DIVERS' PREFERENCES AND PROPOSALS FOR UNDERWATER PARK lviANAGEMENT AT CARMEL BAY, CALIFORNIA

BY Katherine Stewart II

A thesis

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Biology California State University, Fresno November 1976 AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION

OF MASTER 1 S THESIS

__ I grant pe\~mission for the reproduction of this thesis in its entirety, without further authorization from me, provided the person or agency requesting reproduction absorbs the cost. __ I grant permission for the reproduction of parts of this thesis without further authorization from me, provided the person or agency requesting reproduction absorbs the cost. ____ Permission to reproduce this thesis in its entirety must be obtained from me. ~ Permission to reproduce parts of this thesis must be obtained from me. I do not approve the reproduction of all or part of --this thesis. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful for the assistance of many people who helped me complete this thesis. Dr. T. W. Thompson assisted me in initiating the study. The friendly people of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, especially Charles 11 Chuck" Mehlert, will recognize many of their ideas here. My advisors, Drs. Gregor Cailliet and David Chesemore and Mr. George Treichl, helped me critically evaluate ideas and information as the study evolved. I was motivated by Dr. B. L. Gordon's contagious affection for the Monterey area. And David Shonman and Bill Head both helped me to keep the frustrations and rewards of graduate school in perspective, somewhere between the photic zone and the abyss. ABSTRACT

Cannel Bay~ California~ is ng considered as a tia1 si for an underwater park the California Department of Parks and Recreation (CalDPR). The underwater park concept is a new recreation idea, the experiences in California, the United States, nations, have yet to provide a guaranteed formula for success. unique characteristics of each park site and the social goals associated with the park are useful in formulating each pa 1 5 plans. The pri pal marine park objective is to provide high quality recreation, without damaging the resource base. Working within ecological limits, or carrying capacity, the area is essential achieve this objective. In order to establish park goals for Carmel Bay, a random s of an estimated 9500 active central California divers was conducted determine their needs, attitudes, and desires. A questionnaire v1as distributed to 1000 divers and the response of 224 was analyzed computer to distinguish trends and characteristics. resul that the s popul on wanted to dive in a ace that is sa

ean, rich in rna ne li The place should be i only sanitary facili es and, possibly, campsi 1f of vers perceived environmental problems related to man~s ivities in 1

Bay. There v1as ict in tudes between divers sh

Active divers furthermore could be cha le income earners, t e, with 0 1 a s to invest subs al me and in Ninety percent the divers \>:anted to more i access to the coa line. The survey results vJere used to develop goa.ls for a park. The goals could be affected, however, by ecologica1 1imits of the resources. If the carrying capacity of the different resources could be computed, predictable problems could be averted. A review of existing data showed that carrying capacity values cannot be calculated without additional research. The goals derived from the survey may satisfy divers, but other members of the public might be indirectly affected, and so the study incorporated their needs into park plans. Residents who fear crowding would find that a park based on these goals would not generate crowds and might, in fact, help alleviate current problems. Other beach and bay users, with the possible exception of fishermen, would not be displaced. The local non-diving public could benefit from an underwater park by research findings, education, tourism profits, and continual pressure by park managers to maintain the high quality of coast resources. A conflict exists between fishermen and people who would want the

fishing to be restricted under a wilderness, re~uge, or preserve status. Fisheries authorities and park staff who must choose one of several options could serve the public by reviewing fishery policy periodically, and thus incorporate research and public input. Sewage disposal practices could limit park uses in Carmel Bay, but federal, state, and local government will have the strongest influence on future water quality. Similarly, CalOPR must cooperate with other agencies to establish navigation, traffic and fish policies. Management proposals were suggested in the study to govern areas, use policies, research, safety and information programs, and adiministration. Use of these suggestions could provide a basis for a biologically informed policy for use and protection of the outstanding underwater recreation in Carmel Bay. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ix LIST OF TABLES . . . . ~ . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES ...... X Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION . 1 2. METHODS AND MATERIALS 12 3. RESULTS ..•..• 17 SCUBA EXPLORATION . . 17 ADVISORY BOARD INTERVIEWS . 17 DIVER QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS .. 19 4. DISCUSSION ...... 33

DIVERS 1 OBJECTIVES 33 LIMITATION OF THE RESOURCES AND THE POSSIBILITY OF DEVELOPING CARRYING CAPACITY VALUES ...... 36 POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS: THEIR EFFECTS ON UNDERWATER PARK OBJECTIVES 42 PROPOSALS FOR MANAGEMENT 45 REFERENCES CITED . . 52 APPENDICES . . . . . A. INTERVIEW FORMAT, ADVISORY BOARD. 60 B. QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTED TO RANDOM SAMPLE OF ACTIVE DIVERS . . . . 61 C. DISTRIBUTION LIST ...... 64

:i li K I

I ' ...... '.'3171TI~!JPI;~.~ LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1. Divers' Rankings of: 1) Dive Site Characteristics; 2} Diving Problems; 3) Desired Services; 4} Desired Facilities ..•. 20 2. Diver's Activity Preferences 22 3. Summary of Responses to Questions 9-15 22 4. Number of Trips to Dive Site Compared to Travel Time ....••.••. 24 5. Summary of Responses to Questions 30-34 •..• 25 6. Frequency of Food Gathering Dives Compared to Ranking of Resource Protection ...... 32 7. Frequency of Observation Dives Compared to Ranking of Resource Protection ...•...... 32 8. Frequency of Food Gathering Dives Compared to Ranking of a Guarantee That All Types of Diving be Permitted ...... 32

9. Frequency of Observation Dives Compared to Ranking of a Guarantee That All Types of Diving be Permitted ...... •.• ...... 32

ix LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 1. Carmel Bay, California •.••.••••.•. 2 2. Several Boundaries Suggested by the California Department of Parks and Recreation for an Underwater Park •.....•...•.. 8 3. Region of Questionnaire Distribution 1974 14 4. Tentative Map of Location of Various Habitats Found in Carmel Bay, Mapped on the Basis of Personal Dives and Selected References ... 18 5. Vehicle Use by Diving Groups: a) Number of Divers Per Group; b) Number of Non-Divers Per Group; c) Number of Vehicles Per Group; d) Number of Individuals Per Vehicle ...... 26 6. Some Travel Expenditures by Divers: a) Meals Per Day in Restaurants; b) Number of Times Overnight Per Year; and Preferences for Accommodations (inset) ..•...... •..•.•.. 28 7. Diver's Family Income Data: a) Annual Income; b) Number of Dependents ...... 29 8. Equipment Required for Diving: a) Purchase of Dive Gear Excluding Photography and Boats; b) Rental of Gear, Air Fills; c) Photographic Gear; d) Use of Own Boat Per Year; e) Use of Other's Boat Per Year ...... 30

X INTR.ODUCTION

The California State Park system, hereafter referred to as CalDPR, has sought for five years to include Carmel Bay, California, in its park system as an underwater park. Carmel Bay is approximately 15 km2 (6 mi 2) in area, located between Pescadero Point, 36°33'40"N by

121°56'30 11 W, and Carmel Point (Point Lobos) at 36°33'40"N by 12l 0 56'42"W, immediately south of the Monterey Peninsula (Fig. 1). It is about 125 km (80 mi.) south of the city of San Francisco, and is a popular week- end trip for visitors from the Bay Area and inland cities such as Sacramento and Fresno. Since the advent of recreational diving in the 1950's, divers have found that the subtidal scenery here is equally as beautiful as the world-famous beauties of its shoreline. In addition to scenic beauty, there is higher quality diving in Carmel Bay than in areas to the north or south for 240 km (150 mi.). The shelter of the two land points provides calmer water. There is easier access via several sandy beaches to the rocky kelp beds. Visibility up to 30m (90ft.) is common during most of the year. Burke (1974) pointed out that rocky coastline with sheltered entry points provides the best marine diving and is found on less than 5 percent of California's coast. Recreational diving in Caiifornia has many problems. CalDPR

(1971a) stated that divers were ruining dive spots by 11 picking them

bare. 11 Divers are being crowded into fewer dive spots because land development and private interests are closing coastal access. At the same time, more people are SCUBA diving. Sediment, industrial wastes, and heavier use of living and mineral marine resources are contributing to environmental degradation in many popular diving areas. i

..J...... "z·--,~-~.c~c •• 2

olf Course ,, ,' ) /' I .,. -, I \_ 5-.... __ ., I \' I -' ...... 5 ...... I '--... i Q, ,...- \ \ \ Pescadero \ \ \ I \ l, \ ...... \ r,, • \ • . l ' \, l I /', . ~ ...... \ City of \ • 1~5 ' ,Carmel \ \. .I"· \ (" .. 5 City Carmel \ I •\ By The Sea ...... / 1 I __B_each 1 0,1 · I , ... _ ...... ,/ \.. ~o·-·~\ , \ \ . \ I I • • t I : \ ~, "''i . .,5 ~- an 99... I .. ,. { \ ', \ ' \ \ .... , \ \ \ ;t

' \ ' ' \ ..... \ ' \ I I ' '-so-, 1 tCarmel R1 \ \ ' .... 5- _Beach ' ..... _,_, oo-·\ \ ' ...... \ , ' Morro Bay \ \ \ ' \ \ '1 0 \ Central California Coast "') \ ...... I I ' ' ..., Major Highways: '·99 ...... , \ ' ...... ' \ ', \ \--.... ---so .... \ \ ' \ \ Q- 5Pmi.- ...... '-....~ "\ ' \ . r;;;.;;;~.p.;;.;;....;.f..;.r.-o-.m;...... P..... A... A._.r..,o.-a..,d...;.;ri.-a~ ,..r ""'Ca rn:e 1 l 00.,. \ \ - /- ...... s b . ' .,--,; / /---...... ,-...... _- u_ mar1n~..-- _.....,...... ,anyon ,. \,.... ' ) '\ _...... ,..1 00 / - ...... \ ...... ____ so""'....__.,.; ----'>-' ...... --...... '- -...., I ...... ---...... ,..,. __,_,.., _..,... __ \ ) I''"' I I I ...10- ... - .... '- I r""l ....,...... ,_ ~ Carmel Point /'-,..~0 I San Jose / ...... -\__,/.... \ .r --., \ r~ek I ,; ...._; on as tery) \ \ Beach \ (\ 101 ) \_,.; Reserve Cove -depth- curves in fathoms Figure 1 0 1 • ~~------~~---ml. -datum point mean low 0 . 5km Carmel Bay, California L------1 tide (adapted from United States Geoloaical Survey Map) Scale 1:21{,000-- 3 Underwater parks may be one means to improve marine resource protection and to add to publicly accessible dives sites. California is an international leader in the marine park field. The first submarine reserve was created in 1960 when Point Lobos State Reserve extended its boundaries subtidally to 91 m (300ft.). In 1962, at the first World Conference on National Parks, a resolution was passed to promote marine parks (Wallis, 1971a), shortly after Florida established a marine park at Key Largo. Many other areas have responded to the 1962 resolution. Coral reefs in the Virgin Islands, Dry Tortugas, Tobago, Exuma Cays, the Bahamas, and bioluminescent bays in Puerto Rico are proposed or developed as parks in the Caribbean (U. S. National Park Service, 1967; Chapman, 1969; Dorst, 1970). Undeveloped nations in Malaysia and the Seychelles with pristine, unpolluted coastlines see their resources as tourist attractions (Wycherlee, 1969; Polunin, 1970; Vine, 1972). South Africa and Australia have set parks aside to protect them from future problems due to industrial growth (G. A. Robinson, 1971; Connell, 1972).

