10063 a-1 Oh, I'll tell you alright. 10137 a-1 {R laughed}

10063 10137 10002 10022 10031 10183 10249 10260 10274 10328 a-1 a-1 a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a 10380 10419 10570 10594 10640 10659 10769 10831 10923 a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a 10979 11002 11011 11072 11193 11203 11246 11293 11306 11347 11349 11351 11420 11422 11433 11461 11790 10002 10090 10183 10260 10490 10499 10500 10588 10646 10670 a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1a a-1b a-1b a-1b a-1b a-1b a-1b a-1b a-1b a-1b a-1b 612892886 Oh, I'll tell you alright. No Calif. issues are important. {R laughed} Emphis [sic] on public. I'm an educator! So let's change that! If they stop Bilingual Education. Enough money when that program is over. That's our future. What the word improve mean? {probe} I think it means to make better. Schools need to be let alone to do their job. At least match Europe. If you don't put a good foundation under {long list, kids, houses, etc.} you're going to topple. My daughter's a teacher Probably. They will never do it. Maybe 4 is better! Is there one more than 5? Very extremely important. English first. Not public education. Statewide as a whole needs vast improvement. Some schools such as in Burbank are exceptionally good. I'm doing my student teaching. That's our future. It's important to civilization. Definitely. New ideas for schools seems is going backward [sic]. They are cutting down on everything in schools. I have a child in private school. I took out of public school. I think it's the teachers. Education is always important. Number 1. More than. When you say improving from what perspective? {probe} With small kids yes. ++ [pluses by answer]. I'm a Christian school teacher. Don't believe in public schools. Not to include bilingual education, schools should teach English. I have a grandson in school. {RR} If less people population control. Not just for children. They're important for all grades. I think they are doing that already. Of course, extremely important. I live in Eureka. We do that we won't have no work around here. You move out because it's impossible to reduce. Within reason - so long as don't take driving rights. Aren't we doing that? I don't like the way they go about it. 1 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10686 10846 10853 10940 11083 11127 11169 a-1b a-1b a-1b a-1b a-1b a-1b a-1b 11253 a-1b 11290 a-1b 11306 a-1b 11352 11771 11790 10098 10104 10249 10265 10291 10322 10607 10640 10670 10683 11352 11461 11463 11771 10002 10274 10380 10419 10432 10499 10510 10640 10936 11011 11127 11162 11208 11226 11288 11306 a-1b a-1b a-1b a-1c a-1c a-1c a-1c a-1c a-1c a-1c a-1c a-1c a-1c a-1c a-1c a-1c a-1c a-1d a-1d a-1d a-1d a-1d a-1d a-1d a-1d a-1d a-1d a-1d a-1d a-1d a-1d a-1d a-1d 11347 a-1d 11351 a-1d 612892886 Air pollution is to me. The laws are OK but are not being implemented. At the moment. Not very important? {probe} How do you achieve this! Since I don't live in the city. In a way but we are pushing too hard in some areas. We need to be careful about our industry. Since we live up here. As long as it doesn't affect employment. {probe}{probe}{probe} It's shot. What do you do. Ride a horse? The ozone's shot. Irreversible. I seldom deal with that. Especially L.A. {RR} I did that wrong, no. 4. For young people, I guess. Public library? {yes} To me. Never use the library. {Digression} Can't we make them regional - it would be cheaper. At least. Certain amount are important. I've been complaining about that recently. They are needed for the education. Read a lot. Use. I guess they want to close some. I think they're important. I think crime is related to family planning. {probe} Only 42 cents for each bullet. 2 cars in the past week have been stolen here. For me. No 3 strikes. We need to do that. Tricky one. At least. 1st depends on how they go about it. That's important to everyone in California. That's getting bad here. System is lousy. Truthfully. {probe} Reduce the reasons for crime. {probe}{probe} Induce employment. How many cops have been shot & brinks trucks robberies? More than. Here we have a low level. 2 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11354 a-1d 11408 a-1d 10057 a-1e 10090 10093 10096 10183 10244 10322 10420 10454 10490 10508 10670 11011 11169 11208 11306 11347 11352 11561 a-1e a-1e a-1e a-1e a-1e a-1e a-1e a-1e a-1e a-1e a-1e a-1e a-1e a-1e a-1e a-1e a-1e a-1e 11690 11774 10002 10090 a-1e a-1e a-1f a-1f 10096 10183 10249 10265 10274 10318 a-1f a-1f a-1f a-1f a-1f a-1f 10328 a-1f 10419 a-1f 10454 a-1f 10455 10461 10505 10593 10640 10681 10684 a-1f a-1f a-1f a-1f a-1f a-1f a-1f 612892886 Number 1. ** [stars by answer]. I don't think of that as where my state money goes. [Hard to tell if R was talking about "Reducing crime" or "Protecting coastal areas from oil spills"] I don't know much about it all - but it's important. Is there any category ? because I don't know too much. {probe} They're working hard on it. We eat what's in that ocean. Not as important as other issues {probe} No. I'm a fisherman. To me personally. None of my business. I don't think it's all the state's responsibility. The oil people should be responsible. It depends on how they go about it. {Stop 2:13pm} Is that really a problem. Not too worried as far as our coast. We don't have too much oil. Highly important {probe}. It's already been desecrated by dumping sewage. Irreversible. More than. We don't deal with that here. We have natural oil spills - that ocean's been leaking for years. Besides, after the Exxon Valdez they had the best fishing season ever. I don't think we should have any. But education is first. {priority implied} Continue drilling but use caution. I think taxes are necessary. Well, I don't know how much that effects me - when it comes to money anything is important. It's a hard thing. Greatly appreciated. To not pay - to pay more taxes? {probe} I wish there was a way. It's called a time clock. Not a good question. Management not reduction. Lots of abuse & taxes spent on the same concern. Where does the money go? How much for [luring duplicate illegible]? {Wouldn't answer this.} We're the little suckers that pay it all. Probably. I think everyone should pay a certain amount of taxes. My income is so I don't have to worry about it. Doesn't make any difference. I don't pay any. I don't pay any taxes - I'm on a limited income. Tell those big guys to cut their wages. Write that down! Change that! That would be nice but there are more important things. But I don't foresee it. {probe}. 3 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10686 a-1f 10936 a-1f 10937 a-1f 11011 a-1f 11072 11083 11127 11169 a-1f a-1f a-1f a-1f 11171 11237 11252 11253 11306 11312 11424 11507 11686 a-1f a-1f a-1f a-1f a-1f a-1f a-1f a-1f a-1f 11694 11790 10479 10880 a-1f a-1f pg1 pg1 10883 pg1 10998 pg1 11191 pg1 11433 pg1 11690 10265 10454 10455 10499 10779 10792 pg1 a-2 a-2 a-2 a-2 a-2 a-2 11171 10062 10286 10328 a-2 a-2a a-2a a-2a 10357 a-2a 10394 a-2a 612892886 Now there's where I argue {probe}. State taxes are important but the people we put in there don't go by what the people want. {probe}. We need education and the money to pay for it. It depend on which ones. It depends on what they are. That's like have you stopped beating your wife. I don't mind paying taxes I just want to know that it's well spent. Very. Is it personal tax or business taxes! It's important but it's hard to do. Everything is duplicated so many times. We don't need another OSHA like Cal OSHA because we have a fed OSHA. What does that mean? {I said to lessen, to make smaller}. {H - 5} The state shouldn't have taxes. Obviously. {probe}{probe}{probe}{probe} Let's rob some trains. Where's the lottery money? If they could find a way, I'd sure be for it. It's important. {probe} Thought a long time. They need to spend what they have. I don't mind paying taxes. I just don't think they are handling like they should be. Now that doesn't follow - cut taxes and improve schools? {referring to f}. {RR - When we got to C R decided to change F, A, & B}. In relation to what. {2/18 Started with Salvador then found out he didn't understand enough. Had to CB for Maria. 3/12 Found out Maria didn't speak enough English so reverted to SP 03 as only HH memb speaking English well}. {Very Difficult R}. R wants to think about answers to page 1 & 2 and then the R wants a supervisor to call & he will answer the questions over the phone. {Before we got started R stopped to get daughter dressed for school}. No gun control questions?? These questions are entirely too broad. Too difficult to answer. Who makes up this questionnaire? I work for the State of CA. Is that OK? That's very very touchy, there's a lot of circumstances I think 3/4 of the people do it by choice. They would do that for all the mex. We need that. {He's the head of household. That's what the scripture say. Wife's remark}. {At this point I had to tell the wife I could only take her husbands answers as she was giving her opinion}. They're going to keep doing it. {probe} It doesn't work. I work for the DPSS and know how the system works. I had to go to Michigan to get training because "you're not Mexican" {Long story about nurses training in MI} Not a good question. Should be a state or federal combined program. I work for the homeless. 4 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10490 10524 10584 10646 10684 11016 11028 11083 11128 11168 11169 11218 11226 11233 11306 11352 11373 a-2a a-2a a-2a a-2a a-2a a-2a a-2a a-2a a-2a a-2a a-2a a-2a a-2a a-2a a-2a a-2a a-2a 11691 10093 10274 10318 a-2a a-2b a-2b a-2b 10327 a-2b 10333 a-2b 10498 a-2b 10499 10607 10619 10646 10670 10684 10691 10791 10936 10944 11011 11168 11169 11252 11306 11351 11352 11689 10002 10090 a-2b a-2b a-2b a-2b a-2b a-2b a-2b a-2b a-2b a-2b a-2b a-2b a-2b a-2b a-2b a-2b a-2b a-2b a-2c a-2c 612892886 I don't think this is an A, B, C answer. I have mixed feelings. Participant can't really hear me. He says he is very hard at hearing. Don't put an answer to that - these programs are very corrupt. That depends if they are going to be employed. I think they should have that. That's a farce ... Really not all that important to me. If it has purpose! I've seen some of those people. It's a state problem not a federal problem. It's more of a federal bureaucracy. They are taking the jobs away. I am an example of the job training provided by the state. {probe} Don't like the way they trained now. {probe} For the decline of non-social ideas? People should provide their own training. If they got any useful training it might be more important to me. Thru business I've seen what they do. It's useless. As opposed to welfare? {probe} {Digression} Because of the kids involved. {Wouldn't answer.} Should be like 3 month qualification - 2 parts 5 for illness drunk addict - refuse to work disaster no. I don't know why the state should provide it. Providing shelters may cause more problems then solve. That the state of California should? Somebody should but I'm not sure it's the states job. People need a place to live. Just another from of welfare. For those need it. I think people can do that on a different level. Unless they're completely disabled and have no family. That's debateable (digression) {probe}. Shelters are not paid for by the state. That's a though one. If they work and become independent on their own. Put homeless families in military facilities and have them maintain the grounds. What's a definition of homeless? Able-bodied homeless or not able-bodied persons? That's entirely a local problem. At least in the winter time. Relatives should help some. These people have to have jobs. {probe} {probe} The hell with that. Have them build there own. There's definitely a problem. I hate to see people without houses but if they can work. I don't make up my mind. Most important. {probe}{probe}{probe} I have no young children so it's not as important to me. I usually look at things more than one way. 5 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10093 10096 10104 10183 a-2c a-2c a-2c a-2c 10583 a-2c 10640 a-2c 10779 a-2c 11128 11168 11169 11253 11306 a-2c a-2c a-2c a-2c a-2c 11312 11349 11689 10062 10096 10182 10183 10249 10584 10646 10683 10944 11012 11072 11127 11168 11169 11246 11306 11417 10090 a-2c a-2c a-2c a-2d a-2d a-2d a-2d a-2d a-2d a-2d a-2d a-2d a-2d a-2d a-2d a-2d a-2d a-2d a-2d a-2d a-2e 10096 10183 10249 10265 10327 10328 10479 10499 10500 a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e 612892886 Important. {RR} I'm really for that. That's getting lots of people out of jobs. For those animals truly in need. We spend 30 million for protecting the cougar which is not endangered. They go overboard. I don't know how to answer that - I'm a hunter, but I feel that by hunting I also [illegible] & protect. I'd rather they take care of people. "If it means taking away jobs forget it. If they could get rid of the sea lions at the mouth of the river we would have no problem with salmon returning. My husband's a hunter. I don't see that as a federal issue. We don't need to add anymore endangered species. I hate to see the state involved. Mandatory. This is humiliating to me because in 200 yrs. they screwed up everything. [Arrow pointing to word "this"] {Referring to answering these questions}. That's important. {probe} 4 or 5 {probe}. They have life like anyone else. That's a heck of a question. They are important. I'm not really connected with this. Up to individual themselves. I don't live in an area where they have that. State beaches? {yes} Prime season only. People should just be careful. I haven't really thought about that. I understand why. I don't go to beaches to swim. For me, personally? {Yes}. There's no beaches around here with lifeguards. Just doesn't happen up here. Up in our area we don't do that. You've got to be responsible for yourself. {probe}{probe} No comment. {He told me to put it in parentheses}. I never go to beaches. I've never been in LA. I would assume they need transportation like any other city. I don't think about what's important just for me. I didn't know they did. That's their decision to live there. You mean for all the people? {probe} There again - There's goes your taxpayer money. [sic] That's in another district. I've lived here for 31 years and we've never had a bus. Whose gonna use it, they're not. They should spend more up here. We have to do that. 6 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10619 10629 10640 10664 10672 10683 10684 10685 10779 10791 10888 10937 10944 11072 11083 11127 11168 11237 11246 11278 11306 11312 11347 a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e 11349 11353 11463 11681 11690 11691 11771 11790 10002 10096 10183 10260 10318 10328 10380 10420 10499 10572 10629 10640 10645 a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2e a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f 10646 a-2f 612892886 Because I don't live there. For LA? I don't give a damn about Los Angeles. Don't care about them. Not educated enough to this issue - can't really say. Important {probe} You mean you want it to go public? {probe}. What does that mean? {probe}. Forget it. That's where all out tax dollars go. Don't they have a system. I don't really care about those guys. I use the city bus to go to work. That doesn't affect me either. {probe} I can't ans. that question. Too many cars there or it is I say [sic]. It might or well be Afghanistan. {H - 1} Who gives a shit. Only LA? {yes}. {probe} Screw it! They don't have public transportation now? Does that mean free? {probe} That it should continue to be state funded - why couldn't that be private funded? {Digression} {RR} We have two of them going here - Instead of building new prisons, why don't we exercise our right to use the death penalty. i don't care about LA. Without it they'd be worse than now. Not familiar with what is being done. I hate Los Angeles. Any money spent in L.A. is wasted. If they would use it. You're asking Northern CA? {probe} For those people? {probe} I have spent much time using public transportation. It would cut down on pollution. For LA, I really don't care. I think prison s/b treated as rehab not zoos. Unfortunately until something can be done with these people. We definitely need them. That's a hard one. I think they need to use vacant buildings. Ties into the law 3 x's and you're out. Shoot the bastard, no problem. Oh boy that's Building new state prisons? {Yes} to me personally. They have enough of that. Advocate of death penalty - private prison can operate for less than state can operate. That's hard. If they did more to help kids they wouldn't need prisons later. I'd rather spend money on education and jobs. It's a catch 22 situation. If we don't build new prisons then we'll have more criminals on the street. Rapid severe public punishment is the answer. Besides the ones they have? Are they overflowing? 7 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10670 10684 10768 10769 10779 10809 10999 11002 11011 11024 11074 11083 a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f 11127 11168 11169 11246 a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f 11252 11267 11306 11307 11312 11349 11352 11373 11417 11463 11690 11691 11693 11771 11774 10097 10099 a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f a-2f pg2 pg2 10678 pg2 11177 pg2 11771 10062 10096 10099 10137 10465 10500 10643 pg2 a-3 a-3 a-3 a-3 a-3 a-3 a-3 612892886 It depends on have they quit. To me. I wish that we didn't have to have them. {probe}. Touchy one - cut crime and you need less prisons. We got to do something. Have the 3 strikes rule - need to build them to house new offenders. Don't want prisons in Calif. If they build them further out from the cities. That's a double edge sword. Spend the money on education. {Repeat question}. There could be problems asking some of these questions. I could have something to say about all of them and we would be here a long time. I'm sorta against it. It's gonna happen with the three strikes law! We could use closed bases. Rent a prison is a good way to solve the problem. I believe in capitol punishment. On death row they tried to save a man from a heart attack. {probe} They should do something about crime. {probe} Thought. {probe}{probe} That is a hypothesis. The directive should be vocations. Stop - the crime before we build prisons. Not important. {probe} There's lots of $ on that end, should be more $ when kid's are young. I don't like what they've done around. I'm really not interested in any of this. Doesn't mean anything to me. That's a lot money. Not familiar. No educated statement I can make about this issue. With 3 strikes, we will have to do something. {probe} Do I get quality that [sic]? Spend more on stopping crime.11691 That could go either way. {probe} I know they're overcrowded. How many are there? Use bases that are being closed. I'm an oil spill person. These questions are stupid. You can't answer them. They aren't important to me up here. I don't think the government needs to provide these things. The point is if we want a benefit we pay for it, or provide it ourselves. I think the state should stay within the budget. I'm not familiar with that - we haven't been here very long so I don't know about all of these things. How much do they spend? I think I have. Just letters. On Board of Supervisors. Who's behind all this? Willie Brown? Oh, so that's what this is about. I've done that professionally. I've been asked over the phone. Some kind of poll for the Redwood Organization. 8 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10670 10942 11143 11291 10115 10184 10220 10278 10326 a-3 a-3 a-3 a-3 pg3 pg3 pg3 pg3 pg3 10328 10479 10484 10505 10594 10687 10792 pg3 pg3 pg3 pg3 pg3 pg3 pg3 10828 10871 10933 10980 11026 pg3 pg3 pg3 pg3 pg3 11037 11126 11207 11208 11356 11690 10032 10099 10107 10112 10182 10197 10245 10328 10380 10419 10448 10701 10707 10812 10869 10930 pg3 pg3 pg3 pg3 pg3 pg3 a-4 a-4 a-4 a-4 a-4 a-4 a-4 a-4 a-4 a-4 a-4 a-4 a-4 a-4 a-4 a-4 612892886 You know I don't recall. Over the phone. The same exact format, too. About 12 years ago. First time! What kind of new programs? {Q by Q} I think everything should be voted on. Welfare & child support they're so abused. {RR on p4} I don't believe it. I don't think they give a shit about anything except getting reelected. What would the cost be? Is this a new program? Will they tell me what area? I wonder. {Phone rings R answers.} {R has to go to school return 2/23 10am}. {[bottom of page] Breakoff - He's been working 6 days straight and wants to watch a movie. We reschedule for 11:30am tomorrow 2/15. I hope they are there. Refuse phone number - it's unlisted}. I'm going to Alaska in a couple days. Are these new programs in other words additional taxes? I wish I could believe that. The only time I've been questioned is from mailers. {SP (girlfriend?) came home and said they had to leave immediately. R said to call him for AP or Sat. AP OK.} Is this new funding!? I don't think we should start any new programs. We spend too much. OK. {5 minute telephone interruption} Is this whole thing about one issue? Whether we should spend additional $. I drive by but never stop. I own some. I've been to [Madaga] Bay a little over a year ago. I've been laid up for 1 year. I'm a beach hound. We don't have much time to do this. {probe} Monterey. Not in my whole lifetime. I can't afford it. But I've been on all of them. Been to the beach. {probe} Balboa. Just yesterday we went to beach. The last time I went to the beach was years ago. I haven't been in the beach at [all] in the last 3 years! Always go to the shoreline. I haven't been enjoying too much lately. I'm so disappointed in the beaches here, coming from a tropical island (Puerto Rico). So, I don't bother. 9 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11058 11128 11186 11292 11350 11430 11678 10118 10122 10147 10248 10252 10255 10256 10265 10322 10432 10654 10659 10812 10853 10858 10873 10898 11005 11145 11191 11291 11293 11418 11771 10093 10112 a-4 a-4 a-4 a-4 a-4 a-4 a-4 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 a-5 pg4 pg4 10115 pg4 10118 10123 10136 10278 pg4 pg4 pg4 pg4 10449 pg4 10480 pg4 10484 pg4 10501 pg4 10580 pg4 612892886 I grew up on the coast. I'm not sure. Let me think. I don't think so. When I was younger I used to go to the beaches. At one time I was a commercial fisherman. We live at one. I deep sea fish, but in Costa Rica - Cuba & Mexican waters. Just got back. We spend lots of time on the coast. We like to fish. We love the ocean. I go there everyday I have off. There's a lot of garbage there. Long Beach {probe}. {probe} No others. We go to the sea-shore all the time. No! You could say almost all of them. {probe} Morro Bay {Digression} {probe}. San Diego. All of them. No marsh. Mostly the sandy beaches. Mostly. I'm a scuba diver. All three! I've walked almost every inch of this coastline. I was a surfer. Eureka area. We went out in the boat. How often do oil spills happen? I live in Eureka at one time. I think San Francisco would be rocky and sandy. I used to live in Orange County. My wife hates beaches. Probably all three. There isn't much. {Digression} They're responsible for any spills. During WWI there was tar on the beaches from oil spills so this has been going on for a long time. They do have oil coming in that way? {Q by Q} Where do they store them? What kind of containers? Is it on shore or off shore? {Q by Q} That close? {Q by Q} I see - oh dear! That means accidents are going to happen. {R takes a minute here to do something outside} {Tel. call} I thought in the last election there was to be no more offshore drilling. {RR from page 3} This is stupid. There are so many other important things than oil spills. They do that at Long Beach don't they? I did a report on that about the toxicology of that area. I didn't know supertankers went to San Francisco. I didn't know about that - they're even closer to shore (than I thought). The supertankers have double hulls - do the barges? And oil get on them? I've seen them in the past. 10 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10687 10792 10803 10865 10925 10996 11271 11358 11428 11433 11560 11678 10017 10063 pg4 pg4 pg4 pg4 pg4 pg4 pg4 pg4 pg4 pg4 pg4 pg4 pg5 pg5 10090 pg5 10093 pg5 10099 pg5 10104 pg5 10112 pg5 10122 pg5 10184 pg5 10242 10249 10279 10374 pg5 pg5 pg5 pg5 10419 10420 10432 10480 10485 10501 pg5 pg5 pg5 pg5 pg5 pg5 10505 pg5 10511 pg5 10525 pg5 10580 pg5 612892886 {Return at 10:30 2/23}. {[Top of page] 2:50 3/5}. That's a lot {of tankers}. I understand they are going to have 2 outer hulls. I work for an environmental company that does clean up. I saw a big tanker in San Francisco with a boat leading it out. The government to clean up oil spills!? The gov't shouldn't have to pay for it! Is the oil for sale only in the state of CA? {referring to refined oil}. I am very familiar with that. {R was referring to the ships that transport oil}. I know about this. Shuttle outfit. I hate those things - all that offshore drilling. What would we be doing? I can tell you my answer. No. Not in my opinion, anything should be done. Whatever it is - it is not needed. And I think it should be done as quickly as possible. Yea but the purpose of this is to also protect the fish & wildlife. {RR previous paragraph} I think protection is needed all along the coast. {RR A-13} I really think they shouldn't let that oil spill. That's a lot of damage. Is this refined oil like gasoline in the little tankers? {Q by Q} Raw oil congeals & falls to the bottom - diesel oil gives the problem, the light oil. The heavy oil congeals & sinks. There's not that many people living here. We've gathered up just about every little critter there is on this picture. I think they are way off in saying that there are 130,000 gulls in Calif. There are probably 130,000 in Bodega Bay alone. I grew up near the ocean, in Ft. Bragg, and I appreciate it more now than I did while growing up. I'm familiar about the oil spills. Like this? {yes - reference to graphics picture of rocky shoreline} Yeah - we know how much Exxon spent - nothin. Yeah. All of our ships dump crappers 300 mi. off shore - clean up your Navy, clean up oil spill. {Brief interruption - telephone call}. As they want Californians to help pay to clean up oil spills? {probe} I'm aware of the harm. Are rocky shorelines the hardest to spills to clean up [sic]? Such as? Now they're running into submarines. The gray is the rocks? It's a lot of rocks. We wouldn't want oil dumped there. What would you do about that? I've never heard of too many spills there - spills have been mostly in LA & SF & Alaska. I like crabs. Shame on these people. The oil kills most of the fish & poisons people. I wouldn't want to see it not cleaned up. You've got to save the ocean, or else you have nothing. Is there a limit - to how close they come to the rocky shore? It's very difficult to realize the value of a sea anemone - I'm sure it's important in the food change somewhere. I agree they should pay for it. Because of the spenditure stockholders don't get much of the profit. 11 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10619 pg5 10622 pg5 10707 pg5 10763 pg5 10771 pg5 10778 pg5 10782 pg5 10799 pg5 10846 pg5 10898 10918 10975 10980 pg5 pg5 pg5 pg5 10999 pg5 11010 pg5 11011 pg5 11058 pg5 11059 pg5 11088 pg5 11126 pg5 11153 pg5 11159 pg5 11206 pg5 11207 11230 11231 11252 pg5 pg5 pg5 pg5 612892886 I've done report on it for biology class. We could probably save some time here. I think that all 3 areas are equally important. Use the unemployed & homeless to clean up the spills - it would solve 2 problems at once. Any spill can harm the wildlife. I have no idea what the steps are they've taken. I used to surf a lot in San Diego. I got oil on me from the 1969 Santa Barbara spill. [1/3 down page] The company? What? {RR}. [Above box with stop] What is this? The number of birds or the number harmed? {probe} {Reference to # of birds in California}. Yeah {approving} [after second stop sign] They're remote areas to get to and very hard to clean up. What have we done to protect. I think the oil companies should say for preventive measures. The state shouldn't be paying for it. They should be set up but not by the state. uh {huh}. Yes. Why do they stray off course? What's wrong with the captain and his equipment? They have no business coming in that close to shore. I think the oil companies are getting away with murder. They should be paying for all the damage. Even just handling it, they lose some of it. Whales too are harmed. Yes! They're going to have to live with the oil-spill if they want to have gasoline for auto. That's how it is! I agree they should pay - the oil companies should pay. Do they have fish in the rocky coast areas? I've sailed those ships. Why? It's not off-shore oil drilling. If a ship runs into another ship they should be responsible. How many years did it take to get the money from the Alaska one? Money doesn't clean it up - they found out you can't clean it up. My family lived in Santa Barbara when they had the bit spill there. They've never forced them to make ships with double hulls. If we had a bad spill off of SF Bay, it would kill off the otters in Monterey, & kill the Murres & the gulls at the Farallones Islands. I've been an Audobon & Sierra club member for years. In Alaska, only the clams survived of the crustaceans. And thousands of otters were killed. I smell the Sierra Club. I know these spills happen. Do you work for the state? Did the state ask for this? Drunk captains. That's for sure. What kind of programs better tankers is the only program - double-lined tankers. It's important to save the coastline for future generations. What steps have they taken to start this? All of them should be double hulled. The oil companies already have a rapid response in Long Beach and all the way to Santa Barbara I know. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. This makes me sick. It's really upsetting. I've driven that whole thing. Yes, but the state gets taxes so they are never going to stop it. 12 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11265 11269 11288 11293 11306 pg5 pg5 pg5 pg5 pg5 11347 pg5 11354 pg5 11359 11361 11405 11420 11424 pg5 pg5 pg5 pg5 pg5 11432 pg5 11433 pg5 11689 pg5 11691 pg5 10076 10096 10103 10119 10124 10147 10249 10265 10281 10283 10305 10328 10419 10420 10480 10580 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 10646 10660 10684 10686 10711 10762 10773 10791 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 612892886 They spill because they only have single walls on those tankers & barges. Is that a law or a courtesy? Damn right. Why! The oil company should be responsible for all the oil that is spelled. We should put the company out of business. Bunch of crap. [Arrow drawn to...] Referring to preventing harm}. Because it goes to bureaucrats. [Arrow drawn to...] {All the money}. I think they do very much so how far out do they travel. {probe} Didn't do well in Alaska. it's harmed a lot under the oceans, the fish & what eats them. {Food chain}. But you've also got sea lions up on these rocks. It's happening way too much. Protect all of it cause it's all the same body of water. Yes! It should be a priority. We have to protect our resources. I can tell you I definitely want this - I'm definitely a "five" so if we can skip this. {probe} {See E-10}. Stop the spills. Oil should not be in our ocean. I'm sure there is a way to stop these spills. {SP very impatient}. What's the bottom line? Oil company should pay. {RR} Where are they? {the existing programs} That's some of the most beautiful... I'm a Montessori teacher and share taking responsibility for yourself. {as a lesson at school - implied}. Wait - maybe the gulls. I've seen them. Oil companies responsible for clean up. I spend a lot of time going to the coast and looking at the birds. Well, maybe the wester gull. Just the seagulls. The Pelican. {probe} This one. {probe} {A-7 R points to gull} Like I said - they all look the same. Sorta. {probe} I've seen them but I can't name them. Like seeing them? {RQ} Familiar, how? From what I see on T.V. only. I see a lot of those at the beach. {probe} A little. Not so much the birds as the invertebrates. I know them, but I am not familiar with. {It was difficult to remember the names for R.} Oh yeah. Not much of an ounthologist. {RE}. {RE} [2 circled, probe indicated, then an arrow pointing to 1 which was also circled]. No by name. Can't they fly to some other are? Can't they adapt. Somewhat. I see them all the time most of them anyway. 13 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10988 11199 11278 11288 11413 11416 11689 10007 10034 10067 10075 10084 10088 10095 10096 10098 10101 10123 10183 10184 10187 10255 10277 10278 10291 10297 10305 10325 10337 10387 10393 10432 10457 10484 10499 10500 10501 10516 10533 10553 10643 10655 10662 10670 10686 10762 10768 10769 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-7 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 612892886 I've seen them. Not really - cause I'm not a beach person. Not much. {probe} More or less. I've seen all of them you shouldn't harm any. Not really. We know all the birds. I know birds. I've heard of them. All of them. These are worthless birds! But all the environment should be protected. Colors would help The seagull. Some of the birds! From the east, not California. When we travel I've seen them. All of them. Most all of them. The gull - it's similar to the seagull. They're here too. If it were in color, it would be easier to tell. They ought to have open season on the gulls - there's too many of them. I've lived on the coast! I'm not a bird person. {probe} But I do recognize. If I had my way there would be no tankers. DK them by name. They just look familiar. They think my car is the ocean when they fly over. I learned them all in school! A science project that I did. Had a loon in the yard - can't take off without water. I just took marine biology. I know all of them. I'm not a bird watcher. I've heard of these... Not too many gulls. Cranes. I do a lot of fishin'. I'm pretty much outdoors. Not really. I've heard of the murre. Pelicans - but they're not here. We always go to the coast. I lived at the coast. All of them, but I don't recognize the manes of them. I know them all. {probe} No. All of them why don't they just double hull all those tankers Where are they getting those numbers? Which ones? {Yes}. Right. They should have had that a long time ago. I worked at Moss landing and I'm familiar with the coast. I guess I have seen them all. 14 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10778 10804 10853 10869 10899 10934 10935 10941 10975 10980 11002 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 a-8 I go fishing all the time, and I've sen them all. No. Pelicans on the way to San Mateo. Is this the time of year for no pelicans? And I've seen most of these. I wouldn't be able to identify all of them. We spend a bunch of time at the beach. I'm a wildlife major from Humboldt state. I'm pretty much up on the oil spill issue. Some I've seen but don't know by name. I can't stand them. They're useless. They're scavengers. I spent a lot of time on the coastline watching birds. I like birds. I'm a duck hunter. The seagull and I've seen some of the others in books but I think that's a duck [line drawn to answer 2]. 11004 a-8 Not names but recognize them all. 11012 a-8 The Gull which is everywhere. 11038 a-8 No - I change my mind - I thought they were ducks! 11056 a-8 I think. 11105 a-8 I was raised in San Diego. 11145 a-8 We see them out in the water 11169 a-8 They migrate a lot the Brandt's Cormorant. 11171 a-8 I think I've seen them all. {probe} 11176 a-8 The duck? 11232 a-8 I've seen the loon and the auklet. 11293 a-8 I might have seen some of the other birds, but I don't know the names. 11315 a-8 All 5 of them. 11349 a-8 I've seen these in Peterson's guides. 11350 a-8 I've seen all of them. 11352 a-8 I've probably seen them. I just enjoy watching. 11353 a-8 I never really paid that much attention. 11356 a-8 I don't know their names, but I've seen them all. 11406 a-8 Oh the gulls. 11407 a-8 Going to the Bay Area, I'm sure I've seen them all - just don't know them by name. 11408 a-8 Damn near all of them. 11681 a-8 Definitely Commorant. The gull is unavoidable. Not sure about others. 11689 a-8 Wildlife. 11690 a-8 By name that's the only one. 10607 box1 Where I come from we call them sea pigeons. 10057 pg6 I don't believe that. I think there are a lot more than that. 10069 pg6 Are any endangered? 10075 pg6 I'm very familiar with this area. I drive up the coast often. I have a brother up in Santa Cruz. 10089 pg6 I saw some in Monterey. 10096 pg6 I'm fully aware of this. 10103 pg6 Let's move along on this. 10112 pg6 Do they migrate? {probe} {Q by Q} 10122 pg6 There should be more like a million of the gulls - they're everywhere. 10147 pg6 No seals? In San Francisco there were a lot of seals. Then they weren't there. I don't know what happened to them - maybe they went somewhere else. 612892886 15 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10180 pg6 10184 10220 10228 10249 10253 10265 10270 10318 10326 10352 10432 10439 pg6 pg6 pg6 pg6 pg6 pg6 pg6 pg6 pg6 pg6 pg6 pg6 10482 pg6 10484 pg6 10504 pg6 10505 10571 10630 10646 10670 10681 10686 10748 pg6 pg6 pg6 pg6 pg6 pg6 pg6 pg6 10763 pg6 10775 pg6 10934 pg6 11035 11058 11124 11153 11178 pg6 pg6 pg6 pg6 pg6 11218 11230 11275 11306 pg6 pg6 pg6 pg6 612892886 I don't remember any oil spills in our area. I don't know if there was a major oil spill in the S.F. Area. In whose opinion? I think they're overprotected. I'd challenge that 130,000 seagulls more than that. All kind of them. [sic] The gulls! I lived in San Francisco. They have a lot of different names. I didn't know that. Seems like the state is involved with what accused by accident. What a relief. {sarcastic} How do they know that? {probe} How many birds live here? Get rid of the gulls. They mess up the cars. At one time I worked in the lab at the Richmond refinery & took samples of the oil & sewage & that's how we were familiar with the bay. They can build a pipeline all the way down to Calif. There's more loons than gulls? I thought there were more damn seagulls. Not unless the oil kills 'em! That's not accurate. There are lots more of seagulls than that. How recent are these numbers? It's a shame, really. They should clean up the oil. What's the bottom line of this? How do they know? How many birds there are [sic]? Who counted them? They're full of bull - like that damned spotted owl. What's all?? I've already studied on this one. To me it doesn't matter how many birds there are, they s/b protected no matter what their number. [Top of page - by Show Card C Again] Are these numbers the number of birds that are alive? Its seems implausible that there are more loons than gulls, ant that there are only 130,000 gulls. What's these numbers? {probe} {R's (Reference to the number of birds in California}. A few years ago I could have told you the scientific manes of these birds. We could do with a few less of some of these. Like the gulls and cormorants. not to say that we need oil spills to control their population. At this time No, but according to the Audobon society, their numbers are dropping. That's terrible. I've seen those at work Is this the real only issue you're going to talk about? Some of the issues are more important. Where is the otter? There's more loons than gulls? That's amazing to me. Oh yeah. Seagulls. It's desecrated from the amoeba to the human being. No, they've been predicated. With pollution the young will not sustain. They are in worse trouble than the anoli [sic]. {Questioning the accuracy of the numbers next to the birds}. 16 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11333 pg6 11355 pg6 11356 pg6 11373 pg6 11405 11408 11424 11507 10002 pg6 pg6 pg6 pg6 pg7 10008 10011 10063 10085 10098 10112 10115 10122 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 10147 10163 10173 10187 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 10249 pg7 10270 10274 10278 10290 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 10326 10328 10461 10484 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 10501 pg7 10511 10570 10597 10622 10629 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 612892886 This doesn't include the mammals. And none of them are in danger of becoming extinct? And these are the ones harmed by oil spills in that area? How do they know how many birds there are? Do they count them? {Joking}. I'm not interested in any of this study. I'm sorry. It's nothing personal just don't feel well. I've had no lunch. We were sitting on a porch. She walked inside. They never killed enough of seagulls. They should have killed more of them. Not many murres. It is not about extinction - it's about suffering - even just one bird dying. Are they all shoreline type birds? I disagree. The entire eco-system is affected. I feel the totals numbers are not correct. They're vagueness is caused by the impossibilities that arise when trying to count non-grounded species. They have no choice. What about otters? That's right. {RR} Oh yeah. They've been chopping the kelp & that makes oil. Are these all edible? {Q by Q} Why aren't these moving away? {Q by Q} There's plenty of them out there - that's for sure. The whales ought to be running out there pretty soon. We love to watch them. Then they shouldn't be wasting all that money on that then. Is that a proven fact? It doesn't matter how small the spill is - it's not good. They sense it? In the Alaska spill, they talked about the birds & the sea otters but not the fish. How do the fish sense it? (the oil). None of these are in danger. {RR - complete sentence} So the oil spilling and not destroying them? {RR, pg 7} And sea urchins. What about all of them that have been picked up dead along the Monterey Coast? According to who? That's not what I see on TV. Are you from an oil Company? You make it sound like this isn't too bad a problem. Like it's not too much harm to the wildlife since none are in danger of becoming extinct. When does the question come? And we eat those things. {RR on pg 9} Life is precious to any animal just like it is precious to us. Everything that the birds ar going to eat - & then it goes down the food chain. I kind of find that hard to believe. Anchovies, whatever is close to shore - they can't all leave. Abalone wouldn't? It would affect the crabs. I should think. No -my husband caught a sea bass & it tasted like oil. {RR at page 17}. Who started that? That's a bunch B.S. They come up dead all the time. How long will this take? None of 'em are? Not even shore crabs? {RR pg 9} 17 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10639 pg7 10643 10646 10662 10676 10762 10803 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 10846 10854 10880 10918 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 10936 10960 10999 11005 11057 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 11058 pg7 11079 11086 11126 11186 11198 11207 11218 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 11230 11283 11288 11306 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 11319 11361 11417 11420 11432 11497 11538 11687 11691 10011 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg7 pg8 612892886 According to what scientists? I'm thinking of the Exxon Valdez. I would question the authority of anyone who would say that these birds & others wouldn't be affected more. Sea Anemones. I thought the oil just floated on top. I didn't realize clams were affected. They do, I don't believe that. Then why is it that they recommend you don't eat fish caught off the shore? They don't taste so good any more. How is the area when the fish leave - we need them to sustain the circle of life. {food chain}. Why isn't the pelican on your picture? Does it contaminate anything else? {probe} I thought these were affected too. Not always true - Seals & otters have a hard time because the oil gets stuck to their coats and they don't always get out in time. Some exact birds or cousins. I've seen all these too diving. So it's mostly just birds? {RR} Maybe the oil won't hurt the clam always but I eat the clams and the oil affects me. We use to go abalone fishing. These are the ones that are usually forgotten. Everything is interdependent. Man can manage his resources very well. I don't believe that. Fish are very territorial; they're not migratory, especially Rock fish. how come these birds don't leave? They can fly away from the spill? So marine mammals are not affected. I know them all. That's right. All of these are also in danger! {R was referring to other species in the ocean}. But evidently the oil will get them all. Oh good. What about otters? I read that the oil spills have really affected the sea otters and that they do not or can not swim away. Really? Really? Fish are not affected? I can't believe that the fish aren't harmed. Oh, that's good. No oil should wash up. They are killing the rainforest. The lifebelt of the universe. Who are these people who claim to be so knowledgeable? Do you believe that? Are you serious? Leave the area? "OK boys, red flags up. Let's get out of here." {As though the marine mammal leader says this.} Why do they leave? {RR on pg 15}. Shellfish. It ruins everything. Right. I'm aware of this. Right. I would too - leave that is. They're smart. Is that true? Why can't they do it now? The oil cos. have money - why give them 10 yrs? 18 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10017 10056 10063 10100 10102 10112 pg8 pg8 pg8 pg8 pg8 pg8 10168 pg8 10180 pg8 10220 pg8 10274 pg8 10275 pg8 10279 pg8 10289 pg8 10291 pg8 10299 pg8 10328 pg8 10354 10420 10432 10480 pg8 pg8 pg8 pg8 10485 pg8 10501 pg8 10505 pg8 10508 pg8 10565 pg8 10580 pg8 10623 10646 10662 10708 10788 pg8 pg8 pg8 pg8 pg8 10839 pg8 612892886 Good idea. I already know the ans. I'm a scientist and I know about this. Are they going to triple hulls? We need to triple rinse our garbage cans. Double bottoming. I'm familiar with those. When a ship comes in they back flush & oil comes out as a by product. They have to do something about that first. I can't think of any big spill along the Central Coast - I remember one in Santa Barbara. Where have they been spilling? I haven't heard of any really dilemma. I don't know all the oil floats on water. How does this affect sea life, crabs, seastars. Oil doesn't sink. It is on the surface. I think the state shouldn't do anything. If all tankers are double hulled in ten years, I'll kiss somebody's last part over the fence. {RR} {RR} So it will be 20 years before it's done. {RR above paragraph} and you know it will be dragged out as long as possible. You're telling me we can't tell the f%$#!in' oil companies to do it? Why does it have to take 10 years? What are we doin' - playin' a damn game with them? It shouldn't take 10 years. If they tell the companies to double hull the ships now, it will create jobs. We have the money to make the ships safe. This looks like conservative estimates. I doubt that the dolphins fish and whales are unaffected. I read about double hulls. Worked for an oil Co. for 20 yrs. I thought they already did. I agree. I don't think they make the companies kick in soon enough. If they raise taxes it happens now. Pull the ones that are not double tanked. They will be replaced much quicker. That will cost a fortune. {Brief interruption - R's 2 year old}. Get Congress to move quickly. Smart. I kind of disagree with fish not being affected. I can see the whales, and dolphins as well as seals being mobile. Is that mandatory? Are they enforcing it? Where's the central coast? Do they have to wait all those years? Why wait so long? Why wait 10 years? There won't be any fish left in 10 years. They better do it now. When did that 10 year period start? They approved that! I would say by the information provided by the study of the State of California. I agreed with them. I'm in the oil business. Is this ten years projection of harm based on the last ten years of harm? Great. Why would it take 10 years? Why not search for other forms of energy alternate forms then we wouldn't have this problem. Is there any other ways that it can be prevented other than the double hulls? There seem to be so many spills. 19 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10874 10875 10877 10898 10936 pg8 pg8 pg8 pg8 pg8 10973 pg8 11058 11079 11145 11159 11176 11230 pg8 pg8 pg8 pg8 pg8 pg8 11231 11269 11274 11283 11288 11306 11324 11401 pg8 pg8 pg8 pg8 pg8 pg8 pg8 pg8 11416 11418 11420 11554 pg8 pg8 pg8 pg8 11686 pg8 10022 a-10 10067 a-10 10077 a-10 10078 a-10 10084 a-10 10096 a-10 10098 a-10 10099 a-10 10100 a-10 10117 a-10 10122 a-10 612892886 I'm familiar with this. Double hull - oh yes, I know about that. {Telephone call}. That's very good; reasonable & do able. What do you mean hulls? What about the things they feed off of, are they affected by the spill? I was thinking that they should provide a fund to build double hulls, rather than spending money to clean it up. I'll bet you $50 that in 10 years they don't. How many teeth do they have in the law? Yeah. That's great. God! 10 yrs! How about now! 1 bird is too much. We shouldn't be hurting them. Holes? {No - hulls}. Would we be overpopulated without the spills? Would we be overwhelmed with these birds? I still think it's a terrible way for an animal to suffer. That was smart. How often do spills occur? I've heard about that. So, this is expected, but it hasn't happened yet. They should. Ten years from now? What's a double hull? {Q x Q} This has got to be from my office. I work for the U.S. Dept. of fish & wildlife service. This number - 12,000 & 1,000 - seems real low to me. That started with the Exxon Valdez. I read about it. Who's going to pay for it? {Q by Q}. I work for the gas co. & I know that all the tankers have now double hulls [sic]. This is a lie. Why 10 yr? Wasn't this law passed last yr? 10 years B.S. No - you were through. I don't quite agree with you. It will be on going - man will continue to do it. All companies & states should protect the environment. I think the delay causes more damage. {probe} I don't think the govt. should subsidize the oil companies. It's all pretty unpleasant. I wasn't even aware of this much. I just knew it happened. I'm pretty well aware my husband worked for Chevron for 35 years. I know how hard the work on caring or solving problems relating to this. If in ten years the hulls are changed forgot this whole thing. Haven't I got the same gamut. This is a environmental study. This is bull-shit. Didn't we go through this before in the 1060's, something like 25000 birds died in a spill. Why don't they stay farther out and not so near the shore? {This was more a comment than a question} I pretty well keep up with it on the news. Like that Valdez - that was bad. God puts all these creatures on the Earth, & man comes along and destroys them, just for the almighty dollar. 20 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10123 a-10 10131 10137 10142 10182 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 10187 a-10 10190 a-10 10195 a-10 10258 a-10 10265 a-10 10280 a-10 10283 10299 10331 10332 10357 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 10374 a-10 10383 a-10 10388 a-10 10391 a-10 10392 10393 10439 10448 10454 10479 10481 10487 10496 10501 10510 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 10532 10542 10553 10582 10605 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 10611 a-10 10619 a-10 612892886 It doesn't do anything to the earth or anything like that? The grass, sand, rocks people collect those How often do they spill oil? They're not saying anything about the fishes under water where oil seeps all the time. You can't tell me there's no more harm than this to those birds! We don't have any oil transported along our coast do we. I'm not for offshore drilling of any kind. That's a good thing they're doin' it. I guess the gas pays off the tanker's double hulls. No, I understand that birds are being killed. I think the numbers are smaller than I expected. 12,000 birds. I would think that number is too small. Other than how they're going to clean it up - the responsibility. Because I know it will cause it. They should do something about it. Hell, they come around here & jack my ass up if I spill 5 gallons of oil. {He's a dairy rancher} That pretty well explains it. It just depressed me. I think they should take the barges out of the ocean & transport the stuff by train. No pretty well. Aware raised in Alameda Bay area remembers TAR on beach. [sic] They are indicating all the spills come from tankers etc. This is not exactly true. You get leaks in transmission lines from tanks to shoreline. Also from platforms in the ocean. That's it! I'm not concerned about the rest of the state. You've covered it well. I'd like to know where the statistics came from - the accountability of statements. I believe there is bias in what you read. {probe} I think arguments is leaning toward the position that it is not serious. {probe} The harm caused by oil spills. What about the oil rigs being out; those are a nuisance. The tankers & barges are the only hazard. How clean is the water for surfing? {probe} [illegible] Can I ask later if I have to? I already know I've been there. How much more do you have to say. {probe} (So what) That's a selfish idea. I know, but that's how I feel. (So what). I'm sort of surprised that the numbers aren't larger than that. I don't really consider it to be a big issue. You said the animals are not affected - they are. No, not right off. I kept up with the Alaska spill I like the double-hull idea. That's an awful lot of birds killed. No, but I don't agree with this. It's far more devastating. Where did you get your facts? I understand what you read. It can't be avoided. That's pretty much it in a nutshellBut it sounds like they're trying to justify everything. I have been raised on a farm and realize that some member of a species should be decreased so the species can keep renewing themselves. You haven't mentioned any programs to help prevent this. But, I'd say the way this is written, & implies the harm is not to important. 21 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10627 10640 10641 10656 10662 10670 10671 10678 10683 10702 10707 10734 10742 10754 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 10769 a-10 10778 a-10 10779 a-10 10783 a-10 10812 a-10 10814 a-10 10842 a-10 10843 a-10 10871 a-10 10874 a-10 10875 a-10 10886 a-10 10892 a-10 10893 a-10 10909 10918 10920 10922 10923 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 10934 10935 10941 10949 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 612892886 I've read a lot about it. I don't know enough about it. You explained it pretty good! It's gonna be harmful. I think I have heard enough. I don't believe it. Look at that oil spill that Exxon had I feel the oil company should pay for their mistakes. We read about it all the time. I think that sums it up. It's interesting though. No! not at this time. I can't understand why people can't be more careful. 10 years is a lone time for the ships to have double hulls - why so long? It kind of bad when it happens - but they recoup - too bad they don't have double hulls now. Looks like we have thousands of birds and the lose is small. We could use the money to put the unemployed to work. I know everything I need to know from the Exxon Valdez. And my sister is a game warden. It makes it sound like 12,000 birds isn't much, but it is. And there's no mention of all the jobs that would be lost from a big spill. Cause thou birds are not going to be extinct. They will reproduce. These birds will take care of themselves. I just don't think we should transport oil -one spill is one too many. I'm familiar about the oil-spills. Basically I kind of know the harm. We see it on TV & I don't think taxpayer money should go for this. The oil co's should be fully responsible for their actions. I reading on that a little. I know it's not good for animals & fish. I wouldn't put that problem over the education or crime problem though. This is frightening enough. No! Did very much covers it! [sic] Do something. Get rid of the rocks or have the barges deposit their cargo further away from the shoreline. No, I've got the idea. I remember reading about the oil spills and seeing it on T.V. The statement about double hulls makes me think the problem would be taken care of if they enforce the double-hull law. I would have thought (thinking about the Valdez) the number of birds affected. I would have expected overpowering numbers. I know all about this. I worked cleaning up oil spills. Seals and otters like the rocky area. I saw a spill on the news. Any harm is not good at all. There's no justification for an oil spill - they should do what it takes to stop it from happening. I already have a pretty good background on this from my environmental classes. Not necessarily. 12,000 birds in 10 years is not bad. They're not endangered or extinct. I knew what they caused - the oil does a lot of harm to the things living there. 22 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10975 a-10 10979 a-10 10991 a-10 10996 a-10 10999 a-10 11012 a-10 11016 a-10 11024 a-10 11025 a-10 11026 11027 11028 11042 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 11049 a-10 11058 a-10 11059 a-10 11067 a-10 11079 a-10 11083 11085 11090 11104 11117 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 11123 a-10 11126 a-10 11127 a-10 11134 11145 11153 11169 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 11190 a-10 11192 a-10 11193 a-10 612892886 I think that anything that destroys the balance of little creatures or big creatures should be prohibited, even if for a short period of time. I'm familiar with oil spill from the movies, T.V. and newspapers. No, I think your covered it completely. I think going to the ship the source of the problem will prevent harm to the wildlife. I mean the oil tankers. Who will pay for the clean up? Is there more you want to tell me? Why haven't I seen the Common Murre if there are 525,000 of them. I think that human beings harm the animals more than the oil with pollution. I'm aware. Have the number of spills been increasing lately? Also the size of the harm - has that been increasing? I pretty well know about this. I know enough about this. I've read enough about it. I followed the Exxon spill carefully - I know about it - My sister worked for the Coast Guard & we're familiar with the problems. It does cause a lot of trouble. I think it's critical that we stop it in some way. But how are they going to enforce the law? How are we going to make the big oil companies have double hulls? I've already heard more than I care about. This is not a priority for how the state should spend its money. It's on the bottom of my priorities. They should have more inspections. They spend so much money cleaning those birds. My son helps heal wounded wild birds. I can't recall oil spills when I was growing up they just started about 20 years ago how come? That's not so Bud! Percentage wise that's not bad at all. It has to be done as soon as possible. What about humans? What harm to humans? It is pretty clear in what it could do. I see here that the double hull finally passed! I had been reading about the proposal. I was in Huntington Beach when spill occurred. They did an excellent job then. If they could do that quick response it was small & easy clean up. It was good. I know what it does - I watch it on TV & cry for the animals. We've had enough spills all over the world to know about their damage. I've read quite a bit about oil spills that have gone on. Especially in National Geographic. Pretty much sums it up. I understand. It's certainly not good for beaches - it's horrendous. I've worked with the schools & am pretty much up to date on it. With the program they already have I can't. [illegible] the cost in saving the 12,000 birds I would be against any state program because all those birds will reproduce. It will cost millions and millions of dollars. I wouldn't be for that at all. We already have a program up here with booms and all that. With the rough waters up here you might or will forget it. I remember the big oil spill. Some species may be gone forever. I pretty much know. I understand. 23 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11206 a-10 11230 a-10 11235 a-10 11244 11246 11265 11267 11276 11292 11297 11324 11328 11333 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 11350 11354 11363 11411 11420 11421 11424 11432 11433 11434 11457 11461 11463 11465 11497 11560 11561 11681 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 11689 11691 11694 11696 11790 10001 10002 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10 a-10a a-10a 10008 a-10a 10011 a-10a 612892886 I know about the harm. I didn't know that the birds would recover in 10 years. I still don't think it's acceptable. Just as long as it doesn't happen often because if it happens often it will take more than 10 years. I'm very well read on this subject. It's bad. What do you want to know, that everything is dead? There probably are a lot more animals killed than what you are saying. I don't think those scientists can determine these numbers. What is the reason for transporting? I'm familiar with the oil spill problems. I've seen on t.V. how much damage it does. I know about the harm. What is the liability of the oil company? We are not talking about a catastrophic spill. This used to my field of expertise chief of [illegible] fish & game. Sea otters primary animal that would be expected. I think it's gotten covered. I've read about this. The numbers seem really low. Not necessarily. It's a basic. It's completely devastating for the whole chain. But I can tell you right now my ans. will be no. We just want to stop it. I guess not. I'm well aware. Just what is the bottom line? I don't believe it. {probe} {probe} {probe} {probe} I understand double hull thing - sounds like a good idea. I didn't think the recovery would be that great. It's not a permanent thing. Has the study already been done, or is this the study? I can see them recovery is the next ten years. I imagine some birds relocated will, as well as the fish. How many people have been killed? Guns & violence. That's too many {spills implied} and too long {a recovery - implied}. I think it's more like 50 to 100 yrs. I thought there would be more harm. I know it's bad. The leaving of any substance in the water that would affect the health of humans. Basically I would like to know how liable the polluting companies are for their actions. I feel it s/b 100%. So the saltwater plants recover in 10 years - even if the marsh is badly damaged. {probe} Are they going to increase shipping in the next 10 yrs or are they going to decrease ships going through area? {probe} Are there any new inventions on the horizon that would disperse the oil or contain it? For every oil spill there's 10 miles affected? 24 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10017 a-10a Besides the double hull can't they partition off different parts? 10029 a-10a I want to know how much the State thinks they will spend for it. If it's going to cost taxpayers forget it. {probe} No, they make oil spill the oil companies are responsible. 10034 a-10a What's the impact on the rest of the wildlife? What is the commercial impact? What's the tourist impact! 10053 a-10a Am I supposed to be impressed with these numbers of birds? What about pelican? Why aren't they on here? They do get affected by it? {probe} They had problems in Valdez with sea otters etc. I can't see why they wouldn't be affected by that. So why do they say that they wouldn't. {probe} 10055 a-10a This talks about animals/plant life. How about the beaches themselves people can't use them. I'd be concerned about the plants alone all the shoreline and just the shore it's self. {probe} I guess they would be danger to private property also. Think it would effect the fisherman also their live hood if the fish left. {probe} 10057 a-10a Are the oil co. paying any part of the cost of this survey? {probe} No. 10075 a-10a I wonder about the saltwater marshes? What would happen to the wetlands areas? Does the oil get sucked up into the marshes or what? Does it just settle there? And what's the recovery time for that area? There are marshes - the oil can't be carried out to sea as easily as on a sandy beach or rocky shore. {probe} 10080 a-10a What's gonna happen to county & local city water supplies? {probe} 10085 a-10a How to help them? 10093 a-10a Why does it have to take 10 years for the barges and other ships to make improvements to secure oil spills? I think that whomever owns the equipment that transports the oil should be held more responsible. 10112 a-10a If they could back flush in the open sea we would have less oil spills. {probe} No. 10118 a-10a How do the fish & others know to leave the area? 10136 a-10a Deposits of oil eventually disappear. Most is usually just washed away. How long does this harm continue to happen? I mean for each spill. 10140 a-10a What about the effects the toxins on humans? 10151 a-10a Are we talking about big spills or small spills? 10154 a-10a What will happen to the beaches? 10183 a-10a What is the effect on humans when they consume clams? and the affect on other animals that eat the birds, clams, crabs that are harmed by oil spills. There's no mention of plankton and that's the beginning of the food chain. 10201 a-10a What are the other alternatives? 10213 a-10a I understand this, but more important is crime. {probe} No. 10221 a-10a Will I find out later how much tax dollars will be spent? {probe} {I told R we would cover that shortly} 10229 a-10a I'm more worried about the habitat where they bred their young. {probe} 10244 a-10a They should make it mandatory that all ships are double hulled. {probe} No other comments. 10249 a-10a Well, to me to save the wildlife is extremely important but I'd like to know if it's necessary that these tankers come this way? {probe} {RR pg. 4-a-6} 10270 a-10a If they're making more double hulled things, aren't they more aware of spills and taking more precautions? There are too many damn seagulls. Aren't there people who catch clams in Bodega Bay? Would their jobs be affected? 10275 a-10a How do they know that everything will recover? Maybe they'll just go off in a different direction? Are they talking about small spills or large. 612892886 25 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10279 a-10a This is the most conservative estimate of birds that would be killed. This is bullshit this is biased to let the oil companies buy time for 10 years. For them to say the fish will come back is bullshit. Spills don't clean themselves. Where does the pollution disappear to? Where does it go? Does it just disappear? {sarcastic} How do we know the importance of these animals, to the survival of the planet? We do not have the right to kill some animals for some oil company & some bogus report - my ass! 10289 a-10a The truth. {probe} I seriously feel oil spills have more detrimental effects in the long & short term. I would like to know about the more farther reaching effects & the correct numbers of birds killed. 10300 a-10a Yes, the effect it has on fishes/people some of the foods people eat are effect. [sic] Why they are being so lenient giving them 10 yrs? {probe} 10301 a-10a Is this a one sided picture. Is one group doing this survey? {probe} 10305 a-10a How about the eating of these fish & animals or the kelp? Will it hurt us? 10318 a-10a What caused the oil spills in the 1st place? Is that something we can control? {RR pg 5 1st paragraph} Why are they that close? 10320 a-10a How it might affect the water on the beaches? {probe} No more questions. 10322 a-10a What type of bacterias would be brought up on the beaches that the public would be exposed to from breathing and walking on the beaches. {probe} What type of contamination would the fish and wildlife have? {RR page 7, see opposite page} {a10a last statement by R} When the fish do come back there's going to be oil and contamination. 10324 a-10a What about the beaches. How long does that stay? {The oil?} {probe} 10328 a-10a Well, poisoning the fish and the people eating it? {RR from pg 7} I don't believe the fish aren't effected. 10333 a-10a Does this have an effect on offshore wells platforms. {probe} No. 10339 a-10a I'd like to know what affects it will have on state beach tide pools? 10345 a-10a Human harm, how about it? 10356 a-10a The ability of the earth to renew from these spills if they repeatedly happen. {probe} 10 years--is that every time a spill occurs. {probe} Is it possible for the earth to reach a point where it could not recover from these spills. 10363 a-10a How are the birds killed? {with the oil leaking} 10367 a-10a Who did the study? 10373 a-10a It doesn't affect humans in any way? 10384 a-10a What about the porpos [sic] and seals that don't get away in time? You're not covering all of the damage caused by spills. 10389 a-10a What about people swimming and the harm to people. {probe} What about if water for drinking water into the homes. {probe} No. 10420 a-10a Just the question I asked. {probe} {Reference to q above (A-10A)} 10430 a-10a What can we do in the meantime - 10 years is a long time to wait? {I'll get to that shortly}. 10431 a-10a This is just an average size spill? [Interviewers initials noted] {I'm not sure}. 10452 a-10a I would like to know if there is an alternate way to transport this oil. {probe} I don't think that double hulls will completely eliminate future spills. {probe} No. 10458 a-10a How about the other animals? Will things not mentioned be harmed? I won't eat tuna fish because of the dolphins! 10470 a-10a How about humans? 10479 a-10a Who did this study? What have there scientists based their studies on. 10482 a-10a That's speculating that the oil spill will happen on the rocky shore, right? The cause & effect is different on different kinds of shoreline. I hope the double hulls don't 612892886 26 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10484 a-10a 10493 a-10a 10498 a-10a 10500 a-10a 10503 a-10a 10505 a-10a 10506 a-10a 10507 a-10a 10508 a-10a 10511 a-10a 10527 10529 10552 10555 10572 a-10a a-10a a-10a a-10a a-10a 10577 a-10a 10589 a-10a 10594 a-10a 10599 a-10a 10624 a-10a 10626 a-10a 10629 a-10a 10639 a-10a 10643 a-10a 612892886 mean that the amount to tanker traffic will increase. I'm real concerned about putting oil derricks out there. How far the oil goes down into the sediment, where the clams & mussels live. How toxic is it? Does it dissipate, or just keep traveling further & further? Cleaning the rocks, like they did with the Valdez, is just cosmetic. Because of the oil spills, are these birds expected to die? More than normal? {probe} No. Who conducted the study for this information? Who funded the study? How do there figures compare to the total losses. It is hard to tell where the bias is with out seeing the study. There are many indigenous that have small ranges and there are many interactions within the food chain. From what you've told me this is not being inventoried. Why aren't they inventoried such as a species of mail? Did you mention seals? And, when they had the big spill in Alaska, they had a chemical to break down the oil. Do they put that in the water? How about all those other birds - mudhens & other - that we saw on TV when there was an oil spill? People had to clean them up. Who pays for it! The clean-up. The towers that are already up - they would cause some harm? {Referring to drilling rigs} How does it affect the economy, and the cities? What happens to the oil? Does in go into the sand and harm the clam and so forth? this is about collisions right not just normal operations? When they got the double hull this will make it safer, the sooner the better. There is nothing that tells you how long it takes for the oil to bread down. Isn't it harmful to people? It's kind of dangerous - It kills birds. What can we do to prevent that or what can we do to clean it up if it happens? How many oil spills no they have? {probe} [sic] What about it settling on the sea bed, therefore covering up any nutrients that are in the soil so the plants and animals can't get to what about the sea bottom? This will all settle eventually on the bottom of the sea. What is the life span of oil? {probe} No. I'm certainly interested in that. How do they project effect of spills. Politics of having fuel and not having fuel. But important to protect the wildlife. It takes 10 years? Does it affect us or not? How will it affect us humans? So there's nothing endangered. If all the small animals are killed does it affect any of the surrounding wildlife? How long does it take for the oil to leave the beaches I have been on the beach when the oil was there. What happened to the idea that they were supposed to have double hulls from the beginning? To me, this isn't an alarming amount of birds. What about abalone? What about the crabs and fish? {Rr pg 7} It seems to me that at this stage, you are representing oil companies. The mess from the Exxon Valdez is not cleaned up yet. My question is: does this card represent critical thinking by scholars, or is this from the oil companies? I would like to know if, it the oil would go into the soil and affect the microorganism causing longer term effects? What about the animals we don't see? What about the 27 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10654 10655 10669 10679 a-10a a-10a a-10a a-10a 10681 a-10a 10685 a-10a 10686 a-10a 10746 a-10a 10748 a-10a 10757 a-10a 10771 a-10a 10775 a-10a 10788 a-10a 10825 a-10a 10829 a-10a 10839 a-10a 10844 a-10a 10846 a-10a 10877 a-10a 10879 a-10a 10884 10895 10899 10916 10918 a-10a a-10a a-10a a-10a a-10a 10921 a-10a 612892886 integrity of the soil and microorganism that we all depend on? All these birds are top feeders. High in the food chain. Where does the oil go, it just doesn't disappear. What are the steps that they took along the LA and San Francisco area? Is there any other way the oil can be carried? What about a Valdez type spill? Statistics are based on smaller spills? I would think there would be more. {probe} Harm done. I don't think any oil should wash up. I don't believe these figures, it think it's a lot more [sic]- with all the other pollution, we need a more honest look at this What's it going to do to the waste that's being dumped in the water now? We already have enough problems {probe}. It the sewer contamination mixes with oil, is that going to take even longer to disintegrate or be purified? Who does these stats? {RR A-9, pg6 and last paragraph page 8} Because the stats I've seen have been almost twice as high as these overall. Is there a cost factor? {probe}. Does it affect the tributaries into the ocean? Does it affect the food chain and how does it affect the air? What about the plants further up on the shore, ice plant, dune grass and others? Is there harm to people, to children who go in the water after a spill? {probe} My concern is not so much with the hundreds of thousands of birds. So what happens to the oil when it breaks down? Is this only in California? {RR 2nd half of the page} Is the effect the harm from oil spills the same all over? {probe} {A10 to R's 1st and 2nd Q's. I also responded by saying "I don't know - I don't have information on that"}. Is {it that} each spill would add another ten years? We have a spill each 3 years or so would {that} compound the time to recuperate? {probe}. No. What does it do to the condition of the water? {probe} It doesn't just go away by itself. {probe} No. Why can't they protect them now? I'd like to know what will happen to the oil - how will it disappear - it will stay. Even though the small animals may survive after an oil spill - how long will they live? Is there a way to stop the oil? How can they recover as fast as you say? {probe} It will take longer I'm sure. Do the "people" that live around there have a problem - with drinking water? Or the people who use some of these animals or sea weed for their business - have a problem? Doesn't the oil basically carry over to our water supply? For humans. Our beaches give us contact with the oil and other chemicals. I want to know why the difference 10 years versus 5 years. What will the oil do to the soil and would it affect agriculture? What are the odds of large spills? Does it harm the people at all? {probe} Would it effect the drinking water? {probe} What about the otters - I don't think they get to leave fast enough. Then there are many small animals harmed that we don't even hear about. Exactly what it does to them. {probe} The affects on their breeding process - Also if the sea animals are contaminated, how will it effect the water and other animals that feed on the contaminated ones? {probe} no. 28 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10924 a-10a How long does it take to break oil down - how long does it stay in the environment? {probe} If they use detergents to clean up the oil, what effect would this have on the environment? 