maintain- 

 ing the quality of the marine environment, and provid- 

 ing adequate public input into what had been an in- 

 house agency review process. The Division of State 

 Lands adopted administrative rules for commercial off- 

 shore oil, gas, and sulphur surveys in June 1986. It is 

 now preparing administrative rules covering geologic 

 and geophysical surveys by commercial hard mineral 

 prospectors and for academic research. A recent change 

 in Oregon State law permits the Division of State Lands 

 to enter into exploration contracts whereby a prospec- 

 tor would have a preference right to develop and recover 

 minerals should the State move to actually permit ocean 

 mineral development. 



Florida adopted marine prospecting rules in January 

 1987 to cope with a growing number of applications to 

 explore for oil, gas, and other minerals in State waters. 



The North Carolina Office of Marine Affairs is be- 

 gining a long range project to develop a marine re- 

 sources management program. 



Conclusion 



While the States are for the most part inexperienced 

 in managing seabed minerals, they have the ability to 

 develop effective programs. Knowledge and resources 

 from established coastal zone management, water qual- 

 ity, and hydrocarbon development can be readily 



tapped. Expertise is also available from academic ma- 

 rine science programs and State geological survey 

 offices. As projects continue, the States have used them 

 as a basis for reviewing their existing management pro- 

 grams and for making improvements. 



Since 1983, the Minerals Management Service has 

 been funding State marine mineretls research under an 

 annual cooperative agreement with the Texas Bureau 

 of Economic Geology of the University of Texas at Aus- 

 tin. All of the coastal States and Puerto Rico have par- 

 ticipated in this program at various times since it be- 

 gan. State research projects focus on both petroleum and 

 hard minerals and range from general surveys of a 

 State's seabed to detailed geologic studies and economic 

 evaluations of specific mineral occurrences. Some of the 

 research extends into Federal waters. The agreement 

 for the fifth year of this program (fiscal year 1987) is 

 now being prepared. Funding has been approximately 

 $550,000 annually, with about 18 States participating 

 each year. 



While a State's role in the Exclusive Economic Zone 

 has yet to be defined, State-Federal task forces have been 

 formed for areas where promising deposits have been 

 found. The task forces' mission is to appraise the com- 

 mercial potential of the deposits and to oversee the prep- 

 aration of environmental impact statements for leasing 

 proposals. Such task forces have been formed with Ha- 

 waii (cobalt-rich manganese crusts), Oregon and Cali- 

 fornia (polymetallic sulfides in the Gorda Ridge), North 

 Carolina (phosphorites), Georgia (heavy minerals), and 

 the Gulf States (sand, gravel, and heavy minerals off 

 Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana). The 

 functioning of these task forces may provide a needed 

 test of Federal-State cooperation. 



If sand and gravel and other nearshore deposits are 

 likely to be the first to be developed, it is also likely that 

 operations will overlap State and Federal jurisdiction. 

 Even activities entirely in Federal waters may concern 

 the States because of environmental effects extending 

 beyond the mining site, economic and social effects of 

 onshore support facilities, or effects on local fishing, 

 navigation, and recreational interests. Proposed min- 

 ing operations would benefit from a system of compati- 

 ble Federal and State requirements. Federal support for 

 work by the States can take two paths: continued sup- 

 port for field research to gain better knowledge of ma- 

 rine resources, and support for legislative efforts to de- 

 velop consistent systems for environmentally sound and 

 economically feasible seabed mining. 