The ~ajority of these parks were established for resource protection, and are later developing activity policies to complement the protective rules. An exception is found in Japan, where The Nature Conservation Society of Japan developed an entertaining marine park as a profitable enterprise rather than as a wilderness park (Nature Conservation Society of Japan, 1965; Tamura, 1969, 1971, 1973). In this park, underwater viewing towers were built so large numbers of non­ divers can view marine life. SCUBA divers lure fish within viewing distance. A park proposal in Ontario, Canada, resembles the park in Japan (Strong et al., 1973). Standish (1974} commented that viewing 4 structures for non-divers can disrupt and damage the marine resources, and must be carefully plan~ed to protect the very amenity for which the park is created.

Randall (1969) sugg~sted general criteria for selecting an area with the right amenities for a marine park. Briefly, a coastal area with interesting features, safe options for skilled and unskilled recreation, and without pollution, would be appropriate. Aquatic recreation includes, of course, diving under one's own power or mechanical aides, or viewing of marine life from a submerged enclosure or glass-bottom boat (Schulz, 1967). A marine park can be damaged both from without and within. Dasmann (1973) recommended integrating marine park plans in regional planning, with special thought given to the number of tourists the social and physical environment can support. The International Union for the Conservadon of Nature (1972) lists mining, commercial fishing, and shipping as incompatible multiple uses for an area also including a marine park. Sissel (1974) felt that shorel-ine-dependent uses can coexist with a park, and Wilson (1974) stated that angling and spearfishing are compatible un·less they alter the ecosystem. Simply put, use and management should be governed by the primary purpose, that of providing high quality marine recreation (Wallis, 197lb). Enviornmental degradation may occur due to a pollution source beyond park borders, as in Biscayne Bay National Monument, Florida (Todd, 1974). There may be a need for buffer zones on land and at sea (Ray, 1961), and the need for regional solutions is great in such a situatio.n. California was the location of the first underwater reserve, and, 5 while the rest of the world followed the lead, California continued to establish new areas and contribute new ideas. In 1971 the California legislature set up a study team by the Murdy Resolution in order to choose marine areas that merited reserve status. CalDPR and California Department of Fish and Game, hereafter referred to as CDFG, were given the joint task of selecting these reserves. The reserves were to be for both protection and recreation. In 1962 the study team presented criteria for selecting reserves (Shannon and DeTurk, 1962}. Shortly thereafter, CDFG began to designate a series of reserves using these criteria (Smith and Johnson, 1972). Although suggestions for recreational reserves were made, none were established for several years. In 1969, a bill created an advisory board to CalDPR to help set up a recreational marine reserve system (Stull, 1969). The advisory board's goal was to select outstanding areas. Some were to be preserved in their natural state while others could be altered to suit recreation-oriented activities. In 1970 this advisory board sent proposals for four parks to the State Parks Commission for approval. Julia Pfeiffer Burns and Salt Point Parks were approved within one year. A proposal for a park in La Jolla was eventually adopted by the city of San Diego rather than the state. The fourth proposal, for Carmel Bay, was to begin a long process of evolution through public hearings and legislation. Public hearings on the Carmel Bay plan in 1971 revealed that many local residents hoped the bay could become a reserve, while commercial fishermen did not. While the CalDPR advisory board was reevaluating the plan, legislation was introduced to the state legislature to clearly define park, reserve, wilderness area, and recreation area. The terms 6 are codified as follows: 5001.5 Classification of units of state park system {a) State wildernesses [are areas which] in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, are hereby recognized as areas where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man .... State wildernesses may be established within the boundaries of other state park system units. (b) State reserves: The purpose of a state reserve is to preserve its native ecological associations, unique faunal or floral characteristics~ geological features, and scenic qualities in a condition of undisturbed integrity .... Improvements undertaken shall be for the purpose of making the areas available, on a day-use basis, for public enjoyment and education in a manner consistent with the preservation of their natural features. Living and nonliving resources within state reserves shall not be disturbed or removed for other than scientific or management purposes. (c) State parks: The purpose of State Parks shall be to preserve outstanding natural, scenic, and cultural values .... Improvements may be undertaken to provide for such recreational activities as, but not limited to~ camping .... as long as such improvements involve no major modification of lands, forests, or waters .... Improvements which are attractions in themselves or which are otherwise available to the public within a reasonable distance outside the park shall not be undertaken. (d) State recreation units [are areas] selected, developed, and operated to provide outdoor recreational opportunities .... while preserving basic resource values for present and future generations. (California State Resources Code, Division 5) All categories can be applied to marine areas. In addition to a system of classification, CalDPR made additional statements to clarify the purposes of the underwater units in the system: A statewide program .... enhancing public understanding and enjoyment of underwater resources; and providing more affectively for the protection and preservation of these vital resources (CalDPR, 1969). The Bielenson Bill (California State Resources Code, Div. 5, Chapter 1, Section 5001.96) was passed one year later. This law requires each state park to develop carrying capacity criteria to protect its resources. Although a park therefore has responsibility to protect its resources, it cannot be autonomous. For instance, although 1 CalDPR can set goals for protection of fish and wildlife, CDFG has sole jurisdiction to create protective laws. Under a CDFG ruling~ a submarine area may be pr'otected as one of the following: (1) ecological reserves: for the purpose of protecting rare or endangered wildlife or aquatic organisms or specialized habitat types both terrestrial and aquatic .... 11 ecological reserve 11 refers to land or land and water areas preserved in a natural condition for the benefit of the general public to observe native flora and fauna and for scientific study .... (2) refuges and other protected areas [including marine life refuges and reserves, fish refuges and reserves, game refuges and reserves]: The [Fish and Game] Commission may (a) exercise control over all mammals and birds in any game refuge and exercise control over all fish in any fish refuge. (b) authorize the [CDFG] department to issue permits for taking birds, mammals, fish, or amphibia. (Smith and Johnson, 1972) The CDFG commission may pass special provisions concerning visitation rights, permits for taking, and other activities affecting the fish and game in any one of these protective areas. The ecological reserve at Point Lobos, for instance, was tailored to fit the situation, and CalDPR was given jurisdiction to enforce the laws. In October 1973 another public hearing was held on the Carmel Bay proposal. Monterey area fishermen came en masse to this meeting and voiced opposition to the plan (Fig. 2). CalDPR compromised and revised the boundaries. The revision eliminated the outer bay to the 122nd meridian and substituted, instead, the 36 m (20 fathom) depth contour as a boundary from Pescadero Point to Point Lobos Reserve. One deeper portion, at the submarine canyon head, was retained. A depth contour is readily recognizable by boats with depth finders, and hence is readily enforceable. CalDPR sacrificed two features in the compromise: Pescadero Pinnacles, a very scenic feature of the bay, and an offshore buffer zone for the bay. 8

first compromise Monterey Peninsula suggested 8/73

City of Carmel By The Original CalDPR Sea boundary proposal with offshore buffer zone 9/70 suggested

Submarine portion of Lobos State Reserve, established 1960

oL~------~tL-____ ~1 mi. • F i g u re 2 0. 1, km Several Boundaries Suggested by California Department of Parks and Recreation for an llnderv-1ater Park (adapted from CalDPR recorded minutes) In 1974~ CalDPR released a statement about the underwater parks program. The protective role of COFG was explained. The responsibility of CalDPR to develop carrying capacity estimates for park protection was explained. The statement said that improvements will not be elaborate .... Facilities beneath the surface of the water are not planned at the present time ... All will be analyzed to ensure that installation will not contribute to resource degradation. (CalDPR, 1974) Two members of the CalDPR staff further clarified the Carmel Bay

plans: 11 All we're asking for is enough jurisdiction to control and

exert an influence over the underwater area .. (~1ehlert, 1974a). 11 The

park is a temple. There is no need to build a temple in the park 11 (Batlin, 1974). Several individuals at a 1974 State Lands Division

hearing nevertheless said CalDPR wanted to create a 11 Disneyland 11 in Carmel Bay. CalDPR again delayed its plans in an effort to give the public more time to understand them. Meanwhile, one group asked that the entire bay be made into an ecological reserve (Grunsky and Murphy, 1975). At the same time, others were trying to encourage the State Water Quality Control Board to

designate the bay an an 11 Area of Special Biological Significance .. {California State Water Resources Board, 1973).

As of May 1975, Carmel Bay had not been established as a park~ a reserve, or an area of special biological significance. The public involvement with Carmel Bay proposals has been cautious. Divers, who seem most likely to benefit from an underwater pat•k, are especially ambivalent toward a Carmel Bay park. They had one prior experience in central California with CalDPR underwater park administration: at Salt Point State Park, restrictions were made without consultation with long-time users, to their chagrin. 10 Part of the problem with acceptance lies simply with the novelty of the marine park idea, and everyone's igno}·ance of its implications. Unlike terrestrial parks, such as baseball parks or campgrounds, there are no formulae for success. Marine parks use a poorly understood resource. New policies may rebound in unpleasant political situations or natural resources may respond in an unexpected manner. So far, marine parks are experiments. While marine parks are evolving as a new recreation option, scientific knowledge about man's effect on natural resources is simultaneously increasing rapidly. Ecological concepts already exert influence on marine park planning. For instance, the concept of the land's ecological tolerance limit for human use, known also as the carrying capacity, has become an important consideration in land use planning. In the United States coastal zone, the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (U. S. Congress, 1972a) and the California Coastal Zone Initiative (California State, 1972) both note that ecological systems on the coast have limits; use beyond such limits causes degradation. The National Park Service sponsored the Leopold Committee and the Robbins Committee to investigate the environmental limits in parks. F. F. Darling and N. D. Eichorn (1967) summarized the committees' findings: Unless a biologically informed policy is fully accepted and initiated immediately, the status of the national park heritage is going to deteriorate in all those qualities which inspired its designation. This concept is an essential axiom of this study: that biologically sensitive policies are required to maintain park values. A complementary axiom is that the public will mandate or deny correct 11 ecological policies depending on the degree to which the public appreciates the importance of such policies. The thesis, then, of this study is that realistic resource managem2nt for an underwater park must involve three components: public needs and awareness, resource limits, and public capabilities to act on policies. The study analyzes and combines the needs and desires of divers, the limits of the resources, and political and bureaucratic realities, into proposal for management of a park at Carmel Bay. This study was conducted from February 1974 to November 1974 as a segment of a Sea Grant Trainee position at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories with funding by Sea Grant Project #7816. METHODS AND MATERIALS