10933 a-10a Is this dependable info? And what do they mean by recover? How objective - How many of their scientists have been hired by oil companies? If so would this hurt their objectivity and would they then remove themselves from this survey? 10934 a-10a What are they basing their data on? 10936 a-10a What about human ability to use the beach for surfing and swimming? 10945 a-10a I think we should all be aware of what is happening. How much damage can occur. {probe} 10950 a-10a What will it do to the public being on the beaches? In Santa Barbara & El Capitan it's very [tarry]. {probe} No. 10951 a-10a I guess it's important. What about the fish? It's sad. 10967 a-10a The cost. {probe} How much it costs to clean it up? And what happens to the sick animals? 10989 a-10a What does it do to swimmers that go to the beach. {probe} That's all. 10990 a-10a They haven't mention the effect on sea otters. Local economy all be affected. {After R mentioned sea otters I read to him box2}. 11007 a-10a Why does it take 10 years for 2 hulled boats? 11033 a-10a What if more than one spill? 11034 a-10a How do you know about these oil spills - Who reports them? The oil companies or who? 11072 a-10a Other than the harm to the people and the children in the area. {probe} 11077 a-10a Just about animals? {No, anything} Is there information on how it affects the ocean? 11132 a-10a If these oil spills occur over periodic intervals, how can wildlife damaged by the oil spills be expected to survive? What if the wildlife injured by a previous oil spill encounters another? How will that species survive - or how would that affect the survivability? 11154 a-10a Well, how long for the effect on birds? {probe} Most marine life is not affected? How many spills each year? & what companies to blame? Are some more careless then other? Professionally I'm interested in knowing which companies are careless. Who is more safe? {probe} That's all. 11158 a-10a Why not use the routes that are farther out and not have as many problems? 11170 a-10a They're going to put in a double hull, huh? That's very important. Whoever has the oil tanker should pay to clean it up. Otherwise, they always hit the taxpayer. 11171 a-10a What are they doing now to prevent it? {the harm}. 11172 a-10a Typically you say - is that for sure? It doesn't seem like a fact that they recover completely. 11187 a-10a What does it do to the fishing industry? I mean commercial fishing in the area, could spills cause problems which indirectly would cause loss of jobs in the fishing industry? 11190 a-10a Where are your scientists' numbers coming from? a computer? I think your numbers of destroyed birds and animals are much too low. 11207 a-10a Does it harm the humans - when they go to the beach? {probe} 11231 a-10a Is this (damage) where the company cleans it up, or when it's left unattended? 11233 a-10a Don't agree that they (the animals) come back. And that there is no permanent harm. The double hulls would have to be replaced anyway. The cost is being exploited. {probe} That's all. 11237 a-10a How can they stop it? 612892886 29 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11242 a-10a Rocky shoreline may be affected less, due to more wave action? Would refined oil be easier to clean than crude oil? I'd be willing to roll the dice & say it's not going to be likely to happen, & hope that it wouldn't have too much of an effect (if it did happen). 11252 a-10a Is that a fact or just what they tell people? Television and everything. {Referring to the recovery}. 11263 a-10a How long does it take for the shoreline to recover after the oil spills? The Exxon Valdez caused a great deal of damage, & spills keep occurring. 11265 a-10a I'd like to know the long term effects of the spills. Oil just sinks to the bottom of the ocean and long term effects dare probably great. 11269 a-10a Statistically what is the percentage of birds in danger & statistically what is the % effect? I need a frame of reference. 11271 a-10a What about those enzymes to put into the water to eat up the oil? The state didn't let them do it! 11272 a-10a Is the water the humans used? 11285 a-10a Does this affect the fishing industry? I disagree with the statement that it does not affect fish or mammals. Affects tourism in area and recreation if there is a spill. 11299 a-10a I'd like to know more about the extent of damage to coastline and how it affects wildlife population - as a whole. 11308 a-10a Is there other damage that's done or any effects to seals? 11321 a-10a Does it affect humans? 11347 a-10a When you talk about the small animals and birds, it does affect other mammals like the otter that eats sea anemones and urchins and ultimately it does affect humans - it & these statistics are awfully cut and dry - there is a rippling affect amongst all species. 11355 a-10a You said within 10 years the barges will have to have 2 hulls? How well does that work? How much do they expect that to reduce the amount of oil? They didn't say, did they? They're pretty tricky about what they put in here. It sounds like they do not think we should bother doing anything about this, from what you've told me so far. 11356 a-10a The oil can't just dissipate. It has to go somewhere & do something. In 10 years it could wipe out a tourist industry - hotels, restaurants, B & B's, etc., not to mention the birds. That's a lot of people hurt, too. 11363 a-10a I'd like to know how much of the states funds are being spent. There are much broader implications. {probe} The beaches would need cleaning. {probe} What have been the long-term effects over the last 50 years of spills? 11402 a-10a Would the any harm to human life as far as diseases [sic]? If these animals get killed by disease they'll pass them on to humans. 11407 a-10a I haven't heard of any spills in this area. 11408 a-10a I believe the study here is done by an oil company, you dumped any garbage into the ocean, this is bogus! These numbers are generated by oil companies and are too conservative. If these tankers are using the waterways they should take that time and clear, clean the clutter. 11429 a-10a How is it going to affect the economy of California? Who is going to pay for this? I believe the oil companies should pay 60% of maintaining the coast clean. 11437 a-10a Is the ten miles the total, or for each incident what is the cost? Is the ten miles quoted the entire area in danger ([arrow] along the entire coast) or does the ten miles represent the danger area for a spill. 11439 a-10a How accurate are these studies? They seem low to me. 612892886 30 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11498 a-10a Would that have any effects on us? What would happen if we eat that bird? 11538 a-10a What happened to the abalone which could have been seen on rocks for years, near the shore? We don't see them anymore. 11771 a-10a Are there other animals? I keep picturing the Alaska spill. What about the sea otters? They came near extinction. Even though, if it is preventable then that should happen to prevent it. What are the damages? They could be deeper than realized. 10112 pg9 There's too many irresponsible people. 10115 pg9 In the meantime all these are messed up. Do people fish here? {Q by Q} The fish is already no longer good due to pollution. 10163 pg9 Kind of hard to predict something like that, isn't it? Couldn't it be a lot worse? 10220 pg9 That's nothing compared to the thousands there are. So what? 10221 pg9 That doesn't sound like a whole lot in percentage over a few year space. {probe} No. 10255 pg9 I think the numbers are much higher. 10274 pg9 Some of our clean up methods do more harm than good. 10328 pg9 What about the "seed" while these birds are sick? What does it do to their genetics? 10420 pg9 How do these spills affect people? 10444 pg9 But none are extinct? They will replenish themselves right? 10484 pg9 But they don't know how much oil will be spilled. 10485 pg9 That's really a shame. I have a saltwater tank, & I love all these little saltwater creatures. It's really sad. 10500 pg9 Optimistic guesstimate in my case. 10501 pg9 Is this thing of yours to fight the oil tankers? 10594 pg9 {Pen quit & I tried a new one}. 10662 pg9 I don't believe that, or those other figures. No. 10670 pg9 How many's going to die by natural causes. 10691 pg9 In ten years? 10762 pg9 How many do we get now? We'll do all right. I know the environmentalists think this is important, but I think that animals can adapt. 10831 pg9 That looks like a directed attitude to me. {probe} They don't think the harms too bad! [comment written by A-10 but with an arrow drawn from text to comment]. {He thought this page has an attitude against doing anything about it}. 10839 pg9 Spills eventually harm humans because some of the oil get into the fish and sea animals we eat. This can cause diseases. 10846 pg9 They're in shock though. 10878 pg9 Oh. 10898 pg9 It's biodegradable. 10936 pg9 What about fishing off the coast? How will that affect the food we eat? Like the abalone and fish? The 12,000 birds is that in total for the next ten years? 11027 pg9 I know the ocean cleans itself and the damage is not permanent. 11035 pg9 What genetic changes are taking place because of oil spills? 11039 pg9 But I only hear your positive side - what's the negative side? Only 10,000 birds! No more? 11067 pg9 Why can't they inspect those ships like they do trucks? 11079 pg9 Yeah. 11088 pg9 {Resp. had to go outside for a few minutes to check the dryer}. 11159 pg9 If nothing else happens. 11198 pg9 You never said anything about the turtles! 612892886 31 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11246 pg9 11276 pg9 11283 pg9 11288 11338 11354 11424 10003 10022 10026 10067 10097 10100 10103 pg9 pg9 pg9 pg9 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 10104 pg10 10109 pg10 10112 pg10 10115 pg10 10118 pg10 10163 pg10 10167 pg10 10168 pg10 10171 pg10 10176 10183 10184 10187 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 10220 10274 10278 10289 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 10304 pg10 10318 pg10 612892886 Unless it happens every year, then it never gets better. On my dad's yacht they change the oil in the H2O. {Long story about always changing the oil halfway thru the cruise}. From one spill? {Rr pg 9} Can't they do a bird sanctuary? Don't the oil companies pay to replace the birds? Why don't they build a bird sanctuary? Oh brother. I doubt this many will be killed but go ahead. Their eggs & chicks won't survive. It will affect the area. I don't want to see this page anymore. Don't you think a lot of this has to do with carelessness? Why did they give them 10 yrs? to do the double hulls? 10 yrs. is ridiculous. {Small interruption - smoke in kitchen.} This is wishful thinking! They can't do that in bad weather, fog -that's crazy. I'm familiar with this. I don't want it. I don't believe in it, that's all. This is so much like any other government program. It looks good on paper. I'm tired of working every third day for free to pay for these programs. I've heard that oil spills are cleaned up naturally and more harm than good is done when we interfere. I don't care how many birds die. Does the state pay? Do the taxpayers pay? They have enough on the taxpayers. How would cost taxpayers? They're responsible for what they do. That's a waste of time. What will they do stick their fingers in the hole if it leaks? How about that coming from the sewer system? We have floods & the debris goes out there too. {Q by Q} Wow! that sounds expensive. I don't see why they don't have the military help with this. They're out there cruising around anyway. Why not train them to do it? What about rough seas - could they go out in storms? How? Would they lead them or travel inland? How? How come they can't put a radar screen on the ship & could tell where rocks & things were that the ship could run into? That's a very good idea. But who's going to pay for that. That it won't affect fish is totally erroneous. What is the program? And does it work? Have they proven it? They have skimmers to do this, don't they? In other words, they're going to police the coast? And the govt. is going to pay for it? - Taxpayers already pay their share - the gas prices will go up. If the skipper is adequately trained, there is no need for escort ships. {RR} I'd like to know how in the world such experienced seamen stray off course? Are there programs for the seamen to ensure competency, sobriety, and other self help programs. What is a double hull? No, I would disagree. That is too much money. To run a line. 32 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10326 pg10 10327 pg10 10328 pg10 10333 pg10 10354 pg10 10357 pg10 10380 10392 10420 10446 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 10482 pg10 10501 10534 10545 10549 10565 10594 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 10635 pg10 10646 10670 10681 10684 10742 10754 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 10757 pg10 10762 pg10 10799 pg10 10806 pg10 10824 pg10 10864 pg10 10874 pg10 10896 pg10 612892886 If they're talking about taxing the public to protect the coast, no way Jose. Why should the taxpayers pay for some private enterprise that screws up? Not only no, but hell no! That's a good idea. {RR on pg 12} How would they know the difference? Does the guide ship go ahead? You can't see what's underground. I have a question, but with navigation equipment I don't see an excuse for them to run into anything. They should do it on their own. {probe} No. How's that? Where is the source of funds coming from? Coast Guard could do this. They are in the area and have the available ships. {probe} No. That's not the way to go. I believe that oil spills shouldn't even happen. Somewhere in there does it say how much this will cost? {probe} It takes 10 yrs. for that recovery then? {R.R. Typically....to less. So yes, there was a question after she said "No."} [Arrow pointing to previous page]. It's a damn good idea. I used to work for an oil spill prevention company. If the tankers are out there, they ought to carry their own equipment to skirt the oil of it spills. They'd tax us for it? What's a hull? How much is this going to cost? Why don't they just keep the ships on course. Who's going to run this? I believe that the oil co's should pay - But the tax payers have to pay for it - right! & this has been used successfully elsewhere? {RR sentence in A-11} Is it completely effective? How do they run off course? They have to make sure the people have drug testing or don't fall asleep. Prevention response centers are what? Funded by who? That's exciting if they do that. What is that? {RR cost statement}. It's a good idea. That's going to be plenty expensive - looks like they's pay more attention to these captains of the barges to keep them from partying- of course there would always be accidents in the fog. How much money is that. You would have to have 24 hour service. No - that's out. Taxpayers shouldn't pay for oil spills. I'd fine the tanker people to the hilt. How? It's just promoting a job for some people. Then they'll just sit there and get paid and do nothing. Well, they better learn how to run a boat. That oil spill in Alaska was definitely their fault. {These are} pilot ships. [Top of page] Shook head "no". [Bottom of page] Shook head "no". Protecting only to Los Angeles and up - We use beaches closer to area where we live. There should be a better way to protect the ships! In other words, pilot ships? Novel idea. Why hasn't it been implemented? 33 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10910 pg10 10932 pg10 10941 pg10 10946 pg10 10960 pg10 10967 pg10 10996 11016 11034 11058 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 11059 pg10 11067 pg10 11092 pg10 11105 11133 11148 11159 11169 11171 11188 11225 11230 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 11246 pg10 11265 pg10 11267 pg10 11283 pg10 11288 pg10 11306 pg10 11315 11328 11347 11349 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 11355 pg10 11356 pg10 612892886 These don't deal with supertankers? Only the small tankers? Like the diagram shows? Who would pay for these escort ships? What the heck are they straying off course for in the 1st place? The people that live on the coast are well-to-do. Let them pay for this. {RR on pg 11}. It should be done before 10 years. so the ship riding side by side would help it to not hit anything? It's a good idea if it works - but how much does it cost? What will this program do? That is what I saw in S.F. I guess. Who's going to pay for this? {Q by Q} The oil companies have the money. They should pay the whole thing. That would make some more jobs. I don't think they could stop it, if something went wrong with the tanker's engine & it drifts to shore & smashes against the rocks in a storm. But yes, you can spend my tax money on this. Are you serious? Oh, God! {laughing}. Good. So the captains don't know how to pilot their own ships? Then lusist on [sic]. Drug testing and map testing! When the Valdez spilled they had a plan on paper but they couldn't implement it. {R received phone call. Lasted about 3 minutes}. Better than transport oil on the highway. How? The state should make the companies pay for this. {Laughs}. Who is going to pay for this? We need the oil! The ships know the path? Frankly, they should know where those rocks are. How come the escort ships would know where the rocks are, & the pilots of the tankers wouldn't? The tankers should be able to read their own maps. But, if that's the only way to deep these guys on a safe course, then I guess it would be a good idea. And what about the nuclear shit? Are the taxpayers supposed to pay for damages that are caused by businesses? They - the oil companies should take full responsibility. They would guide tankers? We know the oil must get around for our use from one place. We must move it from city to city. Sounds like a good idea. Makes sense. Let's do it. And I am supposed to be an oceanographer and ocean captain shipmate to determine this. These are conspiracies against mankind. Is that a quick response thing? {probe} Why does the state have to provide money for the cleanup? I think that would be a tremendous idea! It surprises me that they don't have sophisticated sonar to deter underwater stuff. I'm amazed that this is an issue. It's the companies responsibility. How? No kiddin! You'd think they could do that for themselves, wouldn't you? And how much is that going to cost? So they want to use our tax money to loan to the tanker companies to have double hulls? They should do it themselves - why should we loan them our money? 34 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11405 pg10 11406 pg10 11408 pg10 11413 pg10 11420 11424 11507 11681 pg10 pg10 pg10 pg10 11691 10003 10022 10030 10073 10075 10084 10085 10089 10096 pg10 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 10100 10122 10127 10136 10137 10142 10168 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 10180 a-12 10183 a-12 10229 a-12 10249 a-12 10256 10265 10274 10275 10289 10297 10299 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 612892886 Especially after the Valdez. They should have made them have double hulls after that spills. That's too far apart. I'm familiar with this program. That would be a really good program but should be funded by the oil companies. Why should I support them? Oil spill prevention and response centers? From whatever I understand tankers already have escort ships. I did drug screening for Exxon and they developed that same escort program after that accident not en route but after they parked. Especially when they are transporting oil. I'm for it. {Brief interruption}. How far apart are these hulls? I'm wondering if it would do much good. I think we've all seen the effects of oil spills on highway 1. The glaze of oil can be seen on the water. Is that how the spills happen? They run into things? Is that the only way? Sounds good if everyone would stay sober. That sounds ideal! If we do this our oil prices will go up. Cost more to get more to use it. It's a good thing. They have a ship like this. I guess not. The oil usually moves pretty slowly, so they'd have enough time. How come it took them so long to get this going. It seems to happen very often. {RR} Oil company should pay for the problems. I'm pretty familiar with this type of operation. I'm for this because some are negligent. Don't want it, this is a bleeding heart program. Sounds like a heck of a good deal. That's plenty. Pretty nifty - clever idea. It's a dumb idea... I think it's a great idea! This whole escort idea doesn't seem functional - the crews of the tankers should be made educated to be aware of the hazards - there shouldn't be this problem - we have GPS navigational devices to navigate thru these areas of concern. It's self-explanatory. It wouldn't work in all cases. Maybe 97% of cases. Why don't they just make the ships going [illegible] going out to sea. It will be expensive to have those boats & people set there waiting on a spill. This is very good - this is how you say - amazing to me - I like this - this works in Washington? {yes} Not that I can think of! That's pretty self-explanatory - I like that! Because it won't. I've seen that. It is a good system. {referring to sea fence & skimmer} Sounds logical. Sounds like a good idea. I know how this works. 35 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10304 10327 10328 10335 10356 10361 10363 10380 10384 10385 10420 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 10432 10448 10457 10458 10482 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 10489 10491 10511 10516 10522 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 10532 10545 10552 10553 10572 10580 10592 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 10596 a-12 10605 a-12 10607 a-12 10611 10619 10622 10643 10669 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 10670 10678 10679 10686 10706 10744 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 612892886 That's good. I think that would pretty well cover it. I fully agree with this. Why hasn't it been put into place until now? It's good program. It looks like it could take care of everything quickly - or at least isolate the problem. Yes, this ship is better. {probe}. They want the state to pay this? That's good as far as it goes. But they don't need these. I've seen documentary on the ones up north in Oregon. I know how this works. I'm not really interested. Right now I'm just thinking of what oil spills have done in the past and the human aspect. Reaction time would be very fast. I don't want any thing else that will cost tax money. {probe} No. Looks pretty expensive. I think it's a good idea! This is an excellent idea. The bloody oil companies can certainly afford it, and I hope they pay through the nose for it. And I don't want our gas prices to go up. I feel sorry for the oil companies since we need the oil. But why can't the ships go out further? It would save the taxpayers money. Sounds like you explained it well. I understand. The companies should prevent this. They should be liable, & should know the route. They should fine them. The picture shows you. I like this. It sounds good. Is this what they're planning? That's pretty clear. I've seen it operate in the North sea and the Iraq sea. Because of the present time this is the only information. I have no other suggestion. I don't think skimmers would be adequate - I grew up in Louisiana and was in the Corps of Engineers & I know from 1st hand experiences that skimmers don't work. I already know I saw it on TV. That's very good but I wonder if there could be seepage from underwater cracks which would allow oil to seep through along with gases. But I would like to know how much oil is leaked from the off shore rigs that we don't hear about. Will it have an effect on gasoline prices? and [blue arrow pointing downward]. Sounds excellent. I think it would be a good idea. It looks pretty clear to me. That sounds good. I understand about the center. It's up to the oil companies to clean up the species not the state of CA. I've heard enough. I'm familiar with how this is done by knowing about it from previous spills. But I know it's going to cost a lot of money. Basically I already know how this system works. No! I understand. Looks pretty good to me. 36 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10754 a-12 10762 a-12 10787 a-12 10804 10812 10814 10830 10831 10868 10872 10874 10875 10877 10878 10879 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 10881 10886 10892 10920 10925 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 10932 10935 10937 10941 10947 10975 10979 10980 10994 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 10996 10998 11005 11012 11024 11026 11027 11028 11035 11038 11042 11055 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 612892886 Even with the escort ship, they wouldn't get it all. Even with the double hulls, they'll still have spills. [Comments next to first paragraph] I don't think they ought to do it - the companies ought to do it. Private companies are doing this already. Oil tankers from big companies are required to carry similar equipment. This is written up in scientific magazines that I have to read for my job. So I question the expense of setting this up. Just 3 locations? I understand what the pictures are showing. That's taxpayer expense. It's a must! No. It's quite clear. It sounds like it is a good idea. No, you explained very well. Looks good. Looks expensive. Who's going to pay? I'm familiar with how this works. I understand. I think it's good but will cost a lot of money. I'm just learning. Are they fining the companies that cause the spills? Or that have the spills? I understand that these oil companies can pay a small fine and it's ok to spill the oil. I think it would work. The pictures are good! I don't think it's worthwhile because it will take years to start. Is the oil company going to pay for this too? The tanker captains are supposed to know where the hazards are. They should know the coast and have equipment on board to clean it up. It seems a waste to have it {referring to the escort ship} go with the tankers. I'm well acquainted with oil spills. That's pretty self explanatory. It's all self-explanatory. It's a waste of time. It's not doing a lot of harm. 10 yrs. is too long. I think it's a good idea. I think we need it. The pictures explain what you have been talking about. It not going to work! I don't believe in it! The oil companies should be penalized a penny a gal. or so for their spills! They should pay for their own messes. Are our taxes paying for this program in L.A. and S.F.? Do they have this program in Los Angeles now? Do you think this will work? It seems pretty simple if it really works. I do know how this works. I'm aware of this program or method of picking up the oil. I think it's a good idea. I'm satisfied with this information Not particularly. Will the state finance this? Great idea. Looks good! I watched quite a bit during the Exxon Spill. {H} - It looks to me this has already been done. Who pays? Why taxpayers? 37 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11057 a-12 11067 11083 11086 11088 11093 11105 11108 11124 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 11127 a-12 11128 11132 11133 11134 11143 11151 11153 11169 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 11170 11172 11186 11190 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 11191 11192 11193 11194 11204 11205 11206 11207 11229 11235 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 11246 11252 11253 11265 11267 11268 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 612892886 I've seen this concept on "Beyond 2000" (TV) & other programs. Looks like a pretty good program. It's very good. I understand what you are saying about this program. I don't think we need it. This looks that is a good program. How many oil spills are they expecting in the next 10 years? I think this works great! Sounds good. Sounds like a good idea. Whose going to watch the escort ships travel out? They need a map of the water to prevent accidents. Haven't they tried this before and it hasn't worked? Or did it take too long for them to do it and the oil got away from them. It sounds like their ships would be there and the other ships weren't there at the sight of the spill immediately. Sometimes when the waves get a certain size it makes the job hard to do. How much will it cost? It sounds like a good program. Sounds like a good idea to me. Clear. I seen it before. {R was a longshoreman}. That's not preventing the oil from spilling is it? A lot of this is politics. This is just like they have in Alaska. In theory this sounds good but in fog you are probably going to lose some escort ships. You are talking about millions billions of dollars to set this up. It's too expensive. We are just blowing. Just wait until all ships are double hull. There's no advantage to this. It probably would be a good thing. It's pretty cool. It is satisfactory the way it is described. Why can't the oil companies pay for the clean up and find a way to have their own escort ships. I guess we have to take care of it if they can't. They are the ones who have the big profits. I think it's a good program. Would this program provide more jobs? Good idea - it seems like. I can see how it works. Why can't the oil companies buy these escort ships? Sounds like it's pretty much in control. Not really - Why haven't they done something about it before now? Would it create more jobs for the people? They are private boats - I didn't think the state paid for this. If it works. It sounds good. That sounds good. It's kind of interesting. I think that's kind of neat - I think it's a good idea too. I don't know how close to the shores it might be. But it makes sense to have someone there. It's semi-important. {probe} It sounds reasonable. Who will pay? Makes sense. It's good. Not really. 38 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11271 a-12 11274 11288 11291 11293 11297 11306 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 11326 11350 11361 11408 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 11411 11424 11431 11432 11436 11461 11464 11465 11496 11507 11538 11560 11620 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 a-12 11678 a-12 11681 a-12 11790 a-12 10001 a-12a 10002 a-12a 10008 a-12a 10011 a-12a 10017 a-12a 10020 a-12a 10022 10029 10034 10035 a-12a a-12a a-12a a-12a 612892886 I thought they had this program before. Didn't they? I remember something about this! I saw this before on T.V. A Dupont show I think. They are doing what they did in Alaska. The picture explain what you're saying. I understand what your saying. So the net contains it in this one area - {yes}. I don't have to know how this works. (Their format will never work. It's out of control). {Told me to put in parentheses}. Looks like it would work. It sounds like it will cost a lot. It sounds good though. That is self-explanatory. The tanks on the escort will have to be large enough to collect that amount. It is important. Just how much it costs - it's a great idea. Do we have a similar program in L.A. and San Francisco now? Sounds like a good idea. It probably cost a lot of money. {probe} {probe} {probe} It's self explanatory. My thought - this should be a Federal program instead of a State program. I know about it. I understand it. But I'm for it, though. I understand. It's a good idea. People don't understand it's important to prevent spills. I'm all for prevention. Don't they use a mass tyne substance [sic] to clean it up? It seems pretty straight forward. I debate the need to ship it that close to the store as opposed to trucking the oil - or they should keep it further from the shore. I really wouldn't understand it. {Referring to more "technical" information} Where would the funding come from - perhaps a permit fund? Is the excess of more ships in water going to cause more problems i.e. garage dumping, the burning of fossil fuel - general stress to the environment this doing more harm than good. The costs. I guess. How effective is it if weather is stormy or would it work effectively? {probe} I think it's a good idea. Who pays for it? That's essentially the technology we have now. Vacuum it up fast. Aren't we going to run out of oil in 20 years. What happens to the oil once it is on the escort ship? How successful has this program proved in past and how are they gauging success? How well did it work in Washington State? How many hulls do escort ship have? What would the cost be? It's sound [sic] fine if escort ships are paid for by oil companies. {probe} Why would the govt bear the cost instead of the oil companies? Does the oil stay on the top? 39 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10037 a-12a {probe} DK. 10053 a-12a As part of the recov pkg. would removing the rest of the oil off the tanker be done? {probe} Would they use any degt. [sic] that breaks up the oil and sends it to the bottom, that's no good because it affects the animals on the bottom {probe} 10069 a-12a Have these been tested. {probe} Are these escort ships already built and ready to go? 10080 a-12a How are they gonna pay for it? {probe} What's the cost to the taxpayers? 10085 a-12a What do they do with the oil? 10093 a-12a Why is the State of California responsible for this? 10095 a-12a How much does it cost? Looks like a great idea if the State wasn't so broke. 10097 a-12a I thought we had something like this already. 10098 a-12a Are the oil companies paying this or who, I think since they have single hulls the oil should pay, then they would get double hulls quicker [sic]. 10101 a-12a How much would it increase your taxes? I think oil companies should pay to clean it up. They spilled it. Isn't that the way it should be? 10105 a-12a It seems like you would need a whole lot of those better ships, wouldn't you? I'm assuming there's a lot of ships going back and forth. Having one go alone with each ship seems like much. 10107 a-12a Is this going to - Are they going to raise taxes in order to accomplish this? 10109 a-12a How much oil or % of the oil is taken up by the escort ship? {probe} No. 10111 a-12a Is it more than one escort ship per boat? {probe} That's all. 10112 a-12a The coast guard already has something like this. Why should the state be involved? {probe} No. 10115 a-12a Is this for huge spills like Alaska? Do they have enough ships to take care of the problem. {probe} No. 10119 a-12a Every time a tanker goes out, it would be escorted? 10120 a-12a Who's going to pay for it? 10131 a-12a Who will pay for it? {probe} 10132 a-12a What will they do with the oil that was spilled. {probe} 10136 a-12a How many tankers are we talking about in a day? How much money will the escort ships cost? Why can't the tankers do this themselves? The oil companies could furnish each of their tankers and barges with a skimmer and sea fence and clean it up right away themselves. 10143 a-12a This is a big costly thing. 10150 a-12a Why don't the private companies start this program? 10163 a-12a Can a ship this size (escort ship) hold the amount of oil that would came from the tanker? Couldn't they make these tankers go out further from the coast to avoid collisions, & give more time to clean up the oil before it gets to the shore. 10167 a-12a Once a leak begins in a tanker can you stop it? Are these tankers transporting fuel for themselves? Will the escort ship send out an SOS? It seems it might not be best to take it on water. 10173 a-12a What percentage of it does it clean? 10176 a-12a How long does it take to set it up? No. It will create a lot more jobs though. But I have a feeling we are going to pay for it through gas. 10182 a-12a Are those just floater on the fence? Do they really work? 10197 a-12a There must be a way that the ships could be stopped from spilling the oil {probe} Comparing this to buses, they changed the buses so they wouldn't make smoke. {probe} Thee must be some kind of check like cars every 2 years to see that smoke doesn't come out, couldn't they do something like that for ships? 10199 a-12a How is it going to be financed? 612892886 40 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10221 a-12a Have these been used in other states and have they been successful? Or is this a pilot program? {probe} No. 10224 a-12a What's it cost and what's the trade-off? 10253 a-12a How are they going to fund it! 10263 a-12a When would they start it? 10270 a-12a How often do oil spills happen? I live on the North Coast, and as a taxpayer. I'm not as concerned about the Central Coast. Ships & crews are expensive. The cost factor would be too much. I have a nephew who is a tugboat pilot - they should have better technology to avoid hitting rocks & ships. 10274 a-12a How does a little ship like this take care of the volume spilled by a tanker this size? 10277 a-12a The only thing I want to know is how the program will be paid for, also is sealife caught in the sea fence? How does it work? 10278 a-12a What if people don't act quickly like what happened to the Exxon Valdez spill? {RR pg 10, seemed to refer to the escort ship getting there quickly} 10279 a-12a It's taking crude technology - what happens if an Exxon Valdez dumps a huge amount of oil? This would only work for a small spill. Why don't they use better sonar technology on the tankers themselves? This program is a bandaid for a problem that is much larger. The oil companies & their ethics suck> 10284 a-12a Why don't the engineers tell the people what will work - why don't they ask the engineers and not us people. 10288 a-12a I'd like to know something about the cost. {probe} None of this happens by itself it's always influenced by other things like our transportation system. {probe} No. 10305 a-12a How would they respond to multiple disasters? How would that hurt response time? What about big disasters? 10318 a-12a Isn't U.S. Coast Guard called in for a spill. Like calling 911. 10322 a-12a As far as response time, they'd be there already [sic]. It seems like a decent plan. {probe} 10324 a-12a Who would maintain the ships? {probe} 10332 a-12a Is it proven technology? Do they know it is going to work? 10333 a-12a Who runs the escort ships? Who runs them State of Calif. or oil companies? Who's responsible to run and maintain them. {probe} Well I suppose the question is how much? {probe} No. 10337 a-12a Do they know how efficient that would be? {R.R. A-11 I reread A-11 2nd sentence} 10345 a-12a Is this the only solution? 10353 a-12a Who will pay the bill? {probe} 10357 a-12a How many tankers? - What are the demands - spending a lot of money for multiple ships - if there are no spills - the way it is paid for is of interest to me. {probe} No go on 10361 a-12a Maybe if they use chemicals instead of this. 10376 a-12a Do they have the money and resources to do this? 10382 a-12a Are they going to have enough escort ships for all the tankers? 10389 a-12a Then what would they do with oil once it's cleanup, and what or how will the skimmers clean up all the oil. {probe} No. 10393 a-12a Yes; would the state pay for it or would the oil companies pay for it? 10419 a-12a Does oil stay on the top? Maybe it stays on the surface for awhile. What did you say? {RR page 11} {probe} What was that word you used about the oil lessening? {RR page 9. A-12A R's reference to natural processes breaking down oil}. 612892886 41 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10423 a-12a How much will it cost? It sounds great. I question if we can afford this when the recovery rate is not that great. It's, I feel we have so many pressing areas money could be spent. We are talking about a small area that serves a small population. 10431 a-12a How long does it take to put out the sea fence? {According to my information quickly}. 10444 a-12a How much? 10452 a-12a There is no reason in the world why the tankers can not pay for the escort ships and the skimmer. {probe} No. 10479 a-12a Would this be a state run program? Would all oil tankers have an escort ship? Has this been proven successful in other states? What did yo say about double hulls? Are accidents reduced with double hulls? So this program has a finite end? 10480 a-12a How many gallons will escort ships be able to hold? 10487 a-12a Are there escort ships built already? Is there going to be one for each ship? Will it be just like the one in Washington? 10495 a-12a What keeps it from spreading? {R pointing to sea fence} {Answer: Yes the sea fence.} 10496 a-12a Where would they dump that or would they recycle it or what? 10498 a-12a Who runs the management of the escort ship? What kind of labor pool are they drawing from. How many unemployed will this put to work? If they pay for running it who makes the decisions? Are you going to talk about the cost of the building ships? Are those exact locations for the centers? 10500 a-12a Is it going to be funded privately or publicly? How many tankers are we dealing with? Has this worked else (this program) where? 10503 a-12a The escort ship - is it that they are more familiar with the coastline? Why isn't the tanker able to navigate by itself? 10506 a-12a Who pays & what cost? What % of the oil gets cleaned up. 10527 a-12a I'd like to know the degree of success on a rough ocean. 10528 a-12a How much of this amount is paid by oil company? If we have to pay car insurance. They should have to pay also. 10542 a-12a Does this affect the taxpayer? 10546 a-12a Well yes & no. How about the economics? 10550 a-12a How much is it going to cost? 10577 a-12a One think as far as the cost of these ship and how effective are they? 10583 a-12a Who's going to pay for those ships? 10587 a-12a What is the cost? 10588 a-12a How much difference if there isn't a spill? {probe} No. 10601 a-12a No sounds like a good idea but oil companies should be paying for it. 10623 a-12a They are asking me if the program would work? 10625 a-12a Where has it been demonstrated in this environment particularly how effective is it, if 50% then it would be less attractive to me. Also would it slow the ship traffic waiting for escort? 10638 a-12a How much will it cost and what state taxes would be needed? 10639 a-12a The state of Washington is already using this plan? I would favor this, though it depends on the cost. 10645 a-12a Just cost. 10646 a-12a How do they connect it (the fence)? Is it easy to do in rough seas? How many jobs will this provide? How much will it cost per ship? 10652 a-12a How much is this going to cst? 10657 a-12a {See box 3}. 612892886 42 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10662 a-12a Why have they not done this sooner? It just common sense and the oil companies should provide the escort ships. 10665 a-12a What percentage of harm will it prevent. {probe} No. 10672 a-12a How many ships would be utilized - Where are they dispatched from? Are there already ships built - or how much time will it take to build them. {probe} 10677 a-12a How are they going to pay for it? 10680 a-12a How much is the cost & who pays & what would the tax affect be on the price of gas. 10681 a-12a When would it start? 10684 a-12a The sea fence sounds very good to me - this looks like a good idea. 10691 a-12a How much will it costs? 10702 a-12a The oil stays up at the tip? The 6ft - 8ft - what is that again? {RR} [Arrow pointing to top of page 11]. 10711 a-12a How long would it take for this program to go into effect. 10728 a-12a The ship to take up the oil looks like it's too small to do the job. How would this be remedied? 10732 a-12a Why don't they make smaller ships with less oil, hence less danger of spillage? 10748 a-12a How much oil would escape the fence and what life within the fence would be affected? 10763 a-12a This seems incredibly complicated to me. How many escorts ships and crews would they need - 10 or 12 ships? It seems like very expensive insurance. I almost get the impression that somebody doesn't want this program. 10767 a-12a The fence is 6' above and 8' below but the pacific has a lot of wave activity and I wonder how effective the fence would be. 10768 a-12a Haven't these tankers had bad piloting? I think they should have more control; radar and everything. Shouldn't they not run into things? 10769 a-12a How much? 10770 a-12a What happens to the recovered oil? 10771 a-12a Who pays for it? I think I know {probe}. 10775 a-12a What percentage of the oil spill would it pick up? It wouldn't be 100 percent. {probe} {RR 2nd icon - page 11} Can the Sea fence survive a fire? {probe}. 10779 a-12a Is it going to be up to the [illegible] of oil tankers to be responsible for this program? 10788 a-12a How fast does the oil spreads? How fast is the equipment is sent out to contain it? How long do they run the skimmers? How fast is the response of the ships? 10799 a-12a Do they use this program in WA? It's beautiful {there}. 10806 a-12a Why can't the tanker carry some of this equipment at least the seafence. {probe}. Seems to me technology could be on sight to stop the spills {probe} That's all. 10813 a-12a Who's paying for this? 10814 a-12a Once they make a spill they should send a bill. 10824 a-12a There must be a better way to do this. {probe} The tanker could have the extra staff & equipment like the skimmer than having any escort ships go along. {probe} No. 10829 a-12a How do the ships spill oil again? {RR 1st sentence p.s.} 10846 a-12a Why don't the escort ship that's in San Francisco and L.A. take care of the Central coast also? Why duplicate these services? Government wastes money by duplicating everything. 10850 a-12a What's it going to cost? 10854 a-12a Who's really going to pay for this? {probe} 10859 a-12a How do they get the fence around the oil quickly enough in an oil spill? 10861 a-12a Does oil usually sink? 612892886 43 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10866 a-12a Will our tax dollars going into paying for the escort ship? Or will the government pay? {probe} State government pay for that. {probe} 10873 a-12a How much would it cost? I mean 12,000 birds is a small price to pay for progress. 10884 a-12a How about the fence? Does it protect the water? 10890 a-12a Who will pay for this? 10894 a-12a Who pays the cost? 10896 a-12a Has it been approved? Is it effective? 10898 a-12a how many (escort) ships would it take? To have 1 ship per tanker is a lot of escort ships. The Coast Guard is short of ships too, & they are being cut (budget wise). I used to work with the Coast Guard, & money is being taken away from them. 10899 a-12a It looks like a good program. 10913 a-12a Once its loaded on to escort ship where does it go? {probe} 10924 a-12a Just the cost. 10933 a-12a I would like to know who finds it. Is the Washington project publicly funded or privately? 10942 a-12a Would it work? It seems so simple that it's too easy. {probe} 10945 a-12a I would be concerned about the little critters caught inside this fence. Is there anything done to protect them? 10946 a-12a Is this the same program as in Washington? {RR A-11} 10951 a-12a Will they leave the escort ships out there? Will they clean up the water out there? 10972 a-12a What is the prevention? 10973 a-12a Would it be ridiculously costly? 10988 a-12a If an accident occur the company that carries the oil, should pay for it. The Co. should be responsible for it. We are paying so much money. 10990 a-12a I'd like to know the response time in case an accident happens. {probe} That's all. 11004 a-12a How often do they estimate this happens? 11007 a-12a Who's paying for it? That's what it sounds like, that oil companies should pay. 11020 a-12a What's the norm that the fence would be used? 11029 a-12a Is the program run by the state or individual oil companies? 11032 a-12a System how when it is applied and how it works. 11033 a-12a Human effect? 11034 a-12a Who will pay? The oil companies have money. They should pay the whole thing. {probe} No. 11055 a-12a Who is going to pay for it? 11059 a-12a Guess! 11069 a-12a What the cost would be? 11072 a-12a Why don't they put this equipment on this ship? {probe} {A 12-A reference to "this" ship is the tanker shown on card F} . 11079 a-12a What do they do with the oil in the ship? I guess they can't use it because of salt water mix. 11117 a-12a Who pays for it? Typically a spill occurs in rough weather. How will it do in severe weather? It doesn't appear to be an easy task in severe weather. If it is going to contain 5% or 50% in severe weather is my question. 11125 a-12a How is going to be paid? 11136 a-12a Can they reuse that oil once they skim it? 11146 a-12a Who runs the ships? Merchant marine? 11154 a-12a What size spill? What if there was a huge spill? {probe} That all. {probe} What size of tankers? how much oil? {probe} That's all. 11170 a-12a It would be for 10 years until they have double hulls, then they'd throw it out? 612892886 44 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11175 a-12a In terms of its technical issues no but financially how it works. 11187 a-12a How large of an area the fence could surround? The circumference of the area? 11199 a-12a They want to get a tax to pay for it? Because I'm not really interested in wildlife or any of that. {probe} No. 11200 a-12a I'm sure you're going to tell me what the cost is. 11201 a-12a How effective is the sea fence? Does it really contain it? 11203 a-12a How can they keep the oil from mixing with the water? 11225 a-12a Is it working in Washington? It wasn't effective in Alaska. 11231 a-12a If it's a big spill like the one in Alaska, this wouldn't contain all the oil, would it? How would the 14' fence stay up - buoys? 11232 a-12a Is the clean up similar to this now when there is a spill? {probe} 11234 a-12a How are they going to do it that fast? {probe} That's all. 11244 a-12a How many vessels? New, old, or refurbished. How many people are they talking about? 11254 a-12a What is the expense of cleaning up or skimming up the oil? 11269 a-12a How is it that an escort ship can better navigate than a huge vessel...should the tanker barge have the same equipment (navigation)? How long would it take another escort ship to reach the attacked area? 11272 a-12a Would it create jobs? 11296 a-12a Oil stays on the surface for the water? 11298 a-12a Is this something we'd be taxed on? 11312 a-12a Is this what Washington has? {Yes RR pg 10} I'd like to know how we could have something like that? {probe} 11321 a-12a How is it funded? 11328 a-12a They only use this particular type of cleanup? They can use other materials. 11347 a-12a I can think of a hundred different questions - It's this sea fence on the escort ship? {Yes} You know, National Geographic had a spiral and the oil does filter down through the ocean. 11349 a-12a What do they do with this oil that they recover? 11350 a-12a How good will the skimmer pickup the oil? How many oil spills do we average every year? 11351 a-12a Would it be funded by state tax dollars? Would the companies transporting the oil pick up any of the costs? 11354 a-12a Will the oil company pay? 11356 a-12a That's a good idea. 11359 a-12a Would a majority of crabs & other small animals be killed? 11361 a-12a Do they get heavily fined? {referring to the oil companies}. 11363 a-12a Is it state funded or would the oil companies pay for it. 11365 a-12a How expensive is this? Have you listed everything it would hurt? {probe} Would it hurt humans or anything other than what you said? {probe}. 11401 a-12a So oil doesn't go below 8'? Where do they come up with 8'? It sounds like a good idea. And these ships are on call all of the time - 24 hours? 11402 a-12a How much is it going to cost? Don't they have scanners to show the dept and what's in the water? 11404 a-12a Wouldn't there be a cheaper way? Have them on watch instead of going along with the ships. 11407 a-12a What liability does the oil company carry? 612892886 45 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11413 a-12a How recent have oil spills occurred along the coast? How often are they as large as the Valdez? I don't think that maybe extra precautions are needed if it doesn't happen that often. 11416 a-12a Why would they need another ship along side of a tanker if he knows his cause & what he's doing? 11417 a-12a Is the escort ship going to be a government program? Other than the sea coast guard? 11420 a-12a How quickly would it be effective? Could it be implemented in time? 11429 a-12a Is it going to be 100% effective. Is the oil still be recyclable. {R wanted to know whether or not the oil could be recoverable}. 11437 a-12a Projected effectiveness - how realistic is the recovery in containment. 11457 a-12a How much research has been done on this program If there are any hidden costs that will come up - Are there alternative programs that have been researched. {probe} 11463 a-12a [illegible] whether it would really be effective - I have seen the effects of oil spills. Do they have answers - have they done enough research? {probe} 11498 a-12a How effective is it? {probe} How much would be the cost of it? 11700 a-12a If the program or prevention centers will run good & will not cost us any money why not keep it running regardless of the new law? I'm familiar with all this. 11771 a-12a Does the oil stay on top of the water? What if oil seeps down further. How far can they skim? How fast can the rescue ship be there? Will they send other ships to help with the size of the spill? 10176 box3 I think the company should have to dip into their funds. They should have been paying for it all along. 10225 box3 How much will it cost? 10240 box3 Who will pay! 10242 box3 Who will pay! 10063 pg11 I'm against it. I think it's silly. No - this program is stupid. 10067 pg11 Don't read me all that - I know what this is! 10097 pg11 That's a joke. That's a big boom. That looks like a Troll. 10102 pg11 I know all about that. 10112 pg11 That's the coast guard's responsibility, not the state. 10122 pg11 That's neat. 10147 pg11 Who's going to pay for that. 10167 pg11 This has worked for Washington & Oregon? 10176 pg11 But those fences are only if a spill occurs. 10177 pg11 How come the oil companies don't do it? 10220 pg11 You're building up another force to enforce this. That's so costly. 10233 pg11 I worked in the oil field - I know now it works. 10242 pg11 It's going to be expensive. 10300 pg11 What is a sea fence? Is it already proven or something they are going to [illegible]? 10354 pg11 Who'd be responsible for paying? 10387 pg11 This isn't as important to me as if you were talking about education & then you'd have my undivided attention. Education might prevent these kinds of problems. {probe} I'm a new resident of Calif. & I'm not as aware of oil spills. 10432 pg11 Tankers should have a reclamation kit to clean up the spill. I have seen this program w/ the Navy. 612892886 46 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10484 pg11 10489 pg11 10505 pg11 10510 pg11 10522 10545 10594 10646 pg11 pg11 pg11 pg11 10684 10686 10710 10742 10757 10762 pg11 pg11 pg11 pg11 pg11 pg11 10806 pg11 10917 pg11 10934 pg11 10961 pg11 11058 pg11 11101 pg11 11104 11127 11145 11147 pg11 pg11 pg11 pg11 11177 11179 11203 11206 11252 11262 11265 11279 11283 pg11 pg11 pg11 pg11 pg11 pg11 pg11 pg11 pg11 11321 11340 11497 11559 pg11 pg11 pg11 pg11 11689 pg11 612892886 They have something that's better than that. I saw on the Discovery Channel where they have a giant bag that the oil gets pumped into. Then the bag, which has contained the oil before it leaks out, can be towed separately. I think it's a lot of hoey! [sic] Yeah - that's a good idea. I don't mind if they spend my money on that. I know about it - I saw something on T.V. What about oil eating micros - Double hull are O.K. but most freighters are foreign. What's this fence made out of? Because the oil keeps up on the top part. Why don't the oil companies pay the escort ships. Is this IW only about this subject? Don't these tankers have depth gauges to tell that, how are these escort going to be of any help? This will cost billions of dollars. Sea fence! It sounds logical. I've seen this drop line before - what we called the drop line. It is as the same as the tug boat. Doesn't the oil sink? What happens right now if we have a leak, do we have anything set up? Let the companies do this. Why should taxpayers do this? I've seen them demonstrate that on TV. Why can't tanker carry this stuff. Don't believe in this. They would do more damage than good. So each ship has a personal escort ship? That's a little spendy. Are there designs of skimmers and fences been proven useful in other states? [sic] I think I've seen this on TV. My son lives in the state of Washington, & their booms are ineffective. It is a good idea. This should have been done on the Valdez spill up in Washington State. How low does it go. How do they know how low the oil will go? I can see the money there. It sounds great. {Husband interrupted for 5 minutes to talk about fishing problems}. It sounds expensive to me - It's just like those guys in Washington - who will pay for it? We don't have this in the Philippines. That's good. I would think the water would mix with the oil. How do they suck up the oil alone? Same type of thing the oil companies have in Long Beach. Does this really work and who's going to make the $ off of this. I know other way that is better. Taxpayers are not responsible. For immediate use? So you're saying that most of the spills happen near the coast? What happens if a spill happens 20 miles out - what can the escort ship then? What good is it going to do then? That's wonderful! That's really good. They would be right there when the spill happens. What is a sea fence? It keeps oil from spreadin? Is it working in Washington? I see. Interesting. Shouldn't happen polluting. 47 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10015 pg12 10034 10063 10065 10069 10076 10087 10088 10089 10097 10099 10108 10109 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 10110 pg12 10112 pg12 10118 10122 10137 10147 10163 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 10171 pg12 10176 pg12 10184 pg12 10190 pg12 10217 pg12 10221 pg12 10228 pg12 10249 pg12 10274 pg12 10279 pg12 10289 pg12 10299 pg12 10300 pg12 10318 pg12 612892886 There are 2 response centers in Everett Washington. I was involved in the prevention center program there so I know how it works. Why can't we accelerate the time frame for the double hull issues? No. I don't want my money doing that. I don't think we are responsible. They are not taxpayers. How long will it take to get the program running? Read that again. {RRQ} I thought you said they already passed the law - {RR p8} I've never seen a state program closed yet. They don't have a sunset program. Let them pay (all companies). The company should pay the bills for the spills! I don't feel taxpayers should foot the bill. How come Exxon has paid out millions. {Answer pg 5, statement 3} Do it already. What happens after this? If the double hulls break? What % of double hulls be affective? Why don't they tax the gasoline - Why do they tax people who don't drive. Why not put it in with the fuel tax? Or transportation tax. {probe} The tankers are under federal government. Why is the state getting involved? {probe} {Q by Q} OK - one time tax - that's a good way to do it. Great! So that's just going to be for 10 years? That sounds like a good deal! I don't believe it. It - the program would be extended. All households would pay? How? Where do the fines got to, that the oil companies pay when they have a spill? 9 times out of 10 they probably don't pay a fine. How long does it take to set up something like this? As long as its a one-time tax. That would be fine. However, we would have to pay the initial set up. Here we go again - it's going to be pass the buck; it's going to drive oil prices up. But something has to be done. {probe} They should pay for that. We shouldn't pay. Guys who spill should pay. Let oil companies pay. {probe} If the oil companies are charged an escort fee - oil prices will rise which will, in the end, cost whoever uses oil, gas, whatever. {probe} No. No, I'm sorry it would be paid by me. I think its a common con game the government plays. Good. Bullshit. An oil company makes 600 million a year tax free. You believe that, I have a bridge I'll sell you. Put the sea fence & the skimmers on the tankers - it's cheaper. 1. What percentage would the oil co. pay verses the taxpayer? 2. Will the oil co. absolutely be prevented from recycling their cost to the taxpayer? e.g. increase prices? OK - let me ask a question. I'm on a fixed income - I would pay some but those that make more should pay more. {He didn't ask a question.} It will still be passed along to the people. Why don't they require it now. Why wait 10 years? Tanker is irresponsible. He should pay. Why should I pay? 48 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10326 pg12 10327 pg12 10328 pg12 10350 pg12 10357 pg12 10374 pg12 10384 pg12 10387 pg12 10392 10419 10432 10439 10449 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 10482 pg12 10484 pg12 10489 10500 10501 10523 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 10525 pg12 10538 10544 10545 10546 10549 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 10594 pg12 10622 pg12 10633 pg12 10643 pg12 10646 pg12 612892886 Bullshit! One time tax - {sarcastic} I'm in favor of the program if they cut some other program. But no more taxes. People are stupid - they will pay for it when they pump their gas. Sure! {sarcastic} {RR on pg 18} {RR on page 13} Homeowners only? {RR 2x's} Why? Are only single hulls escorted? {RR from pg 10} What would it be? I find that hard to believe that, we, the consumer, don't end up pay for it again - I just know the oil companies will raise the price of our gasoline. All expenses? {RQ} They are just offsetting the cost of setting this up. They have no capital investment in this. I think that is wishful thinking. Nobody's going to get away w/ an oil spill in California! The media will see to that. And the cost would be passed down to the consumers. The oil companies should be responsible even if not legally required since they are the ones causing the damage. Oil companies should pay all. {probe} What's a hull? {probe} {5 minute interruption. See e-10 comments}. That's like a toll. The oil companies are not going to pay for that. We do. They want to spend money to stop oil spills there are more important issues to spend money on. Why not? They should be required! Just put it on the ballot! Oh, OK - I like that idea. But if there is a big spill, then is the ship owner responsible, or would the cost be split with the taxpayers? If they are negligent, they should pay the costs of their actions. Just put no right now. Did you say each household? That'd be a big amount, wouldn't it? (The animals). That's their habitat - that these companies make route ways & run the animals off. Seems like a lot of expense for 10 years. It's going to rectify itself anyway. {probe} No. It should be paid for by oil companies entirely! The oil companies should pay for it. They make a ton of money. So it's just for 10 years until the g can get the double-hulls [sic]. That fee is passed onto the consumer of course. Take the money $ to provide legislation so oil co's (companies) make tankers responsible. You know they're going to pass this on to us! That's how long? {RR sentence}. Why? All they would do is pass it on to the consumer. Make it their responsibility. They just pass it on to the taxpayer by increased cost. Who owns the oil that's scooped up? Will the ships be retrofitted with double hulls or do new ships have to be built? That's passed on to us also. I'm concerned about another level of bureaucracy being set up too. So every ship would have an escort ship. Where are these stations going to be? Where is this middle one near, what town? Would it be mandated? Are other states using this? Is Washington having trouble getting oil tankers to use their refinery? 49 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10670 pg12 10671 pg12 10706 pg12 10716 pg12 10757 pg12 10762 pg12 10768 10804 10806 10830 10846 10883 10917 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 10936 pg12 10961 pg12 10975 pg12 10988 pg12 10994 pg12 11011 pg12 11034 pg12 11055 pg12 11059 pg12 11060 pg12 11080 pg12 11083 pg12 11088 pg12 11113 pg12 11117 pg12 11128 pg12 11146 pg12 11171 pg12 612892886 Then it's going to come from the taxpayers. If you put a tax on a company the taxpayer pays it. Your going to have these ships running along beside the other ones? Don't have oil! The special one time tax that comes from home owners only? How much would it be? I'm really very familiar with this situation! What's the percentage of barges leaking along the central coast? Why dump money into something intermittent. Isn't that typical of big companies? B.S. [Comments next to last paragraph] How often do they have oil spills? What would the people and the boats be doing when there aren't any spill? Sitting there getting their checks. They could do it faster than 10 years but the companies don't want to spend their money. I do think they should have double hull tankers, but screen the crew better. Just 13 ships? State controlled? {probe}. That's all. Not me I won't pay. I remember the one in Alaska! {the oil spill}. Bologna! Program is inadequate! I don't care if it cost 50 cents. I wouldn't vote for it. The oil co. should hire people who know what they are doing. ect. ect. ect. [sic] Why can't they be responsible for the whole thing? They make so much money they should be responsible for cleaning up the oil they spill. How much would that run? {Q by Q}. One time, or once a year? I've never heard of a one time tax - have you? That's a new concept. I don't want to pay for that. Change the law then!! Why can't they pass a law tax that oil companies will have to pay the tax if they can require the taxpayer why can't they require the oil companies? I'm very leery of one time taxes like when they raised the sales tax. Why not legally? Change the law to make them pay. Just California? So it means it would come from both the taxpayers & the taxpayers. Right! {Sarcastic} Why? My gut feeling is that this is not from the state, it's from the oil companies. Why in the hell should these guys get away with it? Did the double hull come from the Alaska spill? Birds can't fly with goop (oil) on their wings. It not a big deal! It's a small thing! As I said percentage wise that's not so bad. This is only a 10 yr program then? This makes it sound like it's not a big deal to harm all these animals and plants. Will the gas prices go up? Taxpayer sets up & oil co. pays a fee. What happens in an event of a spill? Who pays? It should be 100% paid by the oil co. Cost of spill should be 100% oil co. of the liability when they spill the oil. Weigh costs vs. benefits. We'll all pay for it at the pumps At the end we who buy gas are going to pay. 50 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11179 pg12 11190 pg12 11193 pg12 11198 11199 11230 11246 11251 11253 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 11271 pg12 11274 pg12 11288 11293 11298 11306 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 11315 11337 11354 11361 11401 11411 11413 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 pg12 11419 pg12 11433 pg12 11554 pg12 11689 pg12 11691 pg12 10002 pg13 10063 pg13 612892886 Are we 100% sure this program will work? The oil companies will increase the price and the taxpayer will pay both at the pumps and through taxes. How many times a week does an oil tanker pass through the Central Coast. If they only have 3 or 4 passing in a week, what will all those employees do the rest of the time? We will be paying high wages for the crews to be sitting around most of the time. Just pass a new law that would allow the oil companies to pay for the escort ships. What amount would they have to pay? For the fee They should take the greater cost - the oil companies should have the most. The oil co. should pay for all of it because they can afford it. Why can't they start taxing the oil companies now, rather than wait? {RR on pg 14} What happens after 10 years? For 10 years, oil companies would maintain it, once it's set up? Why can't they? It's like OSHA. They are going to pass the cost on anyway. They can actually have their own escort ships. I don't think the taxpayer should pay for it because it is private enterprise. The taxpayer foots too many bills! The oil companies should do the clean up. They create it (the mess). They need safer ships. Good. I still think the oil company should pay for everything. Oh, I've heard this "one time tax" crap all before. They've poisoned everything they can. Why? Why not make them pay! (Bullshit) Crock of crap, end of story. Do they have a bottom line on how much? [arrow drawn to box 4]. I don't think they should have to pay just the oil companies. There's a critter to put in the water to eat the oil? {RR on pg 24}. That's good to hear. They would have to pay it? That's a good idea. it would help prevent wildlife interference. Oil companies I'll go for (paying the cost). It should be their responsibility. With the tax dollars we are paying for the ships and centers? Is this program going to be on the ballot? The oil co. would just raise the price of gasoline. Why can't they legally charge the oil companies? How many oil spills in a year? Why do they (the tankers) travel so close to shore? The state can force the oil co. to do it. I know, they force us to do it to prevent anything. If the state makes the co. to do it why not the oil co. We pay enough. Well there's the problem. {RR pg. 13} A double hull would stop all leaks? It seems too simple. Why hasn't it been done before? I'm for it although this sounds like a cynical survey. Replace the word birds with human beings and the question would never have been asked which shows how over saturated California is in christian thinking (i.e., animals have no souls, therefore we can [vie] them all up. No, there aren't any reasons for me to vote for it. I don't care. There will be others reborn. They won't be extinct. 51 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10087 pg13 Minor amounts of birds compared to the total you've got. 12000 birds out of the amount you've got is peanuts. 10112 pg13 Would there be a bond? {probe} {Q by Q} 10137 pg13 They would never stop. 10163 pg13 Prevention is not always 100% effective. 10184 pg13 If they aren't giving any figures...(then this is ambiguous) put it in plain, simple English (the cost). 10221 pg13 I see no long term problems that arise from this, so why spend the money. {probe} no. 10274 pg13 The prevention of bird deaths will never happen except in the private sector. {long expose on government waste - none of it relating to the environment, oil, birds, ships, etc.} 10279 pg13 Well, I'll tell you - this report is bogus, slanted toward the oil companies. It's bullshit, it's biased. The oil companies should be made to pay for it. 10318 pg13 Vote against. 10326 pg13 Not only no, but hell no! 10327 pg13 I agree with that. {Referring to cost more than} Oil companies should pay for it. {RR pg 12 box} 10352 pg13 Usually there's more birds injured than killed? 10423 pg13 Exactly. 10452 pg13 The cost is a keg thing to me. 10461 pg13 I believe the oil companies should pay all the cost. 10505 pg13 I'd vote for it. 10522 pg13 Exactly. 10525 pg13 12,000 birds is not money, lots of things can kill birds. It isn't just oil spills. 10607 pg13 This is just for 10 miles of shoreline? That's ridiculous. 10662 pg13 That's bull. 10685 pg13 I would vote for it. I think its important to our wildlife and to our beaches. 10754 pg13 If the oil spills now, the companies have to clean it up. 10757 pg13 [Top of page] No. [Bottom of page] Yes other problems. Spend the money for other problems. 10762 pg13 The spotted owl has brains to go somewhere else - why can't they? If we had dinosaurs, the environmentalists would complain about them becoming extinct, but we've managed to survive without them, haven't we? Let nature take care of itself. 10768 pg13 I think we have more pressing things than this right now and the oil companies are getting tax money. 10813 pg13 I'm worried about my grandchildren - the choice of where to spend the money. 10846 pg13 No No No - Stop - Right there - The oil companies should take full responsibility and that's final. 10854 pg13 That's about 1000 birds per year. {probe} 10869 pg13 I feel that the number of birds is not substantial. 10910 pg13 The taxpayers pay for set up & tankers will pay for the 10 yr. long haul? {RR A-13}. 10914 pg13 Oil co. should pay for this themselves. 10946 pg13 I'd have to vote no. 10960 pg13 I like the program but why should people pay for it instead of the oil companies? We want it clean but we don't make the mess. 10975 pg13 Wait a minute - When you said 12,000 birds, I thought that meant over a 10 year period. If it's 12,000 birds along 10 miles of shoreline, that's an astronomical amount. I'm for the program. 