I explored Carmel Bay, using SCUBA, on seven occasions, to view and experience the region's underwater resources. In order to understand the CalDPR underwater park program, the eleven merrtbers of the CalDPR advisory board on under~ater parks and reserves were interviewed {standard interview format Appendix A). The results of the interview were used to determine the planning criteria for underwater parks used by the California State Park system. The interviews also revealed the controversial aspects of the program. The lack of input from California SCUBA divers was found to be an obstacle in planning for Carmel Bay. Park planners incorporate the needs of principal users in park planning, often conducting surveys to determine needs. I therefore developed a questionnaire to clarify the needs and desires of divers. I was assisted in formulating ideas by attendance at the Second International Conference on Underwater Parks and Reserves, which I attended at Asilomar Conference Grounds, Monterey, California, during April 1974. The diver questionnaire (Appendix B) was developed in three stages. I distributed a preliminary form among 25 divers at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories whom I had selected at random from the active diver file at the laboratories. The divers evaluated the survey tool as to length, redundancy, wording, and interest. A second draft was evaluated by two faculty advisors and two CalDPR staff members who are involved in Carmel Bay plans, Their critical comments were incorporated in the third, final, questionnaire. The first part of the survey dealt with divers' preferences for 12 13 services and facilities in their favorite dive areas. The second section asked about their Carmel Bay diving perceptions and e~periences. The third section asked questions about travel distance, expenditures for SCUBA diving, income, sex, and views on state involvement. The total diving activity was estimated as 100,000 diver days using the study of Miller et al. (1974) of diving activity on the coast from Pismo Beach to the Oregon Border. CalOPR had estimated 513,000 diver­ days annual use for the same region {CalDPR, 1971), including also inland areas; however, inland diving activity would be a smaller percentage of the total than coastal diving, and the estimate may still be excessive as it assumed diving frequency in central California was similar to that of southern California. This assumption is not warranted considering the better year-around weather in southern California. Using the figures of Miller et al. (1974) once more, the total population of active divers in the region is estimated as 11,000 individuals, although Burke (1974) cites records showing that over 250,000 people possess SCUBA certification cards in the same area. This is true because many people do not dive after taking a class. A survey on diver attitudes would be more valid if it surveyed those divers who dive on their own, for they have more to gain or lose in the creation of underwater parks. In addition, the needs of diving classes can easily be determined by viewing a course outline. Therefore, the 11,000 active divers were chosen as the target population. This number was revised to 9,500 when I found the region too large to sample and I eliminated divers north of Marin County, south of Kings City and beyond Sacramento inland (Fig. 3). J. Houk, a co-author of Miller's survey, supplied me with a list of 14

\ \ \ \ \,_ ' ', ,.,. .... t'apa --..../~ ,. -" !/ .,-Q,.,. Sa~ra e"nto ~-- ~ ~ J Z / I I I I / I I I ~~

' ~/ '~,~~- ~kton -- .... ,_ ... J./WA / / ~--. / \ ( \ l \

'\ \\ \ \ l \ C;) ~ I \ I \ I \ ' I \ \ '~, ..... , \ ' ', ' '\ ',..., ..... __ \ \ \ .... ' \ \ ' .... __ \ \ \

Figure 3 Region of Questionnaire Distribution 1974 o~'--~----~2~P----~~--~~omi. 0 20 40km '\~/ ~distribution region ~major highways 15 diving organizations in the region. YMCA listings, college dive clubs, and some professional dive groups were added to his list. These rosters yielded the names of roughly 4,400 divers. I therefore assumed that 40 to 50 percent of divers belonged to groups and the remainder were unaffiliated. One thousand questionnaires, approximately 10 percent of the target diving population, were distributed from early August to mid-September 1974. Of these, 410 were sent to organizations such that each organization received enough for 10 percent of their membership. The remaining 590 questionnaires were distributed to non-affiliated divers at dive shops. Each shop received a number of questionnaires proportionate to 10 percent of its clientele, with air sales as the estimate of clientele volume. A dive shop with 10 percent of the total clientele of all stores used for distribution therefore received .10 x 580 = 58 questionnaires (Appendix C). By September 10, 15 questionnaires had been returned by mail as undeliverable and 80 were unused in shops. These were distributed in person at Carmel Bay in a weighted pattern according to weekly day use, using Miller's unpublished data on weekend and weekday activity. Only 14 remained. Statistical analysis of the returned questionnaires was carried out using existing programs at the San Jose State University computer lab. Frequency, mean, mode, median, and standard deviation for each response were calculated. Statistical analysis of Questions 1 through 4 (Appendix B) involved additional manipulations as follows: Each question had five items each of which was given a different rank from 1 to 5 to establish priorities. Therefore, the responses to 16

one item on one question could have been thus: 160 divers ranked the

item as 11 1, 11 30 divers ranked it as 11 2, 11 10 runked it "3, 11 5 ranked it

11 4, 11 and 2 ranked it "5. 11 Total number of responses equals 207 divers;

rank 11 111 was chosen 160 times, over a majority. Using a simple

majority as a cutoff enab 1ed rank to be given to most items; if an item had no majority for any ranking, its rank was determined to lie between the ranks receiving the highest number of responses. The result is five items per question ranked on a scale of 1 to 5 with occasional ties. I compared several responses of affiliated vs. unaffiliated divers and of divers who preferred consumptive activities vs. divers who preferred nonconsumptive activities using the median split method (Siegal, 1956). Data were cross-tabulated and the tables were divided into groups as approximately equal as possible on vertical and horizontal axes. The sum of components in each block then gives a 2 x 2 table. If there are no trends, the components are roughly equal; if strong differences exist, one assumes some factor has influenced the outcome. As the survey was not tightly controlled to test for the possible factors, I did not attempt to infer causation, but merely noted the trends. Letters were sent to agencies in all states to determine if diver and resource interactions had been studied elsewhere. Public hearings were attended. Correspondence was carried on with several individuals to clarify various questions, among them, use conflicts and interpretations of laws and policies. A literature search yielded information on resources and concepts. RESULTS

SCUBA EXPLORATION

The seven sites I explored using SCUBA included five distinct and interesting habitats: (1) shallow protected areas with fine sand and boulder bottom; (2) wave and current-carved pinnacles in exposed locations; (3) the steep walls of the submarine canyon: (4) low-turbulence areas with silty deposits; and (5) sloping sand plateaus continuous with a sandy beach, interrupted by large rock outcrops supporting kelp beds. Each of these habitats provides different diving experiences. On the basis of my observations and the research of others (Mclean, 1962, 1964a, 1964b; Moritz, 1962; Martin, 1964; Pearse, 1971; CalDPR, 1971b; Howell, 1972; Leopold, 1972; McCoubrey, 1974; Nichols, 1974; Pressick and Towle, 1974), a tentative map of the location of these types of habitats in Carmel Bay was developed (Fig. 4). More extensive dives are needed to establish the accuracy of this tentative map.

ADVISORY BOARD INTERVIEWS

The interviews with the 11 members of the advisory board are summarized briefly by the following six points: (1) the members represented academic, educational, commercial, and recreational diving interests; (2} most of them felt almost any submarine area can provoke curiosity but that marine parks should be created only in relatively undamaged aquatic and marine areas; 17 18

Monterey Peninsula

The

9,_ ----'t...__~l . 1 Q~.. __:...~· ~e---ll km m •

Key

~~~~~~~Sheltered, sandy bottom with boulders and dense kelp beds 111111111111 Submerged (to sea level) pinnacles, strong \AJave action Sand continuous with shore beach, large rock outcrops with dense kelp beds on the rock outcrops Head of submarine canyon; steep cliffs or steep sand slopes ~'\..'\..'\.."-'\..""' Lov1 turbulence areas \Atith fine sediments llll\11 No information on these areas 1-7 Location of personal dive experiences

Figure 4 Tentative Map of Location of Various Habitats Found in Carmel Bay, Mapped on the Basis of Personal Dives and Selected References 19 (3) non-divers need to be informed about the benefits they may gain from marine parks so they will support such plans; (4) structures in marine parks are a controversial subject; (5) divers need to be more outspoken if they wish to retain their rights to dive in California; and (6) marine life, primarily animals, is the greatest diving attraction.

DIVER QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

In mid-October 1974 the questionnaire return rate had dropped to less than 1 per day; therefore the results of 224 questionnaires were coded and key-punched onto computer cards. An additional 11 arrived too late to be used in the analysis. Although the survey was distributed to groups and non-groups on a 4:6 basis, the response to question 7 gave a return ratio of 146:75, groups:non-groups. It is possible that respondents misinterpreted the

meaning of 11 membership in a diving organization 11 to include possession of a certification card from a diving school, by which definition all certified divers are members of a dive organization. How.ever, median split comparison of the responses of the two subsamples showed no trends in the variables used, so membership or non-membership was felt to be an unimportant variable. The first five questions (Table 1) showed that divers wanted an unpolluted, interesting environment to dive in, and that a valuable service would be performed if a public agency protected the resources. Time, not money, was the principal deterrent to more frequent diving. Divers' desires for facilities was limited to restrooms, shower·s, and to

21 camping to a lesser degree. Almost 75 percent of divers felt some facilities are undesirable, 45 listing air and equipment concessions and 44 percent listing boat ramps. The survey asked divers to state how they 'tJOuld prefer to spend time diving during 10 dives (Table 2). The response shows the mean preference to be 3.6 dives observing unden,Jater scenery, 2.9 dives collecting seafood, 1.9 dives taking photographs, conducting research on 1 dive, and diving competitively or hunting for treasure on 0.6 of a dive. There was a good response on questions concerning Carmel Bay (Table 3) since 204 individuals had dived there. Question 10 was invalid due to faulty wording, but many people commented on the safety issue in marginal comments. Most persons said that safety is an important concern in Carmel Bay, while 6 said specifically that it is most important to see well-prepared divers enter the water rather than emphasizing rescue operations. Only 50 percent of the group ever dived beyond 30m (100ft.). Many divers 1a·cked knowledge both of the area's resources and of man's impact on them. Almost half (109) had no knowledge of the effects of the sewage outfall. This in itself is not surprising since scant information on the subject exists; however, marginal comments revealed that many of the divers did not even know of the outfall. Similarly, 45 percent (97) responded that they had no knowledge of kelp harvesting effects. The 110 who said it was either harmful or harmless showed varying degrees of misinformation, as the research is ongoing currently; 12 respondents did not understand what kelp harvesting is. Among 81 divers who felt diving is harming Carmel Bay, 25 percent 22 Ta.ble 2 Divers' Activity Preferences

Activity Ideal Number of dives per ten dives Mean 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Gathering fish 50 27 33 34 24 21 10 6 7, 8 0 2.9 and shellfish to eat Observation 25 31 36 18 34 29 13 7 12 16 0 3.6 Photography 91 30 34 23 11 17 4 4 1 6 0 1.9 Competition, 164 30 10 4 2 7 1 1 2 0 0 0.6 hunts Research 134 35 18 15 9 2 0 4 1 3 0 1.0

Table 3 Summary of Responses to Questions 9-15*

9. Dive beyond 100' never 102 sometimes 103 often 7 11. Outfall harmful no 8 yes 93 no knowledge 109 12. Kelp cutting harmful no 23 yes 87 no knowledge 97 support reply to 12: 13 cutting benefits marine life 62 cutting hurts marine life 3 cutting benefits divers 4 good data are needed 12 respondent did not know what kelp cutting is 13. Diving affects Carmel Bay no 68 yes 81 no knowledge 52 support reply to 13: 44 less fish 4 otters damage bay more 11 less invertebrates 1 sewage damages more 21 abalone gone 5 anglers damage bay more 11 underwater litter 3 others damage bay more 4 no problem, fish fine 10 no problem, no barren spots 14. Is quota a fair crowd control policy? yes 93 neutral 45 · no 63 15. Is Whaler's Cove crowded? yes 68 no 139 16. Is Monastery Beach crowded? yes 102 no 110 *Question 10 was invalidated by confusing wording and response. 23 attributed the lack of shellfish to humans, apparently in ignorance of shellfish depletion due to the sea otter (Enhydra lutris) (Miller, 1974). Divers depleted fish, said 55 percent, while 5 percent said that divers did not; the time period over which depletion was observed is unknown, so these comments are difficult to evaluate. The survey showed that 45 percent of the sample judge San Jose Creek Beach (Monastery Beach) to be crowded, while only 25 percent felt Whaler•s Cove was crowded. CalDPR enforces a strict quota on divers at Whaler's Cove to prevent crowds, but has no such quota at San Jose Creek

Beach. Yet when divers were asked if the quota was a fair policy, .there was a split, 47 percent approving, 38 percent disapproving, and 21 percent remaining neutral. The two responses were not cross-tabulated to see if those who perceived crowding were the same ones who approved of quotas, unfortunately. A preference for diving in Carmel Bay lessened for divers living more than a 3.5 hour drive (at 55 mph) from Carmel Bay (Table 4). Similarly, divers within a 3.5 hour drive preferred Carmel Bay and Monterey peninsula dive sites to all other areas. Question 18 was worded such that some persons reported every single dive and others may have lumped all dives in one day as one dive; hence, the results were not usable. Each dive group had a mean number of 7.0 divers (s.d. = 7.4) due to skewness introduced by a few groups with rr~re than 15 members. The mode (61) fell at 2, and 135 divers reported groups of 5 or less. These groups of divers included 1 or more non-divers on 114 reports (mean = 2.8, s.d. = 5.8), with skewness again due to 12 reports of more than 15 non-divers. The mode (107) was zero non-divers per dive trip (Figs. Sa, b). e 4 Number of Trips to Dive Sites Compared Travel Time - Time from home to dive site in hours at mph 0- I:\2- hours hours more than 4~ Dive si mean mean tri percent percent mean tri percent per per year total total year total ------·------Wha'l er' s 3.8 2.9 11· 1.7 '7 0.6 3 Monas 5.7 3.7 15 4.0 1.3 7

ver 2.6 8 2.0 8 1.7 7 0.5 3

8.1 25 4.8 19 2.7 11 1.6 9

cen ia si 8 ...; -~ 6.7 26 8.6 3.4 a.reas 4.6 5A 21 6,4 25 ,0

SUM: . 1 .3 25.1 100 .4

•-•~u--•"---"" ____,__ -·----· ------·------~·- 25

Table 5 Summary of Responses to Questions 30 to 34

30. Sex of respondents: Male 173 Female 44 31. Willing to pay use fee for desired services: ($/day/car) $0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 8 66 80 48 14 1 32. Should state buy roads and paths for access: yes 184 neutra 1 32 no 20 33. Should state build parking lots there: yes 1.49 neutral 32 no 40 34. Did you know about underwater park plans of state before survey: yes 121 no 101 26 100

90

-o ~7,_ 0 0. ~6

Vl Q} .!.':: 5 .j..l '04 ,_ Q} -=7.0 ~3 3 :J sd=7.4 c 2 2

5 10 5 10 15 20 25 b) number of non-divers per group 9 a)number of divers per ~roup (n=219) (n=221)

t" -1 I I I I mode=l I I t I ---divers 6 (n=94) I I I I -non-divers -as II I' Q} I I +J,_ g_4 t : ,_Q} ,- .J I -=3.5 I I ~3 sd=4.6 I I E I I I I rl .j..l I ,__ I 4-2 0 I r-. ,_ I 1 · 1 ~1 ~.1 E :J c 0 6 5 10 15 20 25 2 3 4 5 7 c)number of vehicles per group d)number of individuals per vehicie (n=210) (n=221) Fiaure 5 Vehicle Use By Diving Groups: a)nu;ber of divers per group: b)number of non-divers per group; c)nuMber of vehicles per 9roup; d)number of individuals per vehicle 27

Parking needs can be estimated by the number of vehicles per group (Fig. 5c) and number of individuals per car (Fig. 5d). The mode of 1 car per group (94) was below the mean (3.5, s.d. = 4.6) due to some large groups using many cars. A strong roodal value of 2 divers per vehicle shows many divers come one pair per car. People are frequently found to exaggerate their activity or success in recreation surveys, so divers may have exaggerated their frequency of trips (Questions 17, 18, 22, and 29). Hence a mean of 9.2 overnight trips per year (Fig. 6a) was probably high. However, divers• acco~nodation preferences (Fig. 6a, inset), shown as percentages of total overnight trips, are reliable: highest preferences were shown for fee campgrounds (35 percent) and free camping (31 percent), while motels were used on 20 percent of overnight trips and other facilities for the remainder of trips. Divers ate at restaurants an average of 1 meal/day on trips (Fig. 6b). The mean income of divers ($9,600, s.d. = $4,400) may be a low estimate, as 97 divers reported income in excess of $12,000. Divers were therefore at least in a middle income range as a group. They reported a mean of 1.2 dependents (s.d. = 1.2) with the mode (102) at zero (Fig. 7a, b). Divers invested a mean of $433.00 on permanent gear (s.d. = $218) exclusive of photographic expenses, paid a mean rental and air fee of $8 per day (s.d. = $4.50), and over half purchased photographic supplies averaging $292 (s.d. = $220) (Figs. Sa, b, c). Boat use estimates were subject to exaggeration, but a comparison of use by boat owners vs. non-owners shows that aithough 55 percent of the survey -group used boats, only 18 percent owned boats, and owners 28

lll (1) E

.jJ

4- 0

L (!) ..a E ::J c 0

a)restaurant meals per day (n=220) accommodation percent of preferred (n) total

camp for free 105 31 pay to camp 123 35 mote 1 hote 1 69 20 100,_ mode=2 other ' 47 14 ""0 (!) (n=26) .jJ ,_ SUM 334 100 ~ 80 0. r:=9.1 (!) r:;d=12.6 '- ,_ Ill 60 (!) INSET E .... 40 - \ 4- 0 ~ 20,- ..a E l _I ::J I c 0 I I I I I l I ' o-4 5-9 10-14 15- 20- 25- 30- >34 19 24 29 34 b)number of times overnight per year

Figure 6 Some Travel Expenditures By Divers: a) meals per day in restaurants; b)number of times overnight per year; (INSET shows preferences for accommodations) 29

... 100 • 100 mode= $12,000 - mode:::Q ( n=97) (n=102) -

'0 4) ...... cI. x=$9,6oc 0. 4) sd=$4,40C I. - - Ill 4) x=1. 2 · ! 50 50 - ..... sd=l.2 II- 0 40 40 - I. 4) .!J 5 30 . 30 - LJ c

20 . 20 - 10 - 10 - I I I ! I 0 0 I I I ' 0 2 3 4 5 6 7

a)annual income b)dependents (excluding self) (n=216)

Figure 7

Divers 1 Family Income Data: a)annual incor1e; b)number of dependents, excluding self 30 -o 7) 10 o- ....(!) x=$43~ 1- ().. ~=$8 0 d~218- 8 0. 60- ,d=S4. 50 Q) I- s- 6 o-

4 C'r 4- 30 0 1- Q) 5- 2 0. ..0 E ? c: I l I I 0 0 $0 $0-200 $200- $400- )$600 $0 $0-5 $5-10 $10-15 $15-20 >$20 400 600 a)diving gear expense (n=220) b)cost of rentals and air fills (n=214)

"U I>< 0 f ent1re samp e= 5100 Q) ...... ~100 - 0.. Q) - ~ 75 - excludino those who do no photo~raphyJ292 Vl Q) (n=120) E ...... 50I" sd::-:220

4- 0 25,- ~ Q) ..Cl E 0 I II II l ::J 20Ch c: $0 $0-200 $200- $400- >$600 l100 600 c)photographic expenses (n=218)

mode=O 150- mode=O l/1 Q) (n=180) (!i=92) .~ - +-> - 10Q- k of entire sample=4.5 x for boat owners - x of boat users only=7.5 only=13.9 (n=125) so- 50- - ! l I I I I r l I I 0 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >24 o-4 S-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >24 d)use of ovm boat per year (n=222) e)use of other•s boat per year (n=217)