612892886 52 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11010 pg13 11011 pg13 11013 pg13 11037 11059 11105 11126 pg13 pg13 pg13 pg13 11159 pg13 11169 pg13 11229 11230 11246 11252 11270 11288 11324 11338 11355 pg13 pg13 pg13 pg13 pg13 pg13 pg13 pg13 pg13 11356 pg13 11357 pg13 11406 pg13 11433 11560 11679 11691 11790 pg13 pg13 pg13 pg13 pg13 10007 b-1 10017 b-1 10032 b-1 10034 b-1 612892886 Eventually everyone will pay. The way you described it? None of the animals are endangered? It repairs itself in ten years or five years? That's an overkill statement. That's not believable. I can't believe that is a permanent fix. This is a simplistic statement that just isn't true. There's not much more reason to spend the money. Any time the government gets their hands into this I'm against it. I worked for 25 yrs. for Exxon. The bureaucrats and big wigs in Exxon were too interested in themselves to clean up after Valdez. { + 3 minutes with name & rank describing the neglect of the clean up}. {Phone rings - R answered}. No shit sherlock! This one time tax- why not put the tax on the pumps? That's a silly idea. Whoever thinks the oil companies will pay their share is silly. The companies will raise the price of gasoline, & we will pay for it twice. Get good pilots on the boats - you don't need escort ships. How much? That's a joke. Who's going to pay the gas bill? We will be paying double when they pass the costs onto us. How much is it? This is the one. (I'm concerned about). There's no $ amount is there. I worry about the poor people . They would rather eat. I would prefer to spend my tax dollars on people. Especially education. I've never heard of oil spills in Central Coast area & I've lived here 17 years. They always make a false dichotomy. It didn't sound small. Again I doubt 12,000 birds being killed in the next 10 yrs. You didn't tell me how much that one time tax will be. Yeah, & then you wonder what kind of injury. Do they suffer or doe, or are they crippled? But those are just minute reasons. The gov't wants us to vote against this; I feel like I'm looking at a campaign flyer. Before I could vote on it, I'd have to look at the figures. We're going to get it both ways - the oil companies will raise gas costs, & we'll have to pay the tax - unless the gov't puts a cap on the oil price increases. I'll vote yes. The percentage of death of the birds isn't that great of an amount. It's small in number. One would have to have more information. That's a hard one to me. I'd say I'd vote against it. They're not that endangered. If it were that important, they'd find the money somewhere & not even ask us. Just for 10 years? {RR from 12}. {Not possible to remove G. R sat under the only lamp leaving the nearest chair 6 ft away. No table. R objected to my sitting on the floor and handled the showcards herself.} Common sense for 5.00 is [illegible]. But what happens down the road. Especially because it has a "sunset". If it's $5.00. They hide things and then more. $5.00 is nothing but state always wants more. I want more information about where the money is going before I commit to an answer. Why can't we make the oil company pay? 53 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10035 b-1 10053 b-1 10055 b-1 10056 b-1 10063 b-1 10067 b-1 10069 10075 10077 10082 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 10086 b-1 10088 b-1 10089 b-1 10090 b-1 10093 b-1 10104 b-1 10106 b-1 10115 b-1 10116 b-1 10124 b-1 10131 10132 10137 10143 10150 10163 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 10168 b-1 10175 b-1 10176 b-1 10182 b-1 612892886 If it were a one time $25.00, I would vote for it. I would have to find out first. Why can't these ships find there way along the coast. They have all the equip. to do this. They do it all the time, why would they need an escort ship? {probe} I would probably vote for this. 12,000 birds are a lot of birds. {probe} Would this be for all people who pay CA. income tax. I'm concerned it might be a burden for some people. I would want to see tax applied in a fair way. I think the oil co. should pay for all of it. {probe} Okay I've changed my mind if it's only $5. I refuse. This is a hypothetical question! How many more taxes? Things can change - voting for new taxation requires priorities! I don't know where this should be! You won't find many people who care enough to vote for this. I'd be inclined to vote. That is a substantial fund. I don't know what, if it was one time tax I would vote for it. But once they get a tax they don't stop. I need to know how much the oil companies are paying & would like to know the total cost per bird to taxpayers & oil companies. How many birds would die? The information provided is not enough. They paid me very little for my oil in Texas $11.00 and they paid - for foreign country oil much more. We pay a lot of taxes already! Well, I don't know. {probe} If it's no more than that. What's the guarantee that this would be a one-time tax? {probe} $65 for a program. Huh, imagine looking at a beach with out seaweed, mussels or anything. {probe} I'd have to make sure that it would only be a one-time thing. $5 for each program. That's a lot of $. {Implying for every program the state wants} It would cost $5. If I were to be sure that is all I would vote for it. These programs always escalate. That's well within my means. Crime and kids schooling are more important. Isn't the state already raising taxes? {Q by Q} In the San Francisco area they implemented an earthquake tax & said it was temporary but I don't think they've stopped it yet. I have a problem, we being taxed and it was less but if it was less money maybe! But for that amount I vote. Now - if I vote for it, do I have to pay something right now to you? {No -RQ} {RR pg 14 top} I really need more info about this. If I say yes they will tax me now? Like all those million dollar bonds. $5 isn't much but I think we could spend the money to better use. I have no idea. If they would spread it out over 10 years, I would vote for it. I'd like to see more info about this; I watch the news, and I've never seen anything about this before. It's not a lot of money, but.... I hate taxes. No simply because we are protecting a private industry. Those oil companies are making money and should pay for it. But I can just see us being nickeled and dimed. There's pros and cons. 54 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10187 b-1 10188 b-1 10190 b-1 10197 10221 10242 10249 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 10255 10256 10263 10265 10270 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 10272 b-1 10282 10288 10297 10322 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 10326 b-1 10328 b-1 10332 b-1 10333 b-1 10338 b-1 10348 b-1 10350 b-1 10353 b-1 612892886 That's a hard one. They have a ship in SF now? It all depends on the weather, too. Those double hulls may not work - nothin' is bullet proof. $200 per household? That's a lot of money for 3 ships. But if we want to save the shoreline, it's got to be done. $5.00 doesn't seem like a lot. my initial indication was to say no. What's the total dollar amount? At our age we don't want to get involved in something like this. Let the young people worry about this. I don't really think that this is as important as educations or medical services. I would vote against because in the long run it will cost us more money. {probe} No. I don't think I could afford $65. What it's saying if this law is passed I would have to pay it - the $65 one time a year. {No, RR} One time each year? {no, {probe}} What month of the year would this happen? {probe} Because if the animals die than the people die and I don't want my family to {RR - pg14 - paragraph above B-1} We are on a special fixed income. I would vote against it today! I'm on a fixed income. When I went to the beach I had oil on both feet. On Corona Del Mar beach. I would definitely right now vote... I'm $25 taxed to death. I really feel the money should be spent on other social & environmental problems. Not for the $5, but for the additional cost of the gasoline that the oil companies would pass on to the consumers. Is that a one time charge? Probably. For numerous other reasons. Because that's a waste of wildlife. {Numbering of statements indicates order in which they were made. My probe (at bottom) was to reread question at which time R qualified his previous "yes" response with "if these things...."} {See comment a & e-10} 1.) I'd say I'd probably go for it if these things guaranteed and forced and laws would be enforced. 2.) One question What would be in place to make sure that all the ships are double-hulled? 3.) What guarantee do we have that the ships will all be double-hulled within the next 10 years? {Digression} 4.) Who's going to be inspecting and would they be grounded if not? {probe} [interviewer drew arrow from the end of point number 4 to the middle of point number one. Hell no! That statement would have to be molded in gold and signed in blood. Don't care so much about the birds but [illegible] up the ocean and shores. Would vote for it if shows a good chance of being effective? Needs some assurance it would work. Against. I still don't know who the employees will work for, and end of 10 years no need. I'm not sure that's not true, even with double hull still be problems. and I've yet to see a state program end, and cost is always higher then they say. {probe} No. The oil should pay for the whole thing! It's really broken down well here, but still I don't think I can vote for it. There again, it's not the $65 I'm worried about, it's the cost of gasoline going up. {probe} If I had some kind of guarantee that the price of gas wouldn't go up. {probe} The way it was presented, everyone will vote no. It should be presented more with a tourist based presentation. 55 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10354 b-1 10356 b-1 10357 b-1 10374 b-1 10380 b-1 10382 b-1 10387 b-1 10391 b-1 10420 10421 10441 10452 10455 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 10459 b-1 10479 10480 10481 10482 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 10484 b-1 10490 b-1 10495 b-1 10503 b-1 10510 10513 10517 10518 10521 10524 10527 10532 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 612892886 $65 would be worth it to save the birds & other small animals. I think tax dollars are being ill-spent. I have trouble with the $5 amount. You need more money from the taxpayer. {probe} No. I don't think it's necessary. If there's no proper alternative to that then I'd vote for it. But that's not needed. They need a sonar device that tells you of objects in a particular distance. And a technician that's sober to monitor it. They have the technology now - they could put those on all of the ships. It probably wouldn't cost any more than that escort ship program. {RQ} But only if the sonar system doesn't work or can't be done. For $5. I don't know - at this point I'd vote against. {probe} I go along with the last 2 reasons to vote against - I believe in the reasons for. {probe} No. Voting against. That's a lot of money for each household to pay. The fees should be paid by oil companies. I'd have to know what it meant to me first before I could make that determination. My husband would cancel my vote. I'm disabled & I don't pay taxes. If I paid taxes and it was only once I'd go for it. If the $5 were the total cost - yes. I don't pay any income tax. I don't have enough income to live but my kids would probably pay it for me. I have a question - After the 10 yrs. what happens to the ships? If they're sold off or depreciated it would lower the cost. Would it be for one time? I'd probably vote against. It doesn't seem to significant. It's not that much money. However, I don't think it's necessary, really. That might be a hell of a lot of money for just 0 years. Why stop after 10 years? And didn't the Exxon Valdez have a double hull? This should be in effect all the time. F--- - if I could spend $220 and nail the oil companies to make them pay for the upkeep. I'd do it in a minute. I've been on Exxon tankers - they have plenty of room on deck to carry oil booms, and skimmers. $65 to save the wildlife for your grandkids isn't much. 1996 or 1995? I would probably vote for it. I would vote for if everything was well thought out. How many people will be employed? Who has the responsibility of maintaining the center? Who is paying the salaries? It is good for putting people back to work where the state doesn't have to pay for it. That would help the area around that area for creating more jobs. Have they thought about what they would do with the facilities after the 10 years? I think the oil companies should pay First, do you know how many spills there have been there over the last 5 or 10 years? I'd probably vote against it, because I don't have enough information. I think the feds should pay. You wonder about one time. For the protection of the coastal birds we have to do something. What! That a lot of money. Think about that for a second. It just depends on the circumstances. {probe} Hard to say. {probe} But I'd like the information I requested. Once it's in place it never goes away. 56 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10542 b-1 10543 b-1 10545 10552 10553 10572 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 10577 b-1 10583 b-1 10584 b-1 10592 b-1 10601 b-1 10605 b-1 10619 b-1 10622 b-1 10626 b-1 10628 b-1 10639 b-1 10640 b-1 10641 b-1 10646 b-1 10665 b-1 10668 b-1 10670 b-1 10671 b-1 10672 b-1 10681 b-1 10683 b-1 612892886 I'm paying enough taxes already. I would vote for but I'm thinking about my parents it's their home and I wouldn't want them to pay more just because of my personal opinion. {probe} $5 no problem. My husband wouldn't want to pay that - But I would vote for it. Because of the damage to the coastlineIf I knew for sure the politicians wouldn't get their fingers on it. I would like the politicians to get less pay. {probe} No. Tough to decide, but a lot of households would have a tough time. Could use for other social programs. That's a rough one - I hate to spend $65 on something that doesn't really pertain to me. {probe} I would like to see the money being spent here in Calif. I'm not going to answer that - {probe} I'm in favor of implementing legislation to prevent oil spills. {probe} I'd be surprised if no one wrote a better piece of legislation. {probe} I can't say "for" or "against". I believe that the oil companies will raise the price of gas at the pump to pay for the expense - this is misleading. {probe} There will be hidden costs at the gas pump. Although those tax things never come off. But I think it should go on the property tax and pro-rated over 3 or 4 years - because a lot of elderly can't afford it. Absolutely. I think it's wrong for 2 reasons - the oil companies ought to pay for it, and double hulls won't completely solve the problem - they shouldn't stop the program after 10 years. $5 is nothing, but I've never seen them lift a tax. There's a lot better way to handle it. They could station 1 or 2 boats on the coast, easily. Is this spread out? {RR above} {overtime}. Is that a flat tax, or based on income? If it was graduated, I would favor it. If it's a flat tax, I would oppose it. That would be a hard one. If it's only $5. I would vote for it. That doesn't sound like very much. I would never vote for something knowing this much information. I'm leery of any kind of tax. But it sounds viable. If someone has an idea of training the unemployed in California I'd vote for that instead of this. I'm more for people having a good living. No information about how much the oil companies are required to pay - {probe} I'd be surprised if the clean up would be 100%. I don't know because I can't vote in Calif. Registered to vote in Tenn. That's stupid. Do you know what those ships cost? The oil companies need to pay for all the problems that they have. Like other companies they have to correct what they have done, and pay for it. The oil company causes the problems they should fix it and pay for it. 1) Depends on what I am purchasing. 2) What is scope of program? 3) After set up do I have to pay more? 4) Will oil companies build bigger ships so they make less trips? 5) Will we create a new problem with oil companies building mega ships and making less trips From my current information. I would vote for the program but also of they'd get their act together there'd be money for it without further taxation. 57 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10684 10685 10686 10689 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 10691 10701 10705 10721 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 10764 b-1 10768 10775 10778 10782 10824 10829 10838 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 10852 b-1 10853 b-1 10871 b-1 10878 b-1 10879 b-1 10885 b-1 10886 b-1 10887 b-1 10891 b-1 10896 b-1 10905 b-1 10909 10916 10917 10930 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 10933 b-1 10934 b-1 10936 b-1 612892886 We don't pay any income tax. {probe}{My probe = if you did pay income tax...}. You're saying it would be taken at one time. {Yes}. Present time. The majority of people are going to think its too high. The oil companies would raise their prices too - we'll get hit both ways. I've never heard of a one time tax. I guess for. They're already killing me with taxes. (RQ). I think this program should be funded by private enterprises! I don't think the tax payers should be burdened with this. Before I decided how to vote, I would like to know what other programs there are so that there could be some discrimination on my part. I live on a fixed income. If we note against it, then there I'd still be tankers going back and forth? {yes}. It's tax deductible. I don't think I'd vote for it. At this point I don't know. It's a one time thing? Wait not $120.00. No it's wrong. Good Grief. Do you know what I can do with $120? Do they know how they will dispose of the equipment after the 10 years? I would probably vote for it but I wouldn't expect it to pass. Absolutely not. I would like to know why is it illegal to make the companies start the program. I believe the oil companies should be held accountable and pay for it. For 1 time. 1 time only? Why a one time tax, this usually is not true. They take money from one program after it starts up and put it to some other program, within the same section. I work for the State and I see this all the time! I'm against this! If guarantee only pay for it once - leave it open without that guarantee - we will have to pay more and more. I think this is a bunch of crap. I don't think the state should spend money on this survey. I can think of a lot of other areas where I'd rather spend the money, such as education. But it's a worthy program. The oil companies get away with murder - if it makes the oil companies double their walls A one time only tax? If that's the case yes. Would this be a one time tax? Ha. Once a tax always a tax. But if there were other things on the ballot, like education & crime, I probably would vote against it. It's not on the top of my list. Do I have any other choice? This question is poorly worded. We are already paying for this through gas prices. Oh that's a tough one. Why can't they make a law for the oil companies to pay. I'm not against paying but it is their responsibility. Why is it up to us? We have other important things like education and crime. This is a good idea but the oil companies should pay. It seems 58 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10940 10942 10944 10949 10950 10953 10967 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 10980 10986 10988 10994 10998 10999 11002 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 11004 11005 11010 11012 11026 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 11028 11036 11048 11057 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 11059 b-1 11069 b-1 11072 b-1 11090 b-1 11107 b-1 11115 b-1 11127 b-1 11128 b-1 612892886 the way they set up this it is bias towards not supporting the program because it makes the animals seem insignificant being only these few birds. Where do the humans come in they use the beaches. If it's just one time. $65 is a lump sum. If it was done in two payments. {probe} Because there's a lot more involved than just the birds. I don't vote. Are they going to have something similar to this in Alaska? D.K. {probe} Depends what it costs they say one thing and do another. First, I have questions. Would it take 4 years to set up, and then it would only last for 6 years? $65 isn't much. I wouldn't pay a penny for it. That's just a start? Is it one time cost? We are constantly paying taxes. Penalize tankers for single hulls! I love animals. $5 is not that much. If I was working and paying taxes - {RQ} Well I'm not earning enough to have to pay - when I get doing better and I can afford it, I'd say yes. {RQ - emphasized underlined, above} [IW underlined "If an election were being held today"] I'd have to say FOR. If that were true - one time only - & kept to that amount $65. Is that for real? $5. I'd go on welfare. Would I know that it would be specifically go to that? Just $25? $25.00 is not a lot of money to me. If every HH paid -it would accomplish a lot for our environment. If it's just $65. The sewage problem is more important. I don't pay income tax cause I don't get enough social security. The oil companies are the ones making billions of dollars. They are responsible. But I don't vote, so I'm neutral on this. we just pay our taxes. Are you kidding? Absolutely not! This absolutely astounds me. Provided it would be a one time shot. So many times these things get escalated. Seeing that I don't have the $65 today. {probe} {B-1 R misunderstood Q and by simply rereading she changed her vote}. Certainly for $5.00 I expected it to be more expensive. As long as this new program doesn't rob the human programs of social security and crime programs. I probably would not pay or vote no if it cost over 30 for this program. How long to implement the plan? I'm not sure. I'd have to know more about it. I don't mind the $65 but the gasoline is going to have to go up and ours is already a lot higher then most places. There's not much employment around here and it makes it rough on everyone. Even though they have public transportation they don't go where the jobs go. $5 doesn't seem like very much but once the state gets hold of something it won't shut it down. We will also have the hidden cost of gasoline prices the oil companies will pass on. Once the state gets a bureaucracy going they will keep it going past the ten years. 59 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11136 b-1 11159 b-1 11182 b-1 11193 b-1 11198 b-1 11199 b-1 11203 b-1 11208 b-1 11225 b-1 11231 b-1 11235 11237 11244 11246 11269 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 11275 b-1 11276 b-1 11278 b-1 11279 b-1 11283 b-1 11290 11297 11304 11305 11308 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 11326 b-1 11328 b-1 11333 11337 11343 11348 b-1 b-1 b-1 b-1 612892886 What can't they (the shipping people) pay for the whole thing? How does this oil spill affect the human? EPA always after people to set up compliance programs. Thousand of dollars don't see how it's any different. Why shipping companies can't set it up as well? How does a 2 hull really resolve the problem? if it's going to affect the human. Figure out another way. How is it assessed? {probe} {Q by Q}. If everyone pays & it's enforced. That's a one time thing? I'd have to read the whole bill to determine what is going to happen in the future. The government is good at changing things as it goes along. They restructure and I may not be able to pay more taxes. If I had the $25 to spend - I would vote for it - But at my age you have to watch your money. I'm not that cheap - I guess I'd pay $5 for it. Would I have to pay it all at once? {I repeated top paragraph}. The oil companies should have started a program like this years ago with their billions; on the other hand $5 is not a lot {probe}. That's still tough -I think. The program is for 10 years? I like the idea; whether or not I'd have the money is another matter. If they could string out the payments rather than a lump sum of $220, that would be better. I would love to see this go into effect but I don't have $220 right now. I like the program. I don't know if I want to pay that much? {H - FOR} Would the pump price be affected? But I don't see how everyone could do it. Would I be charged an apartment renter - there are 3 unrelated people living here. Who pays? How much each? How is a household defined? If it's taken from tax's how would it work? {Q by Q} If no current tax moneys are used. 1 x? One time? {RR} What is the size of spills we're talking about if 12,000 birds are killed? {RR page 8} Who would pay this - both of us? {Q by Q}. That seems like a lot. How many households would have to pay $5, & what is the total cost, and where would that excess money go? That would be a lot more money than they think. All this for $5? It doesn't warrant all the trouble for only $5. It's a one time fee? {Yes}. I'd pay the $25 every year if it makes the program work. Definitely. Don't know how necessary to set this up. The double hulls are the way to go. I can see both for and against but $5 isn't is no big deal. Get ship better maps. A lot of work and that may not be all the problem or address the problems. It's a one time deal, huh? What percentage does taxpayer's pay versus the oil company? How often does this happen? It's an interim program better solutions in the future. If it's only $25. If it's one time! This tax would also be tax deductible? {R wanted to know if this new tax would be deductible}. 60 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11349 b-1 Before I answer. Are they assuming the box represents my reason. {probe} {Referring to reasons for and against boxes} 11350 b-1 I think it's important but it's not the money, but we have other problems like with crime. There's 12,000 birds dying but there are 290,000 of one kind that doesn't seem like much. It's not a money issue but there are other things. 11351 b-1 What are we talking about a one time fee? They should work it in the budget. They're not enough coming in on gasoline tax? I think it's a good idea. There should be money already. I'm voting against on the principle not that I'm a cheapskate. 11353 b-1 I'd have to see it broke down and see what it was going to be. {probe} 11355 b-1 Is that $5 based on the number of people living in this house? 11358 b-1 You can't tell me how much gas would go up, can you? {probe} Not enough information is given. {probe} 11365 b-1 Would this take away from the other issues we talked about? This is really hard to answer. 11404 b-1 If it's a lot more I'd say no. 11407 b-1 $5 bucks yes, more money say $100 or more - No - I just filled out my state taxes and I paid them $2000 already and still owe more. I have to have a spill plan at my plant in case a spill occurs. Why the oil companies have to do the same. I'd have to believe they do. 11408 b-1 I wouldn't mind putting a few dollars up but I'm against it ending in ten years. This program should be for longer than ten years. 11412 b-1 I think the oil companies should pay for the whole thing. 11419 b-1 I'd pay the $65 but it's the principle, I don't think taxpayers should pay for this. 11420 b-1 There are other issues like education. 12,000 kids are more important than 12,000 birds. 11431 b-1 The $5.00 is a low amount. I'm not sure government intervention would work. Why not - the oil companies - they should have their own escort ships even for their own protection. 11432 b-1 If it was only $5. 11433 b-1 It's the principle. Change the law! I don't think tax payers should pay for something private industry cause. 11437 b-1 How long would it take to implement the program? Expense vs. timely return. 11457 b-1 With qualifications. 11463 b-1 I'd have to have it proved that it would be effective 11497 b-1 {Thought a lot}. 11559 b-1 But I don't know enough about it. But I hate to see even I bird hurt. I'm an animal lover. But I know there are other pressing problems in Calif - we can't take care of everything. 11687 b-1 It's the money. 11694 b-1 {probe} They ask if you're concerned and then to come up with $120 all at once. 11696 b-1 One time? Is it sure it would go there? Is it applicable to all households? If everybody is giving it, it is a good sum of money. 11771 b-1 $220 is a lot of money. I would like to pay it in payments. Maybe it isn't that much money thinking that these birds are not endangered they may be. We don't know how many oil spills there will be. I don somewhat agree about these other issues though. I could see both sides. 10282 box5 You would think they would be responsible for all of it. 11004 box5 Later - said this 612892886 61 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10007 10011 10076 10112 10136 10167 10184 10300 pg14 pg14 pg14 pg14 pg14 pg14 pg14 pg14 10328 10330 10419 10432 pg14 pg14 pg14 pg14 10480 10505 10552 10638 10662 10664 10770 10888 10925 pg14 pg14 pg14 pg14 pg14 pg14 pg14 pg14 pg14 10930 11036 11059 11067 pg14 pg14 pg14 pg14 11124 pg14 11168 pg14 11170 11172 11246 11306 11355 11420 11538 10001 pg14 pg14 pg14 pg14 pg14 pg14 pg14 b-2 10002 b-2 612892886 The oil companies should be accountable. How do they know there aren't going to be enough spills to cause extinction? One - one year? What if you be not working? Would you still pay? {Q by Q} I think the state has a right or an obligation - to protect the water, shore and wildlife. When will it be on the ballot? Wipe me out! As long as it's a one time thing. Once it's in effect that's it. That's a lot of money from one family. Yea, initially. That would be all? I find that hard to believe. A year? {probe} How much will this program cost? I believe in ecology. It's time we do something for the ocean. Whew! Oh, dear! {laughing} I'm sure I could afford $5. Would that be yearly? {RQ} I could do so much with that amount of money Only $5.00? Sounds great. Doing de... {RR} [top of page]. Why should it take 10 years to fix the hulls of the ships I don't like the way the proposal is written up. The response centers wouldn't be there but the ships shouldn't be escorted. You came on the wrong day. I'm very upset about my income taxes. What are the statistics on how many spills a year? {RR p. 5...every few years}. In your dreams! God! Where would I get the 220 - I only get 755 for social security a month - If I was making money, I'd go for it. If the oil people would do it, it would be wonderful. I have a different reason against it, as you said it would be paid by a one time tax per household I prefer it be a tax at the pump instead because that is where most of the oil is going to be, for gasoline. There are other things to do with it. Either pay for it at the pump or don't have the program. The number of wildlife is a reasonable loss considering the utility of oil deliveries. Are the escorts only going to be with the single hull vessels or both single and double hulls? A year? What about if you don't vote for it? I'd support it. One time? {RR pg 12} I would gladly kill a politician for $120. Oh really? Is that all? Oh shit - do it. How much? One time? I simply believe that in human terms our health is most important. This coastline prides itself on the pristine condition. {probe} And I think it should stay this way. It would take action against a corporate system that tends towards token regard for the environment forcing them to act responsibly. 62 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10006 b-2 10007 b-2 10008 b-2 10011 b-2 10012 b-2 10016 b-2 10017 b-2 10020 b-2 10022 b-2 10023 b-2 10026 b-2 10033 b-2 10035 10051 10053 10054 b-2 b-2 b-2 b-2 10055 b-2 10056 b-2 10062 b-2 10067 b-2 612892886 Stopping the oil spills, stopping the killing of the birds, animals and the plants along the coast, that it kills. The fine [illegible] cost wouldn't be to much, but I really feel that the oil companies should foot the bill. {probe} The program sounds alright and would help nature and the animals. Well, it would do exactly as it says - Protect birds and wild animals from death and protect the marsh & keep the beaches clean. {probe} I suspect they can probably put the building to use for other purposes rather than [illegible] them go to waste whether it's counting whales going by or some group could find a use for them. It would make the oil companies more responsible. {probe} It would protect the wildlife and the beaches from further damage. It would help prevent short term for potentially long term harm to the environment. {probe} Harm from spilled oil. Number one beside the animals and humans. I myself like to go to the beach. {probe} It would clean up all the oil and if for $5 prevent the death of animals and deep our water's clean I'm all for it. Well I think a lot more than the death of birds more concerned about a permanent scar on landscape that I feel is caused by oil spills. Every household is paying very small amount over next 10 years it would be a good habit to start. {probe} In 30 years if still doing it won't have to send researchers out. {probe} People would get used to it - cheap, would pay for itself. $5 is cheap. Program idea would start a good habit. Making prevention a normal part of life. It would protect that wildlife. It would stop the oil spills. It will stop harm to the shoreline. {probe} What will happen to the ships in 10 yrs? {probe} What about the employees in 10 yrs? What will they do? {probe} No. {At first "probe", R looked as if he wanted to make another statements so I asked him if he did have any more to say & he kept talking. I asked until he said "no" as his statements were important to him.} Well I have 2 grandkids - I would love them to see the birds, who knows how ling it will take for those birds to come back. {probe} It's not that much to pay - the younger generation should have something to enjoy. Sometimes they don't regenerate as fast as they think. {probe} {R shook head no} It would prevent oil from getting into oceans. {probe} It would also send a message to private businesses that people care about the environment! It saves the birds you talked about. {probe} It would keep the water clean. The beaches will be clean and the animals you showed me won't die. {probe} No. Protect the birds, keep the water clean. {probe} I think it does more harm than we really know. Beside harm done to birds it would do harm to a lot more things than just birds. I think it could possible harm our food. {probe} Keeping the coast clean. I'm concerned about the animals dying, the smell for people who live in the area. {probe} Protect general coast line. {probe} Mice that you don't kill the animals, not that important. {probe} Oil is California's lifeline - We need it to hold the economy up - We can't afford the expense of the oil spills. {probe} It will not prevent the spill, but help clean it up & prevent considerable damage to the wildlife, fish etc. that are affected. {probe} No. Clean up the environment. But this may not be important in the future. {probe} Those stupid birds only procreate but we must protect them. 63 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10069 b-2 10072 b-2 10073 b-2 10075 b-2 10076 b-2 10078 b-2 10080 b-2 10081 10082 10084 10085 10090 b-2 b-2 b-2 b-2 b-2 10096 b-2 10104 b-2 10108 b-2 10109 b-2 10110 b-2 10117 b-2 10118 b-2 10119 b-2 10120 b-2 10121 b-2 612892886 It would save the wildlife. {probe} The birds and plants and keep the oil out of the water and off the shore. In case there's another oil accident it would help protect the ocean and beach from that harm. {probe} I think that says it all. We have the obligation to protect the animals when we make mistakes. {probe} The program shows that we care about the animals that would be harmed. Just to protect the coastal areas, protect the environment. {probe} I think the Central Coast is an important resource and the beauty of it should be protected, I think. {probe} Just the beauty of it. it is totally pristine & beautiful. It is worth protecting the beauty of the area. It's unspoiled, unlike L.A. Save the birds. {probe} Save the birds from death & injury. {probe} The ones you've been talking about. {probe} No - That's all. It would help clean up the oil spill & reduce damage to sea like you mentioned. Preserve the wildlife & shoreline for future generations. {probe} Keep oil spill from killing birds & fish. I don't think any wildlife should be killed. All wildlife should be protected. Help prevent oil spills and clean it up. Protecting wildlife. I'm into scouting. {probe} Any wildlife. {probe} No. Because of the animals, they can live too. {probe} The animals you said. Helping the small birds and small animals from becoming extinct. They will die - It might take them a long time, but they will die. If the mother bird were to die there would be nobody to take care of the baby chicks. It would save more of all the fish and fowl. {probe} It would keep the water cleaner because water doesn't stay in one place it moves. {probe} Other companies (oil) are not as careful as Chevron on cleaning up their accidents. From the spiel [sic] and the shorelines {referring to graphics} the people can't go swimming or anything. {probe} {For specifics} {probe} Nothing. Save animals and plants. In the long run save human life - Imagine swimming in oil - Save the beauty of it. {probe} You don't know what your doing all the time with nature. {probe} I think no more. Save our coastline. There's enough pollution out there without oil spills. {probe} Save wildlife. I think these no's are low - will the injured birds have birth defects or other problems. Keep clean beaches, clean coastline. {probe} Open hwy 1 again, that's it. {probe} Keeping the wildlife safe I guess. {probe} That good more more [sic]. I guess saving the wildlife and small animals and $5.00 is not so bad. It would keep that part of the California coast. I mean help protect that part from these oil spills. I'm really concerned about the long term effects of oil, even though nature cleans itself well. I'm still concerned about organisms in the sea. Also, I liked their plan of surrounding the oil & sucking it up. I thought it was a good plan, & that it would work. I was surprised that an escort would be necessary. It would protect the environment for my children and grandchildren. {probe} Protects the wildlife, & prevents the contamination of the beaches & rock areas. Also, there is other animal life that we can't see that would be protected. Preserve the beaches and the birds and the wildlife. {probe} Not that I can think of. The program is evidence that we're taking responsibility for big business' damage. 10 years for the bird population & other animal & plant life doesn't sound like a long time, but I'm willing to support an end to the pollution. {probe} No. 64 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10122 b-2 10123 b-2 10124 b-2 10132 b-2 10134 b-2 10135 b-2 10136 b-2 10138 b-2 10142 b-2 10144 b-2 10151 b-2 10152 b-2 10153 b-2 10154 b-2 10158 b-2 10165 b-2 10171 b-2 10173 b-2 10176 b-2 10179 b-2 10182 b-2 612892886 The protection. {probe} We love the coast; protection of the animals would be great. {probe} Mostly the protection. And, it would give some people some jobs. Anything that helps any kind of wildlife or improves the environment, I like. {probe} It's better for the environment. {probe} It would help those birds and the coastline. $25 is worth it for that. {probe} No. Preserve wildlife. {probe} The birds, all of it. {probe} You showed the diagram of them - the gull, the crabs, anything like that, protect them from oil spills. {probe} No, that would do it. Because it's suppose to take care of all these things you told me about. {probe} Save the wildlife & the environment, and make the oil companies responsible. {probe} Save the lives of animals. Anytime we're taking care of the environment - I just think we need to do that more in our lives {probe} No. Make it safer for me and my family to enjoy the beaches. {probe} Protect the animals you talked about. {probe} We happen to take care of the swan. {probe} You learn about all the deaths of animals, you gotta keep the ocean clean. Speaking for myself, $5 is not much. {probe} There are more pressing issues. {probe} I would not like to see wildlife killed but I think the damage would or could be a lot more than the scientists are saying here. It's important for wildlife survival. {probe} We have to start doing something now. {probe} The $ would help save the wildlife. Because it's saving our ecosystem. It's the most important think we have. {probe} I'm a bird lover and I don't want that harm to birds. You can't disregard any part of ecosystem. {probe} I'll pay to save the birds. Keeping the wildlife - that's what it would do. {probe} Protecting wildlife and keeping coastal shores clean is what that's going to do. I feel that the coastline should be protected. {probe} I think we should take care of the wildlife you talked about. I think the $65 is a reasonable amount for the program. {probe} It would control the oil spills. {probe} no. I believe in protecting our natural resources. {probe} It would protect all the animals around the ocean. It would keep the beaches clean so that people can enjoy the beaches and enjoy the animals you said would be killed. The fact that the oil will not be spilled & ruin the shoreline. {probe} The animals will be saved. {probe} The birds you mentioned. I just enjoy the coast a lot. I enjoy going there. {probe} Just keep the scenery beautiful & the wildlife to enjoy. {probe} No. The oil would be confined & not spread out. {probe} Fish & wildlife would be saved - It hurts me when those animals get oil in their feathers & can't get airborne. To keep the coast clean. {probe} and save the wildlife. Protect the wildlife and also protect the coast. The kids like to swim at the beach. Also it would keep protect our drinking water. {probe} Doesn't some of our coastal water go through filtration or something like that. {probe} No. Keep the oil off our shore lines. {probe} No. Sounds like a band aid just for the ten years. Until they get the double hulls. Make sure there are no oil spills. Someone to take care of oil spills so it doesn't expand ending up God knows where. {probe} Also because of the wildlife that may be endangered like the fish. {probe} I'm also concerned about our drinking water. I also want my daughter to appreciate the ocean the way it is not the way it was. 65 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10187 b-2 10188 b-2 10191 b-2 10192 b-2 10195 b-2 10196 b-2 10199 b-2 10201 b-2 10202 b-2 10206 b-2 10207 b-2 10214 b-2 10224 b-2 10225 b-2 10227 b-2 10239 b-2 10240 b-2 10245 b-2 10246 b-2 10248 b-2 10249 b-2 10253 b-2 612892886 Keep the Calif. coast clean, & the fish, the clams, the water. We have good times with the kids at the ocean - I'd hate to be out there in an oil slick. Protects the environment, and the cost isn't too much, and it's a temporary program. I like the idea of having the oil companies have double hulls. {probe} No. To save the birds and fishes from being killed. It's a small price to pay for the environment. {probe} It would save the wildlife that's mentioned and protect the food chain. Keep our beaches clean. {probe} I lived at the beach for 15-20 years. {probe} Or at free from oil--which I think is a terrible disaster for wildlife, us & puppy dogs. It's preventative and pro-active ex) rather than reactive. It's anticipating a problem that is inevitable and fully preparing for it. {probe} It's a [misule] start up for per household and the maintenance by the oil companies is well suited should it - the need - run more than 10 yrs. Death of one bird is enough to justify the program. The program would stop oil spills. {probe} It would keep the beaches clean for surfers. It would keep the pollution out of the seas & beaches. {probe} It would save the wildlife or ecosystems. It would keep the environment cleaner & protect the harmed wildlife. {probe} No. It would prevent the oil spills from killing off the animals in the coastline. {probe} No. It would minimize the damage and harm to the wildlife you talked about. {probe} No. I know that they're not endangered & I'm an animal lover. {probe} I think the protection of sea life is an ongoing thing affecting fishing restaurants and related trade. & Secondly, it's best to get a program in place that fixes or attempts to fix a problem before it happens. It is more cost effective. I was in Saudi Arabia during the oil dump and saw what it did to the coast and water. {probe} It would protect the animals and the coastline from oil. People - commercial fishermen would be out of jobs. So we have to protect the jobs. It also stinks - it would protect coastline. Hopefully it would keep the oil from hitting the shoreline. It's a lot harder to clean up after it hits the shore. You would have less bird clean up. {probe} I don't think $120 is too much. {probe} It would help prevent damage to our coastlines. {probe} Saving the wildlife at the shoreline is important. {probe} To keep the shore-line clean. {probe} It would help the animals and plants at the coast. {probe} no. To protect that wildlife. {probe} Many face the danger of extinction. That area is beautiful and I love the creatures. {probe} It would preserve the environment. {probe} I really don't believe the long term effect of an oil spill would be eradicated in 10 years. Like you said - there is no extinction but there could be and it's better to save it now than later. {probe} I like that oil would be covered so there's no more spilling. {probe} No. You mean to force me? {No, {probe}} because it's a good program. {probe} I think if this program comes through our ocean would be in real good condition. {probe} The whole liking creatures would have a safety life. It's important to keep a balance in nature. {probe} I want my children to have the same coast beauty in future years. And $220 doesn't seem that much. If the program does it, I think it's worth it. {probe} 66 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10258 b-2 10269 b-2 10276 b-2 10277 b-2 10278 b-2 10279 b-2 10281 b-2 10282 b-2 10286 b-2 10289 b-2 10290 b-2 10296 b-2 10297 b-2 10299 b-2 10302 b-2 10303 b-2 10304 b-2 10305 b-2 612892886 Set up the 3 areas and pay for escorting the ships kind of like water policemen & the fact that they would be right there to contain it & prevent injury to the birds and animals & just because they're not endangered does not mean that we shouldn't care about them and worry about their habitats. It will help protect the shore and animals. {probe} After the ten years there would be a slow down of the increase in oil cost. {probe} Can't think of anything else. To protect our seashore, because oil spills can be catastrophic and present programs are not effective if there are any. If there are programs they are inefficient. I'm an outdoors person, I go to the coast all the time. It's only time before a major. {probe} oil spill. It would provide safety for the coast. {probe} I guess it would reassure that there wouldn't be any more oil spills. {probe} To save the wildlife, not to mention our ocean. Mostly hold the oil companies some way responsible. Bandaid. {probe} It would just be a bandaid, but at least it's something. I feel that I'm a responsible citizen, and if we don't do this, we can't call ourselves human beings & Americans. {probe} No - it has nothing to do with how the program is written. This is a cheaper buy than a big spill. We could enjoy the types of wildlife more. {probe} We've had oil spills before where we've lost these types of animals. {probe} That's all. It would save the life of some of the animals and birds. {probe} It certainly would make the waters cleaner. {probe} I've known people who have been swimming & covered with oil & it's a health hazard. I also don't feel all the fish swim away & are affected and we are eating them. {probe} No. Well because I want the water kept clean and I think it would be preventative and keep it under control until the ships have the double hulls. $25 doesn't seem too high a price to pay for this. {probe} It would make the oil companies responsibly function. {probe} It is a stepping stone in saving our environment. {probe} Save the birds & wildlife. It would offer environmental safeguards. {probe} Possibly prevent more damage than what is outlined here in numbers of the birds being killed. {probe} Make the beaches better. {probe} The water won't be contaminated. {probe} The birds won't die. {probe} The ones the oil spills will kill. {probe} That's all. It would prevent the unnecessary killing of wildlife and it would keep the beaches clean. {probe} The shore creatures more than the birds. {probe} No that's it preserve the wildlife & help keep the beaches clean. It's not what the program would do - the world was better when I was a kid. There are lots of kids that won't see what I saw - in Colorado when I was young, I saw the migration of geese, ducks... {probe} The harbor is so filthy now - the coastline isn't what it was. {probe} To preserve the coastline and the wildlife there. Maybe some kid will want to swim there. Man has really ruined things. {probe} No. Make water cleaner for swimming and for the birds. {probe} Wild life would save some of them. {probe} Keep from killing the birds and missing up the coastline. {probe} What it says in there {takes book & points to Card G}. It would prevent spills & protect those birds & animals. Pretty soon they would disappear if we don't protect them. Those birds maybe eventually will become extinct if we don't do this program. It is useful to put those centers there. It's very natural there now. I don't want it change. This will prevent trouble! 67 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10319 b-2 10320 b-2 10322 b-2 10324 b-2 10325 b-2 10327 b-2 10332 b-2 10335 b-2 10337 b-2 10339 b-2 10340 b-2 10342 b-2 10343 b-2 10345 b-2 10352 b-2 10354 b-2 10355 b-2 10361 b-2 10364 b-2 10367 b-2 10368 b-2 612892886 $25.00 extra is not that much to prevent that from happening to the wildlife. Just the ten years is not that long. It would be worth $25.00 to me and since the oil companies would pay for the running of the program. I think it is a good plan. {probe} It would protect the wildlife, the birds and wildlife on the Central Coast. And the spills may affect the drinking water in the long run. It sounds like a good preventative to me. {probe} It would somewhat insure me that an oil spill would be taken care of. It would lessen the spread of the oil spill. {probe} They would have a better way to prevent the oil spills from hitting under water pipes and rocks. {probe} Provide jobs. I grew up in California and I want to keep the coastline free of oil spills and 220.00 is not too much out of total income. {probe} It would make the oil companies more responsible. It's always worthwhile to prevent spills and $25.00 is reasonable if the oil companies pay the rest. {probe} If it's a guaranteed one time cost. Help protect it. {probe} {probe} {Nothing at either probe} {R indicated that I should continue.} Protect or improve protection of the ocean and the coast from the damage of oil spills. Very important to keep clean for the future generations, very destructive oil. It causes problems for future. We have to prevent these problems. {probe} No. It would prevent 12,000 birds from dying. I'm sure it's not just birds. And other animals too would be saved. They get oil on their fur and can't swim no matter what they say about them. It would protect my state beaches and require oil company retribution for that damage and preventions of damage. I believe in protecting wildlife. {probe} It would save this wildlife. It would make cleaner water too. It would protect these birds, the wildlife there, the water, the beaches, and in the long term even ourselves. It would further protect these animals from the effects of oil spills. {probe} No. Nothing else. Protecting our animals and plants. We will have a cleaner ocean. We need birds. We need saltwater plants. They add to our environment. {probe} We need birds & plants. Birds have a right to live. Save the animals. {probe} Those {pointing to book} birds and small animals. I don't think humans should encroach on wildlife just because we're human. {probe} I think that's enough. The oil companies should have to pay for all the cleanup. How successful is it really? The premise that it would prevent otherwise unpreventable damage makes me in favor. {probe} {probe} That it would lessen the severity, presumably, of an oil spill - the amount spilled. I think it needs this program. {probe} I think the program is good. {probe} Everybody should pay for this. It's only one time. {probe} This program will fix the problem. It is good to protect the wildlife you mentioned. {probe} It would make the oil companies be accountable for their mistakes. Basically, it prevents pollution. {probe} Nothing else.10367 The program would save the wildlife you talked about. {probe} It would clean up harbors. 68 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10369 b-2 10375 b-2 10376 b-2 10379 b-2 10380 b-2 10382 b-2 10386 b-2 10388 b-2 10392 b-2 10394 b-2 10395 b-2 10419 b-2 10421 b-2 10425 b-2 10426 b-2 10427 b-2 10430 b-2 10432 b-2 10440 b-2 10441 b-2 10443 b-2 612892886 It would save the wildlife that you talked about & clean the ocean. {probe} No. It would clean the coast up, save the wildlife that's expected to die. {probe} Keep the coast clean. {probe} It would make it safer to go to the beaches if there's a spill. It would protect this wildlife and then animals. {probe} That's it. It would prevent the endangerment of those animals. I was in Alaska & I saw the birds after that. {probe} That's all. Actually, it's not that serious, the way you explained it. But I'm for preserving wildlife, those birds take a while to recover, it takes kerosene to get the oil off of them. {probe} It's worth it just to keep the oil off the beach, $120 isn't that bad. {probe} Protection of the shoreline, natural resources would be my primary reason. {probe} I think a secondary reason would be that it would put the responsibility for protecting natural resources on the oil companies. {probe} {I - what do you mean by natural resources?} The wildlife, the natural resources. If the area around San Simeon (Hearst Castle) would be damaged by a spill in that area, tourism would decrease in that area. It would stop the oil leaks and the killing of the birds you told me about. I think prevention is better than intervention and the minimal cost provides maximum protection of our shore. {probe} It would guarantee to watch over the ships carrying oil. Keep the surf clean & everything natural. {probe} Keep the coast clean. That's the major concern of mine. Prevent animals dying & protect the beaches from oil spills. Save the wildlife. {probe} Keep our waters cleaner. Whether it's called birds or other animals, we need to protect the ocean and our environment. {probe} Just to keep the ocean clean in the long run. {probe} no. I think any way we can protect our ocean is important, we get fish from the ocean & we are destroying our plant. The ships should all have double hulls sooner than 10 yrs. They can afford it. The company should be responsible. {probe} No. I do enjoy going to beaches and as things are now I wouldn't feel safe going deep into the water - well, if there was a lot of oil, it would be very unhealthy. {probe} {For specifics}. It would clean up the oil before it would have a chance to affect anything. I wouldn't kill birds or other wildlife - because they would clean up the oil right away. {probe} First of all if it will save all the wildlife it's worth it. {probe} Also the oil would contaminate the water and that's not good for humans. {probe} People go swimming in dirty water. It's very important to protect birds & sealife. It could be more than 12,000 birds be destroyed. {probe} this program would help stop that. It will save California from pollution. {probe} I can go to the beach & swim without getting a disease. {probe} Aside from these mini spills that we are having are the [illegible]. It would possibly prevent a spill of catastrophic measures. {probe} Would not following those ships down prevent those ships from hitting rocks or something like that. It's always going to cost the taxpayer something. It would make sure that don't have the big mess like they had in Alaska and all the problems. {probe} It would save the animals lives. It would save the wildlife. {probe} It would keep the ocean clean in case of an oil spill. 69 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10446 b-2 10447 b-2 10450 b-2 10452 b-2 10454 b-2 10455 b-2 10457 b-2 10460 b-2 10478 b-2 10479 b-2 10482 b-2 10484 b-2 10485 b-2 10486 b-2 10487 b-2 10490 b-2 10492 b-2 10496 b-2 10500 b-2 612892886 If it needed to be done it's gotta be done. {probe} It will prevent any further problems in the ocean if there's a spill. It would control the oil from lifting the sand and causing most of the problems. {probe} Being an ocean cover and doing ocean sports. I don't want to be in that oil. It would prevent that. It would protect the environment & create jobs. By this I mean set up ports, build ships, man the ports, man the ships. {probe} No. Protect the environment. {probe} I don't like to see birds killed. {probe} No. Save life. {probe} Life of the birds and other creatures who are in it. {probe} That oil is awful. I'd do anything to keep this from happening. I've seen those poor birds covered with oil. {probe} Protect the birds and other animals. {probe} The ones on the drawing. {probe} Ten years is too long to wait. I've always admired the gulls. {probe} No. I eat a lot of fish. {probe} It would protect the birds and the sea animals and salt water plants - the one in the picture - I use the kelp for different things - we eat kelp and use it as a garnish. There's no reason not too. {probe} {probe} {specific}. It is a minimal any point of money to pay for a ten year program. {probe} No nothing. For that amount, the $65, it is worthwhile. It doesn't sound like a large number of wildlife but if those were humans that would be alarming. {probe} Those would be aesthetic costs that would affect tourism and enjoyment of the coastline. {probe} No. Ensure that the coastline is kept clean & oil free. And the ocean is an untapped resource - we can't abuse it. And I like seafood. It's nice to go to the beach, or fishing, & not see f---in' crap & oil all over the sand. {probe} It would make the oil companies spend their own profits on keeping the ocean clean. The oil companies are just like the damn tobacco companies - big profits. Make the major oil companies responsible for their actions. They take too many chances to make a buck. It's over responsibility as humans of the race to take care of wildlife. {probe} It would put more pressure on the oil companies to not make the mess like they did with the Valdez. The prevention centers will be there, so the response time will be shorter. Protecting the environment more. We're beach people, & we love to go down to the beach. {probe} How fast they can clean up the oil spill. Well, I like the fact that the escort boats would escort the tankers and prevent birds from harm. {probe} And it's cleaning up the oil. It protects and keeps the oil from spilling as far as the wildlife & plant life is concerned. I'm concerned about the environment - I've seen pictures of what oil spills do and $5 is a small amount to pay. {probe} No. It would provide jobs and protect the environment but the environment doesn't sound like the main reason or purpose for this program. {probe} No nothing else. To let my kids enjoy the coastal waters like I have and I [illegible] continue enjoying them for - that's where we go when we go out of town. {probe} Just to keep the earth clean. {probe} No. Because then we would have it there. I would hope that we didn't have to use (the program). {probe} It helps prevent oil spills. I am a fisherman and oil spills put us in jeopardy. The $5 is a relative insignificant tax increase to do anything. {probe} I treasure the natural environment and see it under assault. {probe} Anything we can do to pressure the natural environment is worth the expenditure of public movies. {probe} 70 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10505 b-2 10506 b-2 10507 b-2 10509 b-2 10510 b-2 10511 b-2 10512 b-2 10513 b-2 10515 b-2 10516 b-2 10517 b-2 10521 b-2 10523 b-2 10524 b-2 10527 b-2 10538 b-2 10540 b-2 10543 b-2 10545 b-2 10546 b-2 10552 b-2 612892886 This looks like a quick response using good technology to lessen the impact of the spill. It would keep the ocean clean, & save the birds & the fish. {probe} Keep the ocean clean. At least they wouldn't have all the oil in the water. Besides , then I could eat crab more often {laughing}. Prevent pollution. {probe} Preserving the integrity of the area for enjoyment and use. Preventing the deaths of sea creatures. {probe} That's it. The personally responsibility that it would demand on the household members. People would only do those things If they have to, so that's why I would vote for a program like this. {probe} {Specifics}. It might help to deep the shorelines a little bit cleaner. {probe} No - but I think having the double hulls is a good idea. {probe} No. {RR} Makes them have double hull, even though they get them in 10 yrs. I think the escort is more important then the double hull. They should inspect all ships for sea worthiness, see that the welds are O.K. {probe} {Specifics} Protect our shores and wildlife and for the peoples' sake to enjoy the shoreline and seafood. {probe} Just to prevent the spills from causing harm to the wildlife. If it is only a one time charge I think it is worth it. It looks like a good plan to me. {probe} With everything you told me it would be a help to everything. {probe} Anytime we can save the birds or animals it is worthwhile even if they aren't endangered. {probe} No. It would help the birds. {probe} Lots if them die from the oil - it's not fare. {probe} Keep the beaches clean so people can walk barefoot. It would help the shoreline stay clean. As I said we are always going to the coast [sic]. Five dollars isn't that much to have to pay. It would keep the bird in the coast area. {probe} We need to do something to help protect the wildlife at the coast. This program should give some help. {probe} Clean up the oil companies act. If we vote this in they're going to have to clean up their act. {probe} I've been a CA native all my life. I've seen 1st hand what oil spills do. {probe} No. I like nature & I like the environment clean - The habitat of the animals should remain. The ducks have no place to return to. They go midwest now. They don't want to go to a polluted area. {probe} {For program specifics}. I like animals all right. That's why. {probe} {For specifics}. Protect the coast. {probe} It's wildlife. {probe} & undetermined long-time effect in the presence of the oil residuals. {probe} It would protect the animals you mentioned and it would protect the coastline. {probe} No. It's worth it to save the birds you talked about. {probe} Nothing else. Saving so many birds and other sealife. I feel that's where life started and we've got to do something to protect that. To keep the area clean, and of course the animals. California used to be clean. I'd like to get my kid to the beach without get a bunch of oil on him. Protection of wildlife and protection of beaches and safety of swimming in the water? Have the beaches cleaner, the water cleaner, the atmosphere would be better. Our children would have something nice around them for the future. {probe} All the 71 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10553 b-2 10570 b-2 10571 b-2 10572 b-2 10577 b-2 10580 b-2 10582 b-2 10583 b-2 10590 b-2 10591 b-2 10594 b-2 10596 b-2 10599 b-2 10601 b-2 10605 b-2 10608 b-2 10609 b-2 10616 b-2 10617 b-2 612892886 species there wouldn't go extinct and it would be a cleaner environment for the birds and for us. {probe} That's about it. Hopefully - if it's run as it was claimed - if done efficiently, and if they could make it near - foolproof - that would be reason enough. {probe} Not only saving those animals, but also preventing harm to the environment itself. {probe} The beaches are used by everyone. They should be kept clean & pollution-free. {probe} Nothing more I can think of right now. Help the environment which is in serious trouble. {probe} Help prevent oil spills. {probe} We are both coastal people. I think you owe something to the people coming up behind you. If you can do anything to prevent it (oil spills). I'm for it. We had a wonderful life living at the beach most of our lives. Would like to see the young people have the same opportunity. {probe} {probe} That's an odd one, the people transporting a commodity should be responsible for it's safety. {probe} It would be a cooperative effort between the people and [transporter] to move this in a safe and equitable manner and not be a threat to the environment. {probe} It's a show of good faith. {probe} No. It would give additional insurance against oil spills and maybe skimmers and fence would help based on wildlife we talked about. I would vote for it for the special reason that will protect the environment of the State of California. {probe} Also in order to save animals, the birds and fish. Clean water - you're not killing all the animals that are in there. I've seen the big oil spill - I wouldn't want that to happen again. It's disgusting. Jobs. {probe} If the ships & equipment were built here in California. {probe} Protection of wildlife. Anything that can be done to prevent harm to birds and other wildlife would get my vote. I've seen pictures of what happened to the birds after the Alaska spill. By saving the animals. {probe} The bird and the little ones - sea creatures that you showed me. {probe} No. The $5 cost! I would have said "no" but for $5 I'll save the birds & that 10 miles of shoreline. It's worth $5 to put that play into use. Help the wildlife and save the coast. {probe} Since I live close to the beach and I enjoy going to the beach if an oil spill occurs it would ruin our enjoyment for awhile, six months, maybe or more it depends how long I think the water is safe for me to go in. Prevent damage to the coast. {probe} and the wildlife part of it. It would protect the water, where people use the beaches, as well as the wildlife it described. Someday we may have to use the seawater. {probe} for drinking and bathing. Anything that helps fight pollution of the environment, even though it might be minimal it's worth $5. {probe} It would prevent oil spills from having wildlife. {probe} Provide security in the event of an oil spill & improve response time to restrict damage from an oil spill. Stops oil spills. It helps prevent the deaths of small animals, and ruining the shoreline for our enjoyment. For one thing I don't think they don't have the right to cause harm or suffering to the wildlife for our own business purposes. {probe} It's a pretty horrible death to be covered by oil. {probe} Depending on the size of the spill the oil could release many 72 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10618 b-2 10619 b-2 10622 b-2 10624 b-2 10627 b-2 10628 b-2 10629 b-2 10633 b-2 10638 b-2 10641 b-2 10643 b-2 10646 b-2 10647 b-2 10656 b-2 10657 b-2 10659 b-2 10660 b-2 612892886 toxins that would last for a long time. {probe} I'm worried about lasting effects to the environment that they don't know about yet. {I couldn't probe further}. There's harm to the animals. {probe} I think the tankers should be charged. {probe} Prevention is better than to wait for a catastrophe. {probe} {After my last probe she said that's all. I couldn't probe further. But she did say prevention}. A stitch in time saves time. {probe} By doing this now you prevent the loss of bird life, and the use of the coastline. Ten years is a long time. Keep the spills from becoming too big - catch them fast. I think the fact we are thinking ahead for prevention is good and the cost ($65) is relatively low for saving the wildlife and keeping our beaches clean. {probe} It's important to protect as much wildlife as possible, providing that the cost is reasonable, and the oil companies are willing to do their share. I figured that the cost would be more than that. {probe} I've always been interested in conservation. {probe} No. But the one they had up North caused so much damage & clean-up costs, it seems to me there should be some safeguards. I like the idea of the escort ships just being there to help with what they can't see from their ships. {referring to the tankers} {probe} {{probe} for specifics} I like the idea of having the coastline protected. I don't like to see animals suffer. The main thing is it's only $5.00. {probe} The escort ships going out with the ability to contain the oil spill and contain it right away. It's something to try & prevent or manage oil spills. I feel however the $5 would be lost in the bureaucratic baloney - the costs eventually will be passed on to the taxpayer by oil increases. {probe} The endangerment to the wildlife and the endangerment to the industries that make a living from the sea life - also the beaches - there's so much oil. I think protecting our environment is important and if a program can be set up with the $5 I'm all for it. {probe} Nothing more specific than caring for our environment. It's not that expensive. {probe} It's just cheap to protect the birds for each household. {probe} Save our coastline which I think is very valuable. {probe} It would provide jobs for people to work at the three stations. I believe working in the environment is good for them. {probe} I want my children to experience healthy coastlines - Jobs in the environment are the future and we have a lot of work to do their. We need to take care of our land, water, air or we are going to die. Prevent the unnecessary death of wildlife. {probe} Shore and ocean wildlife, birds, and mollusks. {probe} Possibly create jobs, but I don't know how many. Just for saving the birds and shore line, it's worth protecting. {probe} {{probe} for specifics} It would protect people who use the shoreline. Keep the beaches & shoreline from harm. {probe} Any further harm from oil to the animals & water. {probe} All the reasons you gave. {probe} No. To protect the birds and animals. Any time you disturb the ecology it takes a long time to recover. {probe} It would protect the ecology and environment on the Central Coast even if it is only for the ten years. I like the outdoors. {probe} I like birds. {probe} I love the water & beach. {probe} For the future of the kids so they can learn about birds & fish. {probe} No. {I could not get this woman to be specific about this programs benefits - after 4 probes, I gave up.} It would keep that coastline free of pollution from oil spills. {probe} No. 73 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10661 b-2 10662 b-2 10667 b-2 10673 b-2 10676 b-2 10677 b-2 10679 b-2 10681 b-2 10683 b-2 10684 b-2 10690 b-2 10695 b-2 10698 b-2 10699 b-2 10701 b-2 10702 b-2 10703 b-2 10707 b-2 10708 b-2 10709 b-2 10711 b-2 10716 b-2 10719 b-2 10720 b-2 10724 b-2 612892886 I like the idea of having immediate response of the escort ship. {probe} Instead of having to wait two days for them to get there and start cleaning up. It would protect animals and birds and sealife that have no defense against man made mistakes, and we must leave something for our grandkids. - {probe} the main reason would be to have a clean coastline for the future generations. {probe} That's basically it - It's not an animal thing - It's for the environment. {{probe} for specifics}. It all come down to beauty & preserving all it's natural resource. {probe} It would be worth it to me to maintain the beauty. {{probe} for specifics}. I'm willing to pay for it just to save the birds and the fish. {probe} The protection of the coastline is very important as far as I'm concerned. {probe} Keep the coastline clean of oil so the people can enjoy it. It would keep all that dirty water away from our beaches not only that it would protect the wildlife. {probe} That's it. Protect the wildlife, the shoreline, the past spills have been big money makers for companies. {probe} Saving the animals {probe}{specifics} No. Well, it would save a lot of the wildlife and the people going to the beaches - it could be harmful to people {probe}. There are more reasons to vote for it than against it {probe}. That's about it. {It would} keep the beaches clean and it will keep these animals alive. {probe}. Its about conservation! So that those animals won't die. {probe}. So there won't be any pollution in the ocean. It would protect these birds. I've seen it first hand with the Navy. {probe} And {it would} protect the fish. To save this animal life {probe}. It's bad for people - the oil. To stop killing the wildlife I was just watching that on TV. The oil was killing birds and seal {probe} the fish, the mammals, the birds {probe} that's all. It'd stop the death's of the - the wildlife - the birds - what'd you call them - the small animals and plants, also - It would stop the oil spills. {probe}. {Shook head no}. As it said, protecting wildlife and preventing more pollution. It does cause harm to the environment. That's about it {probe} no. It would help to keep the birds. It would also help to keep the shoreline clean. {probe}. That's it. It decreases the number of birds and animals being injured. {probe} That's all. Because it is going to protect the birds and also the shoreline beaches, fish, plants. {probe} That's all. Basically because of all the reasons explained here, to save the birds, and the fish. {probe} That's it. I think that it's not what it does for me but what it will do for the environment. {probe} We are due for a major spill and we need to prevent it or most of our coastline will have this problem. Not just this area. We use our coastline all the time. We need to save our shoreline and all these animals. I don't like to see the animals killed that you mentioned. {probe} No. It would save the 5 birds and help reduce contamination. {probe}. No. Because it will help future generation. The water will not be contaminated. {probe} Also it will protect the birds we talked about. 74 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10728 b-2 10732 b-2 10735 b-2 10736 b-2 10738 b-2 10739 b-2 10740 b-2 10741 b-2 10742 b-2 10745 b-2 10746 b-2 10747 b-2 10748 b-2 10752 b-2 10755 b-2 10764 b-2 10766 b-2 10769 b-2 10770 b-2 10773 b-2 612892886 By not polluting the world. It's not just the birds, but it is our ocean and people eat what comes out of it every day. {probe} The escort ships would help stop the pollution. It would save the wildlife you talked about. {probe} Nothing else. It sounds good - I'd do it for the wildlife and to have clean water our beaches. {probe} To keep the wildlife from dying. {probe} Who wants to swim in oily water or have dirty beaches. It stops killing all the birds. {probe} It's not legal that the oil isn't cleaned up. I've seen the birds on TV with oil all over them. The oil spills have been a big problem in the past and if this program would work, it would reserve the wildlife and keep beaches clean. {probe} No, that's about all. It would save the animals and make the ocean sofa for animals and people to be in it {probe}. All of the animals - when I went to the beach, I didn't see any starfish or sand dollars - the beaches are nasty - to clean up the oil pollution. {probe} No. 5 dollars is for keeping the coast clean. But not for the birds, we already have too many sea gulls, I like to walk in a clean beach. I do not care about the rest. {probe}. Will help to prevent all the sea wildlife to survive, sea gulls; marine plants and I want my children to go to clean beaches.