Figure 8 Equipment Required For Diving: a)purchase of dive gear excludin0 photography and boats; b)rental of 9ear, air fills; c)photographic gear; d)use of own boat per year; e)use of other person•s boat per year 31 used them for diving five times more frequently than non-owners

(Figs. 8d, e). Male respondents outnumbered females four to one (Table 5). Divers who collected seafood frequently were compared to divers who collected seafood infrequently, on the basis of the rank they gave to resource protection (Table 6), indicating that the seafood collector ranked resource protection less highly than the non-collector. Similarly, divers who frequently dived for observation valued resource protection more highly than those who dived for observation infrequently (Table 7). Divers who gathered seafood frequently were also more concerned than non-gatherers concerning a guarantee of the right to spend their dives in any manner they would desire, and observation enthusiasts did not rate such a guarantee so highly (Tables

8, 9). Divers wanted the state to buy access to the coast by a ratio of 9:1, and favored parking lots at these coastal sites at a lower ratio of 4:1 (Table 5). After I sent the questionnaire, I learned that CalDPR fees are not used at- the park where they are collected; hence, although divers stated a willingness to pay fees, they may or may not be willing to pay a fee for services if it does not come back to the diving point. 32 Table 6 Table 7 Frequency of Food Gathering Dives Frequency of Observation Dives Compared to Ranking of Resource Compared to Ranking of Resource Protection Protection rank given to food gathering rank given to observation resource port. dives per ten resource prot. dives per ten dives dives 0-2 3-9 SUM 0-3 4-9 SUM

2-5 30 53 83 2-5 49 34 83 1 76 58 134 1 57 72 129 SUM 106 111 217 SUM 106 106 212

Table 8 Table 9 Frequency of Food Gathering Dives Frequency of Observation Dives Compared to Ranking of a Guarantee Compared to Ranking of a Guarantee That All Types of Diving Be That All Types of Diving Be Permitted Permitted rank given to food gathering rank given to observation guarantee dives per ten guarantee dives per ten dives dives 0-2 3-9 SUM o..:3 4-9 SUM 3-5 58 37 95 3-5 36 59 95 1-2 44 65 109 1-2 65 44 109 SUM 102 102 204 SUM 101 103 204 DISCUSSION

Park management proposals for Carmel Bay will be useful if they incorporate the following three elements: (1) the results of the diver survey reveal divers' needs and preferences and should be used to develop goals for use in an underwater park; (2) the analysis of ecological limits of the resources can predict difficulties and should influence policies and limit certain uses; (3) the interests of other members of the public who are affected by park activities should influence park policies through the appropriate public agencies. The following sections discuss the interaction of these three factors and conclude by deriving a set of park management proposals from the information presented.

DIVERS' OBJECTIVES

Limitations of the Survey Two possible sources of bias may slightly affect the results of the questionnaire, and hence affect its use as an indicator of divers' attitudes in general. First, the sample may or may not have reached non-affiliated divers adequately. Second, the 79 questionnaires hand-distributed on the beach may have affected the boat-use estimates. However, the boat-use trends are so strong that a high return of the beach distribution would merely have accentuated the prevalence of non-boat owners. It must be remembered that neophyte divers were excluded from the survey. Dive expediture patterns, overnight requirements, and group and vehicle sizes would be different for neophytes. 33 34

Goals and Objectives The survey results can be genera1ized to establish goals. Divers wanted to enjoy a rich marine environment, and their criteria explain why Carmel Bay is so attractive. Its rich life, relative safety, and clear waters satisfy those criteria. Interestingly, the submarine canyon, which is supposed by par·k authorities to be a focal point, did not seem extremely attractive. One might have expected experienced divers to relish the challenge. However, only half of the survey group ever dived beyond 30 m (100 ft.), only 7 did so frequently, and "a challenging dive" was rated least important among diving criteria. Perhaps this group of active divers recognized the hazards of decompression dives and chose to avoid deep water. Divers took a strong position on limiting construction of facilities. Sanitary facilities were desirable, and perhaps campsites also. Museums, displays, and concessions would be unattractive, while boat ramps were judged to be a potential danger. Divers felt resource protection would be a top priority public service. They also felt that the use of state funds to purchase access to the shore would be desirable, and construction of parking lots at such sites less important though still desirable. Divers form a group that is well established financially and is capable of supporting the cost of the sport in terms of equipment, travel expenses, and possibly fees. The findings on divers' economic capabilities are similar to those of Graham and Ditton (1974) on the Texas Gulf Coast diving population. Safety is a concern of many divers, and was ranked highly as a desirable area of public service. 35 The survey provides insight concerning interpretive goals, also. Interpretation is valuable in two respects. It assists in enforcing park policies economically, since the cost of educating the public about wise resource use can result in savings in enforcement of laws governing the same resource use (Langlois, 1944). The good interpretive program also enables a person to relate to resources in more ways and in greater safety. Although the survey showed that divers rejected museums and similar interpretive tools, it also showed that they are in need of greater understanding of the bay itself. The fact, also, that much of their diving time was spent in appreciation of the marine world shows that they had sincere aesthetic and intellectual motives in diving. Interpretation can address these several needs if it is done without those structures that divers found to be undesirable. The finding that divers spent more time on nonconsurnptive activities than on consumptive activities agrees with the findings of Miller et al. (1974). The trend away from spearfishing has been noted in the popular press as well (Barada, 1974; Dalla-Valle, 1974; Hague, 1974; Hass, 1974; Holland and Mayorga, 1974; Tzimoulis, 1974) in conjunction with the growing conflict this has created between food­ gatherers and non-gatherers. This contrast in attitudes forms the most difficult area of goal formulation for an underwater park. Two public statements made by regional divers at an August, 1974, public hearing on Carmel Bay exemplify the conflict. A spokesman from the Central California Council of Diving Clubs defended spearfishing and said that derbies and other abuses are in the past. He requested that a park allow spearfishing. Another individual from the Sea Era Divers of the Sierra Club requested 36 that spearfishing be prohibited so the park could become a marine wilderness. The two interest groups have two radically divergent rationales for placing a high value on living resources. Wilderness proponents hold that the highest use is to allow this part of the marine ecosystem to function totally free from man's use. Food harvesters readily support manipulation for the improvement of fishing. The two positions are irreconcilable on many other points. Divers who wish to observe large, mature fish are at odds with spearfishing divers who shoot large fish in preference to smaller fish for the greater food yield. Second, observers (Gotshall, 1974; Barada, 1974) noted that areas where divers commonly spear fish appear empty because fish apparently learn to avoid all divers. A wilderness, by California state park definition, is an area where "earth and its community of life are untrammelled by man." It is not, by this definition, very compatible with recreational hunting. A wilderness could, within state park rules, be created by protecting a section within the greater area of a less-protected park. This option could serve as a compromise goal for divers.

LIMITATIONS OF THE RESOURCES, AND THE POSSIBILITY OF DEVELOPING CARRYING CAPACITY VALUES

A biologically informed policy may rely heavily on estimates of ecological tolerance levels. One model that CalDPR has considered is the U. S. Soil Conservation Service erosion hazard rating, which sets use-tolerance for soil types (Mehlert, 1975). Another possible approach could be a matrix of activities and resources, modelled on the coastal land-use matrices of Sorensen {1972). 37 Since divers' goals differ little from current activities in Carmel Bay, the effects of existing activities on resources can be used as models for setting carrying capacity limits. A matrix approach would break the resources into units~ such as the eight units discussed below.

Fish Fishing by hook and line and spear is alleged by some to have reduced fish stocks in Carmel Bay. A CDFG biologist stated that between

1962 and 1971 11 the numbers of fish at Pt. Lobes had dropped and some species of rockfish were depleted, .. although no estimates were cited in the record (Gotshall, 1973). In one quantitative study, Miller and Geibel (1973) found ling cod and blue rockfish stocks dropped in the late sixties and recovered in the seventies. The impact of spearfishing alone has been studied in several states. Miller et al. (1974) found spearfishing took less than 1 percent of total fish between Pt. Conception and the Oregon border. Oregon divers took less than 1 percent of the total take in Yaquina Bay (Butler, 1975). However, Miller and Geibel (1973) stated that inshore management

is concerned about 11 concentrated spearfishing activity at certain accessible beaches where resident stocks of kelp bed fish have been materially reduced by skin divers ... Although no figures are cited, two such areas are La Jolla Cove (Stewart, 1974) and Gerstle Cove (Thompson and DiMartini, 1970). Research in another ecosystem, off New England, indicates that fish species with resident territories are particularly vulnerable to spearfishing abuse. Tautog (Tautoga onitis) is a territorial species with a long reproductive cycle. It is taken in rocky lairs by spear, rather than by hook and line (Younger, 1955). Herrmann (1975) found a 1oca1 population decimated by i e s s ng, it had a slow recove1hy rate.

The si on in rmel Bay is not ear. Studies on lar

species at least are necessary, such as that by Hallacher on niche displacement of roc sh (Pressick and e, 1974). More data are needed ne ca. capacity for fish.

Invertebrates The invertebrates of Carmel Bay provide food for the growing sea otter population, as well as other mammals, birds, and sh. 1s closely moni ing the interaction sea otters and r food resources. Soon data will be available on sea otter needs. Another rel would be to estimate the combined effect of man plus otters on s 1 sh~ since man uses intertidal stocks more otters do. Inedible invertebrates have tradi onally been coil divers as mementoes, especially the attractive gorgonians and s.

CDFG Intertidal Invertebrate Law (Section 27. of the sh Code) protects inedible invertebrates to 300 m (1,000 . ) s and thus includes almost all divable areas in Enforcement

of this law will protect non-food i

Marine t•lamma 1 s

Carmel Bay has 1a resident and seasonal 1ations pinni

sea otters, and cetaceans. Under Federal ne 1s (u. s. s, 1972b L any i these s

review ation. These resources are a val 1e i

component of mar·i ne on, a1 h s ies are carnivorous thus compete man seafood, 1 and safety divers 39 at times conflict with marine mammal activities. Data on such conflicts are scattered widely throughout the literature. Hopefully, the Marine Mammals Act will act as a focus on this subject, and aid in developing estimates on the area 1 S tolerance level for marine mammals.