{probe}. It would protect the animals - although they shouldn't really take it from tax payers it should be the oil companies {probe}. Just all the animals - {probe} on the shore and in the water. {probe}. No. Protection of the coast. {probe} People use it. Also the wildlife to keep in balance. {probe} It's time to finally do something about this to keep a check on the tankers, like we have our own response team here because their running record is not very good like the Exxon Valdez spill and the spill in the North Sea near England. I don't want to see our coastlines ruined. {probe} It has to be harmful to people and wildlife. You want to swim in clean water. {probe}. What does the oil pay until they raise our gas prices? {probe}. {It} protect[s] the environment {probe} ultimately {we're} protecting the food chain. {We are} underestimating the effects {on wildlife}. $5 is not a lot of money. {probe} No. The earth is no different from how we are. The way we view the earths body and our bodies are the same. {probe}. It would show an attitude of concern for the environment, and that is a plus. {probe} To not see more birds covered with oil would do it. Just the protection of wildlife. {probe} Make beaches cleaner for [illegible]. It makes it hard for people to use the beaches when they're covered with oil. Keep const. clean. Wildlife, sea gull, will be [mive], salt water plants and any kind of sea life. {probe} {probe}. I'm willing to do anything to protect our coastlines especially against oil spills. {{probe} specifics}. Save some birds and wildlife. I'm a bird and wildlife lover. {probe} That's about it. Protect our water, protect man's livelihood from the natural resources. We have left {probe} The fishermen, That's how they make a living {probe}. It will create a fund to protect the natural resources. To prevent the spills and stuff and other pollution. {probe}. {specifics}. Well first of all, $5 {five} is a small amount to pay and the ecosystem must be protected for me and my kids. I realize the number of birds is small but the land and 75 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10774 b-2 10775 b-2 10777 b-2 10778 b-2 10783 b-2 10788 b-2 10790 b-2 10791 b-2 10793 b-2 10797 b-2 10798 b-2 10799 b-2 10801 b-2 10802 b-2 10803 b-2 10805 b-2 10808 b-2 10809 b-2 612892886 the shore, the whole ecosystem must be respected and protected. {probe}. No, nothing else specific except having all California participate. I would be willing to pay one time fee if a specific plan and system to deal with oil spills. {Probe}. I think it's important to protect the shore line. It's a one time tax instead of an on-going expense. The survival of more birds. Five is not really that much for having the escorts for ten years. We need to save the birds and wildlife - that's the main thing {probe} No. There's so much pollutants and everything. The more we can do to protect the planet and protect the delicate balance, the better. {probe}. I like the way it can clean up the oil if something happens. But some of the other things you asked me about earlier are more important. But I want my kid to be able to go to the ocean to see the sea otters, starfish and sea urchins. Prevent oil spills and economic loss. Prevent fishermen from being out of work. {probe}. No. Its worth the expense as a good preventative measure, it's a start {probe} It'll save the wildlife and ocean life. I would like to know where the gasoline tax could be [diverted ? -illegible] to this project first. {Probe} . Because I would like to prevent oil spills on the Central Coast. And preventative ways would protect the wildlife on the Central Coast. Protect those birds and shoreline, any spill is a bad spill. {probe}. Anytime you can correct a spill in the ocean you should do something about it. For five bucks but those programs didn't usually go away that's the down side. {probe}. For a one time deal for five dollars, I would do it. But looking at the graphs I think it would be a waste of time to save a ship with oil on it. {probe specifics}. Protect our coast line from oil spills and maintain its beauty. Keep oil off the beaches. The foremost reason would be protection of wildlife. {probe specifics}. On scale of other taxes we pay $5 is almost nothing. If they can put a program to work for that little money it should be done. {probe}. I think it would but another burden on the oil companies. They would have to be more careful on their transport[ant - sic] process. Preserve the integrity of the coastline. {Probe}. Keep this environment from being abused. {Probe}. By oil spills. {Probe}. It's harder to bring things back to their original stat than to maintain it. {Probe}. Although the initial cost may seem prohibitive - it's worth the set up cost as long as the oil Co. maintain the program. It shouldn't be disbanded afterwards. Well it would protect wildlife and fish. {probe} For the simple health hazards. {probe} [illegible] too many birds and fish being killed . And it's not healthy to swim in the dirty water. Protect the wildlife. {probe} Just to protect them from the oil. {probe} That's it. Protect this coastline that I love. {probe}. We camp a lot and my husband fishes and this would prevent the harm from the oil spills in this area. {probe}. No. It would keep the beaches clean. {probe}. It would keep the water from being contaminated. Not harm the animals. {probe} Try to keep oil out of the ocean. {probe} Probably be less oil spills, so less money spent. Eventually have to look to future, protect the bird, and wildlife. {probe} This is a one time cost. Our future has to be thought about. What we have for our children to grow up with and see. 76 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10812 b-2 10813 b-2 10814 b-2 10829 b-2 10830 b-2 10833 b-2 10835 b-2 10839 b-2 10842 b-2 10843 b-2 10844 b-2 10852 b-2 10853 b-2 10858 b-2 10860 b-2 10861 b-2 10865 b-2 10866 b-2 10868 b-2 10872 b-2 10874 b-2 10875 b-2 612892886 Because it will help the environment. {probe} The program will keep the shorelines clean and save the birds at the coast. {probe} I want my children to be able to enjoy the shoreline as I did when I was young. We only have one earth & we have to start protecting it better than in the past. {probe} Everything is getting polluted. And we've got to get it cleaned up. {probe} Especially the coastline. {probe} Not everyone is concerned. {{probe} for specifics}. The first - the looser in this thing is the wildlife itself. Man fighting amongst themselves. I don't think the birds should loose. In the long run the customer might benefit because if the oil companies don't have to pay so much. {{probe} for specifics}. I don't want the spill to harm any wildlife. {probe} It would protect all this wildlife. Why can't they see the rocks (in the ocean) anyway with all of our technology? It will prevent the death of 12,000 birds. {probe} I don't want the shoreline harmed either - it will prevent that. I like all the animals. {probe} I'd pay for it so the animals wouldn't die. Good for environment. It's because it would prevent our health from being harmed as well as the birds and animals in the picture. If there is an oil spill I would not want to swim there because it could cause possible disease and damage my health. It would help protect environment & at that cost OK especially if oil companies can't be made to pay all costs. They should but if this program is the only way to protect environment then okay. It would protect nature; therefore protecting human & society. Harder rules & double-hulled ships. {probe} Huge escort ships would prevent or lessen oil spill damage. Prevent killing birds & preserving marine life--prevent oil spills. Well, it would save the environment and all the animals that the oil would hurt. {probe} No. I've seen the coastline deteriorate since I was a little boy. {probe} It would put the brakes on commercial exploitation. {probe} Commercial profits at the expense of the environment. {probe} It could prevent the destruction of the coastline. I'm a fisherman. {probe} No. {It will} clean up the coast line {probe}. It would prevent this awful stuff from happening to these animals too. It would prevent the oil from getting to shore and killing all the birds we talked about. {probe}. No. I care about what happens to these animals we discussed. {probe}. I want the water clean when I go to the beach. Also for future generations. It would insure that shoreline & water would be clean for the next generation. {probe} Make a statement to giant oil co. (empires) we care. {probe} $5 is a small amount to pay for prevention to protect the environ. {probe} The cost is so low. {probe} I look for the future of my children. I want them to see the ocean clean and the animals healthy. It [illegible] cause decreases in the future if we don't do that. It would protect the animals and the environment; to prevent the animals to be injured. {probe} That's all. Preserve our shoreline and wildlife. Maybe give some jobs to some people. It would avoid the overall damage to birds, wildlife and water. {probe} Deaths and injuries to all wildlife. 77 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10876 b-2 10878 b-2 10879 b-2 10882 b-2 10885 b-2 10887 b-2 10893 b-2 10894 b-2 10895 b-2 10905 b-2 10907 b-2 10909 b-2 10910 b-2 10913 b-2 10914 b-2 10918 b-2 10921 b-2 10923 b-2 10924 b-2 10930 b-2 10934 b-2 612892886 Protect the environment. {probe} The sea life. {probe} Save the wildlife. I know this is necessary. I'm a member of the Green Peace. It will prevent the killing of these birds. It would prevent the harm to wildlife. It would keep our waters clean and clear for us and the wildlife. The fact that it is environmental conscious. {probe} The fact that it would only cost $25 - relatively inexpensive. {probe} No. To help the environment. {probe} This program would keep the (coastal) bird from being killed. {probe} It would keep the shoreline clean from the oil. {probe} Ecological effects of oil spill is devastating. I use to live along the coast I saw what an oil spill does to animals - Once the animals are gone - they're gone - It's the same with the land - Spills destroy the land. {probe}{{probe} specifics}. It would keep the coast in such better shape. I've lived here all my life and I would hate to see the ghastly oil on the beaches. {probe} It would force the oil companies to be more concerned about the damage they do. If I could have a choice I would rather spend on education. {probe} No damage alone is worth the money. {{probe} specific}. Anything that will help save the beauty of our shoreline and save the birds is definitely worth $5.00, also keeping the water pure is important. {probe} If it makes the ships more study. {probe} It would save all the wildlife along the coast - if you could see the poor birds with all that oil on them. {probe} No. It would keep the number of birds & small animals from decreasing. {probe} it would decrease the amount of harm down to wildlife & their habitat. Oil spills are tough to clean up. I did it at one time for a living. {probe} Sounds like an easier way to clean it up. {probe} Also it may create more jobs which are needed here. {probe} No. It's not only the environmental issue it's a tourism issue. {probe} We need that coastline clean for tourism also - not only to save those animals. Because coast line belongs to everyone. We should be able to preserve them. {probe} We have an obligation to leave things as we find them for our children. {probe} Police/monitor the ships. {probe} Stop the damage to env. & wildlife. {probe} It protects the wildlife you mentioned. I think some of these small animals could become extinct - this would prevent that happening. It would not only prevent oil spills, but would contain one if it occurred. {probe} Also over the next 10 years, something like the Alaskan spill may occur which would possibly cost the taxpayers much more. It's better to prevent than to fix. Help protect the environment as a whole - I can't go into the water because it is so polluted - oil spills make it worse. It would stop unknown side effects. {probe} of the oil spills. It also makes legislation to keep big companies in check and responsible for their oil spills. It's a preventive program, which is good. It would keep the shores clean, & be more effective than what we have right now. {probe} No, I can't think. Save the spills from destroying the birds and upsetting the balance. {probe} I don't think areas recover that quickly. {probe} It also lays groundwork for future program if god forbid they ever drill for oil up here. {probe} Oil doesn't have a place on the shores no matter what it kills. {probe} I don't believe places like Santa Barbara are as productive because of the oil spilled. The fish leave but where do they go? 78 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10940 b-2 10942 b-2 10944 b-2 10945 b-2 10947 b-2 10949 b-2 10952 b-2 10954 b-2 10963 b-2 10964 b-2 10965 b-2 10967 b-2 10968 b-2 10969 b-2 10971 b-2 10972 b-2 10973 b-2 10975 b-2 10976 b-2 612892886 Well it would stop oil spills. {probe} I was thinking of the oil spills and how it would cost more later and it would help the wildlife. {probe} No. Save the wildlife and the coast and prevent a lot of tragedy that have happened before. {probe} Like seals and otters. {probe} The birds you talked about. Basically having an on-site escort ship there - right there in the event of an accident the response would be immediate. Nip it in the bud especially with the supertankers. {probe} For my grandchildren so they could enjoy the coast as it is instead of deteriorating as it seems to be doing. {probe} Just protect the animals that don't seem to be there now. {probe} {probe} Giving the coastline more protection. Outside of saving lines of the birds, couldn't they use the recovered oil" Put it back in the tanker - a life is a life - re the birds and anything in the water [sic]. (Although I would prefer mine first.) {probe} Save everything you can save. {probe} No. It would protect the wildlife that's there - $5 isn't much, even though I think oil companies should be paying for it. {probe} No. I hike the way they split up the 3 major depots in order for the mess to be cleaned up quicker. {probe} It look very efficient and seems to cover the entire area. Protect the wildlife along the parts of the coast that have most of the wildlife. {probe} I've been involved in the recovery of an oil spill. {probe} Man has caused this. It is not natural and man should clean it up. {probe} no. Well, I feel the environment is being taken advantage of, you can't put a price on crime & education either. I'm all for this on oil spills. It's needed to protect wildlife and keep the oceans clean. {probe}. To protect the environment. {probe} Anything that has to do with pollution of air & water and animals is important. {probe} Too much damage is being done to land & water. I like to have clean water and beaches. {probe} and keep the birds safe. {probe} That's about it. Save all the animals and the pollution. {probe} I believe some of the fish and the abalone get harmed, and sea lions too, in an oil spill. I've seen it on TV. {{probe} specifics}. Keep our coast clear and natural. {probe} We just came back from the coast this week and enjoyed it very much. {probe} The response sounds fast. {{probe} specific}. It would prevent damage to the central part of our coastline. {probe} I've seen what an oil spill does to our shore here. If something can be done it would be worthwhile. In the event of an oil spill this preventive measure would lessen problems from the oil spill. {probe} All the problems - protect wildlife and keep the water free from contamination. Protect the birds. {probe} To prevent killing the birds. {probe} No. The oil companies would eventually be responsible for taking it over. Also, the fact that it would be a one time cost. Also, would I have to worry about our food being endangered; I like shellfish. {{probe} specific} It's one more step in maintaining the balance of creatures in the world. It's not up to us to diced if 12,000 birds survive. {probe} No, just what it does is good enough. {probe} No, not that I can think of. Keep and prevents the environment from being screwed up. {probe} Protects our beaches. Keeps them clean. {probe} And protects our wildlife from injury. 79 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10981 b-2 10986 b-2 10989 b-2 10990 b-2 10991 b-2 10992 b-2 10997 b-2 10998 b-2 10999 b-2 11002 b-2 11003 b-2 11004 b-2 11005 b-2 11006 b-2 11008 b-2 11009 b-2 11010 b-2 11012 b-2 612892886 It's like what happened in Alaska - We don't want it to happen here. {probe} The Valdez thing - it causes a lot of damage. {{probe} specifics}. To prevent harm to wildlife. To protect the ocean, especially since we do not take the environment seriously enough, we need to protect it. It will help the coasts to remain clean also the wildlife to be protected. {probe} That's basically it. It would protect tourism. It would make an effort to prevent accidents. It would make shipping & boating safer, also sailboats. {probe} That's all. Keep our water & shores clean. I love the beach. I think if there is a spill it will be contained. It would take a proactive stand in cleaning up spills before they can do detrimental harm to the environment. Save lives of innocent animals. {probe} They have a right to live and be safe. Even if it was one birds I would still vote for it. Everything is getting ruined now. {probe} It means life to me. {probe} Life for the animals that would be saved. I really don't know what benefit we people get from these birds. It would help our future generations of people to enjoy the birds and wildlife and clean beaches. {probe} We have to think of our environment in the future. It would keep our beaches clean. I'm for the protection of sea life and the protection of the environment for the people that live along the coast. They may have kids that swim in the water. Also, the birds in the area. {probe} Saving and sparing life, all life. Birds, plants, people - not letting people or things get infected. Protecting wildlife. {probe} To protect the birds. {probe} I like to take my dog to the park & there are no birds anymore. It's really sad. {probe} I feel the same way about sea life. The cost is low, relatively. {probe} One thing that I question is that the oil companies should be more responsible. {probe} Protection of the shoreline and protection of the animals. {probe} The fact that other states have used it. I think it is more harmful - (the spill) for other thing, that we don't know about (at this time). {probe} The birds being harmed also in this area where the oil spills. {probe} To insure that if a spill did occur there would be a vessel that would contain it. {probe} Keep the coast pristine for all of us to enjoy it. {probe} Prevent deaths of the animals {probe} That it. [sic] Well it would save wildlife and help cut back our pollution. I think oil spills have a bigger impact than just birds and animals. In the long run it effects our health. Oil companies just don't want to pay. They should. They'll raise prices on gasoline. {probe} That covers it. It'll damage the shoreline & kill the wildlife & fish. {probe} If this will prevent the damage that I've seen it would be worth it. {probe} Nothing else. There's a lot of people not paying tax's and maybe we could get some of that money. {probe} We should be taking care of food & land in the ocean instead of outer space. {probe} We need our marine animals healthy. {probe} No. {R kept digressing & talking about outer space as I continued to probe}. I have a big aversion to oil spills after seeing what happened in the oil spill in Alaska in that sound. {probe} Anything to protect the shoreline would be worth the $65. {probe} It is already outlined to what it will do. 80 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11019 b-2 11020 b-2 11021 b-2 11022 b-2 11023 b-2 11024 b-2 11025 b-2 11026 b-2 11028 b-2 11029 b-2 11030 b-2 11033 b-2 11035 b-2 11038 b-2 11039 b-2 11040 b-2 11048 b-2 11049 b-2 11056 b-2 11058 b-2 11060 b-2 11064 b-2 11069 b-2 11072 b-2 11077 b-2 612892886 Because the beaches are important for me . We must keep the ocean clean as well as the seashore. {probe} No. It would save the animals & birds we discussed. {probe} No, what about the hidden costs! {probe} No. It would make the water & shoreline clean & it would save the animals we looked at. {probe} No. Because it would help to preserve the wildlife you talked about. {probe} No! It saves our shoreline and all the animals we discussed. {probe} Nope. It would prevent contamination. Simply benefit the wildlife. The expenditure is a lot less than the benefit. I can afford it. It is important to save the wildlife. It protects against pollution which is a growing concern. {probe} Protect the wildlife. A bond issue might be better. Then have the oil companies pay it back. It lets the people enter the water by keeping the water clean. It would keep the small animals alive to be food for other animals and birds and the fish. Protects the wildlife which is important. Even protects the beaches. Provides protection from spills if it works efficiently. {probe} Less damage to fish & [illegible] if a spill does happen. The oil does contaminate the ocean & a prevention program would help to prevent this contamination. {probe} It would decrease the contamination that hurts people oil in the water we get in. Prevent death of animals & plants. Prevention of damage & harm to the coastline & the flora & fauna and it puts the cost burden back on the oil companies although it seems that we well all bear the costs sooner or later through higher prices at the pump. It saves this wildlife! It will save all that environment! If we humans impact nature we must rectify it. {probe} We need to be responsible for our actions. {probe} It will prevent any further damage to the area. It's OK for me to pay $25. {probe} This program keeps the shoreline clean, not only for the animals but for people. It covers what I think should be done. {probe} Those tankers should have double hulls now. {probe} I like the sound of it. {probe} The oil spill - there's too many animals that shouldn't be harmed & they're all here for a purpose. {probe} No. It would protect the birds and the animals from harm. {probe} Just I'm a fisherman and I like to be out in the ocean. {probe} All the animals out there. {probe} All of them. {probe} No. Save the wildlife and also the beaches. {probe} I'm only thinking about that area. {probe} Protect all the wildlife. Our ecosystem is all bound together. It's not just the birds & the animals we're talking about. Petroleum products are very toxic. {probe} Yes Keep the oil off the beaches. {probe} No - that's all. It's not only the animals, it's to protect our magnificent coastline. {probe} Preserve our coastline. I'm against offshore drilling for that reason. {probe} That's enough. Prevention of killing any kind of life in the ocean & keep it clean. {probe} {probe} {probe} Help to prevent oil spills. {probe} {{probe} specifics} I can't think of anything else. It would be saving the lives of the animals. {probe} If you put all that equipment on the big boats that would save money too. Save the wildlife. {probe} No - protect the water as best we can. {probe} No - just those two. {probe} no. 81 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11080 b-2 11081 b-2 11088 b-2 11090 b-2 11092 b-2 11093 b-2 11099 b-2 11100 b-2 11101 b-2 11102 b-2 11104 b-2 11105 b-2 11106 b-2 11108 b-2 11110 b-2 11111 b-2 11112 b-2 11114 b-2 11117 b-2 612892886 It {the program} would protect the small animals and wildlife from becoming extinct. Man has done a lot to endanger them. {probe} The birds & animals. {probe} That's it. Protect the environment. Keep it clean. {probe} That's enough. {probe} That's the main thing. It would make the ocean natural. {probe} Ships and oil don't belong there - the birds belong in that area. {probe} It would keep ocean clean and save the birds and other animals. It keeps our coast - shoreline clean {probe}. It would save birds. It's a good idea. It would put the responsibility back on the oil company - it would make them face an ongoing expense. It would keep the coastal areas clean and protect the animals and wildlife. Save wildlife. {probe} The birds and the, mostly birds I think I don't know of anything else Protect the coastline. {probe} That's all it would do for me. The birds would come back but the beauty of the coastline is important for tourism, etc. Basically what you described here. Save a lot of property damage, & environment. {probe} That's it. Save the animals. We do enough to harm the environment . It would be nice to do something to help it every once in a while. {probe} Protection of the animals. The awareness of the tankers. To be more careful. On the other hand it could make them less aware or cautious because they are being escorted. First & foremost is the animals or species protection. My dream is to become a marine biologist. {probe} If it's going to protect shores & wildlife that's a natural resource. We need something to protect our natural resources in the next 10 yrs. - who will monitor this? The cost is OK. {probe} No. Prevent injuries & deaths to birds & sealife. Prevent problems w/ plants & shoreline. If only $5 it would be great but if in the $100's the money could be spent on more important things. {probe} No. In the long run - it's to our advantage plus I want my children to enjoy the ocean clean like I did when I was a kid - it was cleaner. The booklet says more are endangered now but what about ten years from now - Why wait? It could be too late. {probe} Protecting the shoreline. {probe} No. I'd like to see future oil spills prevented from affecting any of the California coastline. Keeps the oil from reaching the coastline with those fences that they have. {probe} We just don't have tons of land left in CA & what is left it would be nice to preserve. Keep it looking nice. Protect wildlife. {probe} Keep beaches clean. {probe} Keep the water from being contaminated. It's only $5. The escorting idea is excellent. People that know where the rocks are can prevent spills. Prevention is much better than having to fix it later. {probe} It would take care of the oil before it got into the coastline. {probe} Keep the coast clean of oil. It would but in place an early warning mechanism to minimize the damage in the event of a spill. Also a safety net of navigational errors that would prevent a spill. {probe} 82 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11123 b-2 11125 b-2 11127 b-2 11129 b-2 11130 b-2 11133 b-2 11134 b-2 11137 b-2 11138 b-2 11139 b-2 11140 b-2 11141 b-2 11142 b-2 11144 b-2 11149 b-2 11150 b-2 11151 b-2 11152 b-2 11153 b-2 11154 b-2 11155 b-2 612892886 It would keep the oil out of the water. {probe} Take care of the birds & little animals & us when we want to look at the shares. {probe} No - except keep our beaches nice. {probe} No. The wildlife. Clean beaches. The sea plants & sea life will be protected & will be no harm to human life. {probe} It would take up the oil. {probe} So it (the oil) wouldn't hurt the wildlife. {probe} It is an important thing for the environment it is fragile for the same reasons I voted against drilling offshore oil up here, there's no place for oil in the water. Because of the harm to birds - also fish - the canneries are fishing off this coast. The fish also feed off the algae. {probe} My sons & I eat a lot of fish. {probe} No. I am a surfer. {probe} The fee is a one time shot and I feel very worthwhile. {probe} No. It would protect the environment. {probe} Protect the environment and this is important to me because I spend much of my free time fishing, camping, and other outdoor activities. {probe} Keep the water clean. Protect the environment and wildlife. Even if it is a small number of birds and so forth (the animals) that would be saved. It would save the lives of the animals that you spoke about. {probe} No. It would save the animals you mentioned and save our beaches. {probe} No. It protects the coastline. It keeps it clean. I don't think it's that much money to protect the coastline. Just as it says, it would protect the birds and keep beaches clean. {probe} Sounds like a good program. Environmental protection is very important. {probe} It's worth the one time $65 to preserve the coastline & protect the wildlife. {probe} That's about all. Well I mean - what could I say - {probe} I believe in protecting the birds & fish. In protecting them, it protect the land in which we live - It's all related - {probe} We need to protect all parts of the environment. If it's only a true one time fee. {probe} Just for the security of our shoreline. {probe} And to protect our environment. Keep it safe. {probe} {specific}. Help prevent more oil spills. {probe} That's it. Would it be a one time tax. If it would be every year I think it would be too high. {RR pg 14 1st pg.}. It would save all the birds & sealife. {probe} I want a sandy beach & not a black beach. This program might help in keeping them clean. {probe} Two things - it would provide employment & it would possibly help to clean up the spills - I have reservations about how long the tax would remain. {probe} No - just to clean up the spills. Protect the environment - that's important. {probe} But on second thought the oil co's. should pay the bill and not us taxpayers. Future generations. {probe} Eventually if we don't do something about protecting the environment, children will be asking what is a tree, what color was the ocean? {probe} Nothing else. Well, wildlife is important to me - keeping coastline clean - It's important to put guidelines on oil companies to be careful. $25 is not a lot on a one time basis interested in what other people think? I think it won't get passed. {probe} That all. Just saving the wildlife & keeping our beaches clean for the children & keeping the water fairly clean. {probe} No. 83 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11156 b-2 11158 b-2 11159 b-2 11162 b-2 11172 b-2 11173 b-2 11174 b-2 11176 b-2 11179 b-2 11180 b-2 11182 b-2 11185 b-2 11187 b-2 11188 b-2 11190 b-2 11192 b-2 11194 b-2 11196 b-2 11197 b-2 11198 b-2 11199 b-2 11205 b-2 11208 b-2 612892886 It would make less a chance to killing more animals. {probe} It would speed up the process of cleaning up the oil. {probe} And the oil would possibly not make it to the shore. {probe} Give more jobs for 10 years. To prevent possible death or injury in the Central Coast to the animals. {probe} To prevent spills that ruin the looks of the coast. It sounds like a good plan to me. It would save these birds & keep a pretty shoreline instead of an oily shoreline. The oil companies should pay for this though. {probe} No. Keep the oil from killing the animals in the Central Coast or the wildlife in general. Ten years is a long time to take a chance. {probe} The protection of the coastline. I'm a surfer. I'm an environmental studies student. I care about the ecosystem. {probe} Just what I said. {probe} Nothing. Protecting the animals is what I'd pay for! {probe} No. I think it protects the environment and the cost of $65 is not much. Because the birds are going to die. This will prevent the birds and the other animals from dying. {probe} Those animals on there and other animals that might get sick. {probe} Because the sea is going to get spoiled from the oil if we don't. {probe} No. Protect wildlife. {probe} The birds and others. Protect the environment from further damage. It would be preservation of wildlife. {probe} The birds and other animals would be saved. It would protect the birds. {probe} My main concern is the wildlife and marine life. It would protect them. It would save that coast & take care of all the animals. We need it! We owe it too all the animal life in this area. If it would save jobs from fishing industries. Save our coast. (Central Coast) {probe} It would prevent spills and save the wildlife in that area and broken down it would only be 6.50 a year which I feel is not that much to pay to prevent spills and save our wildlife there. It would make oil cheaper because we need it transported here. This planet is going down hill. {probe} The food is running short and begins with the loss of our wildlife. {probe} Too much danger to our animals. {probe} We must save our birds and animals. {probe} It would save the planets and wildlife. Protect the lives of animals and keep the beaches clean for the people - I mean the water and shoreline. I would feel good about doing something for the environment and $5.00 is not that much. {probe} The program will prevent those 12,000 birds and animals from dying. {probe} It would avoid spills, those hurting and killing birds and the small animals. It would work until the ships are made more safe. Just what you said - it would prevent the deaths of the birds. Protecting the wildlife - {probe} The smells that come out of the water when oil spills is terrible. {probe} But we have to clean up the air in general. {probe} No. Cause I think nature is important - the beauty of it for those that enjoy it. {probe} The program's only temporary and the companies will eventually take responsibility. {probe} I believe it's important to keep the environment clean - when I see pollution - not just companies, but people, throwing trash - I get upset. That's why it's so ugly around here. {probe} I'll probably think of something better later. Save the birds. {probe} and small animals and plants. Well, me - I like clean beaches. When the beaches are dirty - it's no fun. {probe} Clean beaches, clear water. {probe} No - I guess not. 84 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11218 b-2 11221 b-2 11223 b-2 11226 b-2 11227 b-2 11229 b-2 11230 b-2 11233 b-2 11234 b-2 11237 b-2 11241 b-2 11243 b-2 11244 b-2 11246 b-2 11247 b-2 11249 b-2 11257 b-2 11261 b-2 11262 b-2 11267 b-2 612892886 $5.00 is not that much. Main reason - It is more cost effective to spend $5.00 to prevent then clean up after. And use program to replenish money by selling escort ships etc. after the close down. {probe} As I said it would prevent problems or harm to the wildlife in that area. It would save the animals. {probe} {{probe} specifics} No matter what kind they should be saved. {probe} No. It puts the burden on the oil companies, other than startup costs. {probe} Protection of the animals you said will be harmed. {probe} No. Just to have clean beach. {probe} I don't know. {probe} Just keep the beaches clean. First of all it wouldn't kill the wildlife and kids can still but go to the beach & swim. {probe} Clean fish & waters - doesn't pollute the water. {probe} That's it. I don't like the oil spills and I'd like to protect the wildlife. {probe} {{probe} specific} It seems like a good idea. {probe} No. I hate to see any animals suffer. $120 isn't too much to protect those animals. {probe} It protects the animals on the shoreline. I don't think it's just a few small birds. I've seen & read that we've got protect what we have. We have already lost too much. If it was just a few seagulls it wouldn't matter if we drilled for oil. {probe} It would totally responsive? Even though I am on SSI I would pay it. {probe} I would keep it as close to natural as we can have it. You'd have the birds and animals for your descendants. {probe} That's all. It will clean the environment. {probe} Protects the wildlife, course gas goes up. {probe} Don't know what else. {probe} That's all. Saving the wildlife, all of God's beautiful creatures. {probe} Keeping the shorelines clean preventing oil spills. Because life of all animals in [illegible] important. All kind of animals & plants not only the ones from the oceans. {{probe} specific}. They're going to save life for the animals. {probe} And for the water; we need the water too. {probe} I like it. I work for Ameri Corps, & we teach farm workers about pesticides so they won't die from them. We save lives. We'll have more live animals in the future (with this program). Environmental reasons mainly - the recollection of Exxon Valdez and the slow response for clean up. {{probe} specific}. Keep our oceans somewhat clean. {probe} " " " " " {probe}{probe} " " " " " Keep from oil spill all over & protect wildlife & sealife. {probe} We have to protect all kind of live [sic]. {probe} Thanks to all animals in the world we are living. Our life depends on all the animals. {probe} {{probe} specific} To save the birds & fish. {probe} They's killing so many of them [sic] - it's not right. {probe} I guess that's about it. In the long run saves the life of wildlife & benefit the people of the planet. It's a benefit for mankind. {probe}{probe}{probe} Nothing at all 5.00 dollars is nothing. If you can do some good for 5.00 do it. I spend income on others things. {probe}{specifics}. It will protect wildlife and shorelines for everyone. {probe} I don't think the scientists can tell all the harm. We destroy so much - if we spend money on education, we will have a lot of brilliant people who won't have a planet to live on. If we don't keep it from being destroyed. We can not be sure it wouldn't harm the next generations somehow. We destroy the wildlife and in a long period of time who knows what will happen. By protecting the natural environment we protect ourselves. 85 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11268 b-2 11276 b-2 11278 b-2 11280 b-2 11281 b-2 11285 b-2 11287 b-2 11288 b-2 11296 b-2 11297 b-2 11298 b-2 11301 b-2 11302 b-2 11303 b-2 11304 b-2 11305 b-2 11308 b-2 11315 b-2 11316 b-2 11318 b-2 11319 b-2 11321 b-2 612892886 Because I would like to stop the further spray of the oil. {probe} Also to protect wildlife. Protect the shoreline, birds & plants. {probe} No. Just help keep the oil out of the water - period. They're showing the wildlife not to be in that much danger so it's the concern of the beaches and to the public. {probe} Maybe instead of having these tag-along ships, they should only send them out when the spill is major - maybe it's overkill. Prevention of all the sealife to be killed & all the seabirds to be safe. Also safe for humans. {probe} Keep our coast free of pollution. {probe} If we do not keep it from pollution will affect humans health. That's the only reason. To protect the wildlife and marine coast along the central coast. it would pay for itself after it is set up. I believe it would be a good program and would be worth the money. {probe} It would eliminate the hassle of having a big spill like the one up North that they are still cleaning up. It would be done quickly with the least amount of hassle and clean it up now. {probe} No. {{probe} specific}. Practically everything. {probe} It's good for the quality of life in that area. {probe} I believe delivery of oil should be controlled. {probe} Preserve the wildlife that you said. That's one of the reasons people live in CA - the coastline. Clean up the oil & prevent oil spills. {probe} Protect wildlife. {probe} That's it. I think it would help conserve the ocean and stuff. {probe} The conservation of the wildlife in the sea. {probe} To preserve so my son came have the clear water and his son can have it. So it won't turn into a wasteland 100 years from now. It (the oil spills) would kill all the wildlife & plant life. {probe} want kids to see, it's not endangered now but might be. {probe} That all. To save the wildlife. {probe} To protect the birds. {probe} To protect our sandy beaches and keep them clean. Just the overall environment - I do use our beaches now & than. {probe} And the scenic aspect makes our beaches more beautiful. {{probe} specific} We have to pay for protecting the environment for further generations. {{probe} specifics}. Protect the environment. {{probe} specifics} Anything that helps I'll pay for. Just to protect our coastline for economic reasons and for the whole state. {probe} {{probe} specific} No, I just think it's overall protection of our coastline. I'm not one of these animal protectionists abut it's such a little amount. {probe} No, I don't go t the coast that much but I still want to take care of it. Preventing the deaths of birds and animals...the plants. Protect the wildlife and the coastline not price tag is too high for that. {probe} The land and sea wildlife. {probe} No - I think it's a much needed thing. I would like to see all the birds & animals saved. I don't want to see them killed for someone else's neglect. I travel the coast. I live to see all those birds! Create more jobs. It gets pay for by the people who use the gas/oil. The oil co's would pass it on to the people who use the gas. That's fair. {probe} Birds are neither here nor there. {probe} Jobs. It's the principle of being responsible for not letting it happen & taking care of it when it does happen. {probe} No. {{probe} specific}. We could enjoy beaches more if there was a spill. It would prevent the animals from harm. {probe} 86 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11326 b-2 11332 b-2 11337 b-2 11338 b-2 11341 b-2 11343 b-2 11347 b-2 11348 b-2 11349 b-2 11354 b-2 11355 b-2 11357 b-2 11359 b-2 11361 b-2 11363 b-2 11364 b-2 11401 b-2 11404 b-2 11407 b-2 612892886 It would prevent my seafood from being contaminated. You can taste the difference between fish that is and isn't contaminated. {probe} It would make the oil companies more financially responsible for their spilling the oil and also once a beach fowled by the oil it takes much longer that they are saying it does to get back to completely normal because their oil does not break down as rapidly they're saying it disperses but after all of the volatile chemicals [sic]. $25 isn't that much to save that many birds. {probe} To some the birds and the small animals and to keep the shoreline clean. We probably waste that much in lottery tickets a year. If it makes help to prevent oil spills - that's why I would support it. {probe} Have clean beaches. {probe} That's it Well, it would insure environmental integrity for plants and animal life. {probe} Also insure beauty of beaches for citizens use. {probe} To protect anno nuevo [sic]. It would save that wildlife and the environment where they live. {probe} We have got to start taking more responsibility for the world we live in - if's a delicate ecosystem. $5 is a very small amount. I know the oil companies should do more. {probe} You're trafficking these oil companies by putting these ships out in these shipping lanes. {probe} It's like the rippling affect - you stop killing those 10,000 birds and others and you keep from losing. {probe} No. Because it would prevent the death of many small animals and would save the purity of the water. {probe} That's all. Protect the shoreline, the coast, the wildlife. {probe} The companies would be somewhat responsible and in 10 years totally responsible. All the things you said. {probe} Save all the ocean life. {probe} We shouldn't pay for the oil co.'s mistake but $5.00 wouldn't kill anyone. As people we have a responsibility to take care of things we screw up in nature. And for that amount of money...{probe} It's not that much money. {probe} Saving the birds & the prevention of more damage. I'm for anything that protects our shorelines, because I love the beauty of it, I use it all the time, & I want to preserve it for my children & grandchildren. {probe} The way it will be set up is pretty good. {probe} No. For anything that would keep our coastline clean & clear, I'm for it. Also, our crabs & clams are way down from what they used to be. And more birds would be killed; the numbers will be higher in the future. Until they get the double hulls, we need to protect (the coast) from the oil spills. It doesn't seem like a big price to pay. {probe} I'm a great animal lover. I don't think any animal should be harmed. {probe} Save the lives of the birds that would not otherwise be saved. The fish don't die from this? {RR pg 7}. Protection of wildlife is a critical issue - no matter how few or how many are harmed. {probe} The idea of prevention is better than after-the-fact cleanup. {probe} I like the idea that oil companies are being held accountable. Protect the coastline. {probe} That's it. For the birds & the wildlife - to protect them. The Exxon spill was devastating to the wildlife. {probe} The wildlife - to me that's number 1. And, to keep the beaches clean. Because it's inexpensive $5.00. {probe} Is the price of fuel going to go up also? {probe} R want the coastline to stay nice. {probe} It's always a nice place to go. Environmental protection. {probe} Drinking water. {probe} Fish and food supply. {probe} Communication lot of things I don't think people say or make you aware of. 87 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11408 b-2 11409 b-2 11410 b-2 11411 b-2 11413 b-2 11414 b-2 11418 b-2 11424 b-2 11428 b-2 11429 b-2 11431 b-2 11432 b-2 11437 b-2 11438 b-2 11439 b-2 11440 b-2 11441 b-2 11457 b-2 11461 b-2 612892886 Something for the future to keep the ecosystem as close to natural as can be. {probe} All the ecosystems. {probe} If one thing dies there's a chain reaction right down the line. {probe} Don't mess with mother nature. To save the birds and to save the beaches. {probe} That's it. Just protect wildlife and keep oil off the beaches. I have 2 daughters & I'm concerned about their well being. {{probe} specific} The environment it's getting worse & worse. {probe} 10 yrs. ago I used to go to beaches & swim now I can't do that - it's too polluted. It protect the environment and has a direct affect on me and mankind and civilization. {probe} No nothing. Prevention to unnecessary deaths to any living animals. {probe} True it is only five dollars. {probe} {probe} Prevention part after seeing what Valdez did, that area changes are very slow and it causes hardship to surrounding environment. It would stop the oil from killing the animals. {probe} It would keep the water from being contaminated. It's not that much. {probe} It's the long term effects. {probe} To save our beaches & environment. We're very environmental. We recycle everything. {probe} No. Save the life of an animal. {probe} One dolphin one bird - I don't think it'll pass but I'd vote for it. {probe} It should be half as much - $100 would be more reasonable and probably pass. It can prevent unnecessary death of the wildlife. It is important to save nature. Personally I believe that I am not going to benefit at all by voting for this program, but it is saving our natural resources and wildlife, also nature. Otherwise our children are not going to enjoy our beaches. 1. It would help prevent deaths of birds and small animals. 2. Help minimize the damage to the shore. 3. Protect the wildlife and plants. It would preserve our ocean, natural habitat, our wildlife. We must preserve our world for future generations. We have destroyed too much of our world already. If it eliminates the concerns about the tankers and answers the arguments that go on about the environment. It would be a cost effective way to stop debate - if it worked - that is {{probe} specific}. I like the idea of the escort ships - I think the prevention is worthwhile - $25 is not a lot to pay for this. {probe} I think anything to save our beaches. {probe} No. Helps protect the earth, which I'm very much for. {probe} Protects the coast & ocean from oil spills. {probe} It helps set a precedent for other legislation for similar things. Will help us {probe} because will prevent anymore oil spills, & will save the wildlife in the ocean {probe} we'll be able to fish w/out worry about our health. Primary the amount of money against the benefit will be great. {{probe} specific} I do not care what program as long is a good program for our good. {probe}{probe}{probe} Qualifications - If these answered would vote yes. More information is needed - how many spills now - what is the cost to take care of it - is there alternatives to this plan I think people have to take responsibility for the world. Damage to the environment I feel hurts the ecological health of the people. I think it is important we take care of the land and sea. I believe it effects humans what we are doing to the earth. I have a grandson - it effects his life as well as mine. Air quality, what we do affects our health. {probe} {{probe} specifics}. 88 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11463 b-2 11464 b-2 11496 b-2 11498 b-2 11538 b-2 11552 b-2 11559 b-2 11620 b-2 11680 b-2 11681 b-2 11690 b-2 11691 b-2 11696 b-2 11697 b-2 11699 b-2 11700 b-2 11771 b-2 11790 b-2 10001 b-3 10017 b-3 612892886 I feel all Californias need to share the responsibility of keeping the earth safe. Oil spills break the ecological chain. It affects animals and ultimately humans. {probe} {{probe} specifics}. If it is a one time thing - no added or hidden costs. {probe} It would help prevent the oil spills and protect the environment, birds and animals. It would allow the people to enjoy the shoreline. It saves animals! It prevent oil spills. {probe} Nothing else. It would also preserve the beaches and shore. {probe} I want the oil companies to pay. {probe} It would prevent the harm to birds and animals you told me about. Will be lots more of creatures & {probe} sea beards [sic]. I like the idea, of the program. {probe} Will keep captain not drinking & awake when they passing the coast. Save the unnecessary suffering of birds & animals that get caught in the spill. {probe} Save those birds from suffering. {probe} No. I believe in prevention. {probe} Would eliminate the harm and killing of the birds and animals. Once the ocean is contaminated, I feel we the people are in danger. If the animals are in danger so are we. Just save the animals. {probe} Probably provide more jobs. {probe} no. {probe} The animals you mentioned. {probe} No. Protect from some of the smaller spills and in general relocation of animal, fish and bird life and also destruction of the coastal environment. {probe} $120 per household is not a big thing to pay in taxes for this. Ten $ a month isn't that big a deal. {probe} The concept of the escort ships and having quick response instead of having to wait for equipment to come from far away. Stop all the death & destruction along our coast. {probe} It will stop the death and destruction shown on the card. {probe} Nothing. To keep the waters clean. {probe} All waters, our drinking water, the place where our food comes from that would directly affect us. {probe} Clean environment. {probe} To protect our seafood and the water we drink. {probe} Also the ocean beaches where we swim people will get sick and diseases. Save the birds. {probe} It's the home of a sealife & will be safe. {probe}{probe} Help to keep clean beaches & preventing all sealife to be harm from spills. {probe} {probe} It's very expensive to clean it. Because in the long run we pay for it, this way will be paid only once & can be good to run it all the time like I said before. {probe} I know I have done part of the cleaning. {probe} Give me a peace of mind to protection of our environment and wildlife. It is very important to me. I'm somewhat idealistic about this - I keep thinking about the oil spill in Alaska. Oil spills are ugly. Birds and wildlife, all plants have just as much right to exist as we do. $220 is a lot, somewhat borderline for me now. The cost to preventive is less than the cost of an emergency spill. Prevention is good. It would keep the shoreline cleaner. I'm proud of our shoreline. The 12 thousand birds isn't the problem. We have lots of birds, but I'm proud of our state. If this could be definite proven then I don't think you can say that. If you lived there would be mad as dickens flydrocarbon smell harmful I'm sure. 89 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10075 b-3 10084 10096 10119 10171 10182 10195 10240 10279 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 10289 b-3 10290 10299 10304 10305 10322 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 10327 b-3 10355 b-3 10380 b-3 10421 b-3 10440 b-3 10447 b-3 10490 b-3 10510 10511 10518 10527 10570 10572 10577 10580 10582 10622 10633 10638 10643 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 10646 b-3 10716 b-3 10769 b-3 10777 b-3 612892886 It would protect the resource of the beach & the environment. From the beach to the creatures that inhabit it, to the water. {probe} No. {RR} I would because of the animals. It's not true - it affects people's mental health, to see the harm done. It's life - the greatest thing God gave us. If they can guarantee it won't harm human health and they are not endangered. Under any circumstance. I'm thinking about the animals not just myself. That's another bullshit question. That's absolute bullshit! How do we know that we aren't affecting the planet? They'll never prove that trickle down effect won't somehow affect our ecology and the people. Prove to me it's not harmful to humans. The animals are just as important as humans.10299 But maybe it will eventually harm the fish - that will harm us. It's worth the price! {Question} Then again - it's hard to answer that -- What guarantees would we have that it didn't harm human health? {RR 2X} I wouldn't vote against it but I wouldn't vote for it. {probe} {Again R indicated that I should continue.} On the premise that it would truly prevent harm to birds, small animals, & some plants. Anything to help the wildlife. The key word is suppose. I'm a fish eater. $25 once is not a large sum. (These spills) It destroys for years the beauty of the beaches where people can get out and enjoy nature. They can't guarantee anything anyway. They shouldn't just leave it there. I know they'll probably sell the ships but what about the buildings? It would harm humans, indirectly through the foodchain. {RR} I'm retired. I can hardly pay my taxes. That's a silly question - It's impossible not to be effected. Of course it will harm us. If it's only $65.00 one time. But they say one thing and do another. If something affects the wildlife it eventually effects as. Because it is too drastic what could happens to the animals. People tend to forget we're animals, too. We do what we need to protect ourselves. I don't care about birds. I care about a clean environment. On them now, it makes me sick. The fact that it's not affecting humans is only speculative. Humans are not so important. We are all interconnected. They have just as much right to be here as we do. Oh yeah, I didn't not think of that. Let me comment - it doesn't matter if suffering is small. We need to save all the animals. That's a tough one. It would depend on if I could afford it that year. My husband probably would say no. 90 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10783 b-3 10788 b-3 10829 10843 10876 10923 10940 10973 10975 10990 10999 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 11002 b-3 11035 b-3 11060 11072 11092 11104 11105 11151 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 11179 b-3 11185 b-3 11187 b-3 11287 11304 11326 11332 11347 11349 11407 11408 11432 11439 11457 11538 11696 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 b-3 11771 11790 10067 10910 10009 b-3 b-3 pg15 pg15 b-4 612892886 Because I'm not stupid enough to believe it only effects the wildlife. Because it is in the cradle of life which also in the long run affects human health even if you say it doesn't. I think in the long run it would. Totally, ridiculous & insulting question. If sea life dies we are all affected. I don't believe human health would not be affected. For $25. $25 isn't a lot. If it were more, I wouldn't vote for it. I don't think that oil harms anyone. Still vote for it! All the people that eat those small animals can definitely be harmed. There is no doubt about it. Still, I think they have as much right as we do. What we forget is that the ecology of the plant & animal life does affect us both biochemically & biologically. That's over-simplifying it. Because it's also damaging the earth. Of course if harms human health! Are they kidding?? If we could afford it. Yes, why not. People swim in the water too. Who pays for the cleanup in the SF & LA area? I think it will be a perpetuating thing that will never stop. We all live on the same planet. We cannot obliterate our wildlife or we will destroy ourselves. Harm human health? {RQ} If I knew what affect it does have on the fishing industries would make a difference because they do swim out of the area. People will still fish in the area & can be affected. There is no just thing we are all connected if it harms animals it harms us all. It is though. Disperse you are left with the tor [sic] it [illegible] up into -- junk. Absolutely. But I fail to see how it wouldn't effect human health. To me it's irrelevant - people, birds are all the same They have just as much right to the earth as we do. They were here first. They are just animals. They don't know any better. We must protect our animals. If it affects them, it affects us. There's no way to segregate the two. I believe human health is affected and you can't say it isn't. 1 X. Maybe not that much if it didn't affect humans. Maybe half of that as a contribution. I would want the programs to continue but maybe for half that amount. That too. For the same reasons I said before I would. I don't like to see any small animals hurt. These birds don't do anything! They're gooney birds! Are there more alternatives? More ways to solve the problem? I'd like to know. I don't think it's worth it. {probe} Your questions are too biased. {probe} They don't tell the benefits. {probe} Just not worth the money. 91 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10010 b-4 10013 b-4 10014 b-4 10015 b-4 10028 b-4 10029 b-4 10030 b-4 10032 b-4 10052 b-4 10057 b-4 10063 b-4 10064 b-4 10065 b-4 10077 b-4 10087 b-4 10088 b-4 10089 b-4 10091 b-4 10094 b-4 10097 b-4 10098 b-4 10099 b-4 10100 b-4 10102 b-4 612892886 (OS) If that much money has to be enburdened [sic] on the oil companies then the cost would have to come back to everyone who uses oil and every body uses oil! (OS) The $25 could go to something else - some other environmental program would be better - not this. (OS) There's no need for escort ships to be there. There's no danger of hitting things 40 or 50 miles out. Only entering harbor do you need escorts. The wildlife saved is 1% of the total wildlife. Oil companies should be totally responsible for the cost. (OS) It would be education and educational assistance instead of this program. {probe} No. (OS) Once the tax is set up you can never get rid of it. {probe} We're retired and living on a budget. (OS) Because the state always says so much and they project, but then goes up double. Too many smart people see people vote and then they raise it and keep it up. {probe} No. (OS) It's an overkill to escort tankers. This is useless to have this program. Other state programs are more important! (OS) The oil co. would pass along the cost to us so we would be paying a lot more than that. This is no time to raise tax in Or. now. This is not high on our priorities list right now. If I lived in Sa Bara [sic] I would probably feel different about it. {probe} Orange Co is not impacted by oil spills. {probe} No. (OS) It's a stupid program. {probe} These species are not endangered. {probe} Nature takes care of itself. {probe} They will replenish themselves. {probe} Too much money. (OS) They should pay for the problem not us. {probe} No. (OS) Basic distrust of oil companies - foreshadowed potential dishonesty as indicated by the request for a 10 year implementation delay. (OS) Several reasons because we have too many taxes to begin with regardless of whether you can afford them or not. {probe} No. (OS) The oil company should take more responsibility for the spills. {probe} No. (OS) Our taxes go up each year! It's not our responsibility when they are not careful. (all companies)! (OS) If every house has to pay $120 it should be spent for things like education, and ways to stop crime. (OS) Oil co. are making all the money so why should the Californias pay for it. They should be responsible. Why should they ground their ships they are highly qualified people. Sounds like its lobbied by Greenpeace. I don't like those people. (OS) It's only a ten year program. In that area where ships transit colliding with a rock is zero but colliding with a ship could happen. {probe} I'm very familiar with that area. {probe} Oil protection we have now are adequate like MSRC's and Clean Bays programs. There are many trained personnel already to deal with this. (OS) Because the government keeps spending money to see how to make jobs for others, who make more than I do. (OS) Because the whole plan is stupid, if they traveled 12 miles out they could avoid this. (OS) Because I don't believe in it, I don't believe in the use of taxpayers money (OS) This is overkill on highly emotional issue. There is technology to prevent spills already. Anytime you get a government agency involved in private enterprise you stifle business. Regulations costs will be passed onto the worker and consumer. 92 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10103 b-4 10105 b-4 10107 b-4 10111 b-4 10115 b-4 10116 b-4 10125 b-4 10137 b-4 10139 b-4 10140 b-4 10141 b-4 10143 b-4 10147 b-4 10156 b-4 10160 b-4 10166 b-4 10168 b-4 10175 b-4 10177 b-4 10178 b-4 612892886 There is overregulation. Technologies are there that exist to prevent oil spills. We don't have many oil spills every month. Oil seepage occurs naturally. It's only $5 but I'm getting tired of the government spending my money. There are rules already out there. They never say how many birds are born every year. There's too much redundancy. (OS) Tax money should be used for essentials fire, police, prisons, for schools. Government should get back to the basics. We are overregulated some of the recent regulation such as the BLM land are becoming inaccessible to the common joe and environmentalists are getting out of hand. (OS) For whatever accident there is it's going to runover in a short amount of true so we shouldn't spend that amount of money on it. {probe} Mt. St. Helen's recovery was much less than thought. (OS) I think it should be the responsibility of the oil company. If they spill the oil they should clean it up. Why should it be the responsibility of the people! (OS) One time tax usually turns into more, short program? Would have been good 20 years ago but now is questionable. {probe} That's all. (OS) Schooling, crime & medical reasons are more important. {probe} No. (OS) Don't like the feeling that the state is taxed and too much. If $10 or $5 but $65 is too much for a household to pay. (OS) I'm not interested in any program. (OS) They are lying to us. The "hidden" costs will be a lot more. We'll be paying more at the gas pumps. The oil companies will pass the cost down to us for all 10 years. (OS) I would rather have the money spent somewhere else. Not for this. (OS) The numbers of wildlife are small and the problem is self-rectifying in 10 yrs. (OS) 12,000 birds isn't that many birds. We have to have patience, wait out the 10 yrs. till all the ships have 2 double hulls. (OS) There's a better use for the money - like for the homeless. Because I'm on a very limited income (OS) Because the oil companies are too greedy, so the oil companies should pay everything. (OS) I don't want to pay any more taxes. {probe} No. (OS) It would cost $25 do start the program, but the cost of oil products would rise, it would be worth it - there haven't been that money oil spills - it doesn't happen every day - the oil companies are very good about cleaning up their own messes. {probe} No. (OS) I think there are better ways to solve the problem - they're not solving the fundamental problem of ships running into things -See GPS - Global Positioning System. (OS) I think it's the oil companies responsibility. We shouldn't be protecting their interests and that's what we're doing. They've got the billions. We don't we already do pay something since we pay the Coast Guard to chart and [illegible] tell the rough weather, we already do so much. (OS) Typically what I've seen is when the State gets involved they get too carried away. I'd be interested in what the oil companies alone can do to correct this. I've seen the oil spill typically slowed down because the State gets involved. (OS) Because we are moving to Arizona in this year. So it would not be important to us. 93 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10180 b-4 10183 b-4 10190 b-4 10197 b-4 10200 b-4 10203 b-4 10217 b-4 10220 b-4 10221 b-4 10223 b-4 10226 b-4 10228 b-4 10229 b-4 10234 b-4 10236 b-4 10242 b-4 10244 b-4 10250 b-4 10252 b-4 10255 b-4 10257 b-4 10260 b-4 612892886 (OS) I don't see the necessity for it. I don't see it down here. The small area. What I about the whole length of Calif. from S.F. to Ventura. Why not cover the whole coast. (OS) Who paid for the Valdez not the taxpayer. It is the oil companies responsibility for cleaning up oil spills. {probe} they should carry insurance for that. {probe} We will pay at the pump but the cost is spread out over the country. It's not our responsibility to protect the Central Coast. (OS) Every time they add some taxes is very difficult for us. {probe} We are living on Social Security and is very limited income. (OS) It is not a priority for me. The priority is for children's education and care of old people. {probe} That's how I would want my tax money to go. (OS) I just feel that it's not necessary to escort ships. {probe} No. (OS) I don't think that we have to worry about the birds $ animals if they are going to be replenished in a few years. (OS) Because it's coming out of my pocket, if spill occurs they clean it up not my money from my pocket. {probe} No. (OS) Because it would be a multibillion dollar project. It's unbelievable what $25 times each HH would be. It's another way to get more money from the people. (OS) In the long term it will cost more in increases in oil and gas prices. There is no way that tax you talk about will cover expenses. (OS) {R specifically stated "other" & then gave this answer} It's too much money for only 10 miles of shoreline. It's not the $120 - we need more for crime fighting - if they were endangered I would feel different. It's like a lottery - maybe it won't happen again. (OS) I don't think every household would pay. The birds are going to come back anyway. (OS) Money could be much better spent on other programs. I do not think it's necessary. It's guilt the lily [sic]. Taxes are too low not to high, a lot of money spent on unnecessary things. (OS) (two fail) can't afford it. (2nd) not sure it's worth the dollars we would spend for the years we would get out of it. (OS) My family works in the oil fields - sometimes it isn't their fault. {probe} Also, my income is limited. {probe} No. (OS) I don't see why the oil companies are getting the profits, why should the taxpayers be responsible for their mistakes. Oil can be piped from Mexico - We don't need these tankers and foreign oil. I'm on a fixed income. (OS) There are a bizzillion other places to use that money. {probe} That's all. (OS) [1 and 3 circled] It is an exceptable lose [sic] over the next ten years - I agree with the reasons against. (OS) The birds are not endanger of becoming extinct and after ten years it will be in effect (the rule of double hulls on ships). It's too much to pay at one time. We're on a fixed income. (OS) I can't see us escorting vessels up and down the coast. If you have them strategically located then you can get to the ships in time. Escorting ships is not cost effective. {probe} (OS) I don't have $120 to spend on something I don't feel is critical. 94 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10265 b-4 10268 b-4 10270 b-4 10271 b-4 10274 b-4 10275 b-4 10280 b-4 10283 b-4 10284 b-4 10288 b-4 10291 b-4 10293 b-4 10298 b-4 10300 b-4 10301 10318 10321 10323 10326 b-4 b-4 b-4 b-4 b-4 10328 b-4 10330 b-4 10331 b-4 10333 b-4 10336 b-4 612892886 (OS) Well - really all of them. To me, I think we pay enough taxes as it is and some how our taxes are not being spent wisely. We need a commission to be set up to spend our tax dollars more wisely. (OS) It should be paid by the shipping industry. (OS)There are other issues that are more important than the coastline. (OS) I think we pay enough taxes in this state. Besides, the oil companies are just going to jack up their prices anyway. But they should pay for it. (OS) Because it would never be made a workable solution. The $65 would go into someone's pocket and that's as far as it will go. (OS) I don't feel that we should pay for the mistakes of the oil companies. Charge a spill penalty to previous offenders to set up the program. (OS) If I have some spills around here, nobody pays for mine. That should be up to the oil companies - they've got plenty of money. (OS) I think the money can be spent in other places. {probe} Educating people for jobs and less crime, no need for prison. (OS) I think I pay enough in taxes. {probe} I think this survey is trying to putting [sic] people on the spot by listing only the answers - it's not very honest. (OS) We are losing business' and we can't continue to look after birds and not people. {probe} Most middle income people feel that they are maxed out on tax. {probe} No. (OS) I feel the situation will be taken care of in 10 yrs. {probe} The harm done in this 10 yrs. won't amount to that much since none of the species are endangered. How many large spills have there been in the past 40 yrs.? I haven't heard of any. (OS) Only a reasonably small number of birds would be killed. It's not that the birds would be extinct. We pay too much taxes in Calif. (OS) It doesn't mean that much to me. {probe} That's all. (OS) I think $220 is a lot to expect from one household. If it was a $100 I might, but there are to many people who can not afford this. (OS) I think there are many more problems that need solving. {probe} (OS) Tanker error, it needs to pay for it. That's a lot of money. Too much for us to pay. (OS) I think the oil companies should foot the bill for all the damage. (OS) [All answers circled] All of the above. Taxpayers don't need another expensive bureaucratic nightmare! (OS) {Referring to the state of CA} They slap my butt on social security. {probe} If a businessman has a business going he should take care of making it safe, not the state. In {giving (implied)} the $65, they are too tricky up there. (OS) If it's only going to cost $5 (per household), why don't they have the money now? Tax increases are never dropped. And, right now I don't have $5 extra. (OS) I disagree with the program - they're not creating jobs for us, just costing us money & gas prices will sky rocket. Also why do they have to travel by sea - the trucking industry & trains would create jobs for people. I think we should stop worrying about a few thousand birds & worry about human resources. (OS) I'm not, they're explanation of how it will work doesn't satisfy me. I want to know more about the operation of the program. {probe} no. (OS) For 1 thing the people that can afford to ship the oil should pay, and not everyone else to pay for their mistakes. {probe} No. 95 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10338 b-4 10348 b-4 10350 b-4 10351 b-4 10353 b-4 10356 b-4 10357 b-4 10362 b-4 10363 b-4 10365 b-4 10366 b-4 10370 b-4 10371 b-4 10373 b-4 10374 b-4 10383 b-4 10384 b-4 10385 b-4 10387 b-4 10389 b-4 10391 b-4 10393 b-4 10418 b-4 10422 b-4 10424 b-4 10428 b-4 612892886 (OS) The oil companies - As far as their business operations go they should be required to pay for the set up fee. We buy insurance in case of an accident on the road - why shouldn't they pay the fee as their part of insurance against oil spills? (OS) There are more pressing problems. (OS) Because of the politics - $ what the oil companies might do as a result of this. I don't trust them. They don't car about the coast. (OS) There are a lot of other problems that need to be handled in this state. {probe} The immigrants from Mexico. (OS)The way it is presented, everyone is going to vote it down. {probe} It wouldn't be worth my time. Kinda steep for me. (OS) I think the cost will be more than $5 per household - significantly more - I don't think the approach is well thought out even though the issue is a worthy one. I don't trust the state to be able to handle something that belongs in the hands of federal & private industry. {probe} No. (OS) Preferring other programs over environmental programs. Weighing the causes. (OS) The money could be spent on more pressing problems! (OS) When's the last time have you heard of an oil spill in California? It's not worth it. (OS) I don't believe it is a one time fee. I don't want more taxes. (OS) There are more important things going on in the state that we have to take care of - like education. (OS) Because the animals are not endangered. {probe} None. (OS) I'd rather see the money go towards education, crime and violence than this! (OS) I can't see taxing the state when the federal gov't will implement the program anyway. We have a lot of problems that are much more important. State bureaucracy would eat so much of that money that very little would go to the program. (OS) $25 could be spent for issues I care about. {probe} I don't care about this issue. {probe} (OS) I don't feel I want to pay more taxes. {probe} There are more human programs that have been cut which should be restored before the oil spill program. (OS) I prefer to use the money for other social issues. Maybe transportation, or police protection. (OS) [answers 2 and 3 circled] And I don't feel it's the tax payers responsibility. The oil companies should pay it. (OS) Who's to guarantee the money would be used for this program? There's no guarantee with politicians can't be trusted. {probe} no. (OS) [answers 2 and 3 circled] It's not reflective of the responsibility of the transportation. {probe} It's a lot of money. (OS) I'd rather spend the money for other concerns and I think the oil companies should be responsible for all the cost of all spills & setting up the program. (OS) We can't really afford it and the animals replenish themselves. (OS) Money on other problems instead. {probe} Education, schools. {probe} Crime prevention. (OS) I don't think it is the responsibility of the people to subsidize the oil company. (OS) Oil companies made the mess they should pay. 96 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10429 b-4 10431 b-4 10439 b-4 10442 b-4 10444 b-4 10451 10453 10458 10459 b-4 b-4 b-4 b-4 10461 b-4 10465 b-4 10481 b-4 10488 b-4 10489 b-4 10491 b-4 10495 b-4 10498 b-4 10499 b-4 10501 b-4 10503 b-4 10504 b-4 10508 b-4 10514 b-4 10525 b-4 612892886 (OS) I just don't think that approach is good. Revenue should be consumer tax. {probe} Out if revenue taxes. {probe} I'm opposed to one time tax - This should be cost of product. (OS) It's not a top priority. (OS) Simply wouldn't want the program - I see the need of it but t wouldn't be that important to me. (OS) The cost would be much more than that once it got started. (OS) If the oil companies have to pay, we're all going to pay later - our oil costs will be increased. As far as I'm concerned not worth it! I think it's the oil co. responsibility. {probe} The taxes are all to high for us all - more & more all the time! (OS) There are other social programs that need to be taken car of {probe} Education! I've been cut back every year! I'm a teacher. Kids come before birds! We live on a limited income. (OS) When our tax dollars stop paying for abortions I would than be willing to pay for oil spills to protect our wildlife. {probe} No. (OS) If I was going to spend $5. I'd spend it on something else - social issues, or something. (OS) Let the oil companies pay for it - they did the damage - We're all taxed out now. {probe} No. I live on a set income. (OS) I don't see why the taxpayers should pay to clean up the oil companies spills Why they don't go out further? If there are roads we can't travel on, we don't if they're harmful to us - they should do the same thing - They're the ones making the billions of dollars. {probe} No. (OS) I want that money to go to something. {probe} More education, for the homeless people. (OS) I think it is the responsibility of the oil companies to be responsible for their environmental impact. Unless this was set up to employ a significant amount of people resulting in reduced welfare recipients. I think this would be better set up by private enterprise. I love birds and wildlife and we belong to Surfriders Association so we do care. We are on a fixed income. He's on social security and so I'm, We don't need this program anyway. (OS) They'd keep the tax going every year. (OS) I need more info. but I work for an environment cleanup company, so I hear about these things all the time. If it happened just once in 10 years, it might not be as cost effective than if the area is a high risk area. (OS) If the oil company would pick up the tax. I'd be for it. I don't think the taxpayers should pay for it. {probe} (OS) I don't feel that it's the taxpayers' responsibility. and, after the 10 years, what's going to happen to all that expensive equipment? And, the oil companies will charge more. And our tax dollars should go for other things. (OS) {probe} Should use tax money for clean up oil spills. {probe} I don't think it should come from new taxes. (OS) I think there is other things they should concentrate on. It's going to rectify itself in 10 years. {probe} No. 97 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10526 b-4 10528 b-4 10533 b-4 10534 b-4 10536 b-4 10542 b-4 10544 b-4 10548 b-4 10549 b-4 10550 10551 10562 10565 10566 b-4 b-4 b-4 b-4 b-4 10574 b-4 10579 b-4 10581 b-4 10585 b-4 10587 b-4 10588 b-4 10592 b-4 10593 b-4 10595 b-4 10607 b-4 10611 b-4 612892886 (OS) I don't know how effective they are. {probe} Tankers have booms that carry their own nets - and I thought they all cleaned up there own messes. (OS) The way this is set up. I want some kind of statistics to show how the parties involved all pay for this program. {probe} Exactly how much will the oil companies be paying. I make $15.00 hr. and they make billions. I am the banker and I am building this bridge - And they will just use it. Respondent said both 1 and 2. (OS) 1. No such thing as a temp. tax. 2. Risk of spills is min along the coast. 3. Oil Co. will pass along cost to [comm]. Money means nothing. Dollar amount a waste is a waste. [sic] (OS) Once a program like this is started it will never stop. {probe} We are already over-taxed. (OS) I won't won't [sic] let the gov't take more money from me. (OS) It would be too much for each house-hold, added up we're talking billions. Oil companies should pay. (OS) It's govnmt involvement. The govnmt needs to stop their involvement. Their already involved in to many things. They don't stop when they say they will, and there never run like they say they will. Bureaucrats! I don't like the EPA. The EPA is an example of this. They have become self serving. (OS) It's poorly set up. The reasoning should be about people. How does this affect people? (OS) It is a small number of animals. The state should use the $ money elsewhere. (OS) The money could be better spent on other things. (OS) I don't think we should be the ones to pay for it. But I believe I shouldn't be stuck with $220 for oil company problems. (OS) We are already spending way too much already as consumers. It's way out of whack! Any program will cost us more! (OS) I think the oil companies should foot the whole bill. {probe} No. (OS) The money could be used for something else. Since they are not endangered, there's no urgency. (OS) I would think they could find the money from tax dollars already. {probe} No, that's it. It's too expensive! (OS) The money can be spent on more worthwhile programs. (OS) Our gas prices would sky rocket. They would use their docking fees to raise the price. {probe} No. (OS) I think there are hidden costs and additional regulation will hinder commerce in California - this is making companies leave Calif - What if an escort ship is late, it will delay commerce. {probe} The hidden cost is at gas pump & consumers will pay more than the $5. We're retired - we can't afford more taxes! (OS) The money should be used in a different way. {probe} The state is more interested in animals than people - like abortion education - more babies are killed than birds! (OS) It is not responsible spending of my money. {probe} The cost outweighs the benefits of this plan. {probe} No. (OS) It's a small amount of birds that are harmed, whoever pilots the ships should know the routes, the kind of obstacles, and other program are in more need than this. 98 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10623 b-4 10625 b-4 10626 b-4 10637 b-4 10640 b-4 10645 b-4 10649 b-4 10651 b-4 10652 b-4 10653 b-4 10654 b-4 10655 b-4 10663 b-4 10664 b-4 10669 b-4 10670 b-4 10671 b-4 10678 b-4 10680 b-4 612892886 (OS) I believe strongly that the money they would need would be a lot more than $65. The oil companies will raise the gas prices anyway. The program isn't worth it; they should keep the double hulls, wait for them to be in place. (OS) Unknowns are: Start up time, effectiveness, operation costs (what future costs for oil). Also this is to technical for lay person decision. (OS) There's a terrific amount of gov't control on everything that people are so tired of. (OS) I don't think it's necessary. (OS) Probably all of the above. I'm very much more interested in social issues than environmental issues. I do see a need for environmental issues but social issues at this point are much more urgent. {probe} (OS) I do not believe in the integrity of one time taxes. {probe} I'm not familiar with how often a special interest tax is imposed but I dislike the precedent this type of taxation sets. We normally pay taxes which are put into a pool to spend but this bypasses that process, it circumvents representative government. {probe} (OS) Like what it says, the animals are not endangered. {probe} No. (OS) The number is small and their not endangered and only ten years. I feel the cost is too much for that amount of time. (OS) Because there is other things that the state can require them to do. The escort ships would cost 3 to 5 million a piece. I know for a fact that barges are required to have what you call a sea fence on board barges. My father-in-law owned barges and I have worked on them. There is other things that oil companies can be required to do in the meantime or for the ten years. {probe} No that's it! There is less inexpensive ways to handle this. It would be extremely difficult for us to pay. {probe} No. (OS) [Answer 2 & 3 circled] I think oil companies should be responsible for their drivers of the ships. {probe} No if the escort ships find better way so can the tankers and barges [sic]. Give them maps or something. (OS) I feel the oil companies should be legally held to set up this program. Plus feel that in ten years it will be gone and it's not worth spending that much money. It will take that long almost to set it up. And then it's gone. {probe} No. (OS) I don't think the effort is worth the amount. It's not only the one time tax which I think will continue. The oil companies will just position to us - and the one time tax is a never ending tax. The double hulls are here today Taxes are too damn high now. I can barely live now. They (companies) should pay they're making the mess. (OS) The taxpayers should not be responsible for private industry. You should change the law in order for private industry to be responsible. The Co. I work for is a major resource for private oil-companies. (OS) We don't need another bureaucratic organization and the cost would far exceed what they say and it would never be eliminated. (OS) It's not our responsibility, it's the oil companies. Taxpayers should not have to pay. (OS) I've never known the state to contain the costs they originally ask for - It would probably be double. {probe} (OS) I think Calif has other priorities such as education and crime prevention if I had to pay tax money I would put it into these not oil spills. By crime prevention I mean the after school programs that provide non-crime alternatives. 99 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10686 b-4 10687 b-4 10688 10689 10691 10692 b-4 b-4 b-4 b-4 10694 b-4 10705 b-4 10706 b-4 10710 b-4 10717 10721 10726 10733 b-4 b-4 b-4 b-4 10744 b-4 10750 b-4 10753 b-4 10756 10757 10760 10761 b-4 b-4 b-4 b-4 10762 b-4 10763 b-4 10767 b-4 10771 b-4 612892886 (OS) Biggest reason there is that the oil companies ought to pay for their own mistakes {probe} no. (OS) I don't know. Because the oil companies are the ones who should pay for it. {probe}. They caused it {the spills}. {crossed out [number 3] when said he couldn't pay}. I have no have the money. (OS) We'll be hit both ways! {meaning money}. (OS) I'm not sure it's just a one time tax! (OS) They're going to recover those animals. {probe}. It's just taking the $ {money} away from the people. It's too difficult for people to pay. (OS) Because I don't want to pay that amount and they're already taking too much of my money for taxes. (OS) Because it will be very difficult to buy that amount. Even when it sounds like it is a good program. But I can't pay for it. (OS) Today, I would like to help the human race first, senior citizens, the nick, too much of our own people dying because there is no money. (OS) I would rather spend the money to fight violent crimes. (OS) I think it should be privately funded! (OS) It's a weird scheme. They should make the ships transit farther offshore. (OS) I think the oil companies should be responsible for it even though there are legal laws against it - They're making the money from it - It's their mistake - take responsibility - then they might act a little quicker putting their equipment. {probe}. No. (OS) If I lived on the coast and had dealings with it, it would be different - {probe}. I think the oil companies should foot the bill instead of the tax payers - they're the ones making the profit. They should be inspected just like we are for a smog check- have double hulls. {probe} No. (OS) That money could be put to better use, such as education, the homeless, crime prevention, widening the freeways. {probe}. (OS) I just don't feel that it would endanger the wildlife from becoming extinct. {probe} No. Prevent other items, like crime. Its more important, 1st is for humans. (OS) I could see that $5 going into a better cause. I'm not in favor of more state bureaucracy. (OS) The oil companies would get their money out of me eventually, so I think my cost would be quite a bit bigger than $5. (OS) I don't think they should waste taxpayers money. The oil companies should bear the responsibility. (OS) I think the response to the program is way out of proportion to the problem. And programs don't stop so easily. I would be very suspicious that it would go quietly out of business. And I've heard that the double hull are not significantly safer than single hulls. It might be much cheaper to test the alcohol content of the ships captains; it would be more cost effective. (OS) I think that they could control the spills by taking a different (Vessels) route. The money ($5) isn't a problem, but I feel the cost of oil at the gas station level will increase to offset the cost to the oil companies and tax money could be spent for other things. The cost of the plan could be used for other things like education. (OS) I think that would be the oil companies responsibility. We pay too much for everything now - too many programs. {probe}. 100 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10779 b-4 10782 b-4 10785 b-4 10786 b-4 10787 b-4 10789 b-4 10795 b-4 10800 b-4 10804 b-4 10806 b-4 10811 b-4 10817 b-4 10819 b-4 10825 b-4 10828 b-4 10831 b-4 10832 b-4 10836 b-4 10841 b-4 612892886 (OS) Because the wildlife will came back. I think it would be the older birds killed but the younger ones would survive {Probe}. Once they got the tax dollars in they never take them off. (OS) $65 from every household would be better spent on other programs. Those birds are not endangered and there are not that many affected. It would hurt the oil companies business and people will feel the impact of less jobs. It will hurt business. {probe}. Compared to other needs. You could use it for border patrol or education {for children instead}. (OS) I don't like the plan of having escort ships and having to escort each ship. They should be able to follow the maps or not captain a ship. I do like the response center and could use naval bases in area that are being closed down. {probe} No, Make oil companies more responsible. And that is way too much money for each household to have pay. (OS) Because the companies have insurance and the oil companies are covered and should have to pay. It is a redundant. Why should I pay for this twice; through taxes. There is other ways this could be implemented without taxpayers having to foot the bill. {probe}. No. (OS) Too many taxes. Now {probe} too many government employees on the payroll now. (OS) {probe} The reason is the oil company's should pay for this. Not the taxpayers. (OS) Well I'll believe the Oil Companies should take up the costs. If escort ships have crews and costs, they should pay for it. {probe}. I would go for a lower rate than quoted.{?} [Interviewer has drawn a green circle around the last sentence]. (OS) I'd rather put the money towards education {probe}. No that's all. (OS) I don't like how its set up. Huge amount of setting up money. Tankers should be able to take care of some. Doesn't happen enough to justify cost. {probe}. That's all. (OS) I don't think the taxpayers should have to pay it all basically - I think the oil companies should pay it all. {probe} No. (OS) I think we pay enough taxes. They should allocate some of the taxes they collect to this. Too much wasted tax money. {probe} (OS) I'm opposed to any more tax money. I think they could find the money somewhere else. {probe} (OS) I think there are other important things to spend tax dollars on. {probe} Crime, schools, job training, pollution are all more important to me although I am for the environment. {probe} No. (OS) There's other social problems that should be taken care of first. (OS) The cost of the program is far greater than the loss encountered for it. It's more than the loss it is supposed to prevent. (OS) Birds are getting killed anyway. It's not that important. (OS) Because the state government will end up spending at least double or triple the amount and instead of ending in 10 they will find a way to keep it. {probe} The way I think they should do it is give a tax incentive to ships that wish to come in that are double hulled and if they can switch in 5 years have another tax incentive. Those who don't will pay higher fees to use our ports and water ways. A use tax not penalize the households. Like tax on gasoline. Too much money and I don't have much faith in the oil companies. {probe} Overseeing the project. 101 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10846 10848 10849 10850 b-4 b-4 b-4 b-4 10851 b-4 10856 b-4 10857 b-4 10862 b-4 10864 b-4 10867 b-4 10869 b-4 10871 b-4 10873 b-4 10877 b-4 10881 10883 10886 10888 10890 b-4 b-4 b-4 b-4 b-4 10892 b-4 10898 b-4 10899 b-4 10915 b-4 10917 b-4 10920 b-4 10922 b-4 10925 b-4 10931 b-4 612892886 (OS) This will not be a one time tax. {probe} We really can't afford it. (OS) Other programs are more important. (OS) It will be deleted out after we put all this money into it. It may not work! (OS) They can't guarantee where a ship will wreck. It may not be here. What if it takes 1 1/2 hrs. to get there? The government never puts the money where it is supposed to go! (OS) [answers 1 and 3 circled] I think the burden should be entirely on the oil companies. That's too much money per household. (OS) I don't feel taxpayers should support this. (OS) The oil companies picking up the tab will charge higher prices. Eventually this tax will be passed on to us/on oil. {referring to FEE they'll pay}. (OS) It costs too much for a temporary program. (OS) I think there is a better way to solve this problem. (OS) I feel at our ages we are too old for this. Young people should be concerned with this. We are not going to be around that long to worry about it. {probe} (OS) Since we are living on pension who knows whether I would be able to afford that amount. (OS) Because of my principles. {probe} Like I said before the oil companies should be held responsible. (OS) If you force the oil companies to pay out more money they will just pass on the customers. {probe} That's all. (OS) We already pay too much taxes. {probe} and I'm not so sure about how good the program is. {probe} If it would be worth that much money - I'm not sure. It would be hard for me to pay extra tax. I have a lot of large payments. I can't afford anymore taxes. (OS) I think the oil companies should be held responsible! I'm so taxed out already! We cannot afford this! (OS) I think the oil companies should pay the whole cost (OS) I think you could spend the money on something that would do more good, such as the schools. {probe} (OS) I think by the time they implement the program it would be about 3 years so we would only see 6 or 7 years of use from it. (OS) The Coast Guard should do this. Why create another state agency to do this? Why replicate something that exists? The mission is worthwhile, but why reinvent the wheel? (OS) There are other problems in the state that could use the $65. (OS) A lot of reason. It's a lot of money. I don't think Californians should pay at all. All cost should be pay for by the oil co. (OS) We would pay more either taxes or gasoline prices. Don't need it. Hire the right people to do the job in the first place. (OS) The oil companies have a lot of money and they could pay for all of it. (OS) I would have to learn more about the program to see why it is costing so. Maybe if it were broken down into a monthly fee it would be easier to pay & one time payment may be too difficult for some people to afford. (OS) I just don't agree with it. {probe} (OS) This is the kind of program we need to do for the schools. What is happening with our schools is criminal; more important than 12,000 birds. 102 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10932 b-4 10933 b-4 10937 b-4 10941 b-4 10946 b-4 10948 b-4 10960 b-4 10979 b-4 10980 b-4 10982 b-4 10985 b-4 10988 b-4 10993 b-4 10994 b-4 10995 b-4 10996 b-4 11007 b-4 11011 b-4 11013 b-4 11016 b-4 11018 b-4 11031 b-4 11032 b-4 11034 b-4 612892886 (OS) I just don't feel there have been enough oil spills off the California coast in the past to warrant setting up this program. In 10 years they will be double-hulled anyway. Not enough to justify the expense. {probe} (OS) The regulation doesn't go far enough. All costs should be borne out of oil company profits. (OS) It is too much per household. {probe} the oil companies should pay for it. {probe} I don't feel that 10 miles of shoreline is that big deal for that kind of money. {probe} No that's it. (OS) I don't think the's necessary. {probe} $120 from all these households is way too much. {probe} Let those people who live there pay for it. It's not my community. {probe} Nothing. (OS) Because I'd rather see the money spent elsewhere. (OS) It's once again the state is making it too hard for (industry) businesses to operate in the state - the oil industry is leaving the state because it's being regulated to death - I work in that industry. {probe} The cost is too much. {probe} (OS) I feel it's not up to the taxpayers to pay. The oil companies are making enough money. They should pay. {probe} (OS) The ratio of the birds lost isn't big enough to worry about. {probe} If I was going to spend $5.00 I would do it for something else. {probe} It's not going to work. (OS) DK - Don't want to pay any more taxes. (OS) I don't think program will be as effective as they say it will and spills will still happen and damaging and we will be spending money on nothing. (OS) [answer 1, 2, and 3 circled] We are paying so many taxes. This is ridicule. Why do we have to pay for it? {probe} We work so hard. I don't want to pay anymore. (OS) We shouldn't have to pay - the tankers should pay. (OS) The companies should pay! (OS) It might be difficult for Calif. households to pay it. There are other things that come before that. {to pay for}. (OS) There are other problems that need to be addressed. {probe} Social problems job training is more important than saving these birds and animals. (OS) Education of my child more important than this. Quite frankly they are dumping on us and the corporations are responsible for cleaning up. {probe} I am striving for my kids. {probe} That's all. (OS) [answer 1 and 3 circled] California's already a high tax state and the budget is in the red. They just said they were going to give residents a 15% tax cut. It is ridiculous to be discussing this now. {probe} They won't be able to spend that money in a credible fashion. One time charges end up continuing. (OS) Past experience with government programs. Someone would get rich at my expense and it probably wouldn't do what it was supposed to { + 3 minutes on the California smog program detailing how tailpipe probes were the solution}. (OS) It's the principle of the thing. Why should we pay for these stupid projects that people in Sacramento dream up? {probe} (OS) The other programs are much more important. (OS) Think that any money we have should go toward human beings be it education, homeless, or child welfare. (OS) I cannot pay $65 for a ten year program. (OS) Oil companies should pay the whole thing. {probe} No. 103 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11036 b-4 11055 b-4 11059 b-4 11062 11065 11066 11067 11070 b-4 b-4 b-4 b-4 b-4 11074 b-4 11079 b-4 11083 b-4 11085 b-4 11086 b-4 11087 b-4 11095 b-4 11103 b-4 11107 b-4 11119 b-4 11124 b-4 11126 b-4 11128 b-4 11132 b-4 11136 b-4 11143 b-4 11145 b-4 11146 b-4 612892886 (OS) The sewage problem is much worse. That's what they should fix. I think that amount of money could be better spent on other programs, crime control. {H} - Why aren't the oil companies buying insurance in the first place as I buy auto insurance? (OS) There's so many more important places to spend the money. It frasts my fanny that the state would even consider doing this. Honest to Christ! (OS) Why we have to pay, it's OK. {probe} The ones that have to pay. (OS) Oil company should pay for. Why us? (OS) {probe} It would not work. That's the only reason. (OS) I think there are other programs that would take precedent over it. {probe} Programs for the homeless, unemployed & education. Also the state doesn't have money for these things. (OS) You want the reason? {Yes, please}. There are other issues that are more important to me - it's just not that important. Instead of taxpayers paying - we are over taxed. (OS) We have a program already! {probe} The oil company should pay. {probe} I don't think it that big a deal. (OS) The State pays too much welfare. The State should increase liquor & tobacco taxes instead. Too much money for us! (OS) Too much over regulation with the government and private enterprises. {probe} That would be spending too much for a minor situation. This program was born out of fear of potential spills. I'm an environmental engineer working for an oil company. This just is not serious situation. (OS) I don't know enough about it! (OS) I don't think it is necessary. If the barge leaks who ever owns it should pay to clean it up. {probe} (OS) [answers 1 and 3 circled] I'd rather spend it on other things. {probe} No. (OS) $25 is not that much, but the oil companies are making enough money to cover it - {probe} No. (OS) The oil companies have enough of their own money that they should pay for their own problems - the tax monies go far enough of the wrong things already. {probe} No. (OS) It will always cost double what they say it will. {probe} (OS) There will be more costs than projects. {probe} I don't think we need another state bureaucracy which won't end in ten years. We keep seeing government getting bigger and bigger. The oil companies should pay the entire bill for this program. {I then read statement on p. 14}. (OS) The oil companies should have to implement just like a manufacturing company has to comply to AQQD. (OS) I'm angry with the state for taking taxes out of pension check. {probe} Cal is the only state that does that. (OS) I think it would be up to the oil companies themselves to pay for everything the taxpayers have enough. {probe} No. (OS) Probably both - having to fork out that money, the importance of it & the overall cost of it--we'll be paying for the whole thing - I wish if I had to pay a bill, I could ask someone else for it. {probe} No. 104 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11147 b-4 11148 b-4 11160 b-4 11168 b-4 11169 b-4 11170 b-4 11171 b-4 11175 b-4 11178 b-4 11183 b-4 11186 b-4 11191 b-4 11195 b-4 11200 b-4 11201 b-4 11204 b-4 11206 b-4 11207 b-4 11214 b-4 11215 b-4 612892886 (OS) I don't believe in raising taxes anymore - the cost of living is so high - I can afford it but other people can't {probe} No. (OS) See above reason. There is no such thing as a temporary tax. I would rather see the oil companies have double hulls in 5/yrs instead of the 10 yrs [illegible] the program. (OS) For the amount of damage & the federal program in affect in 10 yrs it wouldn't be worth it. (OS) The method of payment should be at the pump and alternatively I think those are acceptable losses. {probe} I can see why many people would want the program though. {probe} Nothing else. (OS) It is a waste of money to the taxpayer over the period of time you wouldn't save the amount it would cost. (wildlife, oil?) {probe} It's too expensive of a program for what it would do. {probe} They can never run anything for what they say everything they get estimate on it costs 10x as much. What the oil is going to kill is minor in comparison to the length of time. The cost will outweigh the good. (OS) $200 a year is just as good to me as it is to them. And for 10 years - that counts up. But I don't think I'll be here that long. Today, the people want the gov't to do everything. (OS) They give an amount and at the end they live more people than they need. (OS) Trade off cost benefit seems to be ... not to justify spending that much money. Cost benefit is the issue. (OS) The oil companies should pay for it - they will pass the cost on to the consumer anyway. They should be totally responsible. They have the money - they are now making the big profit. I don't think the taxpayer should have to pick up the tab. (OS) I would rather spend the money on the children. Programs and education for drugs. (OS) Oil companies should share the expenses created by the accidents and oil spills. (OS) Also can't afford it but since it is a temporary program, it would be too costly to set up these 3 stations and supply the escort ships. (OS) When the oil companies don't have any problems they don't share their benefits or profits with the taxpayers though this program should exist. (OS) Both it isn't worth the amount and it certainly would be an extra burden at this present time. (OS) I think the cost to me is high $220 as a single person. I don't know where you got your figures. There doesn't seem to be real problems with oil spills in area. I live on only my social security. (OS) It's the cost of doing business. Just pass legislation to have the oil companies pay "all" cots for escort ships and clean up. The harm over 10 years is not that great and the birds and small animals will recover. I'd rather spend this money on something more important. (OS) What was the first one? {RR} Probably. I think it's just another expense the state can't afford. Five dollars isn't a lot but I think it'd become more and I just don't trust what they have to say. {probe} (OS) If the oil companies are required to pay the other half then there not really because they'd pass that along in higher gas prices - they're not going to take a loss. Also, the other reason is it's political - the technology exists to take care of this in other ways. 105 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11216 b-4 11225 b-4 11231 11232 11238 11242 b-4 b-4 b-4 b-4 11245 b-4 11251 b-4 11252 b-4 11253 b-4 11254 11258 11260 11263 b-4 b-4 b-4 b-4 11265 b-4 11269 b-4 11270 b-4 11271 b-4 11272 b-4 11273 b-4 11274 b-4 11275 b-4 11279 b-4 11286 b-4 11289 b-4 612892886 (OS) More important issues. I am on SSI & I don't pay taxes but feel that most people would find that too much money for one purpose. There is so many more important issues to be addressed. {probe} (OS) There haven't been that many spills in that area & they're working on bigger program. The money could go to something. {probe} One lump sum at this time is difficult. (OS) I consider there are more pressing problems i.e. education & crime. {probe} (OS) I don't think we should pay for it; the oil companies should pay for it. {probe} (OS) [answer 1, 2, and 3 circled] I think the money could be better spent elsewhere. And I'd be willing to go with the odds that a spill wouldn't happen. And it's a lot of money. And, the oil companies will pass their costs through to the consumers, so we'd pay twice. (OS) Tax dollars ought to go to other things at this time. {probe} (OS) The oil companies should cover the cost, & if they can't cover the cost, they shouldn't work the waters. (OS) I would rather spend it on AIDS or cancer or sick children. {probe} (OS) I believe it should be private enterprise paying for their own costs and it shouldn't be passed on to taxpayers or with many state programs. I believe in preventing spill but I think they (the oil companies) should pay for it. Just more bureaucracy. That is a lot of money! For me personally it would be very difficult to pay. (OS) I feel like that's the govt.'s problem. (OS) Too much gov in our lives, tired of paying taxes for everything. (OS) [answer 1, 2, & 3 are circled] It's important to save the coastline, but there are so many things that need to be done. People are hungry. (OS) This program is good and we want to preserve Calif. beauty, but the politicians are getting in our pockets. They mail the middle class people. The oil companies make all the profits. Let them pay for it. (OS) I really don't know the impact of oil spills on Central Coast. I need statistical data to use for comparing percent affected vs. percent that existed before spill (birds & animals) [line drawn from the parentheses to the word existed]. (OS) I'd rather see the money go for something else. (OS) We are being taxed too much already! It is more taxes all the time! We have too many important issues & we can't do everything! Can't afford the taxes I pay now. (OS) Why do taxpayers need to do that? {probe} That is it. (OS) Oil companies should pay. It's their mess & problem. {probe} They make millions of the gas. {probe} No. (OS) I don't feel comfortable with proposal. There are other hidden costs. It won't succeed with out existing tax moneys. {probe} No. (OS) I'd rather put my money elsewhere. {probe} Crime & education are more important to me. {probe} No. (OS) It would be difficult for many households to pay. Not ours. The burden on other taxpayers is too much. {probe} It's not a necessity. It won't work as smoothly as you say. No assurances that this will work. (OS) I really don't see the need for it. {probe} It's not that important to me. There are other things that are much more important that the state needs to put money into. {probe} Like education and crime. 106 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11292 b-4 11293 b-4 11295 b-4 11300 b-4 11306 b-4 11307 b-4 11320 b-4 11322 b-4 11323 b-4 11324 b-4 11328 b-4 11333 b-4 11339 b-4 11344 b-4 11345 b-4 11350 b-4 11351 b-4 11352 b-4 11356 b-4 11358 b-4 11365 b-4 11402 b-4 11405 b-4 612892886 (OS) Combination of all three. {probe} I think there should be more off-shore drilling, that way there's would be less tankers going up and down the coast. (OS) They should have (the company) better captain and better ships. {probe} The money could be used for something that would save human life. The oil company should pay for the problem. (OS) Why should Calif. foot the bill for this & other states. {probe} I don't think we should have more taxes. {probe} There are more imp. issues to spend money on. (OS) I don't justify that amount of money for something that may or may not happen. {probe} (OS) It's worth every dime to stop what's going on. But it's government run. Let the people run it. {probe} (OS) Both reasons, isn't worth that amount and difficult to pay. We are hurting financially. I am on disability. (OS) The state of Ca is bankrupted now don't need to spend more money. Why cant' those ship stay on course? Wouldn't work. {probe} (OS) I think the money could be used for other programs other than environmental mostly social programs. {probe} (OS) They need to focus on keeping children safer after school. After school programs are more important. {probe} (OS) Both of the first 2 reasons (OS) It's just not worth the expense because of oil spills not happening this often. {probe} The oil companies should be liable for everything. {probe} No. (OS) We're being taxed for I don't think it's that high in the priority system. The oil companies don't pay for it they pass that along. {probe} (OS) These are unnecessary measures for protection. {probe} (OS) I'd want to be more informed before. I voted for it. {probe} (OS) [answer 1 and 3 circled] Because for ten years I think it's useless to spend that kind of money. {probe} (OS) We need to put more money into preventing crime and other bad stuff going on like gangs and drugs. {probe} It is not at the top list. (OS) I feel we already have a gasoline tax and DMV (Drivers of motor vehicle) registration there should be enough money. {probe} That's it the money should already be there. I don't feel it's important. {probe} It will be taken care of in ten years (the oil spills). There are too many other things more important, like the elderly. {probe} Oil spills generally get cleaned up. {probe} No. (OS) They need to work the bill so that if they're going to charge us a one-time tax so steep, that there is some kind of guarantee about the cost of oil prices. And there is so much waste in government. {probe} (OS) I have a feeling the cost of gas would go up. With all the technology they've got they should be able to prevent spills without a program like this. {probe} (OS) The cost. There are more important things to spend the money on. If they are the only hazards the birds and they are small in numbers I'd have to vote against it. It might be to expensive for some households. (OS) I think there's other ways of stopping it instead of setting that program up. For these 10 years instead of going thru the water transport by land like trucks. {probe} (OS) The government involvement in something because all they have to do is enforce the laws. We watch the merchant ship take all the fish. We are going about 107 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11406 11412 11415 11416 b-4 b-4 b-4 b-4 11417 b-4 11419 b-4 11421 b-4 11422 b-4 11427 b-4 11430 b-4 11433 b-4 11434 b-4 11436 b-4 11465 b-4 11497 b-4 11507 b-4 11554 b-4 11560 b-4 11561 b-4 11678 b-4 11679 b-4 11682 b-4 11683 b-4 11684 b-4 612892886 it wrong. Just tell the single hull ships don't come near our shores or we'll sink you. The politicians aren't doing their job. {probe} [answer 1 and 2 circled] I think the value of human life is greater than that of birds. (OS) Oil companies should pay. {probe} Out of work. Looking for jobs. (OS) That should be paid by the oil companies. {probe} We pay enough taxes - the oil companies can afford it & they caused the damage. {probe} No. (OS) They could diversify the coast guard to include that as part of their daily duties. {S/R referring to oil clean up} It's a good exercise for those guys, it's peacetime and there's nothing else going on for them. {probe} (OS) I feel the cost of gas would go up. This is something the oil co.'s should pay for. {probe} (OS) Many could be used for to many other important things like education. {probe} (OS) Too much government reg. & interference. Everytime the gov. does something it messes it up cost more than it should. {probe} It's just not worth that much money to me. (OS) I don't think it is how the taxpayers money should be used. More damage is done to fish & mammals by the commercial fishing boats that catch mammals in their pets & slaughter then. The amount of money, no matter how much, is of no importance to me. (OS) The cost should be bared by the company that caused the harm. (OS) Too costly for what it does. how many households in CA? That's a lot of money to save a few birds. {probe} (OS) It's not necessary. {probe} If they recover. {probe} No except the oil companies should be more careful. {probe} No. (OS) Oil companies should pay for what they cause - not the taxpayer. It's a good idea but I think this would cost too much. Generally people don't want to pay more taxes. Considering what it accomplishes. We kill that many people each year on the freeways! (OS) {probe} Safety reasons, oil co. have to pay for it, by law the oil co. have to have some prevention because of the environmental laws. Why they are not doing it? Why, we have to pay for. (OS) They're not endangered. (OS) there's natural oil spills out there. And I don't believe that an escort ship is going to prevent a tanker from hitting objects that have been charted for years. Better navigators would be cheaper for the taxpayers. (OS) They would probably raise the gas tax to subsidize the program - and I'd rather spend the $5 on some other program - it would actually cost me $500 as an increase in gas price. {probe} No. (OS) If it were that important they'd find the money in the system or just tax us without asking us - kind of like their raises - basically all 3 reasons above. {probe} No. (OS) Rather the money go to one of the other causes education or crime prevention. {probe} Think money could be better spent. And it should be more on the oil companies and not on taxpayers. That's a lot of money. Too much for every household to pay. (OS) Better use of funds on other programs. $220 could be put to much better use. {probe} 108 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11686 b-4 11687 b-4 11688 b-4 11689 b-4 11692 b-4 11694 b-4 11695 b-4 11698 b-4 11774 b-4 11184 B-4 10034 b-5 10093 b-5 10095 b-5 10106 b-5 10150 b-5 10167 b-5 10212 b-5 10213 b-5 10233 b-5 10263 b-5 10420 b-5 612892886 (OS) I think it's up to the companies (oil) to pay for this why should we pay to protect the environment. They are going to up the cost of their product to pay for this. Then we would pay our share and theirs too. {probe} (OS) After ten years it would be shut down what would they do with all the equipment? When it does close who pays for scrapping the program? {probe} 10 years to pay would be better than one. {probe} No. (OS) The oil co. should be responsible. I feel the oil co's should pay for this cost. {probe} Too much money. (OS) I'm not satisfied that the CA tax is equitable, and all unnecessary expenditures have been eliminated yet. {probe} {probe} The one time large amount. (OS) The program is not very cost efficient find other means of controlling spills. More requirements for oil company & make them supply means of gathering up oil that is leaked. {probe} No. (OS) Prefer to help schools, {probe} better for all to have good education. (OS) [answer 1 and 3 circled] It isn't worth what we are getting for it. We would never get our money out of it. for just ten years. (OS) The money could be used for something else. Something more important. I would conditionally vote yes i the oil companies can't be made to pay the cost! {probe} I would vote yes if that's all cost, but if no one can guarantee it would be $65.00 one-time, I'm not going to. I take going to the polls very seriously. To many tax-hikes have not stopped when we were promised they would. {probe} No. Because I know that there are other needs in the state and it will be taken care of in 10 yrs. If there was to be more damage then you spoke of I would possibly vote for it. It's because I would vote for it if it reasonably guarantee $5 but the government always escalates and eats into my pocket and it probably would be more. The oil comes up onto the beaches and I like to use the beaches. I'm a fisherman. Because I think the program cannot be proved to be effective. I would want to know what programs I'm comparing this with so I can make an intelligent decision. {probe} Are there other special interest programs so I'd know which is more important, i.e. rehabilitating criminals is more important than saving a few birds - also air cond. for schools - I'm also helping my husband w/ his masters degree & living on savings so money is tight. {probe} No. Well, one thing is I don't vote, {probe} Because other problems we have to think about spending money, like protection - police, fire, highways {probe} No. I'm not sure because other things more important like school, people for jobs - they don't have any, more police get criminals off the street, that's important. {probe} No. I don't think it's up to the public for paying for it. Why don't the oil cartels with all this money pay for it? Why not put a pipeline like they have in Alaska like from LA to SF & eliminate the barges? As I said I went to the beach had oil on my feet. And I want to protect this from happening. I think I would vote for it, but then it would be okay in ten years and that is a lot of money for this short period. Because I don't know how it would impact me right now. {probe} Because I don't know is it a danger to people or just the wildlife you showed me. {probe} No. 109 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10470 b-5 10493 b-5 10584 b-5 10632 b-5 10635 b-5 10639 b-5 10668 b-5 10672 b-5 10734 b-5 10754 b-5 10824 b-5 10896 b-5 10916 b-5 10936 b-5 10950 b-5 10953 b-5 11014 b-5 11042 b-5 11057 b-5 11115 b-5 11228 b-5 11235 b-5 612892886 Because not sure if harm to humans. {probe} Don't think will help the nature in anyway. {probe} On the issue, I need a better explanation of how it will help. {probe} No. I think that the tanker companies should bear the expense of these accidents - I'd need to know the cost the shipper has to pay vs. the taxpayer. {probe} Too many unknowns here. I like the program but I'd like to know what other programs might be set up to help humans & compete against it - I'd have to weigh it against other programs. {probe} No. The govt. doesn't always put the money in the right places where it supposed to go $120 is very steep. {probe} But I liked the idea of having the escorts. {probe} No. There's 2 in our household - that's $240? I don't believe it should be a flat tax. {probe} An alternative would be an assessment at the pump. I am registered to vote in Tenn. - not California. {See page 14} Listed reasons there. Actually none of the animals are endangered. Actually it should be our responsibility to clean up after them (the oil companies) if they made the mess. {probe} No. It looks like though whoever thought of the idea - it might wait {probe} No. $65 isn't a lot of money, but taxes are terrible already. {probe} Let the oil companies clean up their own messes. {probe} No. How much write-off would you get on your taxes? {probe} Are we sure the money isn't going to the politicians? {probe} If the amount were less like $50 I would probably favor it. {probe} No. Other issues are more pressing. If I had to choose between this program & educational programs. I'd probably choose the educational programs. They always pick the little people to do things like this. {probe} The money once something like this starts then it goes on. {probe} Because I don't see why the oil companies aren't responsible for the cost of their own oil spills. It's their business to be aware of the cost of transporting oil. We already pay for taxes on gas. {probe} Probably because of the money & since the last few spills, the tankers are being more careful now. {probe} No. Because they say one thing and do another. You can't believe what they say. The government. {probe} At the time I don't know how my financial stability would be - I do believe in protecting the environment for me & my kids - I can't picture seeing the ocean black. {probe} No - [illegible -looks like 20] could supply one of my Kids with school clothes for a year. {probe} No. $225 is a steep price to pay on a fixed income, but it's a good idea. {probe} I think they should set something up but not hit people that hard. {probe} No. We're politically neutral. Man's hands are tied; God's kingdom is the only solution to all of these problems. Because I don't know if there are other alternatives. I would like to read & learn more about this {probe} and need more information before I make up my mind. Well because of paying one lump sum of that much tax money - Right now I don't have any children or own a home so we pay a lot of taxes - It might be different if we 110 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11236 b-5 11283 b-5 11290 b-5 11299 b-5 11327 b-5 11329 b-5 11353 b-5 11420 b-5 11685 b-5 10936 pg16 11016 pg16 11124 pg16 11201 pg16 10002 c-1 10008 c-1 10009 10029 10031 10051 10053 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 10062 c-1 10067 c-1 10069 c-1 10076 c-1 10080 c-1 612892886 owned a home & had children. We would have some tax write-offs. If it were in effect now we would be owing about $800.00. {probe} No. Because we have just a certain income that keeps us going - we have doctor bills and 2 disabled people - {probe} No - I'd have to think more about it. Where's the money going to go? And, there could be several taxpayers per household, so some households could end up paying $15 or $25. My daughter & I live together, & we pay separate income taxes. {probe} Because I want to know the other programs that would benefit. I think oil companies should pay for it (oil spills) and pay for insuring there won't be spills. {probe} That's all. Because I'd like to know more about [illegible] and how quickly the population of endangered animals would recover. {probe} Because I don't understand about the oil. {probe} I need help to decide. {probe} No. {I asked her if I could explain anymore - she said "no" - she has to check with her boyfriend}. I don't do these kinds of things. {Then she said she didn't want to do it but I "sweettalked her into it"}. Because it's just one more thing the state doesn't need to try to manage. They should pass a law if you are going to carry oil you should be responsible for it. {probe} There are more important pending issues - education, crime - promotion of California. {probe} Well I feel it is a good program for the Central Coast and I feel strong about protecting our wildlife but to spend that kind of money for just ten years I am not sure that it would not be a waste of money. The money could be used somewhere else. {probe} On education or crime issues. There's so many if and buts I'm a consumer of oil so maybe I should pay some. I'm tired of every time I pay for any of my bills and having part of it go to toward who can't afford it [sic]. People shouldn't have a phone if they can't afford it.... There's enough that people pay for as it is. I agree with environmental problems being addressed but this is not certain this is needed while others programs are absolutely necessary. {probe} It's very complicated to think of the oil spill as just an oil spill, because one could be larger and more damaging than an other. {probe} I haven't given it a thought. We're new to Calif. and not too familiar with what they've done. Not sure. {probe} Who knows? It's all speculation. It's like saying we'll have an earthquake tomorrow. Same if not less. {probe} 3. {probe} D.K. you don't hear much about oil spills off our coast but I suppose it would be a lot less if they did this. (OS) I have no idea - but increased oil traffic would no doubt increase the probability of spills. {probe} No. (OS) That's too hypothetical the oil companies are still drilling, so I won't answer. (OS) A "little" more. (OS) I have no way of knowing - I guess I'd go with those figures - This was done by biologists, right? Depends on where it would happen. 111 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10090 10093 10095 10096 10097 10102 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 10103 c-1 10106 c-1 10108 10116 10117 10118 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 10119 10124 10136 10163 10167 10168 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 10171 c-1 10173 c-1 10175 c-1 10180 10183 10207 10220 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 10224 c-1 10225 10239 10253 10255 10258 10260 10265 10271 10274 10276 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 612892886 That's hard to answer. {probe} I wouldn't have any idea. I don't get out very much. If anything, it'd probably be From the news it seems to be more. It's hard for me to judge that. Like that boom it won't work worth a shit in big sears [sic]. It hasn't been proven to me, how many birds have been killed. You can't fart without a regulatory agency knowing about it. I dispute the numbers. What is the ration of losses to the birds compared to the ones born every year? How many programs have been started and not stopped? (OS) Speculative. That's a crap shoot. It is speculation. This is sort of extrapolation into the future. When you talk about parts per million to cause cancer, and harm to organisms. Probably a little bit more because the demand year by year for oil is greater. Probably more ships would use sailoring. (OS) Don't know. {probe} Don't know. I did not really think about it until now. I have seen shows on oil spills and I think it would be a lot more! (OS) I wondered whether there were other organisms that would be affected that weren't mentioned. I'm afraid that the food chain may be affected in ways they didn't include. Seals & sea lions have been found dead & coated with oil. It's hard to tell(OS) I have concern of unpredictability here. It may be underestimated. You can't really predict the future. We're talking about potential here, it's an estimate They don't give me anything to substantiate this number - don't know about past spills. It's a small portion of bird population. Or more. The last oil spill was bad, & it was man's fault. Those are just estimates, but based on past incidents, or maybe more. (OS) I have no idea. I don't know how much oil spill we've bad in the last 10 years. I'd don't have anything to compare. Double hull tanks will solve most of it. I haven't heard of any problems. From past history. (OS) It would help moderately. Oil companies are more conservative and have learned the way to get away from that much damage. (OS) More. Think that there will be more oil needed to keep with growing population in West so more chance of spills, more ships, more opportunity for spillage and lax and sturdy ships. (OS) A little less. If the program works! I don't think it would be a lot less. I've seen what would happen! I've lived on the coastal area for many years. At least. I don't know. Your guess is as good as mine - your information sounded reasonable. {probe} I've got no basis for arguing with their statistics. More harm because more people are worried about money, not safety. Those numbers seem reasonable. 112 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10277 10284 10288 10290 10297 10325 10326 10327 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 10328 c-1 10330 c-1 10332 c-1 10333 c-1 10352 c-1 10354 c-1 10357 c-1 10364 10380 10382 10386 10420 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 10423 10424 10427 10428 10439 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 10458 10478 10479 10480 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 10482 c-1 10491 c-1 10498 c-1 10511 c-1 10518 c-1 612892886 Repeat question. {probe} Yea less. (OS) I have no idea. {probe} Because of problems Exxon had. The oil companies should be more careful now. (OS) Just "more" than what you're telling me. Honestly. More, I have no way to estimate. How would I know? (OS) {RR} {probe} It all depends on whether or not they drill out here, but hauling that oil in and out is dangerous. Because of the greed of the oil company. They aren't happy with $5 billion, they want $20 billion. This figure isn't exact; it's a prediction. It could be 10,000 or 40,000 birds killed. (OS) I don't know. You I have to know about production of oil on west coast before you could know. Knows some oil rigs being shut down due to running out of oil and other variables. Like not using channel going outside channel. (OS) I have no idea. I'm not really sure they don't know for sure. Alaska and Exxon Valdez, prior to spill they're estimate would have been different. If it not something done about it. (OS) I've worked with birds after an oil spill. I think that's just a guess it could be more. (OS) They have given me nothing to go by - How many incidence do we have annually? I have no idea. Whole thing being built on fear factor. {probe} They are trying to scare the public. {probe} No. (OS) I wasn't concerned. I think worse, as more people come and more oil is shipped. About the correct amount. So many birds have died from oil spills already. (OS) I don't have enough information to make that decision - Read again. {probe} Still the same - it's not important to me now - It's not that theses wildlife aren't important - I mean they're not going to be extinct. There is a greater awareness at this time. D.K. {probe} D.K. Not sure. I don't know. (OS) I wouldn't have any idea about the count. How do I know there are 12,000 birds killed. Who counts them? This is an estimated program. Expenses? {RQ} Probably with or without the program. (OS) I couldn't take an educated guess. I'm lost. Hard to judge. (OS) It is pretty much at random. Something major could happen like the Valdez. I don't see how you could predict. I'd be leery of those numbers. Not every seal or abalone or sea otter is going to take off when the oil is spilled. That's a trick question. {RQ} I don't know. I haven't seen the studies. It's hard to project without seeing the variables in the study. I have no idea. Because having that many oil spill on our coasts isn't that many. 113 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10521 c-1 10523 c-1 10528 c-1 10532 10533 10545 10548 10552 10553 10565 10566 10582 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 10583 10611 10617 10618 10624 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 10625 c-1 10637 c-1 10638 c-1 10640 10641 10643 10645 10646 10656 10662 10665 10667 10673 10676 10678 10680 10683 10684 10686 10691 10701 10702 10710 10721 10745 10747 10754 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 612892886 (OS) If they implement. If they implement it and get it going probably a lot less if not a lot more. (OS) It could be more than that one time. (OS) I wouldn't know and I don't think anyone would know. As this is unpredictable. There must be statistics. Everything is monitored! I think the people running the ships will be much more cautious. I doubt if it get better. (OS) More maybe not a lot. I don't think you could really fell, depending on the different circumstances. Probably. Probably. I have no idea?! (OS) I have no way to measure that & I don't care! (OS) Depends how big the spill is - How many animals are in that location at that time. I trust the figures. {probe} Quite possibly it could be... (OS) A little more. (OS) I really don't know I would probably agree with the figures because that's what the research shows. (OS) A bit less. I would have expected it to be more. (OS) Just less, I've heard horror stories about oil spills. {With her comment on C-6a I think she was confused and answered the opposite?}. Before you told me? I was just going by your facts. Because of the soil and microorganisms. (OS) I have no information in which to base an intelligent estimate. (OS) I didn't really think about it to tell you the truth. What about the rigs out there drilling? They leak too. Shipping increase as the demand for oil goes up. (OS) Not sure how much. {probe} Did not imagine it before. (OS) I thought it could be more - {probe} At least one big catastrophe. (OS) I would think the oil co's would be more careful. (OS) I would leave that up to science. This is not for one to predict. I think our wildlife regenerates quickly. (OS) Somewhat more. Probably ["a lot more" circled]. I don't know. Any spills would be. I only know Alaskans spills. I believe. (RQ) {Say that again.} I think the oil companies are trying to do better. I need more information. A little more. How much oil is spilled? {Q by Q}. These guys will be more on their toes. 114 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10757 10762 10763 10767 10768 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 10769 10770 10771 10775 10776 10782 10785 10786 10788 10791 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 10813 c-1 10831 c-1 10836 c-1 10843 10846 10850 10851 10859 10886 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 10890 c-1 10891 c-1 10892 c-1 10894 c-1 10895 c-1 10899 c-1 10925 c-1 10933 10944 10948 10961 10975 10980 10988 10998 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 11000 c-1 612892886 That's hard to answer. I'd like to know the average spill per year. {probe}. Especially if the oil companies know they'll have to take care of it. I have not way of guessing. (OS) Probably less. I think from cleaning up they've lost money and they will be more careful. And they do have tugboat escort. {referring to oil companies}. (OS) I don't know enough to give you a honest answer. You never know there are a lot of animals out there. The harm from the species? {Yes}. {RQ}. If they start to correct it. (OS) Not sure. {Then?} (OS) Depends on oil spills. It could be more or less. (OS) I didn't think of numbers more the cycle of life in general. I don't think the population will change because of shipping but will from end of food in the natural change. (OS) I have no idea. I accept their figures because I have little knowledge about this. (OS) Oil damage spillage has occurred for millions of years. I think that the oil damage in Central Coast has been going on for millions of years oil seepage 3-4' oil level. No rules; people get careless. Or maybe more. They could have 5 accidents or none! How do I know?! (OS) {probe} I have no idea. I have to go with what you told me. I didn't think about the numbers! That's if they are telling us everything! I really don't think Calif. has that much to worry about. (OS) I have no idea. Get on with it. I won't answer this. (OS) I have nothing to base my decision on. I can't remember how many oil spills have occurred. (OS) More. (OS) I have no feelings. I don't know enough to judge. But I'd hate to have a spill there. It takes a long time to get that stuff off the beach & rocks. I would hope [arrow pointing to answer"a lot less"] because they are watching or taking care of things. {probe} {I don't know who "they" are}. Except for recovery data. I think it would take longer. Hard to tell - it depends on the size and oil capacity of the ship. {probe} It's impossible to predict. I don't want any harm to come to them. I'll take their word for it. I would hope that they would correct this program. We are more conscientious about the environment. We can prevent things. I really don't know a lot about oil spills and the amount of harm done. I just know the oil spills kill wildlife. {RQ - Noise outside, R could not hear all of the Q and looked puzzled}. 115 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11005 c-1 11010 c-1 11011 c-1 11013 11014 11025 11028 11034 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 11055 11056 11057 11069 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 11070 11072 11074 11077 11083 11087 11093 11105 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 11110 c-1 11128 11129 11132 11133 11139 11158 11159 11169 11170 11178 11179 11180 11192 11193 11198 11199 11203 11214 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 11215 11232 11235 11244 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 612892886 It depends on the traffic of ships. The oil companies are more careful since the Alaska spill. (OS) Not the slightest idea. I don't know who came up with these figures and how. To comment on that would be ridiculous. (OS) Actually the recovery is a lot quicker than they think. They never clean it all up. I expect more. I DK I have no idea. I have no basis for real judgement. (OS) Very difficult to say. {probe} I am not privileged to the information about the extent of the spills. {probe} No. But I don't know - Maybe less because people are informed about spills these days. (OS) I really don't know. I don't have a specific number. The potential could be worse. Oil spills can be devastating. (OS) I'm not at all confident that any estimate is valid. Estimates? Maybe reliable is a better word. (OS) I know nothing about the oil industry so I can't give an educated opinion. [illegible]? {probe} Seeing how I had no knowledge of this. What now! {RR} I have no idea. I guess more! I cannot determine. I don't have enough facts. I don't have any idea. (OS) [answer 2 and 4 circled] There was extreme harm from the Valdez & they are still recovering. It was a disaster. We need to prevent this. {probe} No. (OS) Depends on the severity of the spill. It could be worse than this. It could be less. You never know. I'm trying to remember the last oil spill. Was it in Santa Barbara? I don't think they have all the details of the damage being done. But I wonder where the gov't gets these statistics. I thought it would be a lot worse and take more time to recover. (OS) A little more. I thought a lot more injury but not as many deaths so I say less. (OS) I had no idea. They are more careful now than in the past. It depends on how many oil spills they have. DK. (OS) I can only base my opinion on what you show me. I just DK. Hesitant. (OS) I didn't think at all. I just listened to what you were saying. Do you mean with the program? If they had the program it would be less. (OS) I have no idea. No way for me to make an estimate. Fires can erupt from oil spilled on water - no one thinks of that. (OS) How's that again? {RQ} Less, but not a lot less. DK. If the program was not being used. (OS) Didn't give it a consideration - I'd like to see them open that oil area for pumping. They've had that moratorium on. Are you referring to {RR}. I have trust in the experts. That depends on amount of spills per year. (OS) I hope there is some truth to the figures. I would hope it would be less. 116 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11246 c-1 11253 11269 11270 11271 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 11276 c-1 11278 c-1 11286 c-1 11287 c-1 11288 11291 11292 11293 11297 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 11299 11307 11321 11333 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 11337 11347 11349 11351 11352 11353 11404 11406 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 11408 c-1 11413 c-1 11417 c-1 11418 c-1 11420 c-1 11424 c-1 11426 11428 11433 11437 11507 11678 11681 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 612892886 I hope, they have to be paying attention. I'm sure they are trying to prevent spills. But, they are big business. (OS) I have no idea. How would I know that? (OS) I had no frame of reference to numbers affected. (OS) I'm no scientist. I don't know. (OS) It would depend on the amt of traffic. Will it be more? That would make a difference. I didn't think. Ten years is a long time. (OS) [answer 2 and 4 circled] It would be more than 10 miles of shoreline. The oil companies should be required to pay everything. {probe} It sounds like it might work. {probe} (OS) I didn't think about the harm, just the protection purpose of program. {probe} I just don't know. I just wanted to see a protection program. {probe} I tend to trust university scientists. I think about the same. (OS) There's know way to tell. (OS) That hard to tell. {probe} Hopeful less. (OS) It's hard to tell because of how many accidents happen. People are cheap needs monitors to prevent the ship from accidents. D.K. {probe} D.K. (OS) I have not the slightest idea. You never know what's going to happen out there. There are a lot of spills. We don't know about. Really I don't have much bases to prog investigate [sic]. I don't keep up on what's going on in the oil business & how the petroleum products are being [illegible]. (OS) I didn't really think about it. With the number of spill's. Or probably a lot more. I feel this is underestimated. Because there are more restrictions like fines. (OS) I have no idea. (OS) I know nothing about it as I never thought about it. I don't know. I would say the same. And really if the new ships replace the old ones it could be less. If they went through all that trouble to set this up that is the number. I don't know the statistics. I don't have that type of information. What are the existing laws for the tankers going in or out of this area? They should pass additional laws to the oil companies on safety. (OS) Don't know enough about the spills to know what it would be. What about sea lions & other animals? (OS) I didn't have any idea. {C-1 to my understanding, R's verbatim comment lends itself more to a number 4 - you be the judge.} (OS) No idea. I never gave it a thought. {probe} No. {R was not sure how to answer. I should have marked number eight}. (Os) I have no idea. Not sure. I couldn't say. (OS) I have no basis to evaluate the data. I have no basis for an opinion. My 1st thought was a lot more. Because they already have some standards in place. I assumed. 117 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11690 c-1 11695 c-1 11771 c-1 11790 10020 10073 10080 10086 10090 c-1 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 10093 10095 10102 10106 10110 10112 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 10122 10136 10171 10183 10197 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 10223 c-2 10224 c-2 10252 c-2 10271 c-2 10288 c-2 10318 c-2 10322 c-2 10333 c-2 10380 10419 10432 10447 10465 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 10482 c-2 612892886 When I first saw the numbers I thought a lot, but there is reproduction. {probe} I didn't even think about it. {probe} Don't know. Frequency of spills. {probe} That's a hard question. I don't know it depends on the size of the oil spill and where it happens. It could hit a [illegible] of animals or area where no animals are. It could be less or more either way. Uncertain now. {probe} Nothing. These aren't a big number. Numbers might go up in 20 years as more oil is needed. The harm could be extremely serious if we don't take care of it. You can't force the future. The percent rate in increase of for example of bird deaths is not that big. If small children were to pickup the dead animals and put in their mouth - it might be dangerous. Because if it's not an extinct animal but still At the moment, but nature takes care of itself. A highly emotional issue. I don't want to start another program, use what we have. Taking into consideration the population of birds affected. I would think a lot more birds would be killed then 1200. We've been dumping for quite a while and the wildlife is still living. Our problem is too many people. It's got to be dealt with some way. The birds will reproduce. Again, we're talking about life. If your in that 10 mile range it is extremely serious. There are things that are more important to me. {probe} the education. If we have good education, we won't have so many problems. {probe} If I had more time, I could be more informed about the environment so. I'd know how serious this really is, but I don't think it's too serious. Because it's only a 10 mile span. I think conservation of plants & animals but have to balance like with owls in northwest do you put a lot of people out of work. You have to use judgement lots of gray areas few yeses or no's. If it doesn't contaminate water too much. I can't think of an oil spill in this area since I've lived here. As long as our population is exploding we have to do other things. Where are our priorities? Tanker neglect is very serious. Before or the next ten years? {The harm shows here - pointing to top of card I} I'm not sure what the normal loss of wildlife is without an oil spill. They're still going to lose some birds. {probe} Nothing works 100%. The birds recover in 10 years. Probably. Probably three or four. {probe} It soaks into the water table. (the harm...) and the damage it does. Sounds like I am contradicting my self. This is a big problem, but abortion funding is more important to me. Birds ain't my favorite animal. The ratio between those killed & those left isn't that bad. 118 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10500 c-2 10511 10528 10565 10596 10640 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 10643 10645 10652 10661 10686 10702 10728 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 10754 10769 10773 10786 10787 10825 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 10831 10836 10843 10925 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 10944 c-2 10996 11010 11013 11074 11169 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 11199 11231 11252 11269 11287 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 11289 11312 11319 11350 c-2 c-2 c-2 c-2 612892886 I'm working on the assumption that the harm is more than this. But in the overall scheme of things, of the harm here is not too serious. But overall this is a serious issue. Would this harm seals? {Pg 7 RR} I'm not educated to talk about this. {probe} Don't have enough information. We haven't had a spill in a long time now! For the wildlife? {probe} Pretty serious. I don't think it will be just the plants and animals that would be harmed. According to this and based on this information. Based on the competing attention of all the social difficulties. Depends on the spill. Some can be very serious. Most somewhat serious! {RE} {RR} The harm is. Because I like animals. It all comes down to us - we'll eat the birds or fish and it gets to us if the water is polluted. It won't wipe [illegible - maybe "one"] species out. It need to be prevented, but not at all costs. Kind of in between 3 {three} and 4 {four}. {probe}. Again depending on quantity of spill. The harm is very serious but not all spills are very serious. My opinion is I think the oil companies should pay for it - not us. They are the ones profiting from the oil - not us. I don't think this preservation of species is absolutely necessary. Natural seepage. Because all harm done by humans to nature is done ultimately to humans. The poor things are suffocated by the oil. {probe} {I don't know who the "poor things" are}. Just limiting it to birds & plants isn't enough. Look at the harm to the coast itself. {probe} {Telephone call} {about 10 min.} They breed unrestricted. There's been a lot of oil that bubbles up and it's been going on forever. What the oil spills? {Yes}. I lost more birds than that when I was raising turkeys. With the amount of seagulls I don't think you could deliberately exterminate them. Birds tend to move around a lot. Because from what I hear it's somewhat serious. We need to be responsible. But there are other more serious problems. I don't know. See comment C-1. We're looking at the ocean. We depend on it and beaches are important. The beach community's suffer with closed beaches. I don't see the oil ills on T.V. news so it must not be happening very often. Any oil spill is serious. {probe} It's the principle. Then I didn't vote for it. 119 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11351 c-2 11352 c-2 11353 c-2 11413 c-2 11426 11463 11687 10340 11561 10008 10014 10022 10026 c-2 c-2 c-2 pg17 pg17 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 10051 10063 10067 10087 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 10090 c-3 10093 c-3 10096 c-3 10102 c-3 10112 10121 10135 10136 10167 10184 10221 10223 10224 10233 10250 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 10265 10270 10274 10288 10290 10297 10299 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 612892886 You look at the numbers. They're not that great. We should handle it properly and by prepared. I think it's pretty serious killing those animals but there are other things more important. Initially but long term not too bad. I think any harm is serious. If oil companies were forced to pay for this, they could. A prevention program for them would be cheaper than being sued. They should pay for the program themselves. I just don't want anymore tax's. Effects the whole ecological system. Because of wildlife. $65?? It's kind of high. Are you sure this isn't put out by the oil companies? Probably unless a bad storm was going on I'm sure it was [illegible]. It's just for clean up not for prevention - it's just going to work for clean up. Nothing is completely effective so. You never know what else might pop up - a new ship that could cause more damage or something. {probe} If you pay me as a consultant, I'll tell you why I think so. Pollution continues! I don't think the State can set up a business and run it any better than the oil companies.10087 For some reason we put up fences, but there's always someone to come and pull it down. It would all depend on how long it would take to get the program going. {probe} It would depend upon how they do it. Between 1 and 2. Installing a new layer of government does not stop an accident. What will stop the accident is new technologies to develop ways. This is useless for the small stuff. It's just another gimie to collect tax's. It depends on how it's implemented. It's hard to collect all of the oil. Experience in the past you tell me was successful. How has it been for Washington & Oregon? Nothing is perfect. I want the results from similar programs used in other states before voting. That oil can move! Not completely. We're human thing happen. Once an oil spill happens, there's always going to be some harm. {RR} Do you mean the double hulls or the escort ships? Even with double hulls I guess you could still have spills. So I guess mostly effective. That's a good one. There are a lot of variables - response time, etc. It's not foolproof. Unenforceable, they don't have the manpower. When you work with mechanical things it is not perfect and humans make mistakes. I need to know about how effective the program really is. Nothing's completely effective. You've got to allow for weather. 