Plant Life A wide variety of marine algae is found in Carmel Bay. Much of the scenic beauty underwater is due to the abundant and colorful plants. Giant kelp, primarily Macrocystis species, also has a potential commercial value as the source of alginates. In southern California, kelp harvesting is permitted by CDFG on a great many offshore kelp beds. Studies on the harvesting of kelp by Quast (North and Hubbs, 1968) and North {North, 1971) indicate that the communities of life associated with kelp beds, and the beds as well, are not damaged by commercial cutting schedules. The research on southern kelp beds may not be applicable to central California, however, so CDFG is studying the effects of experimental cutting schedules on beds in Carmel Bay. The advisability of harvesting in central California will be indicated by research findings. Aside from the ecological tolerance of kelp to cutting, there are several obstacles to cutting. Residents of Carmel Bay objected to a pilot commercial cut in 1973 due to piles of kelp fragments on the shore, the presence of the large cutting boat, and fears for the safety of marine life. All three objections are relevant to the purposes of a marine park. Indeed, under CalDPR definitions, kelp harvesting would be an inappropriate use of the area's resources unless it were part of a management program (California State Resources Code, Division 5). 40

Water Qual~ Sewage treatment in the Carmel area has been under study by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). Secondary effluent is currently discharged in the bay. At this time, diving near the outfall is considered a health hazard. The effects of effluent on marine life are virtually unknown. Two observations at the outfall (Pressick and Towle, 1974; a study conducted for AMBAG by Ocean Sciences, Inc. during 1974) both were too brief to be conclusive. Dispersion patterns have not been studied. Nevertheless, some persons have nominated the area for status as an Area of Special Biological Significance, a ranking reserved for water of the highest purity. The high cost of improving sewage treatment has elicited strong protests from representatives of the City of Carmel and Monterey County. Good research on the dispersion and effects of effluent may help the various authorities formulate an informed policy for Carmel Bay.

Offshore Zone Offshore waters interact with Carmel Bay. Upwelling provides seasonal enrichment of the bay, and large coastal current systems result in exchange of water. Possible harmful interactions could include the onshore drift of an oil spill at sea, transport downcurrent of toxic pollutants, and heavy fishing pressure on offshore stocks that also are components of inshore communities during part of their life cycle. CalOPR proposed a buffer zone to the 122nd meridian to give them jurisdiction to monitor and enforce environmentally dangerous activities, although there are few data on any of the three potential hazards just 41 listed. If such research existed, the need for a buffer zone would be clarified; without such data, a policy for offshore buffers would rely on intuitive judgment alone.

Sand Budget The beach sands of the bay are primarily from the Carmel River (Howell, 1972). Dams on the river, plus additional proposed dams, could eliminate this source. As these sands ultimately sink into the submarine canyon (Howell, 1972; Moritz, 1962), beaches could be depleted and shoreline recreation would be affected tremendously. Carrying capacity of the shoreline sand budget with respect to sand traps upriver needs to be analyzed to prevent this occurrence.

Oceanographic Effects Diving use in the bay is strongly affected by daily and seasonal oceanographic variations. Each day, afternoon onshore winds increase chop and surf, to the detriment of diving enjoyment. Plankton blooms limit visibility for several weeks of the year. Winter storms restrict diving severely, damage kelp beds, and change the beach profile so the surf is steep and dangerous. Carrying capacity of the bay is therefore greatly reduced in afternoons and winter, as current use patterns show.

Summary of Carrying Capacity Evaluations The available data to compute reliable values are insufficient in seven of the eight areas mentioned. Without such values, politics, and not biological knowledge, will determine use patterns. Biologically informed policies need the additional scientific information. 42

POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS: THEIR EFFECTS ON UNDERWATER PARK OBJECTIVES

Conflicts of Interest Some opponents of the park proposals feel that an underwater amusement park will be built. In fact~ neither CalDPR nor divers desire this type of park. La Jolla-San Diego Underwater Park and Reserve serves as a reasonable model for Carmel Bay plans. Both La Jolla and Carmel are wealthy tourist-oriented towns. The park goals were achieved in La Jolla with few changes (Susskind~ 1974). No facilities were built, excepting several buoys and a small cable television with the screen located at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Reserve regulations have been voluntarily followed by divers after a multi-media information program. Some opponents to park plans predict that crowds will be generated regardless of park goals. The following possibilities are discussed: (1) Other beach users will be excluded from the shore. Reply: State beach access points could perhaps restrict divers in some manner; other uses normal to state beaches would remain. Other beaches would be unaffected. (2) The shoreline may become a parking lot. Reply: Divers also fear this. CalDPR could act to solve the problem by limiting shore parking to loading of gear and visitors and all-day parking could be furnished inland, in Carmel Valley; shuttle buses could ferry people to and from the beach. (3) Highway 1 traffic will be excessive. Reply: This problem already exists, and is recognized (Monterey County, 1974; CalDPR,

1971). The highway is classed as 11 Scenic" and cannot be widened 43

nor straightened. The solution requires regional and state action; all users would be affected. {4) Water and sewage services will be inadequate. Reply: The heaviest demand on servies is the rapid population growth in Carmel Valley, not any single facet of the tourist trade. This regional problem is being addressed by AMBAG. (5) Yachting will be curtailed. Reply: Stillwater Cove is a harbor of refuge, and any decisions on navigation will involve the U. S. Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, and county navigation authorities. Boaters will be assured of a fair hearing if conflicts develop. Monterey area residents often feel that they are paying the price for diving injuries, more than divers themselves, through support of the Pacific Grove Marine Rescue Patrol. Taxes, donations, and volunteer service permit the patrol to function. An underwater park could ease the financial burden several ways. Perhaps trained rescue personnel could be funded, as the National Park Service does in some mountainous parks. Perhaps funds could be gotten from use fees, similarly to ski patrol services at ski lifts. Perhaps a tax on diving equipment could be directed to safety and rescue service. Park authorities could advocate one or several of these options. Commercial and sport fishing activities could conflict with a park's interests. Fishermen trapping spot pawn (Pandalus platyceras) were already told they do not conflict with a park, since they trap in 85-185 m (250-400 ft.) depths. If a park received a protective status, however, some other forms of fishing could be restricted. If so, a periodic review of the status would help to legitimize the action in two 44 manners. First, the eco 1 ogi ca 1 response of the resour·ces could be explained to the public, and possibly be opened to provisional fishing. Second, such reviews would bring the public into an active partnership with park authorities.

Complementary Interests Although it is not immediately apparent, the general public can benefit from an underwater park. Randall (1969) listed indirect benefits such as resources for research, income for tourist businesses, conservation education for divers and non-divers, and protection of breeding stock. Standish (1974) finds that non-divers will support underwater parks for these reasons. Examples of such benefits abound. Virgin Islands National Park made facilities for use by academic research groups, which subsequently produced valuable data on sediment transport and other ecological topics (A. H. Robinson, 1971). Marine parks can interact favorably with tourism by keeping the main attractant, the ocean, in healthy condition (Davenport, 1972; Towle, 1973; Towle and Hanif, 1973). Parks help many types of people to better appreciate the marine world (Wallis, 1971b; Helmsley, 1973). Miller et al. (1974) estimated that 25 percent of central California diving took place in the Monterey area, approximately 25,000 diver-days. My survey indicates that each diver eats one meal per day in a restaurant on dive trips. The survey also indicates that each diver stays overnight about 9 times per year, or, at 25 percent, 2 to 3 times per year in Monterey. Therefore, local restaurants, campgrounds, and motels derive profits from recreational diving. 45

Bureaucracti c Juri sdi cti on and Capabilities CalDPR underwater park goals are broader than the goals developed in this study from the diver survey, but CalDPR goals include a range of options attractive to divers. It is therefore a logical agency to establish and manage a suitable park. However, CalDPR cannot deal with all areas of policy autonomously. Three areas of overlapping jurisdiction have already been mentioned: fish and game lawas, navigation, and water quality. Other overlaps exist. The State Lands Division must lease coastal water to about 4.8 km (3 mi.) offshore. County and state road authorities affect parking and access decisions. Existing agencies could conceivably deal with divers• needs, precluding the necessity of CalDPR action. However, the timetables and budgets of each agency would operate independently. As regional growth and loss of access continue to aggravate diving difficulties, the advocacy and support of CalDPR could be valuable in developing synchronous and rapid solutions.

PROPOSALS FOR MANAGEMENT

The following outline is suggested as a basis for developing and managing an underwater park which respects divers' needs, political conflicts, and resource limitations.

Area and Use Considerations Roads, beaches, and the ocean are finite areas and are thus vulnerable to overcrowding. Carrying capacity estimates need to include both objective data on physical limits and subjective data, such as 46 divers' preceptions of crmvds. Coney Island is not every person's idea of an ideal beach; ''too crowded 11 is a value judgment. Roads and road shoulders used for parking are already judged by many divers ·and residents as crowded. Shuttlebuses and upland parking lots could be one solution. The total area of the Bay seems to absorb the number of divers using it, but access points may already be overused. The possibility of acquiring yet another state beach is hampered by the following difficulties: the north shore is extremely expensive land, and several coves south of Carmel River are too near the sewage outfall. Possibly CalDPR could acquire land via one of the following methods: (1) Advocating improved water quality at the outfall plus (2) Purchase of land by use of park funds; or (3) Support of efforts by the public to gain access through implied dedication suits at any points along the shoreline plus (4) Appropriating funds to pave and maintain such points. Implied dedication is a legal device by which an access point that has been used by the public freely for at least five years is given permanently to the public. The cost of bringing suit oft.en prohibits individuals from seeking an implied dedication ruling. Dispersal of dtvers from access points helps to utilize the ocean area more fully. CalDPR stated at one time that boats, and boat ramps, would benefit underwater parks (CalDPR, 1974). However, divers viewed ramps as a potential danger. Strict safety regulations and restricted use might make a boat ramp feasible. Manually powered boats do not seem to pose any problems. 47

Carrying Capacity and Resource Research Carrying capacity values for Carmel Bay's natural resources are needed for management. Research programs may be carried out by several means: (1) Cooperation with CDFG and other agencies; several sources of funds might be found by diverting some out of established budgets (Matt, 1974); (2) Inducements for university research groups, such as eliminating use fees, providing storage for equipment, keeping files on all research in the park, and publishing research results; and (3) Encouraging amateur scientific groups, such as Beta Research (Nichols et al., 1974), Benjamin Franklin Institute, and the Sea Era Divers (t·1cCoubrey, 1974). These groups can contribute valuable research, and CalDPR might be able to arrange for professional marine scientists to be advisors. Water quality control studies supported thus by CalDPR will assist the federal, state, and local agencies to make informed decisions. Similarly, studies on fish and invertebrates can help determine if a protective status for Carmel Bay is necessary. However, if the marine resources are viewed as being most valuable by remaining a wilderness, all or some of the Bay could be protected regardless of the condition of the resources.

Safety and Information Programs A park is pursuing good public policy by concern for visitor safety. At Pt. Lobos, rangers inspect certification cards to be sure only trained 48 divers use Whaler•s Cove. Such a precaution could be carried out at other state beaches with increased staff. Information on weather, dangerous conditions, and recommended practices could also be available to divers at check points. Some people suggest that divers must have certain equipment. Barada (1974) and Tzimoulis (1975) observed that bureaucratic safety standards are often hard to alter and thus are insensitive to technological advances. In the same article, Barada cited insurance company data and Los Angeles County•s casualty records showing equipment failure is the cause of less than 5 percent of all diving accidents and that the risk of diving is statistically less per diving individual than the risk in swimming and water skiing. Divers could carry more of a financial responsibility for search and rescue operations. CalDPR could allocate funds for rescue teams, could charge fees at underwater parks, could coordinate fund-raising projects, or could support legislation for a special tax. Any action should be done with consultation among diving interests to seek their mandate. Although divers supported the idea of safety information programs, they rejected buildings other than restroorns or showers. Local residents also dislike the idea of museums. Some creative, mobile options have been used by CalDPR interpretive programs, such as vans with displays, or guides. Underwater tour guides have been used in Florida. Guided amateur research serves to instruct and inform. Slide talks and film strips could be sent on loan to clubs, schools, or museums. Plasticized guide books for underwater use may soon be on sale in bookstores. 49

Support for park interpretation often comes from local schools. Although Monterey County schools have not expressed an interest so far, they could ultimately be involved in many ways. Such community interaction is essential in making a park a part of the community.

Financing and Administration An underwater park will require administrative practices that allow successful management to evolve. The experimental nature of a marine park makes such flexibility imperative. For instance, initial staffing may be excessive or insufficient, or interpretive programs may either fail or succeed beautifully. Several practices in current CalDPR administration may hamper the evolution process. Transfers of rangers every few years could terminate the development of a good idea. Project budgets must currently be approved for several years; funding for short-term or experimental projects is difficult to come by. A new budget option for trial projects would be a useful element within the overall park budget. Input from the public and from specialists in many fields will continue to assist the flexible reevaluation of park policies. The National Park Service found that outside expert testimony can provide necessary leverage in making difficult game management decisions (Henning, 1972). Semi-annual hearings have been used by CalDPR to bring the public into the planning of Carmel Bay park plans. These forums can continue to provide a valuable contact with the public. Desires, complaints, and support from the people of the state would help make a park a real amenity. The financial demands created by these proposals include: 50

(1) Possible purchase of additional access; (2) Possible purchase of uplands for term parking; (3) Funds to sponsor or coordinate research projects; (4) Staffing of a check-point at access sites; (5) A budget option for innovative interpretive projects; (6) Possible funding to assist search and rescue.

This outline of management proposals may at least provide a baseline for planning. Since these proposals are based on public tnandate, resource limits, and jurisdictiona1 realities, they may approach the goal of a biologically informed policy for preserving Carmel Bay•s outstanding resources for the future while enjoying them in the present. REFERENCES CITED REFERENCES CITED

Barada, B. 1974. Logical fallacies of spearfishing. Skin Diver 23(9): 60-62. 1975. Can safety be legislated? Skin Diver 24(2): 12- 14. Batlin, H. 1974. Public statement made at Second Inaternational Conference on Underwater Parks, April 1974, Monterey, California. Bissel, H. 1974. Underwater parks in terms of the [federal] Coastal Zone Act. Nautilus, Coastal Zone Management Newsletter. 1056 National Press Bldg., Washington, D. C. 2 pp. Burke, M. C. 1974. Underwater recreation in California. Unpubl. student paper for Environmental Planning and Management 199, U. C. Davis. 25 pp. Xerox. Butler, J. 1975. Correspondence between Mr. Butler, Aquatic biologist, Oregon Fish Comm., and the author, January 22, 1975. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1971a. California coastline preservation and recreation plan. Resources Bldg., Sacramento, California. 120 pp. . 1971b. Underwater resource expansion study. -----taliforn1a Dept. of Parks and Recreation; Distr. IV, t~onterey, California. 22 pp. California State Water Resources Board. 1973. Notice of proposed designation of areas of special biological significance by the State Water Resources Control Board and notice of public hearing. Press release, December 1973. 2 pp. mimeogr. Chapman, V. J. 1969. Underv1ater reserves and parks. Biol. Conserv. 1(1):53. Connell, D. W. 1972. New marine park legislation in Australia. Biol. Conserv. 4(4):302-303. Dalla-Valle, G. 1974. In defense of spearfishing. Skin Diver 23(3): 48-51, 84+. Darling, F. F. and N. D. Eichorn. 1967. Man and nature in the National Parks. The Conservation Foundation, 1250 Connecticut Ave .• N. W., Washington, D. C. 86 pp. Dasmann, R. F. 1973. Development of tourism. Pages 113-135 in Ecological principles for economic development. Garden City Press, Ltd., Hertfordshire, Britain. 185 pp. 52 53

Davenport, H. 1972. Tourism needn't pol1ute. Travel Age West, 16 October 1972: 16. Dorst, J. 1970. Exploitation of maritime resources. Pages 280-84 in Before nature dies. Penguin Books, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland. 235 pp. Gotshall, D. 1973. Statement at annual meeting of California Department of Parks Advisory Board on Underwater Parks, 21 October, Monterey, California. in Minutes of advisory board meetings, available from California Dept. of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California. 8 pp. (minmeogr.) . 1974. Personal interview 18 February 1974, Monterey, ---:::C,_a.,...l ....i f=o-r-n-...i_a ..

Graham, R. D. and R. B. Ditton. 1974. Scuba diving behavior patterns on the Texas gulf coast. Unpubl. report, Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., Parks and Recreation, College Station, Texas. 75 pp. (mimeogr.) Gray, J. 1967. Creel census results of first game fish underwater spearfishing season, Lake McConaughy. Internal report, Fish Manage. Section, Nebraska Park~ and Recreation. 2 pp. Grunsky, D. L. and F. Murphy. 1975. Senate concurrent resolution number 24, 12 February 1975. California Legislative Acts, No. 4 24 40 2. 2 pp. Hague, C. 1974. Spearfishing champs propose ban on sport. Daily News, St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands, 13 July 1974. 1 pp. Hass, H. 1974. A process we call evolution. Skin Diver 23(12): 16. Helmsley, A. F. 1973. Address to the seventh annual meeting of the Caribbean Conservation Association, 28-30 September, Roseau, Dominica. in Caribbean Conserv. Assoc. Newsl. Vol. 1 Nos. 9 and 10. 1 pp. Henning, D. H. 1972. National Parke Wildlife management policy: a case study in decentralized decision making. Trans. North Am. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf. 37:48-58. Herrmann, J. F. 1975. Personal correspondence between Mr. Herrmann, Marine Biol., Marine Fish. Section, Rhode Island Div. of Fish and Wi ldl., and the author. 13 February. Holland, P. and S. Mayorga. 1974. To spear or not to spear. Skin Diver 23(8):26-27.

Howell~ B. F. 1972. Sand movement along Carmel River State Beach, Carmel, California. Unpubl. M. S. thesis, US Naval Post-Graduate School, Monterey, California. 67 pp. 54

Internat'ional Union for the Conservation of Nature. 1972. Proposed guidelines for estab.lishment of marine national parks. Proc. Int. Union Conserv. Nature meeting 13 September. Banff, Canada. Int. Union Conserv. Nature, Morges, Switzerland. Reprint, 2 pp. Langlois, T. H. 1944. The role of legal restrictions in fish management. Trans. North Am. Wildl. Assoc. 9:197-202. Leopold, L. C. 1972. A study of seaward dipping internal structures in marine ripple marks at Whaler's Cove, California. Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Technical Publication 72-6. 28 pp. Mathis, B. 1972. Spearfishing: the controversial sport. Arkansas Game and Fish, 18(4):18-19. McCoubrey, A. 1974. Report of the Sea Era Divers' inventory of Carmel Bay regarding proposed marine reserve and underwater park. Unpubl. report, Sea Era Divers, Palo Alto~ California. 7 pp. (mimeogr.) Mclean, J. H. 1962. Sublittoral ecology of kelp beds of the open coast area near Carmel, California. Biol. Bull. 122(1):95-114. l964a. Draft manuscript on five year survey in Carmel Bay, untitled. Available from the author, Natural History Museum, Exposition Park, Los Angeles, California. 8 pp. 1964b. Sublittoral fauna of the Monterey Bay area. Unpubl. transcript of talk delivered 3 February, 1964, in Monterey, California. 10 pp. typescript. Mehlert, C. 1974. Statement made at public hearing on proposed Carmel Bay underwater park 6 August, Monterey, California.

----~~~~~· 1975. Personal correspondence between Mr. Mehlert, California Dept. of Parks and Recreation District LV, assistant supervisor, and the author.

Miller, D. J. and J. J. Geibel. 1973. Summary of blue rockfish and ling cod life histories: a reef ecology study; and giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera, experiments in t1onterey Bay, California. California Dept. Fish and Game Bull. 158. Sacramento, California. 85 pp. Miller, D. J. 1974. A summary of the taxonomic status, life history, and some ecological interactions of the sea otter, Enhydra lutris. Paper delivered at the joint meeting of Am. Fish Soc. and the Wildl. Soc., 1-2 February, Monterey, California. 18 pp. (mimeogr.) Miller, D. J., J. J. Geibel, and J. L. Houk. 1974. Results of 1972 skindiving assessment survey, Pismo Beach to Oregon. Marine Res. Tech. Rep. No. 23, California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 78 pp. 55

Monterey County. 1974. Conservation-open space element of the Monterey County general plan. Monterey County Planning Commission, Salinas, California. 92 pp. Moritz, C. A., Jr. 1962. A descriptive survey of the head of Carmel Submarine Canyon. Unpubl. ~1.S. thesis, US Naval Post-Graduate School, Monterey, California. 53 pp. Matt, W. P. 1974. Statement by the Director at November 1974 meeting of the advisory board on underwater parks and t~eserves, Resources Bldg., Sacramento, California. Nature Conservation Society of Japan. 1966. Marine parks in Japan. Nature Conserv. Soc. Japan, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan. 22 pp. (mimeogr.) Nichols, D. M., M. Stone, M. Gordon, and R. Decausemaker. 1974. A marine survey of the north shore of the Pt. Lobos State Reserve. Beta Research Oceanographic Laboratories, Pepper Tree Lane, San Jose, California. 115 pp. North, W. J. 1971. Introduction and background.· in The Biology of Giant Kelp Beds (Macrocystis) in California. W. J. North, ed. J. Cramer, Publ. Germany. 97 pp.

North, W. J. and C. L. Hubbs, eds. 1968. Fish Bulletin 139. California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 139 pp. Pearse, John S. and L. Lowry. 1971. A kelp bed as a classroom: results of a five-week study of kelp beds in the Monterey Bay region. Unpubl. report available from Hopkins Marine Station, Pacific Grove, California. 175 pp. Polunin, N. V. C. 1972. Marine conservation in the seychelles. Biol. Conserv. 4(3): 227-28. Pressick, M. and E. Towle. 1974. Marine parks: research and education: a feedback for management. A paper presented at the Second Int. Conf. on Underwater Parks, Monterey, California, April 1974. 16 pp. (mimeogr.)

Randall, J. E. 1969. Conservation in the sea: a survey of marine parks. Oryx 10(1): 31-38. Ray, C. G. 1961. Marine preserves for ecological research. Trans. North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. Wildlife Management Institute reprints, Washington, D. C. 6 pp. Ray, C. G. 1972. An exosystem approach to marine parks and reserves. Paper delivered at Second World Conf. on Natl. Parks, 18-27 September 1972, Yellowstone and Grand Teton Natl. Parks. Reprint, 8 pp. (mimeogr.) 56

Robinson, A. H. 1971. Marine research and resource management in Virgin Islands National Park. Paper delivered at the Am. Acad. Advancement of Science, 29 December 1971, Philadelphia, Penn. Reprint, 15 pp. (mimeogr.) Schulz, P. E. 1967. Public use of underwater resources. Pages 153-59 in Towards a new relationship of man and nature in temperate lands. TiJCN-UNESCO Publ. No. 7. Int. Union for Conserv. of Nature, Merges, Switzerland. Shannon, W. T. and C. A. DeTurk. 1962. Report on Senate Resolution No. 108 by Senator Murdy relating to the study of marine reserves. Joint Rep. by California Depts. of Fish and Game and Parks and Beaches, Resources Bldg., Sacramento, California. 23 pp. Siegel, Sidney. 1956. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York. 233 pp. Smith, E. J. and T. H. Johnson. 1972. The marine life refuges and reserves of California. Marine Resour. Information Bull. No. 1. California Dept. Fish Game, Sacramento. 45 pp.

Sorensen, J. 1972. A mod~l for the analysis of use-impact in the coastal zone. M.S. thesis, Dept. of Landscape Design, University of California Berkeley. 58 pp. Standish, R. I. 1974. Viewpoint: on marine parks. IUCN New Series Bull. 5(2): 2 pp. Stewart, J. 1974. Personal interview February 1974 at Scripps Inst. of Oceanography, La Jolla, California. Strong, Moorehead, and Sigsby, Ltd. 1973. Fathom Five Provincial Park. A proposal developed for the Division of Parks, Ontario, Canada. 45 Colborne St., Toronto 215, Canada. 89 pp. Stull- J. 1969. Press release concerning passage of Stull •s bill to establish underwater parks. Offices of J. Stull, Assemblyman, Sacramento, California. 2 pp. Susskind, C. 1974. Personal interview, February 1974, at Scripps Inst. of Oceanography. Tamura, T. 1969. The Marine Parks Center of Japan. Biol. Conserv. 1{1): 89. . 1971. Japan•s initial project for a marine parks ___r_e_s-ea_r_c....,..h--=-i ns t i tute. Biol. Conserv. 2(1): 66-75.

--~--...--....,---.· 1973. Marine parks in Japan over the past ten years. Madne Parks Center of Japan, Kushimoto, ~~akayama Prefecture, Japan. 11 pp. 57

Thompson, R. W. and J. D. DiMartini. 1970. Report on an investigation of the geological fatures and biota of Salt Point State Park. Paper delivered at 28 February 1970 meet·ing of California Dept. Parks and Recreation advisory board on underwater parks. 26 pp. (rnimeogr.) Todd, J. W. 1974. Correspondence between Mr. Tood, Superintendent of Biscayne National Monument, and the author, 28 March 1974. Towle, E. L. 1973. The role of the travel-tourism industry in inter­ national marine recreation developments. Paper delivered at the Ninth Annual Conf. and Exposition of the Marine Tech. Soc. 6 pp. (mimeogr.) and M. Hanif. 1973. National parks in the Caribbean area. Island Resour. Foundation Occ. Pap. No. 2, 19 pp. Tzimoulis, P. 1974. Editorial: spearfishing: where do we stand? Skin Diver 23(1): 4.

~,...... ----' 1975. Editorial: panic legislation. Skin Diver 24(2): 12. U. S. Congress. 1972a. Coastal zone management act of 1972. Publ. L 92-583. U. S. Stats. of 1972, Vol. 86: 1280-1288. U. S. Congress. 1972b. Marine mammals protection act of 1972. Publ. L 92-522, U. S. Stats. of 1972, Vol. 86: 1027-1046. U. S. National Park Service. 1967. Bioluminescent bays of Puerto Rico: a plan for their preservation and use. Natl. Park Serv., U. S. Dept. Interior. 66 pp. xerox copy only. Vine, P. J. 1972. Coral-reef conservation around the Seychelles, Indian Ocean. Biol. Conserv. 4(4): 304-05. Wallis, 0. L. 1971a. Establishing underwater parks worldwide. Trans. North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 36:97-115. ·

. 1971b. International interest in marine parks and equivalent reserves; and Interpreting marine features in underwater parks. Papers delivered at the meeting of the Western Counc. of Underwater Reserves and Parks, 10 September 1971. Reprint available from Office of Chief Scientist, Natl. Park Serv., Washington, D. C. 5 pp. Wilson, B. 1974. Address to the National Recreation Congress. Reprints available from the author, California Dept. Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. California. 3 pp. ¥Jycher1ee, P. R. 1969. Conservation of coral reefs in West Malaysia. . 1 ... 1(")) 2!: .... .B 10 • Lonserv. J : ~~. 58

Younger, R. R. 1955. A comparison of species composition and fishing success of underwater and surface fishermen. New Jersey Outdoors: Hook and Spear, Septe1nber 1955 issue, available as reprint from New Jersey Div. Fish and Game. 7 pp. APPENDICES 60

APPENDIX A Interview Format for Advisory Board Members-

1. How did you become interested in diving? 2. \

* This was modified to the question: What makes a satisfying dive for you? **This was modified to say: ... of a park and counter conflicts? 61

APPENDIX B Questionnaire Distributed to Random Sample of Active Divers

Questions 1 through 4 are rating questions. Give the most important choice a "1," second best a "2," and so on to "5." 1. Why do you choose a certain spot for diving? (rate by importance) Unpolluted environment, much life underwater Safe entry Close to home New and interesting area Demanding and challenging dive conditions 2. What problems prevent you from diving as often as you would like to? {rate by importance) Dive areas polluted, crowded, otherwise unattractive Lack of time Lack of a buddy Sinus problems, other illnesses Cost to you is too high (travel, gear, etc.) 3. What services should a public agency provide for users of under­ water areas? (rate by priority) Protection of underwater resources Safety assistance (rescue teams, knowledgeable rangers, displays) Underwater guides, booklets on marine life, underwater trails Museum, slide shows, other information on land A guarantee that all types of underwater diving and viewing will be allowed 4. What facilities should a public agency construct at dive areas? {rate by priority) Camping areas Compressed air and equipment sales concessions Showers, rest rooms, change rooms Information center Boat ramp, parking lots for boat trailers 5. Do you feel that some of the facilities listed in question 4 should not be built for a marine park? Yes No Ifanswered "yes," which structures would you e-=-1,..-.m-=-i-nate? 6. If you have ten dives, how do you split up those dives (ideally) among the following activities? (sum of numbers in spaces should equal ten) {# of times} (dive activity) Try to collect shellfish or fish for food Look and explore (without a camera) Photography Competitive spearfishing or treasure hunting Organized marine research 62

7. Are you a member of a diving organization (club; dive class, univer- sity or private research dive pr·ogram)? Yes No __ 8. Did you ever dive at any spot in Carmel Bay (e.g. Whaler's Cove, Monastery Beach, River Mouth, etc.)? Yes No __

IF you answered 11 yes 11 to question 8, answer 9 through 15. If not, skip to 16. ****** 9. Do you dive beyond 100' depths? Never __ Sometimes _Often _ 10. Do you feel that the presence of deep water (more than 100') near shore is a safety problem requiring special safety backup teams in Carmel Bay? Yes __ Neutral __ No_ 11. To the best of your knowledge, would you say the sewer outfall in Carmel Bay causes pollution problems? There are no problems _ There are problems _ No knowledge _ 12. Do you think kelp curring harms life in dive areas? Yes No No knowledge What signs do you see to support your reply to 12?

13. Do you think diving use has affected the natural underwater environment in Carmel Bay? Yes No No knowledge What signs do you see to support your reply to 13? --

14. Do you think a "first-come, first-served" limit to numbers of divers is a fair way to control crowd size? Yes No Neutral 15. Do you think Whaler's Cove and Monastery Beach are too crowded? Whaler's Cove: Yes No Monastery: Yes No ****** 16. Where is your home? City----~--- County------17. How many days did you spend diving at each of the following spots in the last 12 months (approximately)? (# of days) (dive spot) Whaler's Cove Monastery Beach (San Jose Creek Beach) Carmel River Mouth or Beach Cannery Row Other spots in Cent. Calif. (Ft. Ross-Morro Bay) Other

18. How many dives did you make per month over the last 12 months? Month Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul (# dives) -- 63

19. The last dive trip you took, how many were in your group? Divers ----- Non-divers---- 20. How many vehicles (car, camper, etc.) did your group use? ____ 21. How many times over the past 12 months did you stay overnight on a dive trip? 22. When you stay overnight on a dive trip, where do you sleep? In a camper, tent, or bag, at no cost to you, off the road In a campground at a cost to you In a motel or hotel Other (friend, boat, etc.) 23. How many meals did you have at a restaurant on your last dive day? _____ 24. What income group do you fall in (annual income)? $0-4000 $4000-8000 $8000-12,000 More -- 25. How many dependents do you support (DO NOT count yourself)? _____ 26. How much have you paid for your own dive gear, excluding cameras and boats? $0 $0-200 $200-400 $400-600 More 27. How much do you pay for daily rental of diving equipment and air? $0 $0-5 $5-10 $10-15 $15-20 More 28. How much have you spent on underwater photography? $0 $1-200 $200-400 $400-600 More 29. How often (approximately) in the last 12 months did you use a boat for diving? Own boat Lease, friend, etc. F ___ 30. Sex: M--- 31. In State Parks, daily use fees are used to build facilities. How much would you pay in order to see facilities you want built? $0/day/car $1/day/car $2/day/car $3/day/car More? ------

32. Do you think the State should assist divers by buying narrow road or path rights-of-way from the coast highway to shoreline dive spots? Yes Neutra 1 No __ 33. Do you feel the State should buy coastal land for parking, etc., at dive spots? Yes Neutral ---· No __ 34. Did you know about the State's interest in acquiring underwater parks before you received this questionnaire? Yes No __ THANK YOU 64

APPENDIX C DISTRIBUTION LIST

Mailed: Cen Cal Clubs 130 Valley Dive Council 40 Colleges 85 YMCA's 35 Junior Colleges 90 Other clubs 30 410 Shops: Charley Brown's 12 Stan's Dive Shop (S.J.) 15 Disbrow's (S. Cruz) 20 Monterey Aquarius 80 Seven Seas (Mont.) 130 O'Neill's (S. Cruz) 30 Campbell Outrigger 25 Amer. Skin Diving (Rdwd) 17 San Franciscn Outrigger 65 Steele's (Berkeley) 25 Hayward Anchor Shack 50 Concord Anchor Shack 20 Field: San Jose Creek Beach 26 Whaler's Cove 14 Carmel River 10 539 Total: 949