120 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10305 10323 10325 10328 10333 10337 10351 10354 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 10357 c-3 10379 10380 10382 10419 10423 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 10440 c-3 10447 c-3 10454 c-3 10479 c-3 10489 c-3 10498 c-3 10500 c-3 10503 c-3 10510 10516 10543 10544 10550 10565 10607 10619 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 10635 10640 10643 10646 10654 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 10659 c-3 10662 c-3 10665 c-3 10670 c-3 10680 c-3 612892886 Nothing is foolproof! I don't think they could contain an oil spill Never can be completely. But it should be the oil companies responsibility. I know it's not completely. {probe} Because it's worked in other places. We shouldn't have to pay! They make profits! I would hope [arrow pointing to answer 2 - mostly effective]. I can't picture it being completely effective. If an escort ship is with each vessel and we can monitor pipelines from platforms to storage facilities it could be very effective. Platforms can do just as much damage. If they caught the oil right away. Or probably [arrow pointing to answer 2]. From the way I understood it M.E., but not completely. {RR}. I am not an expert in that. Some experts would be able to tell when the whales are [sic]. I don't know. I guess. That's a good question. Nothing's completely effective. Depends entirely on how it is handled. You have no guarantee it would be done the way you say it would. Depends on who is doing it. Preventing? It's just more expense for the State. Does that mean every tanker would have an escort ship. I don't think is fully affective when dealing with mother nature. I have nothing to go off other than what you told me. There should be more responsibility on the part of the people who own the tankers, to navigate where they're going. You need inspections even with escorts. If it's done right! It sounded like it would be... There's no guarantee. I don't have enough details. I believe it will work! It depends on conditions - rain-storms! To justify the costs -- No way. Because the fence is 6 ft above and 8 ft below the surface it would prevent about 90% of harm. Nothing is 100% effective. It sounds like it would be effective. You can't have anything completely. At preventing spills? There will always be some that gets away. The whole process can be based on human error so nothing can be completely effective. It's a start. Nothing can be completely effective. You have enter in the reasonableness of the cost to say whether it is effective. If that's included the answer is 5. {See to side} It would be somewhat effective but not worth the expense. As an interim plan. 121 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10681 c-3 10686 c-3 10705 10770 10782 10787 10788 10799 10806 10811 10832 10843 10851 10877 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 10893 10895 10933 10936 10944 10980 10990 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 10998 11002 11003 11004 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 11010 c-3 11011 c-3 11013 c-3 11025 11028 11034 11057 11060 11064 11072 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 11074 c-3 11087 c-3 11088 c-3 11104 c-3 11127 c-3 612892886 It's a new program, things will have to be ironed out - it's a start. You're referring to the ship? {Dig, RR pages 10-11}. In that regard the escort ship is ideal. {probe}. {I don't think} it's a 100% cure-all. Let's hope. Not really sure. Nothing is 100% effective. Depends on situation response time. Is cleanup really completely. Nothing is perfect. Don't know if it could work. It's hard to say. O efficiency if the weather was bad enough. They did a good job in Alaska. In theory, completely effective. In a practical sense? Probably. We would have to set up and see if it really works in Calif. It might have worked in other states but we don't know if it will work in Calif. I don't know enough about the engineering. Otherwise why spend the money? I don't know about other things like fines - enforcement. You say this has been affective in other states. Was it successful? Nothing is completely effective. I think their nuts! Big disasters are overwhelming. The escort ship is on e of the most important factors here. D.K. haven't heard more about this particular program. I always like the first answer - I want to have faith in the program. I'm not an authority at all. If it worked the way you described it number 2 - I question that it would work that well. If the oil company get on the ball. Not the slightest idea. Ask me a question like how far is up. If it was run right [line drawn to answer 2] But I doubt that it would ever be, so number 5. It's a technical matter. A layman can't judge that. DK. I guess. I cannot believe that oil would not avoid the so called sea fence in the water. There's always the unknowns. And they could be undermanned. It's hard to say. It depends on the season. This is being oversimplified. {probe} When you have those big tankers out there. Nothing's going to be completely effective. The way they was going to do the oil? {The prevention program}. Oil tankers already have skimmers on the tankers. Not sure about the barges having skimmers. I haven't seen it in action. I really DK but I guess. Remember what I said. If they are there to react right away to the spill. Some of it's going get away from you [sic]. There's gonna be some slip through on you. 122 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11148 c-3 11159 11176 11178 11179 11185 11198 11205 11207 11218 11229 11230 11236 11237 11246 11253 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 11265 11274 11276 11278 11279 11286 11287 11288 11291 11293 11306 11312 11347 11352 11353 11357 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 11358 c-3 11424 11426 11429 11433 11434 11457 11464 11559 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 c-3 612892886 I don't know how will it would work. Sounds good but will it work? And seems very costly. 24 hrs man & equipment. If it was used immediately and not too much oil was spilled. {R gave quizzical look}. {RQ}. DK. Or I wouldn't have voted for it. Keeping the harm from happening? {RQ} Depending on how much oil was spilled. {R didn't know what the word effective meant}. If it works. If we spend that money. Nothing is completely effective. How effective has it been in Washington? It better damn be effective if I'm going to spend the money on it. Until it's proven. {H - 2} I mean with the skimmers and a response right away. Not totally. It depends on the conditions like gales or rocks and the boat won't pick up the oil. Sounds like a great idea. There are other chemicals involved too. Nothing can ever be 100% effective. Probably. They would still have work to do on the clean up. I'm not a scientist. They would be there on the spot to defer tankers. The way you are putting it it sounds mostly effective. I would said, it depends on the oil spill. I don't think so! There is no way that all the oil can be contained. {probe} That leaves it open for contrary. {probe}{probe} The deal that you said. {Digression}. Compared to before the program? It would only be as effective as the people running it. {probe} Based on the weather conditions when it happens, & any breakdowns on the ship, & whether it's crude oil or refined oil. I also think that disbanding the program after everything has double hulls is not a good idea - a reef can go through 2 hulls. And, there has to be a monitoring of any break on either the primary or secondary hull. The bigger question is - they are like fire stations. If we need them then great, but if no spills happen in 10 yrs. they go out. I think it's like indians {and the white men implied}, putting wagons in a circle & the cost at the pump will go up. {probe} I don't know. {probe} Nothing. I don't really know. There's always bugs in things. Nothings perfect. I think it will take you years before it is completely effective. No idea. How long have you lived in CA? Ever seen a special tax deleted? It is hard to say how effective it will be until it is put into effect. I wonder how much research has been done - would the program work? I don't understand the sea fence real well. 123 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11680 c-3 11681 c-3 11692 c-3 11771 c-3 10006 10007 10008 10015 10017 10019 10026 10029 10053 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 10057 c-4 10062 10063 10065 10075 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 10077 c-4 10082 c-4 10086 10087 10093 10095 10098 10101 10102 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 10105 10112 10117 10124 10153 10175 10176 10180 10183 10184 10190 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 10220 c-4 612892886 I'm not a [illegible]. I assume your escort ships have pilots local with the area. They would probably be more familiar with the underlying terrain! A good goal. It is an interesting concept. You never know if it will work until it happens. If they can stop it before the shore. It doesn't make any difference - It would be worth $5 a year. You said one time! I wondered! I would have thought more than one year. California is funny - once they get a tax on the board they don't like to get rid of it! I thought you emphasized one year. A continuous tax probably. But maybe more. Hard to say I suppose more than one year. I thought that's what you said it would be for 1 yr. Then the oil co. would pick up the rest. It's more than one year because the oil co's. would pass along their part to the consumer. {probe} You had all ready told me it was a one time tax. {probe} Of course people lie. Those politicians always lie - you know that. It would be for more than one year. I thought it might be parceled out over several years rather than all at once. Like $5 at a time I didn't think about it. I'm afraid it would be for more than one yr. I'd give the $220 donation for 1 yr. no more. You said one year! The state of CA is getting like the US government. They can't run anything. If I were to vote for it, I'd have to know it was for one year. {probe} But I know we would end up paying more through oil prices. It would carry on. I imagine. We are not in a risk free society or utopian society. Who's going to pay for the costs?, in the long run the consumer, when they raise prices to cover costs. Never fails. The rest of my life. It's like floating a bond. The 1st 50 years we pay the interest. It's always is longer than they say. Could you repeat that? {RQ} I had not thought about it. Never comes off. I would like to see it for one year but realistically probably more than 1 year. You can bet it will be for more than one year. You said one time. In 1903, they said income taxes would be temporary and here we are. They can't do it in one year. They can't clean up in one year, if they deceive to put this program. If it was voted on, it would stay all the time. 124 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10221 c-4 10224 c-4 10226 10227 10236 10242 10249 10252 10255 10256 10257 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 10260 10265 10268 10274 10277 10288 10291 10299 10302 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 10305 10327 10328 10335 10336 10338 10340 10354 10357 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 10360 10374 10375 10380 10386 10420 10423 10428 10446 10452 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 10455 10456 10458 10459 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 612892886 That is not the issue to me. Issue is the long term cost, not just a one time tax. {probe} No. Well you know. I think it is needed it so if more than one year so be it. Subject to review need responsible legislators deciding when enough is enough. Once they get they're going it they're going to keep it [sic] - {the tax money} I wouldn't mind if it was each yr. but I understood it was a 1 time deal. Once they put it on, it's always on. Taxes are always more than one year. I don't get along with that idea. {probe} I don't go along with saying year after year. {RQ} Just for this program! Ongoing think Taxes - When is it ever for just one year? That didn't bother me. It's not the amount money that my household would have to pay. I'm not in favor of an escort service. Ya never know when ya start something like that. I thought you said - I don't know. {probe} {RE} One year at most if I did vote on it. Once instituted it would stay there. I assumed it would be. Once it gets on we never know when it gets taken off. If ever. Didn't think one way or other. I assumed it would be for the 10 years. I think it would be for one year and if it worked it would be for more than 1 yr. {RR sec. B to S.P.} $5 isn't much! I think you said ten years. {RR pg 12} {probe}{probe} That's insane, a business causes damage and we pay! This is for everyone right, all pay. {probe} Okay. They forget when it's started and keep it going on. They never quit. You said it was! (1 yr.) If it's for more than one year - forget it. You said [arrow pointing to one year]. There could have been spills or leaks from these platforms during the earthquakes that we have not been informed of. {probe} No. You said 1 year. It's irrelevant! It would take more than 1 yr. to get it off the ground. The cost of gas will go up, though, that will bother me more than the $120. {probe} A one-time thing. Am I naive? D.K. {probe} Didn't think about it. You never know! A one time fee the way it was explained. Even if it were $5 a year for 10 years it would be worth it. But once they get a tax it goes forever. Probably. What was that? {RQ} You said one yr. 125 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10465 10478 10480 10489 10499 10500 10507 10510 10512 10513 10515 10518 10523 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 10524 10533 10542 10544 10545 10553 10566 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 10572 c-4 10579 10593 10607 10619 10640 10643 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 10645 10646 10659 10661 10662 10679 10686 10692 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 10701 10706 10716 10728 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 10745 c-4 10754 c-4 612892886 That's what was stated. Before you told me? I thought it was for more than one year. I thought for 10 years, 220 a year. Once they get it in. We keep paying. Our taxes are high enough now. I thought you were talking about each year for the duration of the program. I didn't know. One year period! The thought did cross my mind but you did say a one time charge and I believed it. I wondered about that. D.K. {probe} They never take taxes off! I would vote every year for this. {probe} If it is effective. I would be glad to pay my $25. Possibly. Once there is a tax, it never stops. I think they would make us pay for ten years. Asking for a lump some like this would be too much. For the next ten years I thought. Well - you said one-time, but that the program would last for 10 yrs. {RQ} That's not relevant to my decision! {RQ} When you fill up your gas with gas you pay for it as a consumer! Probably more than one year. I know how they are. They get something going and it keeps going. {probe} no. That's what you said. They say one - say one more year & then it's more & more! you said it was a one time deal. From your report. You said one time. What are long term affects? Have they really looked into the integrity of these birds? Even if they are not endangered they could be. Don't we lose a species everyday. From what you said. You told me one year. If it is more I will change my vote. I hadn't thought about. {probe} more than one year. It's a good price to pay. I thought the $120 would be divided up, thru more than one year. {RR} I'm sure it's probably going to be more than one year. You want to phrase it the way it should be - you said. Once they get a tax, they usually stat with it. It never for a year!. I'm a friend of Pete Wilson, you know. But knowing how they are - it might be more than one year. I didn't think about it because you paid only one time. I didn't think about that! I don't understand why we have to pay - the oil companies should pay it all. They don't care if they dump oil. They get fined for spilling so little that it's cheaper for them to dump it. We need to go to better ways of producing energy so we don't have to depend on the oil. I was under the impression of one year. But if they wanted more money they'd keep leaning on it. 126 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10760 c-4 10768 10769 10771 10773 10775 10799 10824 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 10825 10831 10836 10841 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 10850 c-4 10875 c-4 10876 c-4 10877 10878 10886 10892 10895 10905 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 10925 10932 10933 10934 10936 10960 10975 10980 10985 10988 10992 10998 10999 11002 11004 11013 11024 11025 11028 11039 11049 11067 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 612892886 I'll be paying for it at the pump. The oil companies will charge more because their costs have gone up. It could be broke down and paid for in two years or three years. 10 years later we would still be paying. I think it's presented at one year but I think it'd keep going. I didn't even consider that. {C-4 R's response stand apart from option choices}. {RE}. That would be a concern. Prefer it one time. I'll take a year at a time - Let's see how they manage the funds. Than I'll believe one year. That's what you said. I never trust temporary tax. But I don't believe gov't will deep their words. Everytime a new program is initiated it takes more time - more money really - than was planned for. You'll pay forever! They'll find someplace else for the money! I hope a 1 time tax. It would be smart to spread the money over a longer period instead of collecting it all at one time. I would be willing to pay it all at one time but the general public wouldn't be willing to part with that much money - all at one-time. Maybe. You said. That how it's been in the past. They said for one year only never that way. Who knows? They can always extend it. I would think 5.00 would be more than one year. From now on. Once they get something in, they never take it off. That's the reason I don't like voting on anything. I know how those politicians work. Didn't enter into it. These things have a way of perpetuating themselves. I didn't think it would be so high. I didn't really thing about that. I'm not really concerned with cost just the principle. I figure every year. They never take off tax's. That's questionable. We don't want anymore taxes. We are tax out. Didn't enter the equation. I am sure I we going to be paying for more years. Nothing's one time in the gov't! You told me. Maybe 2 yrs. I would think you'd have to pay it more than one year. To keep it going. My first thought was an annual tax. I've been trained in hazardous waste in oil spills. You said to me 1 yr. You stated 1 yr. I understood you to say a 1 x charge. I'm an optimist so I say [arrow pointing to answer 1]. I didn't think of that. It all depends on how much they accomplish in that year. 127 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11072 c-4 11080 11090 11091 11093 11095 11103 11108 11117 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 11125 11127 11133 11147 11148 11153 11159 11169 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 11170 11171 11173 11179 11185 11186 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 11187 11188 11190 11193 11194 11199 11205 11214 11215 11253 11258 11262 11267 11271 11281 11285 11287 11288 11306 11315 11321 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 612892886 You said we needed 10 years before all ships were double-hulled right? {probe} {C4 See E-10}. That's what you said. You said once. According to this it says one year, right? You said 1 yr. I bet it's going to be more. One time tax, right. RR parg 1 on pg 14. $5 is not a lot - it had to be but that'd be worth it. {RR} I don't know if I understand the question. Before you told me one time only or after you told me one time only. One time tax to cover the 10 years. Government never do it for one year always stick you with more than once. I have a feeling it will be for more than one year to get it off the ground. {probe} you're stuck with it - once on they don't take it off. I really didn't consider it. But maybe more than 1 depending on govt. 1 time you said. I didn't even consider it. this is not something we need to be putting out. They would have to come back to the taxpayer. No way would one time pay the bill. I wouldn't vote on this because of the $65 but vote against it because it is another tax. For 10 years. They say one time, then "Oh we made mistake, we have to do it again. I have never heard of a one year tax! My impression was 1 yr. I'll be more than one! This is not the way it works. People can think what they want, but it is up to the government. Never see one year on any government program. It definitely crossed my mind. You said 1 yr! I believe in good oil tanker operators. I said only for 1 year that I'd be willing to pay. I'm inclined to believe. You explained it would be only one time. I thought 10 years. 1 yr right? Didn't consider it - Amount has nothing to do with it. I would say... I didn't think about that. I didn't think about it. You said one yr. but never go that way. Will be for yrs. Will be...[answer]. Maybe. You said it was a one time tax. I hope. I think it should be a small amount over several years. Once per year? {RR pg 14}. That's more realistic. It wouldn't make any difference. Any stab in the right direction is the right direction. You know how it goes. {RQ} Even though it said one. It's tax deductible anyway. 128 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11332 11339 11347 11351 11352 11357 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 11408 c-4 11412 c-4 11413 c-4 11418 11426 11431 11433 11457 11497 11681 11685 11686 11688 11692 11694 11696 11771 11790 10096 10944 11554 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 c-4 pg18 pg18 pg18 10006 10090 10095 10118 10168 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 10183 10207 10248 10277 10333 10353 10355 10357 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 612892886 One time taxes turn out to be longer than 1 year. Probably! I expect. From what you said. I hadn't thought about it. I think they should continue the escort program, & make the oil companies pay for it. They'll just pass on the cost to us, but who cares? Gas is $4 a gallon in Europe. I thought it ones time but one time each year [sic]. Even tho you said 1. I thought you said one time fee only. I'm willing to pay more than $5 for the next ten years but my thoughts about oil companies being responsible for 100% of cost is still true. You said one year. You said one time. 1 time. I didn't give it any consideration - but I think it is a dangerous precedent. There are always hidden costs. You said 1 yr. Based on what you said I assumed one year. That's what you said 1 year. It would be for 10 yr. I think it would be for 10 yr. Any tax that goes on never comes off. I know it is for one year. I like it to be one time only like you said. Good question. I meant to ask you that. Well, I've never heard of one year. We don't want anything to happen to God's creatures. They limit the view. Look at the overall picture. The fence to pick the oil spill have to go all around the tanker then they have to pull tanker. How are they going to do it? I know this will take hrs. by then the spill already have done the damage. Nobody tells me how to vote. No matter what it said I would make up my own mind. It did give me a lot of facts. It was very balanced. But there wee certain threads throughout the document to vote against the program because the bird population discussed was less than one percent. I would hope. It was neutral! I didn't understand. {probe} the first one. My gut feeling is that they were pushing towards wanting me to vote for it. But not even information to do that. The way is presented you're playing on sympathy not on facts. Info. was fairly neutral; fairly limited. Tried to make me vote for the program. {probe} The fear factor they try and instill. {probe} The damage of wildlife, etc. {probe} No. 129 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10380 c-5 10447 c-5 10452 c-5 10498 c-5 10500 c-5 10525 10529 10549 10638 10640 10641 10645 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 10646 c-5 10665 c-5 10686 c-5 10691 10757 10768 10791 10828 10859 10892 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 10934 c-5 10936 11002 11011 11025 11051 11059 11060 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 11117 c-5 11127 c-5 11168 c-5 612892886 I'd like to see their prospective, though before it came to a real vote. They should consult with engineers for a better plan, first It was made up before you finished. Completely objective interview. I'm still skeptical about the numbers and harm. I have a suspicion that this has oil company [bras] in it. Because the numbers are so minimal. I'm not convinced that the numbers are accurate. It encourages my own decision. Because I'm such a cynic. I'm trying to figure out the source of this. It's not green enough to be green and not black enough to be oil. But I think those who belong to audubon might feel pressured. {probe} It's set up to the advantage of the oil companies. Ever so slightly against. Your slant of the survey is not in favor of the program. I wasn't coerced. Operative word is pushed. It was honestly persuasive but I don't feel pushed, but this was not objective. When you showed the pictures of the birds and oil I thought this was going to be persuasive to voting for which put me on the guard. Tried to push me to vote against it. The way that certain items were indicated it could lead a person to vote. {one way or the other}. It made me want to know more about it! Didn't give me enough information to make a reasonable decision. I would voter for it for sure. {probe}. Your own conscience if it had been a $1000 tax I would have said no way. {He thought this meant push him to vote. Misunderstood. Reread.} I had the impression that the questionnaire was "for the program"! Just by the nature of the questions it seems to be sponsored by an environmental group. I still made up my own mind. Both. Definitely. It almost made me think about not voting for it but considering I have more of an environmental background. Not you personally but the information and wording seems bias against the program. because you made it clear what the situation is and let me decide. I always make up my own mind. {R changed mind}. But it informed me. That's the only good thing about it. But, it did seem a little slanted, in favor of the oil companies. I have a feeling that the oil companies are behind this. I thought interview was being considered by the oil company. Why I asked if is being done by State of Calif. I feel it is written with a big oil bias. [arrow pointing to the word the in next sentence] chart I the harm seems unrealistic to me [sic]. In a big spill I feel the harm would be a lot more. I basically knew what I wanted or I probably would have told you. Most of my judgement was based on this area because I've lived here more than forty years. I had mixed feelings at one point it tended to make me vote for the program. The information given is barely informative to make a decision. It is as even handed as can be for a survey. 130 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11208 11215 11250 11275 11306 11312 11681 11682 10077 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-5 c-6 10339 c-6 10357 c-6 10582 c-6 10592 c-6 10639 c-6 10686 c-6 10721 10892 11025 11175 11233 11275 11285 c-6 c-6 c-6 c-6 c-6 c-6 c-6 11299 11320 11439 11681 10077 c-6 c-6 c-6 c-6 c-6a 10092 10099 10131 10163 10252 c-6a c-6a c-6a c-6a c-6a 10289 c-6a 10339 c-6a 612892886 Everyone wants to make up their own mind but... It seems like it's kind of one-sided toward the oil companies pro-prevention. {RR} I don't know. {probe} It sounded like a sales pitch. You know I don't vote. {probe} My Indian way is my vote. {probe}{probe} I just know what I can do. {probe} It seemed to push toward the central coast issue. I question the fact the bold type or numbers made me wonder about the information. The presentation reflected a pre-disposition to the policy already & seeks more my blessing than true counsel. It's having me weigh my impressions of our current state tax programs against a very little publicized problem. Because it was a poorly conceived study. It doesn't take in all the factors of oil spills as I stated before. {probe} No. Again, I feel they're trying to justify the killing of animals by the examples they're giving. Because of the way it was worded - {probe} They say only 1 time for payment of taxes - there are hidden costs. They will probably need more escort ships. My gut instinct says that the oil companies are behind this. {probe} The wording of the questions. {probe} The small statistics on the amount of wildlife killed. It could push a person to vote for the project {probe} I was sort of opened minded. {the probe here was to get R to clarify confusing remarks and after he said "openminded " R chose against}. I found it did not give me enough choice! Towards environmentalists. I thought the presentation was designed to discourage support for the program. Think it biased. By the cost, by saying the damages are minimal. Because of sales pitch. {probe} (OS) Slightly biased on underestimating the harm and to the aesthetics of the area it could cause. {R changed his mind on C-6} Because of the number of birds {probe}. It made the problem look not as serious. Since I never even thought about it before, for it. The order & content of the questions combined w/ the transparent ratio of positive responses to the negative. Don't know. {probe} Don't know. {probe} I am tired. {probe} That's all. It's based on fear not on experience. {probe} Talking so much about it. {probe} The numbers of the birds and stuff. {probe} Not really. Because we need to clean the area and put more restrictions on the oil spills. I felt that is why you are asking these questions. Statistics support minimal damage and effect. {probe} N/E The presentation was downplaying the total harm by the oil spills. There's a minimized description of harm to the coast - specifically that only ten miles of coast that's harmed? Seemed like a low number. 131 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10357 c-6a 10384 c-6a 10385 c-6a 10504 c-6a 10550 c-6a 10552 c-6a 10581 c-6a 10584 c-6a 10594 c-6a 10619 c-6a 10625 c-6a 10638 c-6a 10649 c-6a 10665 c-6a 10669 c-6a 10670 c-6a 10686 c-6a 10705 c-6a 10721 c-6a 10803 c-6a 10836 c-6a 10844 c-6a 612892886 No history given to it. No real statistics which you could see your exposure factors. Left out platforms in the ocean and their leakage. Absolutely no basis for $5 cost given. {probe} No. Downplayed the cost of the programs. You're saying the oil companies would pay for running the program when actually we'd be paying because they would pass the cost down to us {A/E} {probe} It probably will cost more than originally estimated. $ If you set the estimated cost as high as you did, no one will vote for the program. {probe} The charts and the emphasis on saving the birds. {probe} N/E. Kept showing me pictures of the birds that would be killed. {probe} No. Because of Card G - these are small numbers and Card C - large numbers of these animals exist here and other places. Is this clear? About the wild, the birds, what it's doing to the beaches. {probe} Because they explained to me how many birds were in danger and getting affected by the oil spill. {probe} No. That's all we are discussing is this program. I'm sure if they didn't want the vote they wouldn't have given me this information. {probe} No. Maybe not specific things, but after I said I wasn't going to vote for on against. I thought you might have been pushing me a little to vote against. Just what you read to me. {probe} They were minimizing the effects of the spill None are endangered, only 12,000 involved. By implying that within 10 years their will be the same amount of birds and that their not endangered your saying it's not to important. Because the economic and effectiveness were not addressed only the positives and none of the negatives were mentioned. Card `D' which shows the harm (less than I expected) and the recovery shown. Then the cost $5 would make me vote for it. By telling ya about all the birds dying. {probe} There would still be a lot of birds alive. {probe} No. Facts. {probe} Persuasion is minimal. {probe} The facts (as presented) make it look like a dumb idea. {probe} The facts are persuasive to vote against it. The wording on the statistics as far as oil and the minimization of the amount of birds involved. Well, it's just like the costs were misleading. The time frame was misleading. {probe} Well, I just don't trust the bureaucracy they would tell you almost anything to get what they wanted. The damage that was done to the Alaskan coastline by the Exxon Valdez pushed me to not vote to spend money for super tankers - that should be sufficient! - Most spills have been human error! Everything is pro. {probe} You've got all those birds that would be affected and all the animals that would die. {probe} A choice of solutions in funding. Its direct affect on me to that's all I'd be worried about. It talked a lot of nonimportance of the number of birds and not affecting the people. You don't show any letters from oil company with their point. A view they are not being represented. Both sides should have equal representation. People don't like to be pushed. Suspicious of one point of view. Trust people to come up with right decision. The escort ship introduction -132 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10892 c-6a 10899 c-6a 10918 c-6a 10936 c-6a 10948 c-6a 11025 c-6a 11029 c-6a 11039 c-6a 11081 c-6a 11090 c-6a 11175 c-6a 11208 c-6a 11233 c-6a 11242 c-6a 11244 c-6a 11245 c-6a 11275 c-6a 11285 c-6a 11319 c-6a 11349 c-6a 11355 c-6a 11356 c-6a 612892886 The diagrams in the book. {probe} The number of wildlife killed. It was fairly objective, but there was a subtle push. {probe} No. They could have touched on how $65 could have been spent on other programs, & compared the programs. It made it seem that it was a minimum amount of harm. {probe} The information you gave just sounded like this harm wasn't all that bad. {probe} The wording on Card G. The reasons for on Card G has the number of the birds and just 10 miles seems minor to the reasons against where the words are in bold letters make it seem more important than the wildlife. {probe} Also how they talked about the birds and their assumption that only 12,000 birds are killed. The non-endangered species - telling me about them - trying to look for an emotional response. {probe} No. The reasons given to vote against the program were strong and seems to minimize the importance of 12,000 birds being killed. If you have a spill every few years, these birds would never recover in 10 years as you said they would. It's the only issue been talked about & the talk was about a way to put controls on it. {probe} No. The words "not only" & that type of phrasing. {probe} No - but I had made up my mind for myself, but it push me with the language. First of all it didn't tell me about alternative ways to protect the environment. {probe} Secondly it didn't give me an opportunity to place the cost on either consumers or industry. {probe} Thirdly it didn't give me the scale of the entire program. {probe} Fourth it didn't ask me to choose in priority as to which State programs should be supported with tax dollars. You are bringing a program to our attention then telling us that the amount of harm in numbers is so large. Focus on 12,000 birds dying in one area. That's a lot of dead birds for us to picture in our minds. One is the order of presentation of wildlife that would be harmed identifying it before method of solution. Because I wouldn't have known about it otherwise. {probe} No. The amount of birds that would die and that it would only cost $220 to clean up. More graphic info on the birds & sea life. There is no rebuttal info from the oil companies. And it doesn't say where this info came from - it's kind of subjective. {probe} It seemed you presented only the environment al side and not cost issues [sic]. There was more focus on the damage to the environment. It just sounded like a sales pitch. {probe} No. {probe} {Interviewer note: I couldn't get her to say anything else!} It would have to affect the fishing industry in the area even though they say it wouldn't. An oil spill would affect the beauty of the area which would affect tourism and the economy along the central coast. I feel it underestimated the harm caused by oil spills. {probe} I don't believe the numbers are accurate. {probe} No. That box Reason's against box. {probe} It says that it's not going to harm any endangered species, & that it won't be a lasting harm, & that we won't need it anyway in 10 years. {probe} The reasons that they put down "for" the program - the number of birds, etc. is not important, but the fishing industry & other businesses are important. This wasn't presented fairly for people that appreciate the coast. {probe} 133 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11405 c-6a 11439 c-6a 11681 c-6a 11690 c-6a 11128 10026 10089 10098 10104 10183 10220 10249 10304 10420 10456 10552 10702 10750 10771 10775 10922 pg19 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 11002 11074 11080 11127 11128 11169 11177 11199 11216 11278 11312 11418 11427 10026 10096 10180 10220 10242 10440 10448 10499 10506 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-1 d-2 d-2 d-2 d-2 d-2 d-2 d-2 d-2 d-2 612892886 The whole gist of the thing is doom & gloom & we're going to save you. {probe} The numbers stated were too conservative, & didn't tie in with general ecology. Birds dying is not the total effect of oil spills - all kinds of organisms are affected. {probe} It seems a reasonable idea but not the only solution. {probe} It's not such a hot idea to be shipping oil up and down the coast. Everything was pretty much for. {(There was) - implied and referring to the reasons against} Only one place with +2 page that showed why not to [sic]. Just like a start cost. Many times. Many times! Lots of times. Lots of times. Oh yes. I did - Bug Sur. I've been driver but this happens 5 years ago. [sic] We went camping there. Pacific Coast Highway? {Q by Q} I've not driven myself but I've been driven. Pacific Coast Highway? {RQ} We've been to San Pedro. Is that it? Which way does that go? We just got back from the central coast, by Pismo beach. In that PCH? {Q by Q}. My wife and I have. I don't have a license because I just moved from New York - and there, the subway takes you everywhere. I'm not sure and we don't have a car now. Where is that? {Q x Q}. I'm afraid of it. Quite a few times. I think we were on part of it at one time. Most of it. Not yet. When I was younger. I have hardly been out of [Mentome]. Recently? {ever}. Have we ever? {Yes} On vacation. I am a truck driver and drive highway one at least once a week. Last couple of months. It's been six years. A short part of it. Long part 16-17 yrs ago. About 7 yrs. ago. I've been sick. It's hard for me to get around. Daughter in Santa Cruz. Yesterday. 20 years ago. 15 anyway. Driving? I've bicycled it in last 5 years but not driven. 134 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10775 10803 10968 11079 11252 11408 11696 10026 10089 10100 10101 10190 10228 10249 10271 10277 10374 10379 10418 10419 10432 10528 10657 10665 10680 10681 10770 10773 11039 11067 11218 11406 11418 11430 11685 11771 10022 10090 d-2 d-2 d-2 d-2 d-2 d-2 d-2 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-3 d-4 d-4 10099 10101 10105 10147 10249 10281 10291 10357 10380 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 612892886 {RE}. RE last mo year. Go frequently. Last August. With a bicycle. Constantly. Very often. Boating. Sure! I hate the ocean. I used to be a commercial fisherman for 30 yrs. My husband used to, but none in the last years. Not on the coast of Ca. I went last year. [sic] In Mexico. Taking a ferry? {Son reminded her that he had}. Fishing. At mouth of river. In the past how many? {Five.} I'm a scuba diver. But we would love to. I go with my son who does a lot of deep see fishing. He is also a diver. Scuba diving. In Florida. Freshwater fishing. On the jetty. How many? {five}. Oh - I'm sorry - we did! I hate water. Scuba diving yes but not any fishing. Field trip with the kids. I get sea sick. But not off CA coast as I said. Oh yes, we went sailboating. Sailboating in the bay. It's an interest! I would like to if I could get out. I think it would be very interesting. But I don't think the birds appreciate that because they fly away. I don't do it. I know them though. Not too much, but I believe in the importance of having birds. I must do it or the state will be after me. I have to do it on my job. I just feed these brown birds out here. I don't even know what they're called. Like in the book or how? {probe} I do. Couldn't care less. Not birds, just sea life. Whales, porpoises. Sometimes. 135 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10419 10511 10523 10580 10659 10662 10670 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 10703 10833 10836 11002 11108 11156 11177 11246 11306 11352 11354 11404 11407 11417 11696 11771 10184 10388 10006 10026 10031 10093 10099 10101 10103 10116 10123 10182 10213 10248 10265 10268 10288 10335 10392 10419 10420 10495 10523 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 d-4 pg20 pg20 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 612892886 Probably. {RR} My kid. I've got a bird book but I can't identify different species of birds. And fish. My son likes to identify fish especially. Yes, but I am not a bird watcher. I find the birds but I don't belong to the Audubon Society. My wife just spent $800 for a waterfall bird-feeder that I wanted for when we leave on vacation. My brother. I do. What about other animals mammals & other things, frogs. [sic] What's that? {RQ} Do the kids count? {Sure}. We enjoy them. When we go to the ocean we look at everything. We like it - We are fond of the birds. We try. Absolutely. It's on my glassware. {Pointing to etched glass with owls and eagles}. Once in a while we enjoying that. Watch not ID. {Like's to watch, not identify}. Kids. Kids. Mostly seagulls. When we have the chance. Oh sure. I try. Recreation? I work! {These 2 pages stuck together and were inadvertly skipped} They go more than once or twice a month in the summertime. 5,6,7Zero we know better. You counting the times? {Yes} 10 times. 40 times. Maybe more. I was on the Oregon coast last summer. Normally I go to the beach all the time. My family has a house on the beach. We go a lot - every Sunday. Almost everyday. {R - received telephone call.} How many times? {yes} ten. About how many times? {yes} Couple times at most. It's a zoo! 5 or 6 times. 365 days a year. How many times? Last year, you mean? {Yes} Two or three times. {probe} Probably. All the time. We always go to Ft. Bragg. Monterey - St. Louis - all up & down. If we are not in the truck - we are on the motorcycle. 136 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10527 10593 10619 10641 10659 10676 10683 10685 10686 10739 10773 10853 10918 10998 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 11016 11025 11049 11090 11108 11126 11144 11155 11190 11199 11200 11218 11262 11305 11312 11347 11433 11683 10001 10085 10090 10093 10095 10103 10134 10147 10178 10195 10220 10288 10299 10382 10421 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-5 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 612892886 On a normal year - 6 times on that coast. I provide tours for my friends. We only play tennis! I like to just go and sit. We always go to Oregon. Maybe more. Just driving by but not out of the car and down on the beach. Haven't. Quite often. {probe}. Within were? {probe}. {digression}. For two weeks. Many {yes} {how many?}. This year? {RQ} It's dirty beaches here are yucky. They are not nice anymore. Beaches are just ugly and dirty. I hate to take my kids to the beach. I don't like the beach. [Belong]. My daughter & I go regularly. {Received Tel. call} We went three times. We own a house at sea ranch. Just moved here not to long ago. We just walk over there. Too polluted from oil and sewer spills. The grandchildren. Change mind. This summer only about twice. In the San Diego area. RR {RR} In the past year? {probe} San Diego - we almost live in San Diego & Santa Barbara [sic]. Everyday for my business. We go scuba diving. I do watch programs depending on quality like National Geographic. I love watching them. If the programs are on I watch them. They're not on very often. My husband very, very often but me Don't have time, but the family does a lot. I don't own a TV. I hardly ever watch TV. I watch documentaries. Anytime they are on T.V. In relation to the number of programs on -- I don't think there are enough. National Geographic. When they are on! They aren't always on. Whenever I can. I live on Discovery, Nova and the learning channel. They're always sad. 137 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10432 10527 10577 10640 10678 10681 10685 10686 10748 10760 10803 10839 10944 10960 11002 11031 11048 11072 11080 11107 11127 11172 11177 11199 11208 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 11246 11265 11306 11354 11401 11411 11413 11417 11418 11426 11690 10051 10063 10078 10086 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-6 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 10087 d-7 10090 d-7 10093 d-7 10095 d-7 612892886 I saw one yesterday. 3 times a week. Discovery channel one of favorites. Because I don't have cable. If I did I would watch them more often. Whenever they are listed I try to watch. Discovery/N,G. A lot. {probe}. {RE}. I don't have a TV. No TV. No TV by choice. They don't show very many any more - only RCET. The discovery channel. I watch National Geographic. It's good. Jacque Cousteau, Discovery program... No T.V. I don't get cable. They have Discovery Channel. National Geographic. National Geographic. I like the Discovery Channel otherwise I don't play television. I don't have a TV. We're working. That's my favorite pastime - nature. We don't get much TV. {D-6 R's reference to the fact that where he was they can't get a clear signal}. I don't watch T.V. {probe} I love the animals and the great outdoors. Constantly. Whenever it's on. We're a wildlife type of family. National Geographic as a reference. I don't really watch birds but I do wildlife. On PB's. My wife watches often. The kids watch discovery & so does my husband. Between 3 & 4. {probe} 3 & 4 {probe}. {probe} Really I'm not an environmentalist at all. I'd like to say 3 but maybe I'm giving myself too much credit. I hate the term environmentalist - {probe} Environmental movement taken over by unreasonable people. For instance, species have always gone extinct otherwise we would be eaten now by dinosaurs. All species are not equally valuable. {probe} No. We love the trees and the streams but people come first. I don't enough about [sic] it, but I'm certainly for the birds, the bees - I'm on their side. The campgrounds are cleaner when we leave than when we arrive. I recycle, too. Because they go to far, people are important too, I have to be in the middle here. 138 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10099 d-7 10115 10137 10143 10183 10223 10249 10269 10279 10373 10382 10449 10479 10498 10499 10528 10548 10565 10566 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 10570 10572 10583 10584 10607 10633 10640 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 10645 d-7 10646 d-7 10670 10691 10705 10779 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 10825 10899 10960 11002 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 11057 d-7 11087 d-7 11107 d-7 612892886 I am not anti-environment, but I am not an environmental kook either. These environmental things are more of a land use issue. These environmental regulations have had an unconstitutional effect on this. I have my opinions but I don't go out and do things about them. I'm a conservationist. I think they're causing to much harm! {the environmentalists} I would like not to be extreme about anything. But I believe in it! I think I am an I'm not sure what an environmentalist is. I don't like the word "environmentalist". I'm a realist. Between 2 and 3. That ones a tough one. I am not against saving trees, etc. but as far as oil spills I think it is not necessary. I wish they'd qualify those more. That's a hard one. That takes a lot of work away from people. I guess this is the first I've been involved in this issue. I do separate my trash. We need clean air! I'm a fisherman - the bureaucracy gets in the way of our enjoyment. {RQ} I get upset with pollution that's man-made! Has a bad connotation right now. Maybe I'm more of a naturalist. I do a lot of speaking about environment. Between these 2. Somewhere between. I am an environmentalist but I am not politically active at it. None of those let me - but I'm extremely concerned about the environment. Environmental issues concern me but other things are in need of so much more attention these days therefore that's where my focus is. If Judi Bari is as foul as they say she is she'd be one. And the Exxon Valdez captain is a 5, then I'm a number 3. We recycle and enjoy nature but the word environmentalist has gotten negative connotations. The term environmentalist has been so misconstrued. In the true sense of the dictionary meaning. I would say I'm a strong environmentalist. Non-radical. I don't know what I would be. I'm interested in the environment. Does that mean you have to be active? {Q by Q}. I like to keep the country going. We need to return it to the individual. Different ones come in and try to [illegible]. My answer here seems like I am contradicting myself. But that's the way I feel. I thing conservationist would be a better word for me. I do like wildlife though. You mean concerned about wildlife? {probe} {Whatever it means to you} I'm not sure how active I'd have to be to be an activist. I firmly believe in taking care of the planet. But, strictly from a biblical stand point no politics. But practical. I care but humans are more important. 139 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11127 d-7 11169 d-7 11171 11185 11214 11237 11246 11253 11286 11306 11333 11347 11350 11351 11361 11424 11429 11433 11771 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 d-7 11790 d-7 10006 d-8 10093 d-8 10098 d-8 10101 10147 10202 10260 10354 10389 10419 10420 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 10429 10553 10588 10591 10605 10668 10684 10685 10773 10922 11002 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 612892886 I just enjoy it. I do believe in the environment. Not to go out and destroy it, but I'm not against logging. I'm for sustained yield. I am against the endangered species act. I'm not sure he understood the graduation or difference in these choices. My opinion? {RQ} 6 - less than 5. {D-7 R was being facetious}. {H - 3} I don't make big strong statements, but I got rid of my gas guzzling Bronco. {probe} I'm probably a conservationist. I believe we need to take care of the earth. An Indian. {probe}{probe} Retired environmentalist. The definition of activist. {probe} I didn't vote for it. I feel kind of guilty. It is our environment though. What's that mean? About environmental activist. I'd like to be a one. I am not personally involved. I'm not sure I know what your question means. Pollution in general? A lot of issues. I don't know. But the environment, people and plants are very important to me. To answer it truthfully... I probably would be if I had more time. {an environmentalist}. Since 1938. Since 1954. {probe} 20/25 years or so. You know that years ago I had a boat at Antioch, and the marshes there were covered in oil, now that's ridiculous. Since 64. Though I was Alaska for four (4) yrs. All my life. 8 months to be exact! Whole life. Since 1987, and I was born here. Born and raised. All my life. {probe} {D-8 since Q is self-explanatory deducted the 3 years mentioned i.e., 24-3=21} I've been a resident for 24 years but lived outside California for 3 years when I was in the navy. 5 or 6 1/2 years. Since I was born here except for when I was in the service. Born here. I've lived here for 9 months - I'm from Chicago. I've lived in South America and Europe for some of the 35 years. 1 yr - 10 mos. I came here in 1943. {probe}. Been here since I was one. My whole life. 8 months. Since 1965. 140 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11004 d-8 11022 11032 11040 11072 11074 11108 11131 11208 11258 11262 11273 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 11293 11305 11312 11316 11348 11790 10171 10335 10522 10589 10608 10664 10883 10942 10944 10988 11004 11125 11141 11245 11252 11306 11329 11339 11361 11404 10016 10088 10098 10197 10213 10220 10298 10299 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-8 d-9 d-9 d-9 d-9 d-9 d-9 d-9 d-9 d-9 d-9 d-9 d-9 d-9 d-9 d-9 d-9 d-9 d-9 d-9 d-9 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 612892886 {Not real amt. of time - Did not want to tell me how long. She gave me these numbers and told me to put in brackets}. 6 months. 15 days! 2 months. All but three. {Actually R is not quite 27 yet}. All my life. {probe} 8 months. Since 1952. Almost. On & off part time. Have home in Arizona. R kept thinking about how long finally she said 22. R was not sure how long she lived here. I came from New York. I was born in Jordan. About... Since 1934. No-No-I mean 31. {R answered 20, but after a while she said 25 years}. in the screener R's son said she was 67. Ref. Sept. 1 {Refused. Interviewer's note: She is about 40 years old}. {Refused - R asks that supervisor call her for that info.} {Refused}. Refused. Why do you need personal information? May. June. I really don't want to answer that. {R refused to give date of birthday}. {? Respondent does not want to give true age} [again, the year in brackets]. {Refused} I don't care to give you that information. {R refused}. Sept. April. Totally out of the question. {In his early 50's}. D.K. {R kept changing it. First said 75 then 77 then 76 - } June. April. Almost has bachelor's, 2 classes! Fifth grade. Three years of trade school, machinist. In El Salvador. 3rd grade. {R said just up to 3rd grade.} Plus trade school. 11th gr. I didn't complete 7th grade. 141 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10327 10418 10419 10428 10448 10461 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 10553 10565 10593 10619 10659 10685 10728 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 10769 10770 10788 10833 10836 10843 10881 10883 10899 10920 10982 11002 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 11027 11085 11086 11172 11176 11185 11193 11686 11689 10156 10223 10256 10379 10386 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-10 d-11 d-11 d-11 d-11 d-11 10456 d-11 10513 d-11 10533 d-11 612892886 {R completed 7th grade} 6 units short AA. Tenth grade. 4th grade in China. College 3 yr. degree. {probe} Circumstances prevented me from going through the 8th grade. {probe} I had 3 yrs. of school. High school then some junior college. I guess I did get my diploma! {R came from Mexico & seemed unsure grade equivalent}. Working on my B.A. 9th grade. {RE}. I have a certificate for graduation from a made-up school. I do make-up for movies on TV. Two semesters left to complete. Getting GED. M.S. and M.A. plus. 3rd grade. 2 masters. European equivalent? 4th grade. {Same as D-9}. BA (Bachelor of architecture). 6th grade. 7th grade. Completed Jr. high and I'm in college and adult school working on GED and vocational certificate. {I asked "What grade level did you last complete?" She said 8th grade.} Both, GED and I got a diploma too. In Mexico. Studied in Peru. Senior at Sonoma St. 10th grade plus medical assistant certificate. {R seemed unsure as to which associates degree category he belongs in}. 7th grade. Only thru the 7th grade. In Germany 14 yrs. I'm unemployed. We're retired but we still teach part-time. I'm retired. She only pays for her own bills {probe} Because he doesn't pay rent - just I do. That's what I thought you meant when you asked who lived here. I don't want you to write anything about him, anyway. No - I'm not working now. We're retired. I'm retired. 142 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10540 10605 10661 10684 10933 11005 11030 11083 11108 11149 11267 11306 d-11 d-11 d-11 d-11 d-11 d-11 d-11 d-11 d-11 d-11 d-11 d-11 11312 11338 11415 11418 10051 10089 10093 10096 10100 10123 10213 10265 10280 10289 10326 10351 10387 10418 10419 10451 10458 10532 10593 d-11 d-11 d-11 d-11 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 10611 10640 10660 10664 10686 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 10721 10799 10812 10830 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 612892886 Student. I'm retired. My daughter - under 18 also. {RR}. I do some consulting once in a while. Retired. Retired. Retired. Both. Both retired. Unemployed now. {probe}{probe} This isn't a census. {probe} {He pointed to the next page. He indicated I should go on.} Now? {Yes} R said forgot I'm separated now. Not working now. Retired. I honestly don't know - I never have asked. {probe} To personal! G or H. {probe} It's too early. Poverty level for christ sakes. I worked 3 jobs last year. Her 400 month. Him 600 month. Can't use the wife {yes} {D-12 R goes to ask wife} R says this includes his business income. This is an area I will not speak about. No, not even an estimate. NYOB (He meant NOYB - None of your business) I thing g would be better. {R refused}. I have no idea. Probably. My husband would not want me to tell our income. My family wasn't here in '94! Respondent changed letter. I really don't know I've never worked. My husband does it all. {Husband walked into room & R asked him. He gave a [illegible].} I wasn't by myself last year. I'm retired or semi-retired. Because of all different bonds & funds. Refused. You mean, [illegible, maybe "mine everything"] {no, {probe}}. I'll have to decline that one. {Refused. R wants to leave this question unanswered} Just. No. Letter E. Our daughter takes cares of everything. [sic] 143 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10871 d-12 10880 10883 10953 10980 10988 11002 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 11032 11159 11169 11173 11176 11190 11195 11196 11245 11252 11258 11268 11269 11293 11361 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 d-12 11432 d-12 11689 11790 10006 10075 10156 10686 10883 11000 11176 11306 10067 10090 10093 10098 10112 10195 10220 10224 10265 10299 10304 d-12 d-12 d-13 d-13 d-13 d-13 d-13 d-13 d-13 d-13 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 612892886 I would not disclose this information. {R refused to answer this question saying is very personal}. DK. {Refused to answer!} That's nobodys business. No one's business. {Refused}. Mine was 8,000 something - I DK about the others, they don't tell me - it couldn't be very much - so...[line drawn to letter A]. Don't know from Syria - not equivalent. I'm not real sure. I'm against answering that. Someone else handles finances. I don't know for everyone. Mine is A. We are poor. {Refused!} I only know what I make. That's like asking how much I weigh. {$500 thousand + home}. {Refused}. D.K. I don't know what my bro. makes. DK. We're all unrelated. This is a guess. I would say approximately. I can't tell you that. {I explained only for statistical purposes and then she answered}. Don't laugh. I'm really a pauper. I can't make it. My ex-husband doesn't pay me alimony. The rent isn't paid. Nobody business. {RR per R's request} I don't know what my son makes. I sure did and I'm gonna pay this year. You've sure found out a lot about me - haven't you? I paid some taxes. It's withheld from pay. {Refused!} No. Oh, wait, I'm sorry, yes I did. {Sorry, improper skip}. They tax everything! {probe}{probe} I have investments so we'll see! I don't think about those things at all. {probe} That all depends on the economy. {probe} A depends on inflation. They keep raising the tax's. I'm gonna retire, but I have good retirement program. Worse. {RQ} Retired no longer have salary but wife works. In between 3 and 4. If I stay in California. I've got 2 kids who will go the college. That's expensive. 144 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10318 10322 10421 10511 10523 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 10525 10599 10641 10656 10657 10668 10670 10683 10684 10766 10940 10979 11031 11055 11074 11153 11162 11169 11197 11198 11246 11306 11351 11407 11681 11683 10007 10014 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-14 d-15 d-15 10034 d-15 10056 d-15 10063 d-15 10064 d-15 10067 d-15 10090 d-15 612892886 Depends on the economy - I have no idea. Possibly. {Digression} My husband is in building & our economy is not getting any better. Hard to say with inflation - about the same or a little worse depends on prices. I expect it to get better because. I am going to GAIN right now to get endorsement for petroleum carrier. license [sic]. Problem is I'll need more help - like to do house cleaning etc. {probe} Probably. I work in a sawmill. They say they're not gonna close. I might move to Arizona so it will get better. I'm retired and on a fixed income. I'll be retiring in a couple of years. If I stay here it's going to get worse. The way things are going. As long as you live and things keep going up. It depends on Newt {Gingrich}. Probably a little better. I don't know. {probe} I hope much better! Because of taxes! {H} - That's optimism. I hope better. {Is that what you think? Yes}. Because of my husband's stroke. Can't be much worse. It has to get better. Depends on inflation. What's that again? {RQ} I put the next few years out of my mind. I live day by day. One of my children finishes private school. {probe} That's not the point. {probe} I like to be optimistic but seeing the way things are. Hope it gets better. I hope. Because I will be retiring soon. It will probably be getting a little worse. If I was convinced it was 100% true just $5.00! I wouldn't vote for it if it were free! You could have center for 1 response only 1/2 the cost. You only need one. I need further info. that there is not a better way! Five dollars is fine but there are a lot more important things the people should be doing. Whichever agency is doing this should be apply more energy to those things that are more important to the people. Crime prevention, prisons, etc. I don't think about the situation any at all. I'm against it. It seems high. I'd be willing to pay if it were less or the money spread out over a long period of time. Sounds like a good program. It's too hypothetical! I may not - it may depend. I don't think it will ever get around to that. {probe} There's a good possibility I wouldn't vote at all. {probe} If the weather's bad. I can't get. {probe} I probably would vote for it. But I don't think the money would be spent for that. Now - if it was presented to me in a good way - and it was. 145 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10093 d-15 10095 10115 10127 10150 10178 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 10182 d-15 10190 d-15 10217 d-15 10228 d-15 10233 d-15 10242 10255 10265 10288 10300 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 10301 d-15 10326 d-15 10328 d-15 10333 d-15 10335 d-15 10348 d-15 10355 10361 10373 10391 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 10419 10420 10440 10458 10479 10490 10500 10501 10505 10528 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 612892886 I would vote for the program if it were a one-time cost of $65.00. And how quickly could this be up and running because that would decrease the number of years left to protect before the 10 were up? Because of the price on oil and it's effect on other things. But knowing the state I don't think it would be one time. If it's only one time. No answer. If we only had to pay the $220 one time for all the things you told me - to keep the water clean and to save all the birds - Yes. rooteyes [sic] - It's not bad to do all those good things. With everything you've showed me so far. I am not voting in anything that is going to cost us money, at our age we can't afford it. Anytime it costs my household 220 it's a ridiculous question. We pay enough. I'd vote against it if it cost $5. Not necessary amount of harm insuffice. The interview doesn't give enough detail - I need more literature - If the oil companies would pay for it, I'd vote for it - but then they wouldn't need our vote. Just a one time! tax? [sic] I would have to know more! Still vote... Not being assured it would be one time. If it was a lower amount I'd vote yes. I wouldn't want to put a hardship on other people. You are basic [sic] this on money the dollar amounts did not make the difference. {probe} I just think there are so many more problems right now. Hell no! Because I DO NOT TRUST them. No you didn't. you showed me a program that might prevent or reduce but can't prevent. If you saw prevent you are foolish or you think I am. This is for everyone right? If it was on the ballot & there were no other more important issues that cost money I'd vote for - {probe} If the information is correct. {probe} Limited information. A little expensive. {probe} I'd vote for it but I'd rather see other programs taken care of first. Only because the cost is not reflective of the actual burden for each California taxpayer. If they let me pay it in payments or a credit card. To be honest if I don't get information about what this means to me. More than that I might not. That's a double question - It's too much for me - my daughter will leave soon. How many times are we going to see this? Now that I know what it is about and what it will do. I'm real skeptical of that $5. Nothing costs $5. They'll keep on with it. They want me to vote no - I can read their mind. It's a good idea - But they have to come up with some statistics. How much is the total contribution (projected) of the oil companies. And this is done for them - They 146 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10529 10549 10565 10584 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 10588 d-15 10592 d-15 10593 d-15 10622 d-15 10632 d-15 10640 d-15 10646 d-15 10668 d-15 10678 d-15 10691 d-15 10702 d-15 10717 10728 10754 10776 10777 10813 10825 10831 10849 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 10867 10886 10894 10916 10920 10922 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 10936 d-15 10941 d-15 10949 d-15 612892886 should have to come up with some money too. Just because I like birds - I shouldn't be made to pay $25. Actually I don't pay any tax so I'll vote for it. Even if it was free. because it will be only one time! If it were my only choice. I would rather vote for legislation that put more responsibility on the shippers & oil producers. Is there a period? There's a question. It would sky rocket oil. It's a great program if it would cost $5.00 only, ever. {probe} No. I don't think the program would work and it's not adequate. {probe} I don't believe it would prevent spills - just add a layer of regulation & next not adequate to do the cleaning. I can't make a good decision now. Who knows what will happen? I'd definitely try to push the oil companies to do it. I don't think it's the taxpayer's responsibility, but somebody has to do it. You're going to pay at the pump, but that's fine. But it still depends. It depends on whatever else is going on. Again I'd rather spend my money on social issues. To me $5 is not that much money. It always seems something else arises. If it were never to go above $5 I wouldn't vote for it. Do not live in California permanently - Hopefully moving in next 2 months - to Kansas. If the program did cost a one time fee of $220 I might vote yes, but the state does not stay with what they say. If it was o one time thing, I'd vote differently, but they won't. {Have it for one year the tax}. It all depends on how we have to give that $120 - yearly, weekly, monthly ... (RR A13) one-time {one time} how, though? {RR sect. b} that still doesn't tell me enough. I vote no! For the reason I said before! I'd vote for regardless of the cost - to keep the water safe. It's not a permanent harm - if it was, I'd vote for it. I think it would go way past the $25. Would it screw it up if I voted against? {long pause} I'll vote for. Unless my situation would change. I would still vote for it. Now I think I would vote for it. I don't think it is good for us to kill these animals. Even if it didn't cost me $5 I'd vote against it. One time or-ah-more? {RQ} I'm just worried that they won't use all the money & it'll disappear! How many boats will there be? I feel sorry for the birds. I think I'd vote... I don't think it's a one time tax! With the caveat about education. I feel sorry for the animals. Maybe I'd vote for. It's hard for the taxpayers to pay anymore. For me personally, I could handle the amount for a 1-time fee. Others might not be able to. There - If the oil companies would not do it themselves I would be for this Even if it's only $50 - I'd spend it for people - not birds. Even though I don't vote? 147 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10960 d-15 10980 d-15 10988 d-15 10996 d-15 11037 11067 11095 11126 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 11147 11159 11170 11184 11195 11198 11199 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 11203 11204 11216 11232 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 11235 d-15 11236 d-15 11250 d-15 11254 d-15 11269 11273 11274 11288 11291 11297 11306 11312 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 11326 11328 11340 11350 11351 11356 11361 11412 11415 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 612892886 I don't think it's fair for us to have to pay for their mistakes. Waste of monies! Like I said they say one time and after the years still, there. Why do we have to pay for everything? I think the sewage and contamination should be cleaned up also. {R changed her mind about this answer}. Boy - you just don't give up - do you! If I could afford it, even $50 less I would vote for it. Until I find out more about it! I'd gladly give you the money if it would solve the problem. But this is only 1 program, & we have too many programs. I'm not thinking only about myself - the other people also. If enforced & collected from everyone. If it was just one time. Everytime there's a problem they come to the taxpayer! Why do we taxpayers need to pay for this program? If I could afford it. One time a year? {No, one-time RQ from the comma, emphasizing one-time tax payment}. If I could pay it in smaller amounts, I'd vote FOR. I don't like the pollution. If I had money I'd probably vote for it. As I said there are more important issues. It's hard to say. The program sounds nice. It doesn't take away from other programs. I still say no but it's not a strong no. If it was just one time. I'd have to see how my income was. What do you think, yes or no. {probe} I do not know. I do not have that kind of money is too much, but if was less I may say yes. I think it is a good program and I would vote for it. I just now could not pay that much. Might be for it down the road. In fact would vote for it. The way the information is presented - no. They are going to keep asking for more tax payments. One time? 1 x? I'd do it. I probably vote it! I likes the ocean! And my family does also. Cause everything costs money and I think the earth is worth investigation. I already told you. That would be for the whole term of that program? {Yes} How would they collect that? {probe} {RR page 14}. That's one time? It's not the $25 - it's the liability of the oil company I ain't got no money. I didn't think about employment of jobs. $65 is not that big of a deal. Overtaxed already. I don't have enough information. And that's for how long? {RR pg 13}. Same! I think it's good if you have the money to pay for it. No money coming in makes it hard to pay. 148 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11416 11417 11426 11457 d-15 d-15 d-15 d-15 11681 d-15 11685 d-15 11691 d-15 11692 d-15 11771 d-15 11560 pg24 11682 pg24 10006 d-16 10017 d-16 10022 d-16 10026 d-16 10053 d-16 10062 10067 10075 10082 10085 10094 10095 10096 10099 10101 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 10102 d-16 10103 d-16 10115 10116 10119 10125 10136 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 612892886 For the sake of the animals. Now I'm not so sure. If it was a little each week it wouldn't scare me as much. If all my questions were answered and other possible solutions researched and this was the best program - I would vote for it. Is this going to be the only alternative on the ballot to this question? Is there going to be another solution if there is I would consider it. Not knowing of any other proposed solution I don't know if it may be better than this. I guess I would vote for it. If they don't do what they say, I want my money back plus interest. I'd have to read the whole initiative through before I could vote for it. These are ways it could be done that I'd be inclined to vote for it. {probe} It could be a credit against taxable income. {probe} Low percent of money to operation just to administration. {probe} No. Of course I have my own questions. Is there a payment plan? Is it only for one year? Is the money really going into this program? How long until it will go into affect? {the program up and running}. They're not going to be wiped out. I think that the industry who causes the problem should pay the cost of prevention as well as clean up. It's just about the same. Program is designed to use tax to start & fee to pay which would mean higher prices so this is a great way to do it, a jump start. That depends on what the higher prices are on. {RQ} Both is bad - I'll say. 1 yr. I can't handle no more. I know these people they would they would have to specific it would be only a 1 yr. tax.[sic] That's a good question. {probe} That's between - devil & deep blue sea! That's an interesting question Higher prices. I'd never know the difference. We get it on the two sides. {probe} Its all the same either way we end up paying. Because that effects only the people who have the money. That's kind of hard. Do away with the damned environmental program, with a few reservations. If everyone was taxed, that's how they usually do things, if the oil companies pay you will pay higher prices anyway Then I have a choice to chose, if the government is involved I don't have a choice. They take my money. A consumer does. I don't want the government in my pocket or my personal life. Industry will be more efficient than government bureaucracy can achieve. Government tries to do too many things that people should be doing for themselves. What kind of business? {RR D16} Tax alcohol. It would be fairer - the users are paying. Tax on what? This program will probably be inflated so we'll end up paying more. 149 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10137 10143 10147 10177 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 10178 d-16 10179 10180 10183 10184 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 10190 d-16 10217 d-16 10220 d-16 10223 10224 10229 10233 10236 10250 10265 10269 10270 10271 10274 10281 10283 10288 10297 10299 10300 10304 10305 10318 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 10322 d-16 10326 d-16 10330 d-16 10333 d-16 10340 d-16 10350 d-16 10351 d-16 10354 d-16 612892886 I'm opposed to these programs as you can see. That's a catch 22! I guess. It doesn't have to be that way. I see it 1st hand. I'm with it everyday. I'm in the smog program. It doesn't work If we only paid the $220 - Yes, I would pay higher taxes. It's better to pay $220 once. I guess it would depend on who regulates it. Companies responsibilities. I think there are too many taxes already. If they did it through payroll deductions, taxes would be fine. But one lump sum is too much at once. Because all are not force to buy it. We have a choice. {RQ (RQ)} You, you're the government - the people are the government. We pay for it. No either way that's the same thing. I don't want the program. It should only be by donation - I don't want it. Tough question! There is a control to keep them down. Doesn't seem to be any control on taxes. We would pay either way and both ways. Whatever you bought you could cut back on - taxes are constant. Spread it evenly. Got me on that one That's a tough one. It should be a joint effort. It's a now win situation. {probe} I don't know. That puts you between a rock & hard place. With higher prices you can decide. The government seems totally incapable of managing our money. It's more direct. Because it seems to hurt less that way. Because - What can they tax me for? They have put too much on the taxpayers. Wow - What a choice! That's tough! That is very odd. Citizen is taxes taxes. Not to responsible. [sic] {Couldn't get her to answer.} I guess. We're the gov't! Who are they kiddin? The prices are going to go up, regardless of who pays for it. I think it should be voluntary. They should be paid by people who are in favor from fees or whatever not thru taxes or business. I'm not opposed to the taxes - it's a toss up. If private industry does it, it might be done better, but they can hide things. {probe} The government way would be cleaner. {probe} I can control my buying. Neither. I hate to pay for either one. 150 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10357 d-16 10362 10374 10380 10420 10422 10423 10432 10439 10448 10451 10452 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 10461 d-16 10478 d-16 10479 d-16 10490 d-16 10500 d-16 10524 10544 10545 10548 10552 10553 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 10577 10588 10593 10594 10607 10611 10616 10633 10640 10645 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 10646 d-16 10654 10660 10670 10678 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 612892886 This state is over taxed at this point. The taxes are driving businesses from California. Prefers a combination. It's a catch 22. Because that would be for everybody not just what you buy. Higher prices on oil or gas? {probe} Is there any other choices? {RR} That is a no win answer. Pay a penny or 2 in gas. The taxes were so blooming high [illegible]. Not much of a choice. I would prefer not to pay for them. I would prefer higher user fees. If you use them you pay for them - If you don't use you don't pay. It's the responsibility for businesses to pay. {probe} People on fixed income don't afford to pay for this. Would the tax be for everyone in California? A flat tax? You can't do both? The businesses that are affected. Businesses that are responsible for environmental damage should pay. This particular program? I would like to pay through prices. Other programs I would pay through taxes. This seems to be commercial industry linked program. There's such a wide range of environmental programs. Some should be user funded others are in the best interest of the public such as Sanctuary Forest. I hadn't thought of it in that way. {probe} {probe} It's a tough one. Because you can control what you buy. I hate doing that to business though. It would be the same. I guess. It happens all the time anyway. On higher prices - Does that include raising sales taxes? {Q by Q, RQ} Tough call. {probe}{probe} Hard decision. Then everyone pays - even the illegals! Does it matter? {RQ} Because than I get to choose what I will spend my money on. That's not an easy question. I don't want higher gas prices. The taxes are also put on businesses so you end up paying more than once. Either way I get stuck. That puts my $ dollars back in my hand and I can shop for better prices. Taxation puts money in the governments hands and I don't agree with their priorities. What's the difference? Which way dispersed it more evenly? I'm not for many environmental programs. This one is O.K. with me because this is only $5. Broken up between both and drill more for oil here in our own country. {probe} Let the business be responsible. Business' are more efficient. Taxes always go up, but prices may cause people to complain so they tend to stay down. 151 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10684 10696 10701 10705 10706 10716 10731 10754 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 10760 10768 10774 10779 10786 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 10787 d-16 10788 10798 10799 10825 10831 10836 10846 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 10857 10864 10871 10872 10873 10875 10876 10877 10880 10886 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 10895 10896 10898 10905 10909 10910 10911 10918 10920 10925 10932 10935 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 612892886 If the tax was just $5 per year. What is the difference? That's a big decision, you don't want either one - the tax I guess. Either way they're going to stick it to you so it doesn't matter. {R changed her decision saying neither}. That's a trick question (RQ). That's a hard one. The government can't pay for everything. They ought to lease a lot of things in the environment alone. It's the same. That's a stupid question. I can't afford to buy nothing anyway. {Probe} I'd rather pay one time fee. I'm against paying anything for environmental programs. Depends on how high taxes or how high prices are. {probe}. Neither or combination of both. Just use a harder stand on enforcing rules. Like illegal dumping and making tankers and barges carry the equipment that big oil companies all require theirs to do. Should be both. Should be a partnership with government and business. I am really not sure. That's hard to answer. If I think the price is too high I wouldn't bag it. The consumer is always paying for it anyway. Business incentives. Both taxes & prices bad. We need to use the money already set aside for these things not to be adding a tax for the... It costs more through taxes - because of bureaucracy and paper. Find a better solution! I don't think is either one. I believe oil companies profits are astronomical. This way everyone pays! It is hard both ways, it hard to fight the government & also hard to fight businesses. Business is more efficient than government. One way. That's hard - Prices are already up. Taxes are already high. Not sure. Everyone will have to pay with higher prices, but I really don't like that way either, but prices are better than taxes. You can't go by prices. The oil companies should have to pay for it. There's no free lunch. I'd rather the companies paid their own way. For only one year. Depends on the environmental program! {RQ} Each is different! I don't know! I can control what we buy. The people who cause the pollution should pay for "all" environmental programs. It's hard either way. Because it's spread out not in one lump. It's a tough one. They are going to do it anyway. If I had to choose. 152 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10936 d-16 10937 d-16 10944 d-16 10946 d-16 10947 d-16 10949 d-16 10960 10961 10967 10968 10975 10979 10982 10989 10994 10995 10998 11000 11002 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 11004 d-16 11005 d-16 11006 d-16 11011 d-16 11016 11025 11026 11028 11030 11034 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 11037 11048 11055 11056 11080 11083 11087 11090 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 11095 d-16 612892886 It doesn't matter if you are losing money either way. I would have to research it more. What would be taxed small businesses or big businesses? It's a catch either way. That's a hard one - depending on the product. {probe} and on the tax. {probe} Put it like this. A one time spelled out for use tax. {probe} {referring to the SPS proposal} [arrow pointing to word "this" in sentence]. What difference does it make? {probe} Except for people on low income. They're both high already (taxes-prices). If the govt used their money conservatively & wisely, they could pay for those things. Why would prices go up? {RR} They'll go up anyway. Cause I can choose what I buy. Going on what you told me - one time tax - only If it's just a one time tax. Both ways bother me! Neither - can't pay. Maybe probably higher prices. Either way it is coming out of my pocket. Business do a lot of polluting. 6 to 1 - 1/2 dozen to the other! Comes out the same "we" still have to pay. Either way. {Shaking head no} I guess higher taxes. That's not a very good choice. Neither, really, but since I have to take a choice [line drawn to answer 1] because people can't afford the higher prices. If it were a one time tax. That would be OK. The oil companies should be responsible regardless. {Back to pg. 14}. Not the businesses. If the business is related to the problem like oil spills/oil company. The state hasn't shown a great deal of skill in managing their money. They are always in the red. None. Difficult question. Business is more effective and more efficient than government. How do most people answer this? I guess. Depends on how high the taxes would be. I couldn't pay say $1,000 at one time. I'm really not sure. Create the best program for manufacturers and users - without added taxes or higher prices. They just don't stop - put it on my credit card! That'll be next! Our taxes are high enough. Just a one time tax though. Taxes never go down. Prices may go down. You can control the things you purchase. Less environment we would have less and problems [sic]. That's a tough question. {R changed mind} Taxes for only some products. I'm not ready to answer this. Maybe some selective businesses that are responsible should pay. Those businesses who cause the environmental problems. Business can fork over a lot more than taxpayers! 153 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11117 d-16 11126 d-16 11127 d-16 11128 d-16 11130 11144 11150 11152 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 11154 d-16 11159 d-16 11168 d-16 11169 d-16 11171 d-16 11177 d-16 11188 11190 11193 11199 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 11203 11214 11215 11218 11233 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 11237 11246 11252 11265 11274 11275 11278 11306 11307 11316 11321 11323 11337 11347 11354 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 612892886 There is no c choice [sic]. It is a tough question. *I would say c the creation of new business [sic]. Run the program as a business so it is not a burden on the public. Find someone who has the money to do the program as a business. Will also create jobs & good jobs of free enterprise. Not capitalistic. What about the 50% of people in Calif. who can't afford it - it isn't fair to them. Gasoline. They both hit you either way through the goods you buy or taxes. Are we still going to have a bureaucracy? I'm tired of government saying it cost one thing and then it's more. With higher taxes you can write them off. Just want one time fee. The one time assessment is O.K. that's all. Let's change the oil co's. I don't want the state to have to pay the taxes. The oil co's should pay all. What would the prices be? Would that be sales tax? {probe} It's more insidious for government to make businesses pay because then it shows up in prices. I would rather have government pay for it by tax because then I have some jurisdiction over it. I don't feel the government has the right to take private land away from people. All that public land should be sold to private people to raise revenues in taxes. Higher prices on what? {probe} I have to choose? {RQ} Isn't it the same? {probe} For me it's the same. {I couldn't get anymore than this. Maybe N/S is more accurate?} We should share. Businesses can go bankrupt. They only affect the people who use the product. I'd have to pay either way - probably - I don't think people can afford to pay higher prices. Neither but if I had to... Is there a 3rd choice? {Yes} Do I have to choose one of those? {No}. Both should pay & businesses & governments. The whole idea is to make the oil companies pay without passing it on to us, the consumer. {H - taxes} {probe}{probe} {probe}{probe} Oh, either way we have to pay. Which one is higher? State? {RR} Probably. {probe}{probe}{probe} {He indicated that I should go on}. Then everyone has to pay equally. Boy - they have us coming or going! $25 is a big deal. Charge a little more for the oil. I'd rather just give my $25 and not worry about it. Ultimately, the least expensive to the taxpayer. Taxes are once a year thing. 154 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11361 11365 11405 11408 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 11416 11417 11418 11429 11432 11433 11457 11497 11561 11687 11689 11690 11696 11771 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 d-16 11790 10053 10069 10078 10096 10115 10179 10240 10288 10293 10297 10318 d-16 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 10320 d-17 10328 d-17 10333 10357 10380 10418 10419 10423 10424 10432 10500 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 10506 d-17 612892886 That's a tough one. {probe} I don't like that question that's hard to answer. Everytime you send money to government they take off their 15 or 20%. That's blowin their thing out of the water. Responsibility should be from the companies causing it. What's the difference? To me higher prices on taxes is the same thing. The higher prices will vary. So you know everyone would be taxed equally. That's a tough one. The perpetrator should pay to clean up. Blending of both higher taxes & higher prices. Boy You're going to pay for it, no matter what. I know how companies waste our money. The government doesn't tell us. Citizens over 65 shouldn't pay taxes. What's the difference? {probe} For sure it will have to come from one or the other. Boy I don't know. It would depend on how high taxes would go or how high prices would be. I don't feel I would have a decision on which way the money would go. {RR per R's request}. I would like to say hardly any but I'm kinda of in between there. I'm between 1 & 2. I'm feeling generous. They've had their ups and downs. I haven't seen a whole lot of things changing so far. I hardly know what they do. To do their job! Seeing what just happened with the speaker of the house..... That's a tough one. They kind of suck. Depends on the people who run the gov't. It is the character of the person. {probe} I agree with Wilson. I have trouble with W. Brown. {probe} {No answer.} The state government I have some confidence but the Federal is a different story. You're not even low enough for my opinion. We've got the rottenest devils in Sacramento. They should all be hung. To do what. {probe} It is difficult to have a lot of confidence at this time. Politics and I don't get along. {Laughter}. {RR} Maybe. As long as Pete Wilson remains in office he will be the break on spending. I am kind of anti-gov't in the last months or anti-waste! It's a Willie Brown disgrace. Things like pollution control should be industry funded. Is this an actual program or academic exercise? They should have this on all parts of the coast - This part of the coast is a real treasure. Between number 1 & number 2. 155 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10523 d-17 10528 d-17 10593 10640 10643 10702 10788 10831 10869 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 10877 10918 10922 10930 10934 10936 10944 10999 11002 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 11012 11030 11037 11055 11057 11072 11074 11083 11104 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 11127 11128 11131 11169 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 11177 11193 11203 11206 11237 11252 11253 11337 11347 11350 11353 11408 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 612892886 They promise you they would and they do just the opposite. They are affecting us very much. {probe} good people are forced to move out of the state. Either the money is mismanaged because this is a large state. {probe} I graduated, got a job with a public co. If I want to go to the state - there is no room. Right now? {RQ} {Chuckles} I'm trying to be generous. {Chuckles - breaks into hysterical laughter} {Face turns blush red}. Repeat that {please} {RQ}. Depends on the issues but generally I'd say only some. I am an anarchist! Over the past 40 years I've seen California slip from top state to one of the last. Used to be one of the best states. {Laughed}. {laughed}. I haven't been here long enough to form an opinion. I don't care for Wilson. {Chuckles}. With what they've been doing lately. They vote themselves a pay raise. Where does our money go? We pay taxes and still have crime. Read that to me one more time. {RQ} I'm almost down there at hardly any to none... {probe} It depends on who is in office. {Breaks into hysteria laughter}. And I mean none. Sounds like they're going to do it one way or another! {H} - Hardly any. God's kingdom is the only solution. How much what? {probe} What was that? {RR}. I'm sometime question it [sic]! There are things around us or in the environment that need attention also that are not being really taken care of. They're having a lot of problems. {Breaks out in laughter}. I haven't lived here long enough to judge. I feel most people have lost confidence in their leaders. They don't do nothing but fight. I don't have much knowledge about this. Good question. I don't think about the government. {Laughed}. {H - 3} I have no confidence in any government. {Breaks into laughter}. {probe} There needs to be something between some and hardly any {Digression} {probe} I guess. What part of the government? {probe} There should be a number 5 on there. 156 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11413 11424 11433 11463 d-17 d-17 d-17 d-17 11507 d-17 11686 d-17 11771 d-17 11790 d-17 10449 pg25 10619 pg25 10996 pg25 10003 d-18 10335 10366 10419 10485 10508 10562 10646 10779 d-18 d-18 d-18 d-18 d-18 d-18 d-18 d-18 10909 10917 11004 11330 10595 11306 10006 10015 10423 d-18 d-18 d-18 d-18 boxs boxs pg26 pg26 pg26 10478 pg26 10479 pg26 10490 pg26 10540 pg26 10641 pg26 10645 pg26 612892886 {Chuckles}. Repeat question. {probe} Heavy question to answer. Don't feel the government has the answers - the world is so screwed up - there are people honestly trying. {probe} {laughed} A like Pete Wilson. {Giggles}. I don't have much confidence in government anymore. They will have to prove things to me. I used to vote but it is such a headache to know all the issues. I hate to answer that. {probe} I don't think we should pay for this at all. The govt before sending money to other countries they need to take care of their own. The welfare should be revised like in other states. Illegal immigration should be stopped. Illegal immigrants take to much money. {She asked me to please make a note of this}. That's hard to answer. R has phone but couldn't remember number - I looked at her phone but number not on it. She said she was listed but no listing. Work number. R refused to give last name! {* Actually was completed on labeled Q'airre for this DU} {phone refused}. {Name only}. {Phone refused}. Before 1990. How many of there are being done in the state. What are they going to do with these? R said hasn't had a phone for a long time. {Didn't ask}. Respondent will not give name or phone number. No phone. Needed to ask s-10 & 11. {There was no chance of my getting better information than I already had}. House built in Aug. 1954. {Phone call interruption} We have to be more business friendly. Can't impose any more restrictions or taxation on business. Need to get generous incentives so that business will not start looking out of state & take jobs away. We need a strong middle class. Who do they hope to achieve from this? How are they going to use this information? What is going to happen with this information? How are they going to use it? Why did they hire a company from out of state to collect this information? It's good that there are groups like university scientist and the state are studying this and cooperating with each other instead of just blindly setting up this program. Yes! If it had cost a $1.00 I wouldn't have voted for it. Historically no nation or empire has maintained their standard of living without pillaging the resources of conquered nations. 157 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10853 pg26 11350 pg26 11413 pg26 11417 pg26 11771 10067 10094 10173 10442 10495 10607 10640 10668 10809 10934 10936 10944 11000 11021 11247 11306 11326 11349 11408 11411 11417 11464 11696 10053 10248 10336 11254 10884 11074 11151 11306 10084 pg26 e-2 e-2 e-2 e-2 e-2 e-2 e-2 e-2 e-2 e-2 e-2 e-2 e-2 e-2 e-2 e-2 e-2 e-2 e-2 e-2 e-2 e-2 e-2 pg27 e-4 e-4 e-4 e-5 e-5 e-5 e-5 e-5a 10085 e-5a 10090 e-5a 10182 e-5a 612892886 Here's what I suggest - Oregon has a plan. Prison inmates go to work and the profit from their products goes to support the prison system. They should look into that here. I thought you were going to ask about jobs and prisons. Now that I found out what this is about I'm glad I did it. When are we going to find out the results of this? {I promised that the results of study would be sent to her as soon as they are completely compiled}. When they came up with this did they think about what's wrong with the old laws? They should come up with some other ideas like using the Coast Guard. Have other Pacific Coast states used this? Who is doing this study? Who are they? Will I every know the results of this? (OS) White/Spanish/American Indian (OS) {Iranian, per interviewer} (OS) Persian. {Although I saw her as white, she doesn't regard herself so.} (OS) Ethiopian. Korean. Part Hawaiian, part French. (OS) Difficult to determine. American Indian. (OS) Egyptian. (OS) Portuguese/American. (OS) American Indian. (OS) Filipino - Caucasian. (OS) American Indian/Black {?Maybe this should be coded 3 - black, not hispanic?} (OS) (Dark skin) Brown. Hispanic. Mix [lines drawn toward answer 2 and 4]. (OS) American Indian. This guy doesn't look Hispanic but screener says he is. Looks like No. 1 to me. Maybe mixed? [line drawn to answer 1 and 5]. (OS) Armenian descent. (OS) [answer 3 and 6 circled] Black Caribbean from Grenada. (OS) Filipino. (OS) Indian (India). (OS) Filipino. {House built before 1990} E-4 to E-10. Babysitting 2 yr old granddaughter. Had basketball game on and would watch off & on. He concentrated very much in order to understand. See E-10. Although he did ask how they know. But he indicated that he didn't agree with what I said. In B-2 I couldn't get him to be more specific. (At this point the music in the background went up for a moment). I also had to RR B3. I reread a couple of times. She could not see any of the pictures or visual aid as she could not see very well. She was interested in all the questions, however. She mentioned her concern for safe drinking water caused by an oil spill. 158 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10187 e-5a 10197 e-5a 10249 e-5a 10250 e-5a 10324 e-5a 10327 e-5a 10333 e-5a 10428 e-5a 10448 e-5a 10449 e-5a 10479 e-5a 10493 e-5a 10509 e-5a 10524 e-5a 10528 e-5a 10545 e-5a 10588 e-5a 10607 e-5a 10617 e-5a 10618 e-5a 10660 e-5a 10664 e-5a 10686 e-5a 10702 e-5a 10728 e-5a 10775 e-5a 10825 e-5a 612892886 He seemed unclear about how the prevention program would actually work, though he understood the general concept. He thought at one point that there would be 3 escort ships - one at each center. She was aware of the harm caused, but I believe that she felt that the prevention program should do more - should include some kind of regular inspection of ships carrying oil. Note R's verbatim comment on pg 7 - he seemed to not fully grasp the difference between harm and total devastation. As R was somewhat difficult to understand I thought but could not ascertain if he first asked if the oil was stinging them. When I asked him to repeat, he changed the wording to destroy. Also, I don't believe he fully understood "extinct". His comment at A-10a (pg 9) self-explanatory. C-3, R thought double hulls was also part of program - Reread question. A-10a Asked how long the beaches have oil on them. He seemed to connect this harm with potential drilling. He was sure he'd pay for 10 years for the program. Doesn't think it will prevent - Doesn't know who will run the program. He didn't seem to be informed about oil spills in general and their affect on the environment. She doesn't want anymore taxes. Just stated she did not think oil spills were much of a threat to wildlife. Not a difficulty as much as a dispute of the law amount of harm expected to be caused by oil spills over the next ten years. His question regarding whether the birds would be killed was a clue. It seemed he thought the prevention program also had to do with the enforcement program of having the ships to have double hulls. He was hard at hearing but tried to understand and I spoke as loud as I could. She wanted to know some statistics. At c-4 he answered he though he would pay for 10 years at D-15. I put emphasis on 1 time-tax, at D-17 he said none, so maybe he just didn't believe it. Wanted to know what is normal death etc. if no spill. What's the difference? Said having lived on & off in Hawaii he stated he didn't think the animals affected was that large or the prevention program that efficient. She wasn't able to give me an adequate response in B-2. The fact that her kids were playing may suggest that she had a little difficulty. The R had some trouble seeing the graphics, but I showed them to here & she was very knowledgeable about the oil spill problem. People came in & out of house. Television kept being turned up - No other room to conduct quieter interview. At C-3, page 18, I went back and reread pages 10 and 11 to R since it seemed he had forgotten the "prevention" aspects of the program. Also, note R's comments at B-4, page 16. R was not aware that oil floats on water. He seemed to believe that fish would be harmed and therefore people would be directly impacted by oil spells since they eat the fish. Affirming this Q is somewhat nebulous given R's remarks on page 9 - which is selfexplanatory. Just wanting to know what an oil spill does to the water. Forgetting about wildlife. 159 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10841 e-5a 10891 e-5a 10905 e-5a 10924 e-5a 10936 e-5a 10967 e-5a 10972 e-5a 10975 e-5a 11072 e-5a 11176 e-5a 11231 e-5a 11243 e-5a 11289 e-5a 11300 e-5a 11359 e-5a 11559 e-5a 11771 e-5a 11790 e-5a 11193 10419 10453 10686 11072 pg28 e-6 e-6 e-6 e-6 11193 e-6 10085 e-6a 10249 e-6a 10284 e-6a 612892886 The respondent thought that the oil companies would be the ones overseeing the program and she said "I don't have much faith in the oil companies overseeing the program." He thought this is a waste of money (the survey). At first she thought the program had to do with the ships having double hulls (requiring them to) - I re-explained the prevention program briefly. See B-2. Respondent thought that prevention program (as proposed) would contain a provision "to keep big companies in check" - holding them responsible for oil spills. Initially didn't understand what a hull is. She also didn't understand why oil companies weren't completely responsible. She also felt the study was bias against voting for the program and portraying the wildlife as insignificant. She was unclear at first about the function of the escort ships. At A-12, R forgot about the escort ships helping tankers to avoid collisions. I re-read the last paragraph of p.10. See pg.13. See verbatim comments at C-4 and B-1. At A-9 (pg 8) she questioned the word "hulls", making her hands into a circle like a hole. I said "no hulls" and put my hands into a v-shaped boat, indicating the outer hull. She nodded and said "okay". See A-10A. R asked me to explain the concepts of oil spills & the prevention program in simpler language. Once I paraphrased the info, she understood the concepts. R seemed to contradict herself when responding to some of the questions. His response to vote against was because he felt a spill may or may not occur sounded like he didn't believe the scientist or didn't understand [sic]. See A-12a. She had a hard time visualizing the sea fence, although she understood the concept. {See p. 11 & 18}. Selected R mentioned not knowing whether the tax was for one year or more than one year. Also had a slight misunderstanding about whether prevention program had been utilized before. Also had a misconception of the reaction time of the escort ship to handle an oil spill and the ability of one ship to skim the entire surface of oil. Each time the equivalent of Card D came up, R shook her head. At C-1 her "a lot more" was very emphatic. SP did not want to commit himself to the voting ques. But compare to qualified answer given at D-15. D.K. {ME?!#@} Same as E-5a. Thought she'd have to pay the one-time pmt. today if an election were held today. Claimed he needed to read the entire bill before he could decide to vote. I reread the voting question. R's comments explicitly state he believed the program would cost $65 each & every year. Only by re-emphasizing "total cost" & "one time tax" several times did R finally understand. R is Russian and had a hard time speaking english. She would take to her husband at times, in Russian before she answered some questions. 160 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10322 e-6a 10335 e-6a 10453 e-6a 10584 e-6a 10616 10618 10668 10684 10686 e-6a e-6a e-6a e-6a e-6a 10775 e-6a 10813 e-6a 11002 e-6a 11243 e-6a 11281 e-6a 11327 e-6a 11771 e-6a 10335 10670 11207 11288 10116 10217 10335 10866 11218 11306 10095 10340 10825 10875 11205 10154 10192 10495 10543 10669 10884 11427 10431 10669 e-7 e-7 e-7 e-7 e-7a e-7a e-7a e-7a e-7a e-7a e-8 e-8 e-8 e-8 e-8 e-9 e-9 e-9 e-9 e-9 e-9 e-9 e-9a e-9a 612892886 The R's numerous comments which indicated to me he was retreating from his immediate yes answer causing me to repeat question. Wanted to be sure all households would pay the same. I had to repeat it once so not sure. I think he really was against this program as it stands, but go t mired in so many peripheral thoughts & issues, he couldn't commit himself. In C-4 he said he thought he would have to pay for more than 1 year. In C-4 she said that she thought she would have to pay for more than 1 year. Was not registered to vote in California. Only because he believed he would be excited because he and his wife are retirees. See E-5a - again while somewhat arbitrary - R's comments to the voting Q seems to indicate his focus only on "response" aspect of program. {* See B-1 -R asked a Q first before answering}. She was so concerned about who was going to pay for this and if things change for her she doesn't know if she would spend the money. R spoke of future, not present, when deciding how to vote, as in "when I can afford it, I'd say yes." I had to repeat the Q twice before I felt she was thinking in terms of an election being held today, not at some future time. At first she didn't understand how the tax would be administered, or how often. How can I be sure that will be only one time & not for more. She seemed to be leery of making a commitment - said she had to check with her boyfriend about how serious the problem was. She was curious because of the amount whether there would be the possibility of installment payments. Had to get going. He loved to talk. Even though all her groceries were waiting to be unpacked. She would like to talk all day! Because company arrived toward the end. Doesn't want to hear about taxes raised. Wife was more than him. Her mind was on a job she was working on. (deadline to meet) Only because he had to go to science fair for his daughter. He was very impatient all the way thru the interview. Thinking it out. R said very impressed that she was chosen for this. Although R changed her vote when asked the second time. Didn't think much about the $5 {small amount to him personally}. It appeared as if the $5.00 was a small enough amount for her to pay. 14 yr. old {name given} watched. For Sec. c only. Son. I checked. She. Came in during in IW. In and out. He has 7 children and a wife in the small apartment. Female friend visiting. Husband. She was making jokes. 161 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10001 e-10 10003 e-10 10006 e-10 10007 10008 10010 10014 10015 10017 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10019 e-10 10020 e-10 10022 e-10 10023 e-10 10026 e-10 10028 e-10 10029 e-10 10030 e-10 10031 e-10 10032 e-10 10033 e-10 10034 e-10 10035 10037 10038 10044 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 612892886 None. Despite age & poor health R was amazingly alert & responsive. She followed along with everything I said, but could not remember new phone number when asked. She mentioned concern over the oil spills be fore I even mentioned the program Before the interview started. She was very glad to talk to me and had not gotten letter yet. The respondent wasn't sure that it would only be for one year. R was very definite in her responses and said she enjoyed the survey. Very pleased to be invited to participate. This 'R was an old Navy seaman. He's traveled in lots of ships. Geologist says program would work but doesn't want to be taxed for it. R was very upset - son (older adult) had disappeared with his car for over 24 hr. He said come in. I told him he needed a distraction. The son arrived back with his during interview and R was visibly relieved. His son had recently had a heart attack. The son does not live with R. R was reluctant to do int. May be he called 800 number? Was not talkative at all. Just gave me answers fast. Very good comments. R is a senior citizen & a retired educator. He had called the 800 number to refuse while we were in the study training. However, I called at the DU unaware of this & his wife became very cordial. She made the AP for the R & he did the IW when I returned. R was not very talkative but interested in the iw. He was quick to catch on & understood the narrative very well. His mothers sat at a nearby table reading a newspaper but made no comments. The I'w was interrupted when R got up to go turn the fire off under a pan on the stove that her son had used. She returned quickly. R said his wife would have voted the opposite. Very interested that he was asked about a program and tax. Doesn't want any tax increase. Very pleasant elderly white male. Concerned that this program will make prices go up. Had coffee and banana bread for me. R's husband very concerned about who was doing this survey - who was paying. Wife was chose. Husband said our views are different. He was in and out of kitchen, but didn't say anything till interview was over. Elderly Hispanic male - Had to be assure I wasn't selling anything. He feels once people vote for a tax raise, someone raises the bid for the project and we all pay more. R for program. Daycare lady! R needs more info on program cost & who gets the money, etc! Before R could make a decision on the program. Respondent said R would vote "yes" if oil companies could not be made to pay the cost. R was for program if the cost remained at $25.00 only. None. No. Interview was rushed because R is moving, & because just as we were about to start, several family members showed up for a visit. We did the interview in my car, to get away from the chaos & to get out of the rain. 162 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10051 e-10 10052 e-10 10062 e-10 10063 e-10 10064 e-10 10065 e-10 10067 e-10 10069 e-10 10072 e-10 10075 e-10 10076 e-10 10078 10082 10084 10085 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10086 e-10 10087 10088 10089 10092 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10093 e-10 10095 e-10 10096 e-10 612892886 To make sure the R understood, I read the interview at a slower pace than I ordinarily would have. There was no language problem but R could not think or answer quickly. R was captain of ship. R voted against program. Very interested in survey. R's father was in Coast Guard so he was extremely interested in oil spills and had seen the consequences of spills. R at end of int. "Oh no, I'll bet you weren't happy to meet me. I'm very opinionated." R was very irritated at the whole idea of this program. R is a law student and refused me 2 times. While I was sitting in my car, she came out. I asked if she was Sarah, very disgustingly she said OK if it will keep me from coming back - I'll do it. After we finished, she said she was glad she did it. Very nervous lady - When I did screener she was on her way to job interview During interview she had 2 grand kids, 7 months and 2 years. R did not want to do iw at first. He felt that it would be a waste of his time. I convinced him to do the iw. He was very definite in his opinions. R was very skeptical and hesitant about starting interview. Wouldn't let me in. We sat outside to do it. Thanked me at the end. R was very impressed with his household being selected for the interview - anxious to participate. I'w was conducted on the front porch. He mentioned that he's a journalist, covering "entertainment". I'w was conducted at a low table, sitting on the floor (on pillows), and there was no other furniture in the room. The highly polished wood floor and bare walls made every spoken word sound like shouting, until I got used to speaking in a much quieter voice. R was in a hurry; halfway through. This man was hard to interview. He seemed to have a hearing problem. He didn't look distracted but I had to probe a few times. I had to reread two spots a couple of times but I believe he understood the program well. This R was mentally calculating the amount of birds that would be affected by spills & the cost per bird. Felt this wasn't a reason to vote yes. He also stated that if environmentalists were present in prehistoric times we would now be attacked by dinosaurs since that group would be lobbying to protect them. Screener given to me by young woman DU but she also said that she and her sister do not contribute financially or otherwise to the household. They both work but their money is for their use. 3 grandchildren live there. He has a construction business building bridges. Respondent was very adamant about his feelings. Husband wouldn't let her answer question no. D-12, said it was too personal. R was recovering from an extreme reaction to a prescription medication. Though in a good mood she said she was very tired. R worked in private sector finance i.e., as an accountant all her working life. She was pleasant, cooperative and gave thoughtful replies while asking good questions. Seemed genuinely concerned about ocean and shoreline ecosystems, but throughout IW made it abundantly clear she needed more information and assurances before she'd commit to a yes vote. Husband surfer/Run Ins Office [sic] Late husband of selected R spent working life with Chevron. 163 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10097 e-10 10098 e-10 10099 e-10 10100 e-10 10101 e-10 10102 e-10 10103 e-10 10104 e-10 10105 e-10 10106 e-10 10107 10108 10109 10110 10111 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10116 e-10 10117 e-10 10118 10119 10120 10121 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10122 e-10 10123 e-10 10124 e-10 612892886 Selected R's wife was present during interview cooking in the kitchen. Selected R is a commercial fisherman so was more intimate the most with the ocean. Screener; house paid for, only husband on title, we had telephone interruption at Section D, resumed when he completed call. Respondent is member and/or has worked for California Independent Oil Producers, Ventura CA. Former board member Del Norte Board of Supervisors - Long interview, I received a history of his life. Respondent felt tricked into environmental study. Screener; respondent lives with mom, claims room & board arrangement Respondent may (?) have been drinking or just hung-over. To get this interview I had to pull respondents truck out of ditch. Commercial fisherman disabled. Refrigerator repair man was present during majority portion of the interview. Selected R very excitably opposed to taxes, spent life working in a highly regulated industry. During screener the HH member admitted by California law his wife was on the mortgage but he considered her contribution to rent/mortgage to be zero in his mind so based on that I eliminated her as an eligible respondent. Selected R exhibited several bouts of impatience and anger towards the study, government and taxes. Attention span was short during narration continually urged me to read faster and move a long. Long interview. 86 yr. old R looked long at all materials. R's daughter in law left on card C. - No surface to write on. He chuckled all the time. He is a forester and has to check for the spotted owl & other birds. Wife answered door. Said she bad company, to talk to husband who had just driven up. He turned out to be respondent. we did IW in his car. For sale sign, R lived in house 20 yrs, moving to Oregon. Heavy smoker. No. None. Very attentive & informed. R's dog was barking loudly during about 1/2 of interview so it was done on the front porch standing. R didn't seem to mind but it was a little awkward for us. There was a few distractions for the respondent. She has foster children that came in and out. Also company arrived toward the end of interview. This interview was conducted outside. R's wife was present but did not affect his answers. No. We did the interview in the backseat of his car, because his house was being cleaned. No. R fidgeted during the narrative, & appeared bored. But she was much more engaged at the beginning and the end of the interview, & afterward commented on how interesting it was. R was extremely talkative, mostly about his family's frequent trips to the ocean. R had a friend over. She sat very quietly nearby, looking at a photo album. R was interrupted once at A-3 by a page from the front gate. She went outside to deal with that and returned within 2 minutes. Otherwise, there were no distractions. Conducted the IW poolside as R was embarrassed that his house was "too messy for anyone else to see." 164 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10128 e-10 10132 10134 10136 10137 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10139 e-10 10140 e-10 10141 e-10 10143 e-10 10144 e-10 10147 e-10 10150 10151 10152 10153 10155 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10156 10158 10160 10163 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10165 e-10 10166 e-10 10167 e-10 10168 e-10 10175 e-10 10176 e-10 10177 e-10 10179 e-10 10180 e-10 612892886 Interview done sitting on front porch, R acted like and talked like some kind of gang member or something. R had a 2 and a 3 three year little girl clinging to him from start to finish. Several small children interrupted us occasionally. [Dr.] said this was very interesting and was particularly happy it only took 30 min. This man is "opposed to everything". He said the reason he did interview was that he was curious. He said "if the coastal commission is one of the agencies - forget it" says he "dislikes all bureaucrats". A bratty 3 yr. old was trying to win her attention from me. Husband sat down at table with us to listen. Didn't say a word until I said "thank you". Then he made a comment about being from New York City. R thought throughout that I was going to sell him something. Kept listening for a sales pitch. Didn't believe this could really be legitimate. Surprise! Husband here watching basketball - I don't even think he was listening. Navy guy - knows all about oil in coastal waters, he says. R was reluctant to do IW initially as she was not fully awake when I knocked on the door. She seemed to enjoy it as it got going though. R says "I have no idea of how to vote. I need more information." R is for program. R was for the program because Resp. felt $65 was not too much to ask. R was for the program because R felt that $5 was not much to ask. R was paranoid about giving the surname and telephone number. He said he would call supervisor to give his last but I don't think he will R is against program. Thinks oil companies should pay everything. R is for program. R against program - "I don't want to pay any more taxes." R has a lot of nervous energy, and while he was not impatient to finish the interview itself, he did seem impatient with the plodding, repetitive narrative. Soft spoken R, wearing Wash. DC sweatshirt, IW'd while she was babysitting her grandchild who was asleep. Very attentive R, suffering from a cold, husband sat nearly & listened quality. She was very serious about her opinions and gave them much thought. R is minister's wife - she is also a faith healer and very interested in environment. Both are 52 yrs, but husband did short screener and he said he was older. R listed 1st on main screener done after IW - If this was only listing - husband probably should have been selected? I changed it. R is an engineer who works at local defense installation - had a lot of comments and gave careful thoughtful answers to problem - young son sat nearby. on disability and his wife just got laid off from a job. Her factory has been bought up and is moving to Kansas. She refused after I got there. I talked her into it but she said she was "going to let them know that she was unhappy with it." She didn't have the time. She runs a child care house & has 6 preschool children to care for. He has a large auto repair business. His wife said to go down to it and he would do the IW. He did even though he has a lot of business and several employees. R husband remembered getting the letter. He was busy in the yard. Company came while the interview was going on but they went into a different room. Started screener with other HH & finished it with R. R felt like there wasn't a need to have a plan in the Central Coast. 165 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10182 e-10 10183 e-10 10184 e-10 10187 e-10 10188 e-10 10195 e-10 10196 e-10 10197 e-10 10199 10200 10201 10202 10203 10206 10207 10212 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10213 e-10 10214 e-10 10217 e-10 10220 e-10 10221 e-10 10223 e-10 10224 e-10 10225 e-10 10233 e-10 10234 e-10 10236 e-10 10239 e-10 612892886 Husband sporadically present. He gave info on income question. Selected R's husband was present and listening during the course of the interview. He interjected a few comments but don't feel it had bearing on how the selected R responded. After the interview, R said he would vote for the program if it used payroll deductions over the 12 month tax year. Interview done at R's office. R's wife was watching TV nearby. R's teenage daughter was doing her homework at the same table as we were. R quickly grasped the info, & seemed impatient with my reading of the narrative, so I sped it up a bit. None. R enjoyed doing intw. He is a writer and was complimentary about the writing and presentation (the book) of the interview. Even though the R was not too interested in the study subject, she was cooperative and obviously was giving her best effort. R didn't think $5 was much to ask, - for the program. R felt that program is unnecessary. R wants to save ecosystems. Voted yes to program. R is for program. R against program. R was all for program. Money consideration did not seem to matter. R is all for the program. 2-13 - Went to house, male said correct address, made appt. for 2-14 - after 4:00 p.m. 2-14 - went to house. Son asked what doing there, I explained and he said he lives at [address provided], his father is always confused. redid screener, finished interview. It should be noted son received the letter. R more interested in other social issues. Young grandson - 5th grade present - just listened. R some difficulty with english, don't think she grasped the full idea. Elderly couple - didn't want to do at first. The only thing he would hear is take time for a tax issue. Doesn't want taxes raised at all!! R was talkative after the IW, adding that people here (in this country) expect the government to pay for everything. He said we have too many programs, costing too much money. This R interested in study. Did comment more than once that a one time tax did not seem feasible. He stated the oil companies would pass on their costs to the public in higher gas & oil prices. Very nice gentleman. R is a female retired educator. She had had cancer last year & has just overcome her chemotherapy treatments. She was in good spirits & enjoyed the iw. Great comments. R is a marine - sees how oil damages water and coasts. R, a hispanic man who said he never lets anyone in, was very courteous - used to work in oil fields & was interested in problem. R is a disabled lady with MS - had some difficulty seeing since she didn't have glasses but could see the pictures & maps OK - I read show cards to her. r, an impatient man, feels very angry at Ca. state govt, had a lot of things to get off his chest - He was in a hurry to finish IW. Respondent felt that the recovery would take longer than ten years for the bird to make a come-back at the coastline. 166 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10240 e-10 10242 e-10 10244 e-10 10245 e-10 10248 e-10 10249 e-10 10250 e-10 10252 e-10 10255 e-10 10257 10258 10261 10263 10265 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10268 e-10 10271 e-10 10272 e-10 612892886 None. The respondent was very serious about her answers. Her husband was in the room, but never added any opinions to her answers. No. This respondent had called [name given] to let her know when she'd be available Great! R was friendly and cooperative; although, not altogether willing to initially do the IW. While screening, she said to me "Why did they have to pick us?" But once the screening was completed in her home R was amenable to IWing right then. Her baby (12 mos. old) was rather loud and very vocal but the older children were helpful curtailing the little one - even closing the door for a time to a bedroom with baby inside. The primary language spoken in the household is Spanish. Clearly there was some degree of language difficulty with this IW. Nevertheless; he understood sufficiently and comprehended the majority of the information put forth to make intelligible choices. His verbatim comments reflect those few words/phrases he had difficulty in IW & "whatever it means to you" had to be used on several occasions. A very traditional & culture bound family. I was struck by their generosity amongst other things, when I found out they had given up most of their living space to accommodate guests, so R, his wife & their 3 children were all staying in a back bedroom - which is where we did the IW with all present and accounted for. The family sat silent - the two teenage children listened intently and even their 3 year old whispered each time she just had to say something. The culture family walked me to my car parked out front as we laughed and swapped stories of houses and the spirits that dwell within them. A wonderful experience Husband is forester. Respondent had a little difficulty explaining why he felt the interview was leaning towards the program. Not sure if he understood the part of interview. [The following was crossed out by the interviewer: The respondent was very serious about how she answered the question. Her husband was in the room, but never added any opinion to the questions.] This comment is worry. - I wrote it in the worry booklet. This respondent was very familiar with the costly oil spills. His wife didn't feel good so we sat on the porch & it was foggy and cold. She has 2 small children. None. There was a few interruptions by respondents 3 small children. R was pleasant and cooperative, although seemed to tire near the end. He told me he had a bad cold for awhile. note R's comments about his racial type on screener. he is a family man with a wife and 2 small children. Did standing as respondent was washing mini-van. R's husband sat with us during the interview, since I had spoken to him initially to do the screener, and because he wanted to monitor the questions. He had been reluctant at first to talk to me, because he said he is "paranoid" about gov't intrusion, and suspicious about any personal questions that might be asked. I asked him not to say anything that might influence his wife's answers, but his presence could have subtly influenced her. As the interview progressed, they both became more relaxed, as they realized that the questions weren't too nosy. R seemed bored. After the interview, R expressed his complete hostility and bitterness toward gov't. He is very angry about taxes & gov't corruption & incompetence. He said he wouldn't mind having oil drilling off the Calif. Coast. 167 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10274 e-10 10275 e-10 10277 e-10 10278 e-10 10279 e-10 10280 e-10 10281 e-10 10282 e-10 10283 e-10 10284 e-10 10285 e-10 10286 e-10 10289 e-10 10290 e-10 10291 e-10 10293 e-10 10296 e-10 10297 e-10 10298 e-10 10299 e-10 10300 e-10 10302 e-10 10303 e-10 10304 e-10 10305 e-10 10318 e-10 612892886 Very chatty, only responses related to study recorded - nothing about his 3 x-wife experiences, etc. Interview outside office trailer. Show cards on trailer steps. R in wheelchair 6-8 ft. away; refused to take cards in hand except the 1st time card C on page 6. None except to say the R mentioned he was a surfer but that didn't fit into the boating question D-3. 2 boxers all over me during the interview. R's comments seemed to relate to material read back a while, i.e., after B8 commenting on tankers. Interview was conducted in R's office. He was very opinionated, animated, and cynical. He frequently went on obscenity-laced tirades about oil companies, government, ethics, and social issues, sometimes digressing and rambling at length. After the interview, he told me that whoever is behind this study - the state or the oil companies - should use their money to fix the problem, not study it. R's wife was present during entire interview. At the end of the interview the R showed me a large collection of wooden ducks & wildlife paintings! Very pleasant R with marked Eastern accent, homesick for East Coast. Was very cooperative & interested in problem. Went very smoothly! Husband kept interrupting her and speaking to her in Russian - I D.K. what was being said. None. Respondent's husband was present. He did not say anything but respondent did ask him on occasion "what he thought?" R felt strongly in favor of program. Thanked me for coming. R had 2 small children periodically coming in to ask questions. Said she was very curious to hear the questions for this survey. Was very willing to do interview. Very aware 82 year old lady. In the beginning she felt she wouldn't be valuable to our study. When we finished she was grateful to have done the interview. R said he did this only because he was curious. Wanted to know what questions the state was asking and what the state wanted to know. R's older brother was nearby. R seemed to want his brother's approval for his decision. He gave him a questioning look. R's wife came into the room and sat quietly. She was present during the voting Q, but had not heard the presentation. R didn't seem influenced by her at all. Several young children were playing in the same room, and the television was on for them. R was attentive despite this and was only slightly distracted by the children. R was hesitant to the IW at first, couldn't understand how we picked him, but was cooperative once we got started. He lives in a very small apartment with his two cats as his only family. This lady had a lot to say. Beautiful home. Very concerned about elderly and low income families. She had a small baby and young girl who created some distraction. Nice man/woman. He said he worked for a pipe line. R is a married Asian male in his late 40's. He was very cordial, had received letter, & let me right in. R is a male Hispanic in his mid 20's. He was co-operative & interested. Luckily I caught him at home! I felt R was a little impatient to end the interview. 168 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10319 e-10 10320 e-10 10320 e-10 10322 e-10 10323 e-10 10324 e-10 10325 e-10 10326 e-10 10327 e-10 10328 e-10 10331 e-10 10333 e-10 10334 e-10 10335 e-10 10336 e-10 10338 e-10 10340 e-10 10341 e-10 10343 e-10 10345 e-10 10348 e-10 612892886 Interview was conducted outside on porch. She had received letter and my note. Her four year old did cause a little distraction for her but she was very attentive. Her son was present because he was homesick. He did not cause any distractions at all. Respondent's son was present he was very interested because of his interest in birds and animals. She was folding clothes while we did the interview but stopped and became very interested in the subject. Son is 11 or 12. R was pleasant and cooperative; although, he had some difficulty articulating the points he wanted to make and at the all important B-2 response he did not answer the q sufficiently. He asked good questions of me and told me he has a strong interest in local politics. He was hesitant in providing income information. R just back from Blythe, CA - Where wife works and lives/votes R was commercial fisherman. E9a - After SR voted wife state she would vote against it - No affect on SR. Husband former commercial fisherman. R was very cynical and angry about taxes, gov't, and surveys. He was very impatient with the narrative, though he was nice to me personally. Pet birds chirping thru out. I read very loudly and sometimes was unsure if R heard everything. When asked he said he had. The only place to sit was a kitchen table totally covered with things. R pushed clean a place in front of me and opposite in front of her. She handled the showcards, they were 4 ft away from me. She pointed at almost all of the required places herself without prompting. Very pleasant R, a plumber who just returned from work. He listened attentively, spoke quietly & was very patient in spite of just returning from a heavy day at work. 60 yrs. old white male. Very interested in programs and who will run, said State never stops programs. He doesn't feel that double hull will be an answer either. Wants to know what about oil platforms. R is originally from England. Son lives at house but pays not rent [sic]. He was in kitchen while 1/2 of Int. but paid no attention and said nothing. R said wife speaks as good - his English was outstanding but he appeared to understand well - she refused to speak English, so I presumed she didn't speak very well. He then said she doesn't want to speak English, but it's not bad. He was very [illegible] and concerned about oil and future problems. As I was leaving - R - white female said this is a problem but right now too many other problems. The "wet backs" are causing the most. Do something about them. His wife was here but was attending new born baby. She didn't say anything - just listened to my story. I had to hurry. She wanted to leave. Distracted because her toddler kept reaching for showcards. We were on the porch across the street from the beach freezing - very reluctant at first. R enjoyed this - says always home by herself anyway so glad to help out. No. R was reluctant to do interview - said she hated to make decisions on tax issues, that her husband would be better, but after it was over, she said she found it interesting & enjoyed giving her input. 169 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10351 e-10 10354 e-10 10357 e-10 10362 e-10 10363 10364 10365 10366 10367 10368 10369 10370 10371 10372 10375 10376 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10379 e-10 10380 e-10 10383 e-10 10384 e-10 10385 e-10 10386 e-10 10387 e-10 10388 10389 10391 10392 10393 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 612892886 R was very happy to see me. Her husband had been leery. R said "He's the exact opposite of me." R has many hobbies & was very intent on doing the IW. She is a senior citizen. IW was conducted within minutes of R arriving home from work. Her cats were playing nearby. This R very interested in subject. Spoke slowly and distinctly so I could write everything he said. R feels that there is more involved in spills than ones from ships, i.e. leakage in pipelines, etc. Also R against anymore added taxes of any amount since businesses and people are leaving the state now to find areas more concerned about people expenditures and business incentives. Went to University of Chicago - social worker - said professor said never turn down a survey! So she hurried home to do it!! R felt paying $120.00 in one lump (one time) sum is too much. R is for program if it only cost R $5.00, otherwise not. R against program. "Not worth it." R against program - "No new taxes" R is for program. "$25 is not much to ask." R is all for the program. R for program. $5.00 is not too much to ask. R against program. Other programs more imp. - like education. R against program because no animals are endangered. A dope. Afterwards she said she's from State of Wash. Familiar w/ program. I don't know how interested she was. I do think she was just being polite to do this with me. R was babysitting 4 infants, and he seemed to enjoy the IW. He was only slightly distracted when one of them woke up. Except for that one moment, they all were very quiet. R was talkative and very interested in the IW. He felt there should be a different way to handle the problem, and only if that wouldn't work would he be in favor of this prevention program. R thanked me for doing this job. I think he though I was a volunteer. I couldn't get a good answer for C6A. The R worked for Human Resources and felt human programs have been cut in the past and those cuts should be reversed before he would want to pay more taxes. R said this was not completely boring and laughed. Said he did learn some thing as he does every day. At d-10, R revealed that another adult worked for pay. She seemed very upset that she revealed this - said he didn't pay rent - refused to give first name, even, but did say he was older than me. The R was anxious to have interview done quickly because she is going out of town on business tomorrow, but I felt she was attentive and considered in her judgement [sic]. R seemed to enjoy the interview. R is black female - not happy with politicians or government. R - indicated a real interest in this issue - oil spills. R was\appeared to be slightly drunk. Numerous received phone calls slowed down interview process. 170 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10419 e-10 10420 e-10 10421 e-10 10422 e-10 10423 e-10 10424 10425 10426 10427 10428 10429 10430 10432 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10439 e-10 10440 e-10 10441 e-10 10444 e-10 10448 e-10 10449 e-10 10450 e-10 10451 e-10 10452 e-10 612892886 R was courteous and still willing to do IW even though I'd been unavoidably detained and couldn't reach her by phone. Nevertheless, on page 12, we were interrupted by an angry neighbor complaining about R's child, at which time, R became visibly upset. Suggesting we take a break or postpone, she insisted we continue after a very short time. After this incident, R was quite distracted; consequently, I reread and repeated more often the questions and narrative. Note at B-2, R had difficulty - even with probing. My sense is that she did find IW interesting but with the upset that occurred focusing on the Q'airre became difficult. R was pleasant & quite willing to IW right away even though she'd had a day full of exams (She's a nursing student) and a rambunctious 3 yr. old at home who sometimes interrupted the flow. She was gracious & seemed very interested in study topic; however, as she stated her main concern was human health & with out that aspect being addressed in study instrument she was unwilling to commit to a yes vote. R really thought out all of her answers throughout the questionnaire. She was very interested in the subject of survey. R said she was glad they sent the letter out before I came by. R also said she was glad they are asking for her opinion. R said at the end of interview oh this is what this was all about. I thought I could tell how if feel that the state needs to be more business friendly. Businesses need to keep jobs in state instead of looking else where. R said it was a nice interruption to a gloomy day. No. None that I can think of now. No. R spoke broken English, is very old and didn't seem too interested in this subject. No. Nice lady. The respondent was retired military & seemed to know a great deal about oil spills in the ocean. Wanted company - Sells ceramics. She forgot the appointment and was at the hardware store. I waited an hour then came back. We did it in his car. He didn't want me to come into his house. Husband here but was only listening. Once she looked at him and he said "Don't look at me, it's your interview!" Older lady - went to door wide open - wouldn't answer for quiet awhile [sic]. Finally came to do, appeared dazed. Hard of hearing - had to talk loud. All she knows is no more taxes. This R hesitant to participate, but agreed. Finally R felt very strongly about her no vote on the added tax. R interested in study said his yes vote would create jobs here which is important to this part of the state. Since husband (selected R) unable physically to be interviewed. Wife became selected R. R refused financial information because she said her husband would never allow that. Nice lady - pleased that we wanted to interview her. This R interested in subject - thought $5 tax reasonable amount - but did state he felt escort ships should be paid for by tankers. 171 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10453 e-10 10454 e-10 10455 e-10 10456 e-10 10457 e-10 10458 e-10 10459 e-10 10460 e-10 10461 e-10 10465 e-10 10470 e-10 10478 e-10 10479 e-10 10480 e-10 10481 e-10 10482 e-10 10484 e-10 10485 e-10 10486 e-10 10487 e-10 10488 e-10 612892886 This S.P.'s English is not very good. I ask if he understood the survey he said very well but it's difficult for him to speak English. Ask if he found it interesting. "No" he really is not interested in this sorta of thing. This 92 yr. old was living alone still goes a lot very interesting to talk to ex school teacher still looking for a mate. This lady lives in a very old mobil home she said she wouldn't make it without help from her kids & friends. Her attitude was who cares. R had her 13 month old daughter on her lap for part of the IW, and had to get up once to get her a cracker. R's wife was in the same room during the voting Q. As she interacted with the R prior to the IW, I felt that she held some influence over him. She told him to do the IW, so he may have been thinking about what she might think when he responded. R is an elderly white male who currently has his son, daughter-in-law & small grandchildren living with him. He stated that his health is poor so they moved in to help out. He is resentful that taxes are so high in California. R is a married white female in her early 40's. She was very attentive, but made few comments during the IW. She had been hesitant to give out her phone number as her husband is a criminal investigator & the phone is unlisted. Although respondent "stood me up" and was difficult to find at home, her reasons were legitimate. She seemed to really enjoy doing the interview. Respondent enjoyed interview. At first wife was angry that he let me in, but when she saw interview was legitimate, "apologized" by bringing me a cold glass of apple juice. R very nice lady. Very involved in abortion rights and her time & energy is focused on that issue. No. The selected R's other roommates filtered in and out of the room causing little to no distractions occasionally listening but making no comments. Selected R continued her work of painting ceramic cups while a conducted the interview. She shifted her attention back and forth between the cups and the study. Interview was conducted at selected R's place of employment the [name of business provided] at his request. Customers did filter in and out making purchases which the selected R had to attend to but I felt I had his full attention otherwise when after minor interruptions were taken care of. No. R is a lively, colorful, funny person, as well as opinionated & outspoken. The interview was frequently punctuated by our laughter. No. R was in a hurry, having just come home & anxious to get dinner ready, etc. She was extremely reluctant to do the interview, but as it progressed she became more interested. I felt I had to hurry to deep her happy, so it was somewhat fast paced. None. R, a school counselor helping disadvantaged student, IW'd in her busy office. She was very attentive and stayed with the IW in spite of periodic interruptions, i.e., state officials coming to monitor school programs for which she is responsible. R, very reluctant to give any info about herself & husband, finally sat down to give IW with him at her side - Before answering all Q's, she checked w/ him for his opinion, and then confirmed it with the same opinion from herself. It was a very touchy situation to remove him from the picture. 172 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10489 e-10 10491 e-10 10492 e-10 10493 e-10 10498 e-10 10499 e-10 10501 e-10 10503 e-10 10504 e-10 10505 e-10 10506 e-10 10508 e-10 10509 e-10 10510 e-10 10512 e-10 10514 10515 10516 10517 10518 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 612892886 Elderly lady, recovering from vehicle accident a few years ago in which husband was killed. Listened attentively - very concerned about oil companies being penalized. R is a physical trainer and was very interested in IW - He was home on his lunch hour. R, a tow truck office manager, IW'd in his office between radio calls - he gave his full attention to the IW and was very sincere & pleasant. A very soft spoken Hispanic male, had difficulty expressing his thought - couldn't put them into words easily. English OK. Daughter was present in adjoining room but made no comments during the course of the interview. Selected R is very interested in receiving the published results of the study. Initially during the interview it appeared the selected who had been napping continually dozed off. She became a little more alert towards the middle and end of interview. Selected R mentioned being on medication. R understood most of the narrative, but occasionally she wasn't clear about the info. At A-13 she was confused at first about who would pay for the prevention centers. She understood the gist of the interview, but the details were more difficult for her. No. This interview was rushed. R was initially very suspicious about how he was selected. And, he had just walked in the door, and was eating before he ran out the door again. He told me I had 20 minutes and that's all. He was very impatient and silently hostile at first, and wouldn't sit down - he ate standing up, & barked answers to A-1 & A-2. However, he then sat down after A-2, and gradually settled down, but I still felt pressured to complete the interview ASAP. R's husband was present during the interview, & he had promised me that he would not say anything during the interview. But at one point he interrupted to ask how much it would cost, and when it came time to vote, he expressed his opposition to the program, and tried to persuade his wife to vote against it. They got into an argument about it, and she said that she was in favor of the program, and that I was interviewing her not him. He was disgusted with her vote and the program, calling it a sham, but she stuck by her guns. Also, on D-11, I think that R misunderstood the question; I believe that they are both retired, and that neither of them work for pay. I could be wrong. None. After the interview, R told me he felt guilty about not voting for the program. He explained that he is in favor of protecting the coastline, but he doesn't understand why the gov't or taxpayers should be involved in a problem which is the responsibility of the oil companies. R is a truck driver who hauls oil over the mountains to the refineries. He was jovial and very pleasant. Done over fence, with SR holding show cards. Respondent has horses, dogs, birds, and several other animals. He does love animals and a lover of wildlife. No. No. None. None. Respondent would not left me do interview in the home. Stood at the door way to do interview had a very hard time to manage writing booklet, and show-cards. 173 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10521 e-10 10522 e-10 10523 e-10 10524 e-10 10525 e-10 10526 e-10 10527 e-10 10528 e-10 10529 e-10 10532 e-10 10533 e-10 10536 10537 10538 10540 10543 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10552 e-10 10553 e-10 10562 e-10 10565 e-10 10566 e-10 10570 e-10 10571 e-10 10572 e-10 612892886 His roommate was fixing his lunch & listened but didn't comment until the survey was completed. R was extremely suspicious, as was her husband. She refused all personal info; I got her name from a neighbor. She was so upset by the missed DU question & the previous screener questions that I almost lost the interview. This was a tense, ugly interview, & afterward R complained bitterly about the content (why only the environment?) and the waste of her valuable time. Nasty, cynical, hostile woman. He was cooking dinner for him and young son - I did the interview in the kitchen. This man was very hard at hearing - but he understood what I was asking him - just did not like all the narrative that he had to try very hard to hear. R has Parkinson Disease - it did not make any difference during the interview. She told me after it was over. No. She was retired & very interested in the coast, etc. (recreation) lives alone Very intelligent young woman. Living with father. He was not there & did not speak English very well, according to daughter. Boyfriend in living room with the baby and watching T.V. He never acted like he heard anything. None. He was only going to let me do the screener at first, but I was able to do the interview and complete it.+ R against program because R feels that the program will eventually be extended. R against program. Not important. R is for program in order to protect animals. R for program in order to save birds. His mother did not want him to participate. She was afraid it was some type of scam. He kept telling her it wasn't. I tried reassuring her it was legitimate. I have her the card and mentioned the 1 800 number, gave her a copy of the letter showed her my badge explained the selection process and the reasons for this type of interview, she still didn't like it. She walked in a few times and looked angrily at her son who at the end went up to somewhat impatient the mother was an elderly Hispanic lady. [sic] R's two children played quietly nearby. R took his time looking over the graphics and in answering Q's. He seemed happy to have been selected to be I'wed. During the interview, R frequently looked skeptical & cynical. Afterward, she said she thought it was ridiculous for the state gov't to spend money on a survey like this. R is a married white male in his early 30's. There were four small children present while he did the IW. His wife was in & out of the room & attempted to keep the children quiet as she readied them to go to the mall. R is a married white male in his late 40's. He is an avid fisherman & was upset that nothing was asked about the ocean offshore that would involve fishing. He felt that the matter was trivial in comparison to other issues. S.P. had a lot to say about how she felt about our environment. She didn't want to hear all the facts when I first started explained importance of her hearing the pro/con information so she would know all the facts. She then listened to the story. S.P. would have voted yes without the facts he was very upset about condition at the beaches. At A9 he ask what the bottom line to all this was. This R told me when I first got DU that he'd been married 6 times and the police FBI and CIA were always watching him. He questioned me to be sure I wasn't with any 174 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10574 e-10 10579 e-10 10580 e-10 10581 e-10 10585 e-10 10587 e-10 10588 e-10 10589 e-10 10590 e-10 10591 e-10 10592 e-10 10593 e-10 10594 e-10 10595 e-10 10597 e-10 10607 e-10 10608 10609 10616 10617 10618 10622 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10623 e-10 10624 e-10 612892886 of those agencies. He took my word looked at badge had letter and sorry card stapled together. During interview when it was income question he told me the post office had early retired him. Added he does a lot of public speaking about environment. Pleasant but odd. You can see I messed up time of ending. Seemed like I was there forever. R listened attentively - asked no questions - just made her statement explaining the way she would vote. Both roommates here wanted to do this interview. Other girl just listened - didn't say anything after they screened it. None. This R was interested but expressed the opinion that the tax dollars to fund this program are already available. R against program - "Too expensive." R against program. "These are more worthwhile programs." White male - noticed D-15 last paragraph was a question. He took it as a question about program. He's afraid oil prices will "sky rocket". He also feels it would be more than 1 year. R against program - not worth that much money. No. Respondent is an environmentalist - her walls are covered with picture of dolphins, pandas and other animals. She was enthusiastic about the chance to do survey (expressed after interview was over). The respondent told me before I started the screener that he was a Pete Wilson man and against gov't regulation - He only agreed to do the interview when I told him it was not sponsored by or had anything to do with political parties. R is a married hispanic female in her early 50's. She has very adamant feelings against illegal aliens & their use of state tax $. This HH is the 2nd on this street to say that they had recently been part of a crime survey. R is a married white female in her early 40's. She was pressed for time but consented to do the IW. She had been involved in a crime study & has had 6 follow up calls. She is concerned that our study will do that also. R is a black female in her late 50's. She was not very talkative but definite in her opinion at B-4. Interview was done standing in the door way. R very interested in survey. Felt the amount of money stated was outrageous for the amount of shoreline mentioned. Friend came in about 1/2 way through interview - Sat in same room as me & R. None. His little boy came out a couple of times. It was done outside in the patio. Her husband and kids were sitting all around us. R was restless at first, but settled down after a few minutes. At p.5, I thought I was going to lose the interview. R & his wife had just come back from a weekend at the beach. Since he is in the oil business, I asked him after the interview what he thought would be the best solution to this problem. He said that either tax credits for the oil companies to accelerate the double hull program, or else make the oil companies pay for prevention programs & let them pass the costs along to the consumers. None. 175 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10625 e-10 10626 e-10 10627 e-10 10628 e-10 10629 e-10 10630 e-10 10632 e-10 10633 e-10 10635 e-10 10637 10638 10639 10640 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10641 10643 10645 10646 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10647 e-10 10649 e-10 10651 e-10 10652 e-10 10653 e-10 10654 e-10 10655 e-10 612892886 None. R was especially outspoken at A-1 & A-2, & spent a lot of time venting her anger. I circled n/s for some answers where she refused to choose a response; she felt that the questions were too vague to capture her opinions. R is a bit hard of hearing, and asked me to repeat some of the questions. We sat opposite each other on musician stools. Showcards on my lap. Difficult to show both when there were "top & bottom" showcards. No table anywhere in the room, & R had her under 1 yr. grandchild occupying her hands. On cement steps at 45. R was having difficulty reading cards & I read them to him - he was courteous but not too interested, it appeared, in program - he had difficulty understanding words like "environment". His teenaged daughter & child sat nearby. Working mother, watching children prepare dinner, gave her full attention to IW her husband is disabled. Family lives in mobile home near military facility in desert. Very articulate now, concerned about coastal problems but disillusioned about how money is spent. R is a young unemployed woman currently in a job training program - IW'd in office of mobile home park run by her brother - sister in law listened to some of presentation & added her opinion. They share their mobile with unemployed brother. None. None. No. Selected R's daughter-in-law with kids (3) was present briefly during interview no affective on selected R's attentiveness though [sic]. Selected R's wife filtered in and out of the room as this HH was just finishing dinner. Ideal interview situation. Ideal interview situation. A few minor interruptions by the selected R's kids. Selected R refused to give her phone number saying that she doesn't like to give it out. Yet she also said that if I really want it they are listed in the phone book. None. R was reticent during entire IW. Additionally he was reluctant to do the IW but agreed when I asked him why there'd been another broken appt. His only comment was "I've been working a lot". I also inquired as to why it seemed that his employer did not know who he was when I telephoned. His response was that they were Asian and we do have only his explanation for this oddity. The apartment is small and 3 toddlers were running around that did distract respondent somewhat. Respondent is in the alternative fuel business and in-laws own barge company. Has definite feelings about this plan. Respondents husband speaks no English. Respondent speaks perfect English and was very interested in the interview. There was 3 school age daughters present because they are so interested in birds. Respondent wanted her daughters to hear the interview when the birds were mentioned. He husband was present during interview. He kept making comments but respondent kept telling him that it was her interview. Although it was her husband who encouraged her to do the interview. 176 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10657 e-10 10661 e-10 10663 e-10 10665 e-10 10667 e-10 10668 e-10 10669 10670 10671 10673 10676 10677 10678 10679 10680 10681 10683 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10684 e-10 10685 e-10 10686 e-10 10687 e-10 612892886 Respondent is retired. Her son was visiting to help her with some work around the house. He did come over to listen when he heard the subject as he does a lot of diving along the Central Coast. But I don't feel he had any affect on her vote, other than her son knowing of the problems of oil spills. Respondent was getting ready for a golf date & in a rush but nice & attentive. We did it the interview at his place of business, an engineering firm in [name of place provided]. Lady alone - wanted to have some input on state policy - called 800 number for interview after initial visit. Husband older & injured at home - just listened. Said nothing. Moving back to Kansas in a couple of months - Not really interested but nice & attentive. 2 young boys there & a girl in the bath. She came in with a towel over her hair. I started the IW and had to come back as they had company. None. No. None. None. None. None. None. Screener - white male refused name and age - estimate age to be 25 to 30 yrs. R was waiting for me at our appointed time and apologized for not being able to interview the previous evening. He was attentive, listening to my very word with great interest. He told me afterward that he thought he should take more interest in State issues. He was polite and a pleasure to IW. As regards E-9a. Wife interjected her comments throughout IW even though I'd mentioned at the outset it was her husbands' wY, and only his opinions that mattered in this individual IW, etc. etc. My sense is that most of his responses were truly his. Interestingly they both told me initially that they agreed on most things but there were some issues where they disagreed and R's opinion prevailed. The few times this did not occur, it was usually because R had misunderstood and his wife wanted to explain Q to him.l Very hospitable ever [illegible, maybe "enlisted"] me. R agreed, albeit somewhat reluctantly to do the IW. We sat in the dining area adjacent to the living room where R's wife sat watching the TV turned up rather loudly. When his wife left the room briefly, I asked if he could hear well enough at which time he got up and turned it down. But shortly afterward, the teen son, his girlfriend and another young couple joined R's wife and soon disregarded the IW being conducted just 15 feet away. This setting made it most difficult to conduct the IW although we managed. R mentioned both he and his wife were out of work making things difficult. Imagine my surprise and concern when R says we're doing the IW at his home after all (with all those big, bad dogs). I felt like I was waling a gauntlet to his front door. One dog locked in a bedroom scratched and barked the entire time of IW. R was polite but did seem a little bothered that I had to read things he said he already knew. R mentioned that he had a prosthetic device on his leg as a result of diabetes. His house was unkempt and foul-smelling, making it difficult to administer IW. I always like it when you have to reschedule and interview and the R shows up! 177 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10688 e-10 10689 10690 10692 10694 10701 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10702 e-10 10703 e-10 10705 e-10 10706 e-10 10707 10708 10709 10710 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10711 e-10 10716 e-10 10717 e-10 10719 10720 10721 10724 10726 10728 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10732 e-10 10733 e-10 10734 e-10 10735 10736 10737 10738 10739 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10740 e-10 612892886 English was a second language for R. But speaking slowly and going over the graphics, I think he comprehended everything. Roommate only here pouring orange juice for us. Wife here. Can't speak or understand English. R. enjoyed this. Very serious about this because her husband was an avid salmon fisherman. R was slightly distracted by her infant twins. One was in her lap and one was playing nearby. R's son interrupted her once to ask a question so she was slightly distracted. He was in and out of the room frequently. IW was conducted on the porch on a rainy day. We moved inside after D-7. R was afraid to disturb her father while he as watching television. R had a male friend over. He listened to most of the IW but offered no opinions until after the IW concluded. R said this is a good program, but unfortunately she is getting divorced and can't afford to pay anything extra. None. None. None. R was not concerned about the money, but by the cause or reason it was not helping directly other social programs. None. R is a divorced white male in his mid-30's. After the IW he told me that he knew a lot about this situation as he repairs meters for oil pumping equipment on offshore oil rigs. His 2 young children were present during the IW. R is a married Pacific Islander male in his early 40's. He is a CPA and this is his busy time of year but he was very co-operative about setting an appointment time. He was reserved and not too talkative. R is for program to save the animals. R is for program to reduce contamination and save the birds. R against program. Feels it should be executed by private enterprise. R votes for program to help the animals and for future generations. R against program. Thinks it's a bogus program - not too important. Respondent is very concerned about oil spills - he feels the fines for oil companies are so small that it doesn't matter to oil companies if they spill or not. R is for program to save wildlife. R works for husband in their own electronics business - used to work for an environmental protection company - interested. R, Iw'd in small apartment with a child sleeping on sofa nearby. She was very gregarious, friendly. Interested in survey and possibly doing IWing herself. Add'l apartment not prev. listed - attached. No. No. The R mentioned she had a baby in the house and couldn't do "this too long. No. R IW'd on fender of her car. (She was sitting on it). Lots of activity nearby, motors being served up on motorcycles, kids interrupting. R was attentive and did her best. No. 178 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10741 e-10 10742 e-10 10744 e-10 10746 e-10 10748 e-10 10750 e-10 10752 e-10 10754 e-10 10755 e-10 10756 e-10 10757 e-10 10760 e-10 10761 e-10 10762 e-10 10763 e-10 10764 e-10 10766 10767 10768 10770 10771 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10773 e-10 10774 e-10 612892886 When he open the door the smell and smoke from marijuana was very strong, and you can tell he was high but he was nice and very interested in the survey. Young mom had TV on but was listening to survey with other ear. He gave serious consideration though and asked thoughtful Q's. R and wife manage large mobile home park - he was watching TV but listened attentively - R's wife sat nearby, but was attending to trailer park residents who dropped in. R's husband sat in for interview and gave his mostly opposing opinions after "R" gave hers. He had no influence on her decisions. In fact he encouraged her to participate when she didn't really car to. None. After the interview, R told me she thinks the oil companies should pay for the program, and she wanted to know who was behind this survey. No. Extremely verbose R, a widower who discussed every single issue all length and every single Q. IW'd in his backyard farmer construction worker. No. He's against any taxes & He's mad about proposition 187 is not working now. (Why spend money in education for illegals, and not uses the money for something like this? R's wife said she would vote for. He voted against, not seeming to be in response to her. He just didn't think the information given was sufficient. R was busy, and wanted the interview to be short. Also, we were interrupted several times by children. No. No.10763 R was initially very suspicious about the nature of the questions he would be asked, and about the sponsor of the study. Once we began the interview, he gradually relaxed and became interested. None. Expert that she voiced the comment I hope this doesn't start something like saves pitches or trying to market something to me. None. None. Standing with gate between us. Showcards balanced on narrow slanted railing. Husband was also present. After a couple of unfortunate postponements R and I were finally able to get together for the IW despite the regular and on-going distractions of her 2 year old boy. She said she sound the IW interesting but (like some before her) thought we would be discussing, more wide-ranging state tax issues. R told me she was recently divorced, has 3 young sons, is currently attending school and works. In spite of her tremendously busy schedule she very much wanted to do the IW. And is very interested in learning the outcome. R was friendly and cooperative welcoming me in to do the IW right then even though we'd had to postpone an earlier appt. time. Her young son (not yet 2 years old) used her as a jungle gym for part of the IW until father came in to get him but this didn't seem to have affected her ability to give the attention necessary to the narrative. A very amicable R who told me she found the IW very interesting.10774 No. 179 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10775 e-10 10776 e-10 10777 e-10 10778 e-10 10779 e-10 10783 e-10 10784 e-10 10786 e-10 10787 e-10 10788 e-10 10789 e-10 10790 10791 10792 10793 10795 10797 10798 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10799 10800 10801 10802 10803 10804 10805 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10806 e-10 10808 e-10 612892886 R and his family had just returned from shopping when I arrived and was a little hesitant about doing IW right then since he had not had dinner but did agree momentarily. He was cooperative and asked good questions. He was also curious about the nature of my work asking if I did this 8 hours per day, etc. etc. In R's car. I had drivers seat. Showcards awkwardly balanced against steering wheel. R's toddler distracted her a lot. But although she had been very reluctant to do the interview, she agonized over the voting questions. {B-1, B-3, D-15}. Interview was rushed a bit; R was in a hurry. In the beginning of the interview the selected R's wife was making a lot of side comments until I informed her that I'm only interested in her husbands responses. Also there was a telephone conversation taken by the wife in the same room which was a distraction for me and possibly the respondent because of the loudness of the wife's voice. Done at door with R holding show cards. Originally was told only one 18 or older in H.H. After the call found out 2 in H.H. They are moving in next couple of weeks. Respondent felt very strong on her vote. Did not hesitate at all. Took section A very serious. Respondent is exposed to the scientific journals that he strongly claimed discusses the requirements of the shimmers on board. Because they can salvage some of the oil or recycle it when there is a spill. Feels that this would be redundant pay out to the taxpayers. Respondent did talk at length on issues. Respondent had called the 800# when she received letter. She was very interested in study but disappointed there was not more questions on education in California. Upon meeting R he readily agreed to do the IW and seemed please when we concluded. When looking at the time, seemed to congratulate me on completing the IW just exactly to the 20 minutes I'd mentioned at the outset. Notable are his absence of comments. He mentioned to me as I was leaving that he always enjoyed talking about taxes "not being raised". Interview done at front door with R holding the showcards. Selected R's wife as present during the duration of the interview but remained silent. 0. No. No. No. The R was a little hard of hearing. I read the material and little louder and slower than usual. Otherwise it went fine. This R wanted to know if Westat was hiring. No. No. No. 0. No. R answered telephone [A4 - illegible]] Questions at section C. Said he had to leave shortly and was in a hurry to finish. Wish all we're so easy - SP have got letter and survey. She was born in the U.S.A. Husband might not have. 180 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10811 e-10 10812 10813 10814 10817 10819 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10824 e-10 10825 e-10 10835 e-10 10836 e-10 10839 e-10 10841 e-10 10842 e-10 10843 e-10 10844 e-10 10846 e-10 10848 e-10 10849 e-10 10850 e-10 10852 e-10 10853 e-10 10857 10859 10860 10861 10862 10864 10865 10866 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10867 e-10 10868 e-10 612892886 We did it (the interview) in the garage at his work bench - He said the carpets were being cleaned. None. It never occurred to her she would have to pay for this kind of thing. Marketing major - graduating with BA this summer. Nice young good looking man. His own business in home. Single mom. She said she had an ex-male in her life who spent time in prison. They need to send all the illegals home who are filling up our jails. We would have plenty of prison space. Tax money could be better spent. R was interested in interview. Did state she thought the amount of money concerned excessive and wondered if it would be handled correctly. R said she enjoyed the interview but seemed to think she should change her vote the second time since she believes she is a strong environmentalist. No. Very informed man. Very expressive. The respondent was interested in interview, but seemed to "jump ahead" as can be seen by her comments in interview. She seemed to enjoy the experience. The Respondent listened attentively and read the information on the cards but missed the point that the State would oversee the program. None. None. R was a bit impatient - kept telling me he only had 5 minutes - all throughout interview. R said she agrees this is a very important survey. Especially when it involves additional taxes for the taxpayer. R buzzed me into his complex & opened his door only because he was expecting someone else, & was caught off guard. he was in a hurry but I felt it was now or never. R is a white male in his late 40's. he was very attentive but not too talkative. His little dog ran around & around the room while we talked. This, at times, was a distraction. R is a married white male in his mid-40's. He owns a printing business. He was cooperative but not very talkative. R was all for program in order to save animals. R was in the process of moving. most of his things were boxed and stacked. Iw was conducted at a folding card table in the living room. Flattered that he was asked to participate. R against program - It is not worth the money. R for program to save the birds. R is for program because she loves animals. R against program - too costly! R against program - "There must be a better cost effective way to do this program". Nice guy. I caught him in the garage. He had stood me up once before. S.P. is a project director in marketing research. She was on the phone when I arrived (work). Not sure how well she listened to info. This is not something she likes doing she said. S.P. older lady lives in very nice mobil home. She was a good listener but this was not something she was concerned about. None. 181 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10869 10871 10872 10873 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10874 e-10 10875 e-10 10876 e-10 10877 e-10 10878 e-10 10879 e-10 10881 e-10 10882 e-10 10883 e-10 10884 e-10 10885 10886 10890 10891 10892 10893 10894 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10895 10896 10898 10899 10905 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10907 e-10 10909 e-10 10910 e-10 10911 e-10 612892886 R is living on pension in a very limited budget. None. None. R does not like to share personal information, regardless of the survey's importance. R refused firmly to give names, age & tel. no. R wanted to refuse interview - did refuse - said "he didn't care how the tax money is spent." After much talking he agreed to do int. later. Even though he tried to act impatient to finish, he really was very interested. R says the water and everything in it is close to his heart. R tried to get me to skip all the details and just have him say "yes" to whatever we wanted since he believes in any program to protect the environment. I explained that I was compelled to give him all the background information. R refused to give his last name but did give his work tel. no. R may have been afraid to tell 1st interview that she was living in apt. first time. This R has 3 children including a 9 mo. old baby - works 2 jobs - has had surgeries in recent past and is facing another surgery - says it would be extremely hard to pay more taxes but is willing to save the birds. The house was so cluttered we had to sit outside on front porch to do it. R explained he used to spend $40 for groceries - now he spends 100 or more for the same amount. Can't afford these high prices or anymore taxes. R considers himself a strong environmentalist so found the survey very interesting. R against program. Thinks the oil companies should pay. My mistake - 2 got mixed up and didn't follow through correctly on the screener when I found out she couldn't understand enough English. I crossed him out by mistake & then kept thinking about it and realized I had made a mistake. That's why I called for the case back. None. None. None. This man was adamant that the survey is a waste of money. None. None. E-7 Yes, because wife wanted nothing to do with me and the survey. Husband was a willing participant. But I felt he was bothered by wife's feelings. None. None. R took a 10-15 minute phone call during the interview. No. R, newly retired, busy "getting her life together", "everybody doing surveys" with her - interested & listened well to presentation. R was inebriated, but to what degree is uncertain. R said he worked at one time in cleaning up oil spills so he thought the plan sounded feasible. Willing to pay tax one time. R is an unmarried white male in his mid 30's. He felt guilty as he had not responded to notes I had left or letters he had received. R's wife was present during interview. She made no comments. R & wife said they did not want to give their last name or home phone number. R does not have a work number. Wife gave hers. Very nice R. Perhaps their ethnic background makes them very leery about giving personal information. 182 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10913 e-10 10914 e-10 10915 e-10 10916 e-10 10917 e-10 10918 e-10 10920 e-10 10921 e-10 10922 e-10 10923 e-10 10924 e-10 10925 e-10 10930 e-10 10931 e-10 10932 e-10 10933 e-10 10935 e-10 10936 e-10 10937 e-10 10940 e-10 10941 e-10 10942 e-10 10944 e-10 10945 e-10 10946 e-10 612892886 Nice lady said if we wanted programs we should pay for them thru taxes. Nice Irish lady self employed. S.P. was cooking a sauce for dinner. She finished it while I gave background info. She stood across counter from me looked at the pictures and was interested in the survey. Nice older lady. Seemed a little uncertain at first about the info she was given. She understood material but seemed indecisive. S.P. never stopped talking. Was very difficult to keep him on track. He had a lot to say about everything. OJ, oil co., government, taxes, people ect. long winded. [sic] R was very anxious to do interview. Thanked me for coming. I think she would have liked to discuss many other environmental problems in addition to this. Many relatives live in the apartment complex. R says she works hard for her money. The respondent seemed to enjoy it. Respondent didn't want to let me in his apartment because it "was a mess." I suggested we use the complex's recreational room, which we did. Respondent was very apologetic about not being able to speak to me the first time I called on her. The respondent took a long time to answer questions - especially the open-ended ones. R works for an environmental cleanup company in Marin county. No. R was quiet but very uptight during interview. His emotions were finally expressed at B-4, and then after interview, when he expressed his disappointment in the subject matter & his anger over the state of public schools in Calif. None. None. Yes it was freezin, wet and cold while we conducted the study at his door stoop because he wouldn't let me in. Selected R's boyfriend was present during the study and did interrupt occasionally. Also the numerous cats and dogs and a telephone call were added distractions. Because the interview took place at selected R's place of business an car dealership he was frequently interrupted by telephone calls, his secretary and other business associates but he refocused fully after interruptions were resolved. R was hospitable; nevertheless, he was disinclined to IW stating this was again a very bad time (as on previous occasions) which had ultimately led to his refusal (through his wife) 2 weeks ago. Appealing to his sensibilities, he did finally consent even though they were expecting company (and barbecuing) for dinner. He had little to say during the IW and afterward. My sense was he was simply relieved to be done with it. Wife & teen daughter were present for interview. Wife was very opinionated about subject. Husband says he feels the same way. R's 18 month old daughter was distracting thruout. R is a student at [name of business college given]. R's daughter, 15, was on the couch watching cartoons. R occasionally looked at the TV. R employed as veterinary assistant. Said afterwards "I have an all encompassing concern for the critters". R refused for 15 minutes before starting interview. 183 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 10947 e-10 10948 e-10 10949 e-10 10950 e-10 10951 e-10 10952 10953 10963 10964 10965 10967 10968 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10969 e-10 10970 e-10 10971 e-10 10972 e-10 10973 e-10 10975 10976 10979 10980 10981 10982 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10986 10988 10989 10990 10991 10992 10994 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 10996 e-10 10997 e-10 10998 e-10 10999 e-10 612892886 Very pleasant elderly lady, live alone on 2 acres in country (desert) with loads of dogs & cats - very attentive to IW. R an oil field worker, upset about govt regulations on oil industry and it colored all his opinions. He listened to presentation carefully. R, in process of moving, is a Jehovah Witness & kept saying he doesn't vote - but he listened carefully & gave his opinions. Very courteous R. Young woman, IW'd in doorway, spent a lot of time on coast in Santa Barbara, saw spills there - gave a lot of thought to survey. Very pregnant young woman, listened intently. She mentioned she was on disability w/ a limited income, otherwise would have supported program - lives in tiny neat apt. No. R was opinionated and talkative. It was hard to keep him focussed on the questions. No. No. No. No. Man and wife together - she said she would not vote "for" this but husband was sure he would vote "for" measure. No. None other than r was slow to respond. He seemed to understand the questions, but thought a lot about them before answering. No. Small kids were a minor distraction. Interview was rushed because R said she was busy. In fact, initially she refused to do the interview. R told me that her roommate, with whom I did the screener, incorrectly gave r's age. I changed the age on the screener, but it did not affect the selection of the R. No. No. None. This respondent is a very strong-believer in his opinions. No. Husband sent son out to tell wife not to sign anything. I don't think they can afford anymore taxes. Law income housing here. None. None. None. None. None. R took this as an important duty. this was like pulling teeth to get. Terribly angry, cranky man. Cooled off during interview and apologized. R does like animals and birds and had a hard time deciding how to vote. There were 2 male adults there but r said only the 2 females were HH members. R and roommate both love animals. R was anxious to leave with her little girl. R said she was willing to pay but didn't think a lot of people could afford it. This lady has cancer and is particularly aware of pollution and the poisons in some of our food. 184 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11000 e-10 11002 e-10 11003 e-10 11004 e-10 11005 11006 11008 11009 11010 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 11011 e-10 11012 e-10 11013 e-10 11014 e-10 11016 e-10 11018 11020 11021 11022 11023 11024 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 11025 e-10 11026 e-10 11027 e-10 612892886 I'w was conducted inside an apartment with the door open. Occasionally, people walked by and she was slightly distracted by them (c-1). At C-4 she indicated that money would have to be paid every year to keep the program going, so I don't think she grasped the part about a one-time tax or the oil company fees sustaining the program. Woman with older son visiting during interview. Came in during screener - just listened. She works for county of Sacramento, after trying temporary work. Very polite & nice. Young daughter about 10 yrs old, sat on couch with mother & distracted her slightly - She was very hesitant at the beginning and asked if she "had" to do interview. I told her no, but it would be a good opportunity to voice her opinion on types of taxation. She said at end of interview it was not at all as bad as she thought it might be. Also, she would not give true age, last name, or phone number. She said the state already has all that. None. None. No. No. R worked for different oil companies for many years and sailed their ships all over the world. He was very well versed in all the problems. He had some problems concentrating because of his age & medical condition. Wife was present during part of the interview. Selected R remained skeptical of taxes and the importance and value of this study - . Husband was present sometimes talking on telephone during the duration of the interview. R Exxon employee 25 yrs.lots of experience with oil and spills. Apartment mgr IW'd in his home, wife nearby listening - he was a very considerate R, extremely interested in problem. Wife added her opinion but R was very independent about his. IW was conducted in the office at the front of the business. R's home is at the back of the business. It was noisy, with the phones ringing often. R answered the phone once, than was not interrupted again. R against interview because other programs are more important. R is for program if it is a one time $5.00 tax. R is for program to keep water & shoreline clean. R is for program to save wildlife. R is for program to save wildlife & shoreline. R very interested in the environment. R very secretive about his life. Didn't want me to know his personal life. This man is a lawyer and of high income. $5.00 was not an issue. While he tried to refuse interview, he said he was happy he did participate. Thanked me for coming and asked if the state does this kind of study often for other issues. The hardest part was getting an AP. SP works and goes to school was sorry we had to try to reach him so many times. R was aware of the ocean and how well the salt breaks down contaminants. Said he was sorry it took so long to catch up with him but he hopes his answers help our study. 185 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11028 e-10 11029 e-10 11030 e-10 11031 e-10 11032 e-10 11033 e-10 11034 e-10 11036 e-10 11037 e-10 11038 e-10 11039 e-10 11042 e-10 11048 e-10 11049 e-10 11051 e-10 11055 e-10 11056 e-10 11057 e-10 11058 e-10 11059 e-10 612892886 R used to be a school teacher. R initially refused survey then after refusal letter called 800 number to agree to do it. I arrived at her home before I got the message that she was willing. None. R hopes to have a verifier call so she can tell him\her what a great interviewer I am & what a nice, educational experience our interview was. Do call, please. R was a pleasure to interview. Good interview. This man was from Syria going to USC and is a dentist. He had broken English or heavy accent but understood everything but he just arrived 15 days ago from Oklahoma and unfamiliar with California issues! No. Spent about 20 minutes with R while he explained to me that "we" have no input into what gov't does. Also would not consent to IW - until his wife came home since they do not do things without the other one present. Wife came home and after they had a conversation he consented to IW. R & wife have not been in this country very long they are from an Eastern bloc country and very hesitant about giving information to any part of the government. He did state that he felt money in this state should be allocated to education for children - better schools. Very flattered to be asked to participate. R is a married white male in his mid-30's. He was very pleasant, but gave the impression that the whole idea was so much "fluff". His comments were done in a joking manner. R was impressed that we had sent him a refusal letter with a case number on the envelope. R is a married male Pacifica Islander in his mid 50's. He was especially sad because he had just lost his long-term care business. He is a male nurse. R is a married white female in her mid-50's. She works in social services so is interested in environmental issues. Very pleasant retired widower, lives in mobile home on lake - recovering from heart attack - interested in problems caused by spills. Retired mechanic has lived in mountains quite a long time, fisherman, concerned about how strict environmental laws have become - listened carefully while trying to keep big dog from jumping on me! R was a very polite, interested old man - retired, a former steel worker who loves to fish. Very pleasant, lives in mobile home park. Very pleasant widower, live in a mobile home, used to spend a lot of time along coast when wife was alive Husband insisted on being present during interview. His comments are on right hand side marked with letter "H". None. R told me that [name provided] (person number 04 on screener) is a temporary houseguest, thus changing the selected R. He also told me that he is a Jehovah's Witness, and as such he does not vote or get involved in politics. He agreed to do this interview only if I made it clear in my notes that he does not take sides on such issues. Therefore, though I circled N/S at B-1, in fact he refused to vote at all. No. In spite of R's sarcastic, cynical verbatims, this interview was a lot of fun for both of us. She is a very jovial, humorous person, and we both laughed uproariously 186 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11060 11062 11064 11065 11066 11067 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 11069 e-10 11070 e-10 11072 e-10 11074 e-10 11077 e-10 11079 e-10 11080 e-10 11081 11083 11085 11086 11087 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 11088 e-10 11090 e-10 11091 e-10 11093 e-10 11095 e-10 11099 e-10 612892886 throughout the interview at her colorful expressions & opinions. A memorable, entertaining interview. No. No. She looks she knows a lot about animals & wildlife. Family against any kind of taxes. No. Very delightful alert older lady, concerned about wildlife - listened attentively - a bit hard of hearing but I spoke loudly - her son helps repair wounded wild birds as his job and releases them in wild again. She was quite concerned w/ problem but on fixed income. None. None. R was friendly and cooperative and yet had failed to grasp some essential information when voting and with a subsequent Q. She laughed and joked about this - I'm sure feeling somewhat embarrassed. Fortunately, her comments afforded me the opportunity to reread the questions and respond to her comments, thusly, alleviating any misunderstanding. When I arrived at the scheduled appt. time, R had company and through the urging of her visitor we went in to begin IW. She was incredibly distracted; partly because one of her twins was up and not napping (as hoped for) and because she would've rather been talking with her company who waited patiently for us to finish. After the IW R told me she didn't find it very interesting because it was not a topic she cared about. Additionally she indicated she thought it would cover a wider range if issues. R wa amicable and cooperative, and agreed to the IW immediately even though she'd just been handed the advance letter (not deliverable by physical address). She found IW interesting and seemed very interesting and seemed very interested in socialpolitical issues. She was particularly critical of State, Cal Trans as this mountain community has been beleaguered with road problems. Perfect interview! Setting, attention, no pressure to race through! Lovely older woman, but I think the vote change was initiated by first listening to her husband, and then making up her own mind on which way to vote. Not really - R was well informed it seems, and answered questions thoughtfully. None! None. None. R said the entire survey was a little skewed. He was glad to be able to give his input and opinions especially regarding this program. SP found the questionnaire to be interesting and said she was "happy" to help this study. Male SP from Spain is interested in birds but says human programs should come first. SP still didn't want to do intv. but said he was glad he did because he found it very interesting. R very happy to participate. Wife and daughter both here. She asked me questions but he's definitely in charge of that house. Not influenced. Daughter here trying to put in her 2 cents worth. Didn't influence R though. Wife sat in. R was a little slow but could understand the problem. Wife repeated for him on occasion as he had a little trouble hearing. 187 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11100 e-10 11101 e-10 11102 e-10 11103 e-10 11107 e-10 11108 e-10 11110 11111 11114 11115 11117 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 11119 e-10 11123 e-10 11124 e-10 11125 e-10 11126 e-10 11127 e-10 11129 e-10 11130 e-10 11131 e-10 11132 e-10 11133 e-10 11134 e-10 612892886 He had a baby on his back the whole time. He has 8 children and we went outside to do IW. The R stood up during the whole interview. Each page I turned he seemed to look it over pretty good. R said before we started the interview that she had taken a couple sociology classes in college in DC & had visited the Westat office in MD. R was smoking. R's 2 young children under 5 were acting up yelling & screaming during the interview - R was very distracted but listened as best as she could. R was pleasant and cooperative indicating that she'd been looking forward to our contact. Her husband was helpful - when he knew she was the selected R, he gathered up their children and took them for their baths so we would not be disturbed. As indicated she thought the program would be worthwhile but questioned whether it would really be implemented. She had forgotten the appointment but was home. No. No. No. R seemed to be well informed on this subject matter & knew about the plan for double hulls & said he felt the program had been well though out. Retired R lives in mobile home on lake - listened attentively. R, a retired lady, had oxygen tube coming from her nose - says she cares deeply about animals & loves the coast - lives in mobile home on lake. Young woman watching children play in background - screaming at them occasionally - talked a lot of personal problems - listened to survey over noise of son's truck running in yard (motor). She's very nice. The interview was rushed, because R said he & his wife just got home & were about to leave again. I almost lost the interview 3 times: when R learned it would take 20 minutes; when I told him I would record his answers (he thought I meant tape record them); & at the top of P.S., when he became suspicious about who is behind this survey (he thought I might be representing a lobbying group. Selected DU address is actually [address given] confirmed by analyzing listing sheet and segment maps. HH members do not receive mail there. They have a P.O. Box in Scotia, CA. Selected R mentioned that other HH member is her ex-husband who she said was invalid and she was providing care for him. Very nice R. Interested in the study. Very concerned about the harm to fish in the affected area since she felt the waters there are fished commercially. Interviewed this R. in his work place. Said he surfs a lot and is concerned about this issue - also said as I was leaving that there must be leakage from platforms in the ocean - What are they doing about that? (Told R I would make note of that). R was 15 minutes late for app't - she had forgotten. Thank goodness I waited! R said he found that the survey very interesting. R is going back into hospital. At first, he was reluctant to do intv, but when finished he said that he was glad he had let me in. Interview was done in Respondent office. Although he had a phone call, his train of thought as not adversely affected. He appeared to enjoy the experience. R very environmentally conscious. I think she would have voted "for" no matter what the cost. 188 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11136 11137 11138 11140 11141 11142 11144 11145 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 11146 e-10 11147 e-10 11148 e-10 11149 e-10 11150 e-10 11151 e-10 11152 e-10 11153 e-10 11154 e-10 11155 e-10 11156 e-10 11158 e-10 11162 e-10 11168 e-10 11169 e-10 11170 e-10 11171 e-10 11172 e-10 11175 e-10 612892886 Good interview! R is for program in order to save animals. R for program to save animals and beaches. No. No. No. No. R & wife, avid ocean fishermen, talked about how fish in the ocean have disappeared and how disappointed their grandchildren are - Husband got started on this subject midway during IW - and finally got to complete IW. Busy mother, encountered on return from a walk with whole family, left children w/ husband outside during IW - he checked periodically to see if she was done - she stuck w/ it - very large new home. R a very alert 87 yr old, interested in many things, talked a lot about things happening in the past - I spoke more slowly & she grasped everything - delightful lady. R came out through the garage. Said doing laundry. Did interview in garage. R said he didn't have much time. No. No. Retired good humored gentleman, reluctant to do IW, but become interested as soon as we got into environmental issue - he voted without hesitation. No. R, suffering from back injury, had to be on floor during IW - has many pets roaming around - husband in back bedroom, recovering from massive stroke - both formerly actively employed in school district - R very concerned about environment. SP was interrupted by phone calls but seemed happy to participate. He would like to know how many people voted for the program & how many voted against. R; very pregnant, IW'd on front doorstep - she lives with family in small home a block from ocean. Husband nearby working on car. Man, wife & 2 small children - did interview outside - with some distractions, but generally it was pleasant and the respondent was attentive - somewhat. Very nice to do interview, as I had bugged them a lot. Hard to find a good time. Interview was conducted on front porch. Respondent was very interested because she travels highway 1 frequently. Respondent was rather despondent at time of interview but found it very interesting. She did talk at length on parts of section A getting a little off the track. Interview took place at selected R's law office. There were a couple of phone interruption but otherwise I had selected R's attention. We were scheduled to conduct the study at 9:30AM. I was on time but he made me wait almost 45 minutes because he was preoccupied with other matters. Ideal interviewing situation. No. Soccer was on TV. Many times he watched the game. He insisted he would not make an appointment for later & would not turn off his game. Senior at Sonoma State majoring in environmental studies. This R refused to participate initially thought study might be sponsored by a PAC sent a letter. Stopped by many times he called me and said he'd do it. 189 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11176 e-10 11177 e-10 11178 e-10 11179 e-10 11180 e-10 11183 e-10 11185 e-10 11187 e-10 11188 e-10 11190 e-10 11191 e-10 11192 e-10 11193 e-10 11194 11195 11196 11197 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 11198 e-10 11199 e-10 11200 e-10 11201 e-10 11203 e-10 11204 e-10 11205 e-10 612892886 R seemed a little tired and not overly-interested in the IW, but she was attentive. She has a heavy Spanish accent when she speaks, but seemed to understand English well enough to do the IW. The only problem was as mentioned at E-5a. R was apologetic at the outset because he has only been in the state for one year and he didn't think he knew enough about government things and taxes. R who was very rude initially was very courteous and said again, he was sorry. He was glad he took the time to do survey. R said this survey was very interesting and glad to help. Waited while SP had a phone call then had to feed child, then say good bye to guests. Money was no problem in this wealthy HH. SP did care about the wildlife. R happy to do this. R is a married Hispanic male in his early 30's. As we talked doing the IW his wife & 2 small children came home from shopping. His wife had originally refused but she showed no objection this time. Respondent was very incessant that the fishing industry would somehow be affected. R did not want to do this interview after making apppt. and having to drive 70 mi. SP was willing. Other male HH member complained that we weren't going to stop trying for the interview so he asked SP if he wanted to do it. SP replied "yes" [name given] said well I'm tired & went into house, slammed door and left us outside on porch. SP seemed intelligent and thanked me for coming. Husband was very concerned that their name would not be used for mailings of any kind. SP seemed to be confused at Ques C-1. I repeated Ques. SP does not want to pay more taxes and is very concerned about the harm to wildlife and our environment but feels the oil companies or whomever caused the pollution should pay to clean and maintain the situation totally. SP very concerned about environment. None. R apologized for being so hard to contact. R is a married Hispanic female in her mid-50's, she was attentive to the iw but felt that the issue wasn't very pressing to be done quickly. R had just arrived home from work & had "forgotten" I was coming. This R was concerned she may give "wrong" answers. We spoke a lot about "no right or wrong answers." R enjoyed the IW. Think she felt "privileged" to be chosen to be IW'd. This R is very deaf. She is very good at reading lips. Digressed a bit during IW, but she is quite lonely. At A-12A, R said she's "not really interested in wildlife or any of that," then at D-6 she said "that's my favorite pastime - nature. R in public health. R moved so had to follow to new address after initial contact [address given]. She is a lawyer - J.D. This young mother is struggling to pay her bills with her small wages yet she is concerned about the environment enough to want to make small payments toward cleaning up the oil. This was refusal conversion. R was very warm and hospitable after she got the FedEx letter. Extremely dirty household. While R did understand everything, she was not interested in reading any of the answers in card book. I couldn't figure out if she was extremely bright or couldn't read. I had to get out of my car to open gate at end of 190 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11206 e-10 11207 e-10 11208 e-10 11214 e-10 11215 e-10 11216 e-10 11218 e-10 11223 e-10 11226 e-10 11227 e-10 11228 e-10 11229 e-10 11230 e-10 11231 e-10 11233 e-10 11234 e-10 11235 e-10 612892886 long driveway with a Doberman (unleashed) looking at me (sitting - not barking). (Maybe I'm the one who is not too bright?) R felt the state was after him for some reason. He did not want to do intw. Worried about that I was a state official. (Guess I convinced him) At the end of intw. R said he just hated to help the State politicians in any way. That's why it was so hard to get him to agree to interview. R was very courteous - said she was sorry it took so long to catch up with her. Said she is from Egypt and loves it here. Thanked me for coming and said she was happy to do interview. Really thinks the problem with the oil is not as important than other social issues. R was both cooperative and hospitable; he served me coffee and was willing to do the IW right then. He said he enjoyed the interview but wondered about the number and costs associated with multiple studies. He mentioned that double-hulling was not the answer; instead, he felt we've got to learn to be a lot more careful. He told me of some rather severe health problems he's recently had making it difficult for him to resume his work career even with his advanced degree! R was quite willing to do the IW right after having been introduced to the study. We sat on his porch; he'd indicated his indoor dogs would be a problem. He had little to say during IW but indicated afterwards that he and his wife were "fed up" with California and as soon as their house sells, they're moving to Idaho. R was polite and agreed to IW immediately. He was somewhat reticent during IW but was at ease speaking about his military career afterwards. Also, he mentioned having read an article in Science Magazine about a gum substance that successfully attracted petroleum products in the event of a spill. Note his reference to this at B-4. Because this respondent does not pay taxes, she felt that she was not a good respondent. She answered on what she felt other taxpayers would feel. Respondent made comment that when he lost his job, it was the state that provided his training on computers which turned out to be very profitable for him. Also he was very interested in Westat as a data collector. Interview was conducted outside on car because he was just leaving for a science fair for his daughter. R was very interested in being interviewed. He questioned me extensively about who hired this study & appreciated being interviewed. No. No. R plans to call Westat. He works for Channel number 14, a Spanish radio station, and wants to publicize this survey because he thinks it's a good thing. He wants information to do so. Older lady, very verbose, had difficulty sticking to subject matter -chatted about a lot of things husband, deceased, retired from Air Force - formerly lived in Alaska & loves wildlife & natural beauty. Gave problem serious consideration. R's 22 month old child was a big distraction. After the interview, R said she believes that environmentalists are behind this survey. R's child was very disruptive. R resisted & broke appt - she was pleased to finally do the survey - has serious family & health problems. I praised her contribution & told her about random sampling. No. I caught him the second time. I went by that day - He works 2 jobs and is not always home. 191 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11236 e-10 11237 e-10 11238 e-10 11241 e-10 11242 e-10 11243 e-10 11244 e-10 11245 e-10 11246 e-10 11247 e-10 11249 e-10 11250 e-10 11251 e-10 11252 e-10 11254 e-10 11257 e-10 11258 e-10 11260 e-10 11261 e-10 11262 e-10 11263 e-10 11265 e-10 11267 11268 11269 11270 11271 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 11273 e-10 612892886 R lives with disabled husband and disabled son - in midst of cooking evening meal for them & listening to IW - She was selected since husband cannot speak & is ill due to stroke. Respondent didn't want to go through the survey. I talked her into it and she seemed to be only slightly interested in thinking about her answers. Letter "H" on right side indicates husband's thoughts. He sat in on the survey. R was very reluctant to do the interview. He is a cynical, angry man, & the interview was tense with his resentment. No. No. R's English was adequate for this interview, but just barely, & only with the help of my paraphrasing or repeating the questions. She eventually understood everything, but not without some initial difficulties. None. Female from Toronto Canada. She seemed amused that we would go to so much trouble getting cooperation over just $25. On porch steps. R weeded nearby flower bed intermittently. No. She worries about the money. She wants to know, if at the time to pay the taxes she do not have money will gov. be mad & put her in jail or not. He main language is Filipino [sic]. R is very busy, & interview was held at his office, so it was rushed to fit into his schedule. Outside while the rest of the family worked on railroad tie steps. Several interruptions for the power saw to cut ties. Respondent was very nice and did listen but he was watching a basketball game that he periodically would watch. We stopped on certain plays. No. No. Interview done w/ husband selected person is disable w/ stroke & cancer, husband stated that she's unable to do it, supervisor told me to go back & do it w/ him. Talked to [name given] & she told me to go back & do interview w/ husband. None. He was very interested. He's working in a project for oil co. & talks a lot & he is an engineer & said that there is another way to do it & better. No. R was happy to let the state know how he feels. He was reluctant to do intw. saying he thought the state was looking for him and I'd have him arrested. Said he hated the polluted waters and all the businesses who create pollution should pay - not the taxpayer. R really is not wealthy but is determined to save the planet for his children. None. None. None. R is a married white female in her middle 60's. She had just fixed her husband lunch & she was conscientious of him eating in the other room. On my first calls R had been nervous & not wanting me in her home. This time she was more relaxed as her husband was there. None. 192 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11278 e-10 11279 e-10 11280 11281 11282 11283 11285 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 11287 11288 11289 11290 11291 11292 11293 11295 11296 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 11297 11298 11299 11300 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 11301 e-10 11302 e-10 11303 e-10 11304 e-10 11305 e-10 11306 e-10 11307 e-10 11312 e-10 11315 e-10 612892886 R was pleasant and cooperative. He said he found the study interesting and seemed to delight at the notion that his views represented thousands of others. During the course of the interview, we were entertained by a grey squirrel taking advantage of the cache of seed in a bird feeder. Husband is environmental engineer working on clean up of closed military base in the community - R had active, ill 3 yr. old trying to interrupt during interview so was somewhat distracted. No. No. None. The TV was on & very loud, & R's dog interrupted us, as did a couple of visitors. Respondent was cooking dinner while we did the interview which slightly distracted her. But she was very interviewed in the interview. Brother was in room watching T.V. Offered no opinion. We'll be talking about [name given] for years - She's definitely one of a kind. No. DK if SP process was understood. DK if it matters. None! None. No. R is dead against program for many reasons (high taxes, etc!) They had a 7 week old dog who liked me - they had a little trouble keeping both dogs away from me. Young mother and son living with grandmother. No. No. R wife was fixing dinner in the kitchen as we were at the kitchen table. R wanted to know why his wife was not able to do the study instead of him. No. No. Nice man (English). He said he was too busy the day the other person was there. Likes giving his op. knows he resp 1000's of other Ca. people. Put him on the list always willing to do a survey. I caught him in the front yard. He was reluctant at first but after I explain he warmed up and listened. R was friendly and cooperative I met him at his place of work and we used a meeting room for privacy. His response to Q B-2 seemed somewhat innocuous despite my probing. R told me that I had gotten more answers from him then anyone else in 20 years including the "authorities". He drank 2 beers during the interview. Nice R said he appreciated being "chosen" for study. Stated voting for a tax would be a hardship on he and his wife, since he is on disability due to two heart surgeries. R was pleasant and tried to be as cooperative as possible, however, I had to slow down and raise my level of speech as R is hard of hearing and recovering (1 mo. ago) from major heart surgery. Note - the unusual response comparing B-1 and D-15 - R changed his mind (the only one of mine to have ever done so)! IW was conducted on the front porch. R was only home for a few minutes at lunch time, but really wanted to do the IW. 193 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11316 e-10 11318 e-10 11322 e-10 11324 e-10 11326 e-10 11327 e-10 11328 e-10 11329 e-10 11330 e-10 11332 e-10 11333 e-10 11337 11338 11339 11340 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 11341 11342 11344 11345 11347 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 11348 e-10 11349 e-10 11350 e-10 612892886 R is a divorced white woman in her mid 50's. She is never home because she travels So. California cleaning bark-owned homes before they are resold, she was cooperative & a bit guilt-ridden for not having responded to my notes, letters, etc. R stated her age as 55 but then said her birthdate was 11-40. I believe she said 55 as she lives in a senior mobile home park for people 55 and over. Nice friendly lady. Had just moved from an apt in Costa Mesa to lg. house in Fullerton. Very quiet serious R, listened attentively. Wife in kitchen nearby. Quiet lady, listening to religious music & sermon & rodeo while doing IW - leery of starting IW but cooperative & pleasant - had a speech impediment. R very happy to do interview. Filipino lady, seemed to speak English OK, periodically asked what certain words (i.e. environment) meant - hesitant about giving opinion. Was cooperative though as best she could be. R & husband, a naval officer, listened intently to Q's - both had varying opinions and very familiar w/ oil spills - husband works w/ them thru Navy assignment - they live in quarters on military base. She wasn't used to doing anything like this and was very nervous. Full blown aids - very ill. He said if the interviewers had came by he would have done it. His roommate would have told him if he had refused - R said he had gotten a couple of letters but no one should up. R's wife told me that the previous interviewer was seen once by her on the day before they left for Mexico. The screener shows personal contact at least 3 times on the booklet. She was alone & agreed to do it. Repair work in house. No. Girlfriend came out. R was very reluctant to do the interview because she is busy, is not interested in surveys, & doesn't want to be bothered. At the end of the interview she said "I'm glad this is over because now I don't have to hear you knockin' on my door. No. I had to hurry for her. We were outside and it was freezing - right. Kinda drunk. Respondent was slightly distracted because of her 20 month old son who kept crying. R had forgotten our appointment and initially wanted to reschedule (family was having dinner) but thankfully her husband intervened saying it was OK and R said, "Since you're already here, let's just go ahead." She thought the IW was interesting and was quite vocal with comments. She asked good questions and was fairly informed on subject matter. None. R's husband stood 10 yards behind our lawn chairs and made faces and shook his head. {probe} R couldn't see him. Afterward he asked for a copy of the letter he could find out which state agency. Husband was present during most of the interview and made several comments pertaining to the interview and on several occasions altered the selected R's train of thought especially about the concept of job creation which selected R's husband mentioned before the selected R. Husbands comments may have changed selected R's vote on the second voting question from against to for the program. 194 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11351 e-10 11352 e-10 11353 e-10 11354 e-10 11355 e-10 11356 e-10 11357 e-10 11358 e-10 11359 e-10 11361 e-10 11364 e-10 11365 e-10 11401 e-10 11402 e-10 11404 e-10 11405 e-10 11406 e-10 11407 e-10 11408 e-10 11409 e-10 11410 e-10 11411 e-10 612892886 Initially selected R was very pressed for time and let it be known throughout the interview. There were several interruptions with telephone calls, his wife leaving for work, several kids requiring attention including one baby needing his diaper changed. But overall despite the competition for attention I felt the selected respondent was attentive as best he could be. Husband was present during the duration of the interview. He did interject a few comments. They both felt the same way about the bulk of the study that there are more important social issues to be dealt with than this environmental issue. R shared only that he is self employed in a "service industry". He sat on porch steps. I sat on the ground. He refused any identification. Knowing this lady had previously refused, it was a real surprise when she invited me right off to sit down & do the interview. R was preparing dinner, attending to the needs of her 3 1/2 year old son, & talking occasionally to her 17 year old daughter. She understood what was being said, but she was often distracted. No. We sat outside on R's front steps, & he was distracted by passing cars & pedestrians. Also, he told me that he is in an oil-related business; among other things, he cleans up environmentally contaminated gas stations. R journalist who thinks we should all ride bicycles. Interview conducted at R's place of work. Both R and husband had been napping when I showed up. R out of work sick all week. R is a small business man having a hard time keeping his business in business - Was very reluctant when I talked to him at his home. Found it interesting after the fact. Nice young woman said she was sorry she gave me such a hard time. Getting me out so late (night). I got her to give me office ph. number for appt. R told me after the interview that she thinks this is a very good program, especially because her office gets constant reports about oil spills all over the U.S. We did the IW in my car as his dog is very vicious. His wife spent some time by the window of the car. She was always rushing off somewhere and the phone rang twice during interview. Very busy lady. He was working in the garage & had me following him around to do survey. Hard to write on booklet. None. He is in charge of a very big plant that produces ink - his comment over oil was he has to have a spill program (prevention) set up. Why can't the oil companies do the same thing? There were several phone interruption - also his wife brought pizza home so we continued the interview between mouthfuls of pizza. Also there were continued interruptions with his kids putting on a fashion show, neighborhood kids coming over to play and other neighbors to chat but we eventually got through the interview. No. No. Selected R was initially working on a customers car before I got his attention to do the interview. The customer came by during interview and there was a brief interruption to discuss condition of the car before we continued with the interview. 195 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11413 e-10 11414 e-10 11415 e-10 11416 e-10 11417 e-10 11418 e-10 11419 e-10 11420 e-10 11421 e-10 11422 e-10 11424 e-10 11427 11428 11429 11430 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 11431 e-10 11432 e-10 11433 e-10 11434 e-10 11436 e-10 11437 e-10 11438 e-10 11439 e-10 11440 e-10 11441 e-10 612892886 Interview took place in public place food court of Macy's. Although other adults lived in selected DU S/R refused to comment on living arrangement other than what is documented so she became the selected R by default. S/R requested published results of study be sent to her. No. No. Very nice man, in same distress due to apparent back condition - seemed uncomfortable but continued with IW - son nearby also interested. Apparently a bird & wildlife lover thru comments. Ideal interview situation. After being very reluctant to be screened & interviewed R & wife kept me at house for 30 minutes showing me their gorgeous fantasy yard & home. They are retired and living off invested money. Very nice older lady. Her husband was in the oil business. He was present. Wife was present for the complete interview - R had just had surgery & did not feel well & allowed wife to do a lot of talking for him & says yes that's how I feel. R owns a gas station and is not a citizen of the U.S. The R was very short with me. This was not important to her only one issue to talk about. Nice man. School teacher. Nice house. Wife was not home. R was friendly, however, she wanted me to skip the bulk of the IW because she knew everything she needed to know by pg 5. Having explained that it was necessary that I cover everything in the Q'airre for reasons that would become clear R was more cooperative but because we were iwing in her office she wanted me to hurry along. Respondent does drive the Central Coast Highway One very often. None. None. Met this R at his office - he phoned me and requested a 10 AM interview time - I arrived on time & waited for him for an hour. He was very apologetic about his lateness. R enjoyed the interview - after the IW he asked "who" of "what" was funding this study - said he was sure it was both oil & CA gov 't behind it. R couldn't understand why we couldn't have interview his wife. I feel the R was mainly thinking $5.00 was not very much money to pay for a good program like this. R had 2 black eyes. Said she was afraid to let anyone in the house or let anyone know she was alone. R was very concerned about our poisoned environment. I wonder why they don't charge the companies who cause the harm instead of the taxpayer. SP kept repeating the above. SP said "well basically this interview was about the oil spill program. Why is the State doing the clean up? Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for the mess that businesses make." R said when I sat down you have 5 min. Nice man apologized for being so hard to catch. R & husband listened closely - he had comments to make during IW - she appeared to be a dutiful middle-Eastern wife & took his suggestions. None. Very pleasant sun-burned lady, just returned from vacation - busy household but she took time to do IW. Was aware of escort ship solution - saw it on TV. No. No. None. 196 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11496 e-10 11497 e-10 11498 e-10 11507 e-10 11537 11552 11553 11554 11559 11560 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 11561 e-10 11620 e-10 11678 e-10 11679 e-10 11680 e-10 11681 e-10 11682 e-10 11683 e-10 11684 e-10 11686 e-10 11687 e-10 11688 e-10 11689 e-10 11690 e-10 11691 e-10 11693 e-10 612892886 SP told me he is a previous gang member. He is a man with a great deal of feeling for wildlife and doesn't believe in killing birds and animals. Was a tough guy with softness in his eyes. Did all this talking after interview. R liked the program but didn't want to pay more taxes. He thought the program was too expensive. None. R got his satisfaction about our legitimacy from his assemblyman -He looked sick and didn't have much to say. He said he was "glad he could help and all these issues are important." None. No. None. No. No. Interview conducted in a bar. R was drinking, but not intoxicated. He is a bit hard of hearing. We sat at a table away from the other patrons. No. Said she was afraid to let anyone in but Shirley convinced her we were legitimate. Said she learned a lot and was happy to have the chance to participate and be counted in the state's study. Very pleasant young man, all seen-burned. Just came home from 3 weeks of surfing along the coast. Nice young man, working on his computer, called me back on cellphone & agreed to IW - Very interested and cooperative. Computers are his thing & he had a lot to talk about after IW. Seemed to be aware of sea fence solution to problem. R just returned from retreat w/ daughter out of town - she said she had never been contacted before - I confirmed address & redid screener - R has lived here many years. Husband present during duration of interview but made no comments - Ideal interview situation. The R gave a lot of though to her ans. The interview was conducted on front porch area which made it a little awkward because there was no place to place showcards but other than that he was a nice person to interview very attentive but was hoping there would be more issues and different ones. Respondent was very strong on his decision not to vote for the program. R had some very strong view. He would like to debate some of these issues. No formal edc. but very sharp. R was very concerned about how this information would be used and quizzed me extensively before he answered any questions. R small independent business man having a hard time making ends meet. Taxes Taxes Taxes too much. R was a very negative person (she kept apologizing) for her outbursts against the government, younger generations, immigrants (she's from Germany) & it was quite a struggle to keep her on task with the interview. But I did it! R CA state employee. R spent the 1st 45 min. I was there on the phone with her mother. Her invalid husband was present thru out. Outside in the rain. 197 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM 11694 e-10 11695 11696 11697 11698 11699 11700 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 e-10 11771 e-10 11774 e-10 11790 e-10 612892886 Covers removed to assuade R's concerns about confidentiality [sic]. R played with 2 pet birds thruout interview. What a difference when you get the right respondent - this guy was lovely! A few minor interruptions by her young son. None. None. None. He stated that he know a lot about this & said if it pass please keep it running do no t stop it. Ideal interview situation. Respondent owns a Christmas tree farm on property. Is very environmental conscientious but definitely thought this a waste of taxpayer money. Poor light. R handled showcards. She seemed very tired. Volunteers at hospital, related young patients death. 198 6/21/2016 6:44:00 AM

10063 a-1 Oh, I'll tell you alright. 10137 a-1 {R laughed}

Related documents

Products

Support

10063 a-1 Oh, I'll tell you alright. 10137 a-1 {R laughed}

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib