**1998 Year of the Ocean**

**ENSURING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF OCEAN LIVING RESOURCES**

**Contents**

1\. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY C-2

2\. INTRODUCTION C-4

3\. THE STATUS AND TRENDS OF LIVING MARINE RESOURCES C-8

4\. THREATS TO THE SUSTAINABILITY OF LIVING MARINE

RESOURCES C-15

5\. THE U.S. STRATEGY FOR ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE LIVING

MARINE RESOURCES C-22

6\. CONCLUSIONS AND OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION C-33

7\. REFERENCES C-34

8.  DOMESTIC LEGAL REGIME C-37

9\. LIST OF ACRONYMS C-47

This Year of the Ocean document was prepared as a background discussion
paper and does not necessarily reflect the policies of the U.S.
Government or the U.S. Government agencies that participated in its
preparation.

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

The ocean covers nearly three fourths of the planet and embraces most of
the earth's biosphere---the region where life occurs. The ocean's living
resources are a treasure for current and future generations of
humankind. Fisheries provide food for billions of people; through
science, new medicines and materials from the amazing diversity of
marine life forms are being discovered; and the ecosystem functionings
of marine life sustain human life in ways just now beginning to be
discovered. Marine aquaculture holds the promise of helping to meet the
food demands of a growing world population. As worldwide observance of
the Year of the Ocean proceeds, it is worth taking stock of current
perceptions about the living ocean, the status of its resources, the
threats it faces, and the steps that the United States is taking to
secure this treasure for successive generations.

Knowledge about marine species and ecosystems lags far behind the state
of information about terrestrial systems. Despite the value that living
marine resources represent, relatively little still is known about
them---indeed, most species are unknown and whole new ecosystems have
been discovered in the last two decades. Yet, for those species and
ecosystems most studied to date---particularly commercially exploited
fish, protected marine mammals and turtles, and certain coastal
ecosystems---trend indications have convinced many observers that the
productive limits of the ocean are being reached and often exceeded..

Both U.S. and world fisheries, with a few exceptions, exhibit flat or
declining trends in harvests and the majority are thought to be fully or
overutilized. Recent trends in catches, trade, contribution to food
supplies, and overall economic viability are not encouraging. Certain
marine mammals and sea turtles in U.S. waters appear to be recovering
after years of population declines. Still, habitat destruction and human
activities are increasingly placing other species, such as salmon, in
jeopardy, while less well studied marine organisms are probably being
lost before ever being identified, much less protected. The world's most
biologically diverse marine ecosystems, coral reefs, provide home to
hundreds of commercially valuable fish species. Despite their
importance, the health and cover of shallow water coral have declined
worldwide over the last two decades. Without another marine ecosystem,
coastal wetlands, many species of fish and shellfish cannot survive.
Yet, existing programs to protect wetlands notwithstanding, the habitat,
acreage, and function of wetland areas continues to decline.

Research and experience have shown that the bounty of the ocean is not
limitless. Increasing population and the accompanying expansion of human
activities have the capacity to diminish the ocean's productivity in
numerous ways. The ocean's living resources and the benefits derived
from them are threatened by fisheries operations, chemical pollution and
eutrophication, alteration of physical habitat, and invasions of exotic
species. Looming on the horizon are new threats caused by ozone
depletion and human-induced climate change, whose potential negative
impacts on whole ecosystems add further to the impact of already
existing threats caused by other human activities.

The U.S. government, in partnership with public and private
stakeholders, has recognized these threats to the marine environment and
is taking steps to address these problems. Evidence already shows that
U.S. management and conservation practices are paying dividends in
healthier resources. For example, the United States has set a policy
framework for sustainable utilization of fisheries through the
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. Provisions of the Act being
implemented include prevention of overfishing, designation and
conservation of essential fish habitat, reducing bycatch, and managing
harvesting capacity. As fishery harvests are reduced to sustainable
levels, marine aquaculture will play an increased role in meeting
domestic and world food needs. The United States is developing the
technology and policy framework that will allow this expansion in food
production in an environmentally sustainable manner.

Regarding other concerns, strong protection under the Endangered Species
Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act has enabled the recovery of certain
marine mammals and increased populations of at least two sea turtle
species in U.S. waters. Integrated coastal area management, meanwhile,
is providing new tools to protect the most productive coastal and marine
ecosystems. The United States has also been a leader in advancing
international initiatives to conserve marine fisheries and biological
diversitya shared resource. In each of these natural resource
management areas, the United States is beginning to apply a
precautionary approach that acknowledges the limits of scientific
knowledge and requires erring on the side of conservation. The key to
success will depend on sound science and strengthened partnerships with
all stakeholders to conserve and sustainably use the nation's marine
living heritage.

The Year of the Ocean is an opportune time to examine the challenges
confronting marine living resources in light of new tools: advanced and
expanded scientific information, the precautionary approach, increased
inclusiveness and partnerships, and the potential of ecosystem-based
management. Much has been done in the past 20 years, and 1998 provides
an excellent starting point for a new direction for the next 20 years.

**INTRODUCTION**

Humans have sailed the seas for centuries, but considered anything
beneath the surface or beyond the horizon to be "incognito," and to be
labeled as dangerous: *Here be dragons*. While our modern perspective
may lead us to scoff at the early map makers, even today many maps treat
the ocean as essentially flat, blue, empty space between the
continents---featureless and devoid of interest. Despite quantum leaps
in scientific knowledge about the ocean, many Americans still view the
ocean as limitless, vast, and unknowable. According to recent survey
research, however, citizen awareness of the value of ocean resources and
the threats they face is growing (The Mellman Group, 1997). As worldwide
observance of the Year of the Ocean proceeds, it is worth taking stock
of existing knowledge about the oceanand the health and abundance of
its living resourcesin order to be better able to chart a course for
the future.

Life on earth arose from the ocean, and living marine resources continue
to provide essential ecosystem services on which all life depends. Only
in recent years has the extent to which the ocean is host to a vast
diversity of species and ecosystems been recognized. Even though no
"dragons" have been found, exploration of the ocean, which covers nearly
three-fourths of the planet, has revealed creatures even more unusual,
and living resources even more valuable, than could have been imagined
by our ancestors. Only in the last 20 years have the seas begun to yield
the secrets of the deep ocean floor. For example, the deep ocean is home
to communities of organisms whose productivity is based on
chemosynthesis instead of photosynthesis, the latter being the process
by which most plant life on the earth and in the sea converts sunlight
into useable biological energy. Other whole new ecosystems have been
discovered in the ocean in recent years, and the vast majority of
species remain to be discovered. Although the ocean may have fewer
species overall than terrestrial environments, the array covers a much
higher degree of diversity at higher taxonomic levels. All but one of
the several dozen known animal phyla are represented in the ocean, while
only about one half occur on land.[^1]

Providing humanity with food, economic benefits, and recreation, living
marine resources represent a treasure for current and future
generations. These resources range from the tremendously productive
phytoplankton, which help maintain atmospheric gas balances, sequester
carbon, and form the base of many marine food chains, to corals, which
build reefs that protect coastlines and create the most biologically
diverse ecosystems; and from pelagic fishes upon which many of the
world's commercial fisheries depend, to deep sea hydrothermal vent
communities with unique adaptations that may provide important resources
for future biotechnology breakthroughs (see Box 1).

> **Box 1: The Value of Living Marine Resources**[^2]
>
> The diversity of life in the ocean provides a natural "hope chest" for
> current and future generations. The ocean's biological diversity---the
> living resources that compose it and the ecological processes that
> sustain it---form a foundation for the quality of human life as well
> as the raw materials to enrich it. Biological diversity, or
> biodiversity, refers to the variety and variability among living
> organisms, and among the ecological complexes of which they are a
> part. It encompasses all of the world's living resources. Marine
> living resources provide essential economic, environmental, aesthetic,
> and cultural benefits to humanity.
>
> **Direct use values:** The fish humans consume represent the most
> widely recognized economic value, whether from capture fisheries or
> marine aquaculture. Sixteen percent of all animal protein consumed
> worldwide comes from the ocean. In Asia alone, one billion people rely
> on fish as their main source of protein. The Food and Agriculture
> Organization of the United Nations estimates the total value to
> fishers of the world's marine catch at \$80 billion per year. The
> comparable value of fishes landed by U.S. fishers is \$3.5 billion.
> Fishes and seaweeds provide important fertilizers and livestock feed.
> Besides food, marine living resources provide products including
> ornamental marine life, raw materials, and medicines. Marine
> bioprospecting extracted Arabinosides from the sponge, *Tethya
> crypta,* leading to more than \$50 million annual sales in derived
> antiviral medicines. Just five drugs developed over the past few years
> in research funded by Sea Grant have a market potential estimated at
> \$2 billion annually.
>
> Direct uses also include non-consumptive uses such as ecotourism,
> recreation, and research. The economic return from whale watching,
> SCUBA diving, and visits to aquariums far exceeds that which could be
> earned from consumptive use of the organisms in question. Millions of
> tourists spend about \$2 billion a year in the Florida Keys, with the
> National Marine Sanctuary and other marine protected areas providing a
> major attraction. Without sustainable management of these nature-based
> tourist attractions, economic potential can diminish or be lost
> entirely.
>
> **(continued)**
>
> **Box 1 (continued)**
>
> **Indirect use values:** Maintenance of intact, healthy ecosystems
> provides global and local benefits. Marine ecosystems provide natural
> goods and services such as carbon storage; atmospheric gas regulation,
> particularly by the ocean's enormously productive phytoplankton;
> nutrient cycling; and waste treatment. Coral reefs, mangroves, and
> kelp forests protect coastal areas from weather and storms. Marine
> algae contribute nearly 40 percent of global photosynthesis. In many
> cases, indirect use values greatly exceed direct use values, yet they
> often are not incorporated into economic calculations. Globally, the
> indirect use values of marine ecosystems recently have been estimated
> at \$5.2 trillion per annum for open ocean ecosystems and \$11.7
> trillion for coastal ecosystems (Costanza *et al*. 1997).
>
> **Option values:** Many components of biodiversity not used, or even
> recognized today, may help meet human needs in the future.
> Technological advances in food production and pharmaceuticals rely
> heavily on the natural genetic diversity of plants, animals, and
> microorganisms. Advances in molecular biology have ensured that the
> coming century will see an acceleration in the use of genetic
> materials. Marine organisms have evolved complex chemical compounds
> and processes for defense and predation, or for survival in extreme
> environments---such as deep sea hydrothermal vents. These compounds
> and the underlying genetic diversity have tremendous potential
> economic importance that would be foreclosed by the loss of marine
> biodiversity.
>
> **Non-use values:** The sea has been a source of ideas on subjects
> from past global climates to the ecology of uncommon species, as well
> as a source of inspiration: "The oceans, with their powerful storms,
> their shimmering palette of colors, and their varied mysterious sea
> life, have inspired some of the world's finest painting, poetry,
> stories, and music." (Norse 1993) The spiritual, cultural, or
> aesthetic regard in which people hold the natural world and its
> resources and the values humans place on retaining these systems for
> future generations are usually not captured by current market or
> economic models, but are inextricably linked to human appreciation of
> the sea and its inhabitants. This appreciation stimulates the
> formation of conservation values and a stewardship ethic.

Yet at the same time that humankind was learning more about the
diversity of living marine resources, it was also learning how to better
exploit the marine environment in search of minerals, food, waste
disposal, and transportation. As population increased, demands
accelerated for food, products, and services from the ocean, as did
demands for living and recreational space on its shores.

In the past, most human activities were seen as separate from the ocean,
or of such insignificance in the face of the sea's vastness that they
didn't matter. Pollution was one of the first human actions to be seen
as possibly damaging to the ocean. Huge oil spills in the early 1970s
coincided with the emergence of the environmental movement and spurred
governments and the public to focus on pollution from ships. Blowouts
from oil rigs off Santa Barbara, California heightened concern about
offshore oil drilling. Also at that time, ships routinely disposed of
wastes overboard, and concern was just beginning about land-based
sources of pollution or the effects of either of these sources on the
marine environment. By the 1980s, ocean dumping was internationally
recognized as a problem and agreements were put in place to control
disposal of shipboard waste and intentional dumping. By then, Americans
had made the connection between clean water and healthy coasts. Control
of industrial and municipal waste water discharges into rivers, streams
and coastal waters has been regulated in the United States since the
passage of the Clean Water Act in the early 1970s. Dumping of industrial
wastes and sewage sludge into the ocean off U.S. coasts ended in 1988
and 1992, respectively, as a result of the Ocean Dumping Ban Act of
1988.

As the United Nations and its member nations, including the United
States, prepare to observe the Year of the Ocean, there is both
increased awareness of human impacts on living marine resources as well
as good news about how these impacts are being addressed. The good news
is the growing worldwide acceptance of the precautionary approach to
marine resource management. A concept unheard of a decade ago, the
precautionary approach states that in the face of uncertainty, managers
and decision makers must err on the side of conservation of living
marine resources and protection of the environment. This is the opposite
of earlier resource management approaches, where the proponent of
resource use prevailed until something went wrong. Representing a
radical shift of the burden of proof from those who would conserve
resources to those who would use them, the precautionary approach is now
being integrated into U.S. policy and practice, as well as into many
international agreements. And this is occurring none too soon, since
many ocean resources continue to decline in the face of increasing
demands upon them.

The federal government, as steward of U.S. living marine resources in
partnership with the American people, has the opportunity to observe the
Year of the Ocean in both a reflective and forward-looking manner. The
Year of the Ocean provides a vehicle to accomplish several goals
including;

1.  increase public awareness of what is known about the marine
    environment

2.  solidify and strengthen federal partnerships and cooperation with
    stakeholders

3.  use acquired knowledge to act on behalf of the resources

4.  use enhanced communication to engage others to act

5.  expand the knowledge base and the application of the precautionary
    approach

This paper is intended to provide stakeholders and interested
constituents with information on what is known about the state of living
marine resources, how human actions affect these resources, and what
tools resource managers can use to progress from this year's observance
of the Year of the Ocean to a future wherein the ocean's living
resources are used sustainably. Not only does the Year of the Ocean
observance provide an opportunity for federal managers to communicate to
the public and to bridge the gap between perception and today's best
available science, it will provide avenues through which the public and
user groups can participate in the important decisions regarding marine
living resources.

**THE STATUS AND TRENDS OF LIVING MARINE RESOURCES**

Knowledge about marine species and ecosystems lags far behind that of
terrestrial systems. In the last two decades, discoveries in the ocean
have been made that have shaken the foundation of human understanding of
what is in the sea. These discoveries have highlighted how little is
still known about the oceans, and have led to greatly increased
estimates of overall marine biodiversity. Recent discoveries have ranged
from a new large cetacean---the pygmy beaked whale (*Mesoplodon
peruvianus*)---first recorded in 1991, to the discovery in 1997 of an
entire new deep-sea ecosystem of eyeless worms living in symbiosis with
bacteria that feed on methane ice in the Gulf of Mexico. Contributing to
the improved understanding of the state of marine life that has been
acquired in recent decades have been improved information gathering
techniques, more stringent reporting requirements, advances in
technology, cooperation among states, academia, and other nations, and
increased outreach to stakeholders, user groups, and others.

Yet, as the U.S. government and its partners in marine resource
management observe the Year of the Ocean, it is important that the
limitations regarding human understanding of marine organisms, their
habitats, and the factors that affect them be recognized.
Notwithstanding the important strides that have been made, what
relatively little is known about the state and trends of marine living
resources is concentrated in the areas of commercially exploited
species, protected marine mammals and turtles, and certain commercially
significant and accessible coastal ecosystems such as wetlands and coral
reefs.

Until recently, the oceans were thought to be a limitless source of food
and natural resources, and a limitless sink for human pollution. Trends
for living marine resources during the last few decades, however, have
convinced many observers that human activities are reaching and often
exceeding the productive limits and recuperative potential of the ocean.
Many fishery resources are being overexploited, and the ability of many
species and ecosystems to recover from overutilization or excessive
pollution is limited. The following section summarizes what is known
about the status and trends of fisheries, protected species, coral
reefs, and coastal wetlands.

**Fisheries**

Among the best known ocean living resources are wild populations of fish
and shellfish that are harvested commercially and used directly and
indirectly as human food. Worldwide, there are 15 to 20 million fishers,
90 percent of whom are small-scale fishers; moreover, fisheries provide
up to 180 million more jobs in associated sectors (FAO 1993). Recent
trends indicate that both worldwide and in the United States, about
one-third of the resources on which these fishers depend are overfished
(Figure 1).

The domestic and global status of many commercial fish stocks reveal a
pattern of declining populations and are increasingly a source of
serious concern to scientists, managers, and policy makers. On a global
basis, fishery resource reports by the UN's Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) since the early 1990s have highlighted that many of
the traditional commercial stocks are overutilized and thus showing
declining yields and productivity. Increases in total catch from capture
fisheries in the last two years consist of low-value pelagic species
taken by a small number of countries, and the harvesting of new
deepwater stocks that are unlikely to support current levels of
exploitation. In its latest annual report, FAO has concluded that 60
percent of commercial stocks are either overfished or fully harvested
(Figure 1; FAO 1996).

Since the enactment of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management
Act in 1976,[^3] fisheries in the United States have been managed by a
system of eight regional councils, which develop Fishery Management
Plans in accordance with national standards. Under this system, limits
on catches, seasons, areas, and gear have contributed to the
conservation of U.S. fishery resources. Among management successes are
Alaska groundfish, where the transition from foreign fleet to U.S. fleet
vessels for harvesting (provided for by the 1976 Magnuson Act) was made
while maintaining the stock, which is the most abundant in the nation.
Other management successes include king and Spanish mackerel, where
significant declines in the late 1970s and early 1980s were reversed
with a strict rebuilding plan and stocks are no longer considered
overfished. Other successes include management actions that led to the
recovery of stocks of striped bass , and surf and ocean quahogs on the
Atlantic coast (Matlock in press). In all, the Councils have developed
39 management plans covering hundreds of species.

Despite management successes, many fish stocks in the United States are
threatened. The National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) 1997 *"Report
to Congress on the Status of Fisheries in the United States"* (NMFS
1997) covered 727 marine species under federal management in the
nation's 200-mile offshore exclusive economic zone. Of these 727
species, sufficient information to determine their fishery status was
available for only 279 species, less than two-fifths of the total. Of
these, 86 species (31 percent) were listed as "overfished," 183 species
(66 percent) were listed as "not overfished," and 10 species (3 percent)
were considered to be approaching an overfished condition (Figure 1).
The overfished species included some of the most valuable commercial
fish and shellfish. The basis for the identification of overfished
stocks in the NMFS report was the overfishing definition used in the
Fishery Management Plans, supplemented with information from the 1995
edition of *"Our Living Oceans"* (NMFS 1996). The Sustainable Fisheries
Act of 1996 provided a more scientifically rigorous definition of
"overfished" and "overfishing." Fishery Management Plans are currently
being amended based on this definition and it is likely that additional
stocks will be identified as overfished.

**Fig. 1. Status of Fisheries**

![](media/image1.emf){width="3.0180555555555557in"
height="2.7416666666666667in"}
![](media/image2.emf){width="2.8756944444444446in"
height="2.7333333333333334in"}

Status of World Fisheries Status of U.S. Fisheries

Based on 200 major fish resources. Based on 279 of 727 federally managed
species for which sufficient data are available.

Source: FAO 1996. Source: NMFS 1997.

Annual U.S. catches have fluctuated between 4.5 and 5.0 million tons
since 1990 and the gross first-sale value has not varied much from an
annual average of \$3.5 billion. To put these quantities and revenues in
perspective, the United States is the fifth largest fishing nation, and
its catch represents about 5 percent of world totals.

Internationally, FAO estimates that without major changes in fishery
management, landings will not be able to exceed current levels despite
increased demand from growing populations, and could in fact be reduced
by as much as 25 percent (FAO 1996). In recent years, the fishery
sector's contribution to the world's growing food needs has been
supported largely by a booming inland and coastal aquaculture sector.
The culture of marine species offers important opportunities for
enhancing global food production and food security. Indeed, aquaculture
is the fastest growing segment of U.S. food production. Without careful
planning and oversight, however, aquaculture in marine and coastal
environments can have negative impacts on natural biodiversity. These
impacts include:

6.  habitat degradation (e.g., intentional destruction of mangroves in
    shrimp culture or unintentional negative impacts on benthic
    communities from the buildup of wastes under culture pens);

7.  eutrophication;

8.  genetic effects on or competition with native species by
    non-indigenous cultured species;

9.  introduction of disease to natural populations.

Economically important shrimp aquaculture operations in Asia were hit
hard by disease in 1996. The international community has acknowledged
the need for sound marine aquaculture practices so that it remains a
sustainable industry with minimal adverse impacts on the surrounding
environment (Allsopp 1997).

**Protected Marine Species**

In the past, the exploitation or incidental capture of many marine
species, along with a lack of adequate natural resource management
policies, led to the decline and even extinction of many marine species.
This process began earlythe Steller's sea cow, the largest marine
herbivore known to have occupied America's coastal waters, was hunted to
extinction in 1768and has continued into the second half of the 20th
century. Current threats to marine species remain significant. For
example, many West Coast Pacific salmon populations are at risk;
scientists continue to seek answers to declines among some sea turtle,
sea lion, seal, and seabird populations; and the northern right whale is
critically endangered with fewer than 300 animals remaining in the
Atlantic Ocean.

Since the enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in 1972
and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973, selected marine species,
particularly marine mammals, sea turtles, and salmonids have received
greatly enhanced levels of protection in the United States. Pacific grey
whale populations have largely recovered from overexploitation and have
been removed from the endangered species list. However, other species
have shown little sign of recovery despite two decades of protection. Of
the 163 marine mammal stocks managed under the MMPA, there is sufficient
long-term population data to describe trends for only about one third of
the stocks. Eight of these are declining, 24 are stable, and 23 are
believed to be increasing (Figure 2; NMFS 1996).

There were 38 marine species and seabirds listed under the ESA as of
December 1997. Endangered marine species in U.S. waters include the
northern right whale, sei whale, sperm whale, finback whale, bowhead
whale, blue whale, humpback whale, Hawaiian monk seal, West Indian
manatee, California least tern, hawksbill sea turtle, leatherback sea
turtle, Kemp's ridley sea turtle, shortnosed sturgeon. Certain
populations of Steller sea lions, brown pelicans, roseate tern, green
sea turtles, olive ridley's sea turtles, sockeye salmon, chinook salmon,
cutthroat trout, and steelhead trout are also endangered. Threatened
species in U.S. waters include marbled murrelet, loggerhead sea turtle,
Gulf sturgeon. Also threatened are certain populations of coho salmon,
chinook salmon, cutthroat trout, steelhead trout, Steller sea lion,
southern sea otter, green sea turtle, and olive ridley turtle.

![](media/image3.emf){width="3.0236111111111112in"
height="2.4895833333333335in"}![](media/image4.emf){width="3.3020833333333335in"
height="2.5in"}![](media/image4.emf){width="3.3020833333333335in"
height="2.5in"}

Six species of sea turtles regularly occur in U.S. waters (Figure 2).
All are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. The Kemp's
ridley sea turtle (*Lepidochelys kempi*), is the most endangered species
of sea turtle in U.S. waters. After precipitous declines in population
size, it is now showing signs of recovery. In 1947 an estimated 40,000
females nested in one day. By 1966, only 6,000 nests were documented,
and the plummeting population continued to decline to a low of 702 nests
documented in 1985. Among the causes for the decline of this species
were the incidental capture of the species at sea and taking eggs and
nesting females from the primary nesting beach in Mexico. The Mexican
government began full protection of the nesting beach in 1966, and in
1978, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Mexico's Instituto Nacional
de la Pesca began a cooperative program to enhance the recovery of the
Kemp's ridley sea turtle. The National Marine Fisheries Service has
provided funding in recent years to maintain and enhance protection
efforts on the nesting beach. In addition, NMFS required that shrimp
trawlers install turtle excluder devices in their nets by the early
1990s. As a result of

increased hatchling production and protection at sea, the turtle
population is showing signs of recovery. More than 2,200 Kemp's ridley
nests were documented in 1997. Green sea turtle populations also appear
to be increasing in the U.S. Atlantic and in Hawaii, although there is
great concern about the increasing frequency of fibropapillioma disease
in this species (NMFS 1996).

As a result of human activities such as logging, dam building,
overgrazing, mining, urbanization, overfishing, poor hatchery policies,
and natural events such as floods, drought and El Niños, Pacific
salmonids are rapidly disappearing in California, Oregon and Washington.
Since 1990, five stocks have been listed as endangered and seven as
threatened under the ESA.[^4] Coastwide reviews of all chinook, sockeye,
cutthroat, chum (*O. keta*) stocks will be completed in 1998. Listing
determinations will follow immediately after the status reviews are
completed. The ESA provides strict prohibitions on taking endangered
salmonids and provides for the responsible federal agency to put rules
in place that will reduce, or in some instances prohibit, takes of
threatened species as well. The ESA has flexibility that allows both
state conservation plans and Habitat Conservation Plans with private
parties to aid in conservation and recovery of listed species. The
Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Plan is a positive model for other
states to follow as it provides scientifically based strategies for
conservation and couples those strategies with funding to implement
them. The Oregon Plan was developed as a grassroots effort with
stakeholders. Habitat Conservation Plans with large industrial land
owners and state agencies are in place in the west and more are in the
development phase.

**Coral Reefs**

As the world's most biologically diverse marine ecosystems, coral reefs
are home to one-third of all marine fish species and tens of thousands
of other species. Recent estimates suggest that while nearly 100,000
species are known to occur on coral reefs, the number may be
underestimated by a factor of ten (Reaka-Kudla, 1997) Coral reef areas
under U.S. jurisdiction cover approximately 16,879 square kilometers
(NOAA 1998). They are home to approximately 550 coral-dependent species
of commercially valuable fishes are under federal management, with an
annual commercial value of nearly \$75 million. The value of
recreational fisheries is at least this much (Spurgeon, P.G. 1992, NMFS
1996). Coral reefs provide critical protection to shorelines and attract
SCUBA divers and other forms of tourism. Despite their importance,
shallow water coral health and cover has declined worldwide over the
last two decades. This decline is directly attributable to human
influences, including: siltation from onshore deforestation and
construction, pollution, physical damage, dredging, overfishing and
destructive fishing practices, and other abuses. Although the collection
of live corals is largely prohibited in the United States, a growing
international trade in corals and coral reef species is contributing to
the degradation and destruction of coral reef ecosystems worldwide.

Concomitant with increasing human pressures on coral reefs, the last
decade has seen an alarming increase in coral diseases, with growing
evidence that susceptibility to disease is in part linked to
human-induced stresses. It has been estimated that 10 percent of the
earth's coral reefs have been degraded beyond recovery, and another 30
percent are likely to decline significantly within the next 20 years
(Jameson *et al*. 1995). It is difficult to generalize about the
condition of coral reefs in the United States. There is agreement,
however, that coral reefs are threatened wherever they are close to
large concentrations of people, and that data are available to evaluate
the status and trends of coral reefs in only a few sites (NOAA 1998).
The International Year of the Reef, 1997, provided impetus to several
international reef monitoring programs, such as the International Coral
Reef Initiative's Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and the all
volunteer ReefCheck. These efforts will serve to greatly increase
understanding of the status and outlook for coral reefs worldwide.

**Coastal Wetlands**

If coral reefs represent the most diverse marine communities, coastal
wetlands and estuaries rank among the most productive ecosystems. These
ecosystems, including salt marshes, seagrass beds and mangroves, provide
habitat for migrating waterfowl and are associated with some of the
world's greatest fisheries. They also provide critical ecological
functions as the sources of nutrients for nearshore production, as
filters for land runoff, and as stabilizers for coastal lands.

The relationships between wetlands and fish production are an essential
and important part of the ongoing debate on wetland regulation and
policy. Although research continues to increase understanding of wetland
ecosystems, the life cycles of most commercial fish and shellfish
species are fairly well understood. Biologists have determined that
wetlands play an important part in providing food, protection, and
spawning areas. For example, wetlands are crucial for shrimp production,
and estuarine habitat is critical for salmon. Approximately 75 percent
of the nation's commercial fishes and shellfishes depend on estuaries at
some stage in their life cycle. Estuaries themselves depend on their
wetlands to maintain water quality and provide the basis for food chains
that culminate in seafood harvests. Many estuarine-dependent species
have even closer ties to wetlands in that they feed, take refuge, or
reproduce within them. Without wetlands, these fishes and shellfishes
cannot survive.

Until quite recently, the United States was losing wetlands at an
alarming rate. The Clean Water Act, and other federal environmental laws
have been instrumental in decreasing wetland losses since that time.
From 1982-92, the losses totaled 31,000 acres of wetland per year, down
from 157,000 acres per year in 1974-83, and down further from the
398,000 acres per year in 1954-74 (USDA/NRCS 1995). However, despite
regulatory programs and natural resource management plans, human
population growth and development continue to yield a net loss of
habitat acreage and function. Coastal population has risen by 40 million
people since 1960, and continues to grow at four times the national
average. This challenge will become more acute as each year marine,
estuarine, and riverine fish habitats are further sacrificed to physical
destruction, nonpoint and point discharges, eutrophication, waste dumps,
and other human activities. These losses are complicated by natural
changes predicated on geology and climate. Globally, coastal wetlands
are also among the most threatened habitatsmangroves are being cleared
for timber or for shrimp farms, and estuaries are being dredged or
polluted.

**Summary**

Basic assessment and information on status and trends are the
fundamental tools managers of natural resources require. Uncertainty is
a reality in marine resource management. The greater the uncertainty,
the more conservative the management must be. Managers rely upon
scientifically based information to reduce the degree of uncertainty.
The need for accurate, timely, and precise scientific information has
never been greater. Current knowledge of marine resources---the threats
they face and their condition---is tremendously improved from what it
was 20 years ago. However, in the ocean realm, many of the fundamentals
are still unknown. Yet, what is known indicates that the trend in U.S.
waters and worldwide is toward overutilization and increased damage. The
following section describes the threats to marine living resources that
have resulted from the observed trends.

**THREATS TO THE SUSTAINABILITY OF LIVING MARINE RESOURCES**

The international observance of 1998 as the Year of the Ocean comes at a
time when the earth's living marine resources face unprecedented stress
from human activity. As human population and economic growth increase,
particularly in coastal zones, the worldwide trend is for more pressure
on coastal areas, the ocean, and the marine wildlife that inhabit those
regions. Moreover, because marine species do not occur or function in
isolation, it is not sufficient to simply protect marine mammals, manage
salmon, etc. Rather, management and conservation regimes that recognize
and take into account the interrelationships of all ocean life must be
developed . However, public perception continues to operate considerably
behind the state of the knowledge of scientists, decision makers,
managers, and various other marine-oriented constituencies about the
threats facing the marine environment.

In a landmark report, "*Understanding Marine Biodiversity*," (NRC 1995)
the National Research Council identified the five most important agents
of present and potential threat to marine biodiversity at the genetic,
species, and ecosystem levels. These factors also have been identified
by the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity[^5] as key
threats (UNEP/CBD 1995). The five categories are:

1\. fisheries' operations;

2\. chemical pollution and eutrophication;

3\. alteration of the physical habitat;

4\. invasions of exotic species; and

5\. global climate change.

**Fisheries Operations**

Until very recently, far more effort has been expended on trying to
increase catches of fish than on developing conservation and management
efforts. This was in keeping with the historic view that the abundance
of marine fishes was so vast, and the impacts of fishing so small, that
there was no need to regulate it. In fact, serious management of U. S.
marine fisheries began only 20 years ago. The passage of the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1976 was the first
comprehensive federal legislation to address this subject. It was as
much focused on fishery development as conservation, but at the time,
was considered revolutionary in its scope and vision.

The period from 1885 to 1950 was one of developing marine fisheries and
slowly increasing research in fisheries both in the United States and
abroad. Marine fishing regulations were very few. Catches continued to
increase, particularly after World War II, through the application of
newer technology and bigger and faster boats. In the 1970s and 1980s,
fleets expanded at twice the rate of catches, which peaked in 1989,
leveled off for a few years, then climbed again as a result of large
catches of low-value pelagic species (FAO 1997; Figure 3).

**Fig. 3. Human Population and Global Fish Production**

**1958-1995**

![](media/image5.emf){width="4.741666666666666in"
height="3.4833333333333334in"}

Note: Production includes aquaculture and fisheries both for human
consumption

and for livestock feed. Source: FAO 1996

In the early 1970s, a public constituency developed for the protection
of whales, seals, and dolphins. It exerted tremendous influence on the
United States and governments around the world to halt commercial
exploitation of these marine animals. The U.S. Congress enacted the
Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act in the same
era as it addressed issues of clean water and clean air. During this era
of environmentalism, Congress also enacted the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. By the mid-1980s, laws and regulations
governing marine mammals had been revisited and made more stringent, but
the emphasis in fisheries was still in the development mode. This
included federal financial assistance to encourage and promote new
fisheries and greater fishing power.

The constituencies supporting fish conservation have grown tremendously
in recent years. Scientists and managers who had predicted and tried to
stop calamities such as the New England groundfish collapse were joined
by environmentalists, who saw the connections between protecting
endangered and threatened marine mammals and fishing operations. The
decline of New England's groundfish fishery finally served as the wake
up call---to managers and fishermen, as well as conservationists---who
all pressed for reform in fishery management.

It is now recognized that fishing can and already has had profound
effects on marine fish populations. Underscoring the issue, the National
Research Council reported in 1995 that fishing activity has affected
"\... virtually every habitat except the deepest sea floors. Even with
management practices now in place, fisheries have major impacts on ocean
environments, ranging from direct harvest to bycatch effects, habitat
destruction, genetic changes, and food web changes" (NRC 1995).

Fishing affects marine living resources both directly and indirectly.
The principal direct impact is taking out more fish than the populations
can replace. Indirect impacts include bycatch, the destruction of
habitat, and other ecosystem effects that may accompany fishing
activities. The most visible attention to overfishing focused on
international commercial fisheries, such as those using large-scale
driftnets on the high seas, conservation of highly prized fishes that
cross boundaries between or among nations and the high seas (known as
straddling and highly migratory stocks), and the problem of reflagging
vessels to avoid conservation measures. Several accords reached through
the UN have addressed these issues. However, destructive overfishing
even occurs in artisanal and small-scale fisheries worldwide, where
biomass fishing (using fine-mesh nets to capture all fish species and
age classes), blast fishing, poisoning (with cyanide, rotenone, bleach,
etc.) deplete stocks and destroy habitats.

*Direct fishing impacts from overfishing*

Although a wide variety of both human-caused and natural factors affect
the living resources of the ocean, the most widely studied and probably
best understood is resource overuse. Under this broad heading, managers
generally agree that the immediate pressure points are overfishing and
overcapacity. Overfishing generally refers to harvesting at excessive
levels. The term was defined in the latest Sustainable Fisheries Act
amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act as "a rate or level of fishing
mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the
maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis." Overcapacity, on the
other hand, refers to excessive levels of catching power, usually
measured in terms of the number and size of vessels, and the power and
technical efficiency of the engines and gear. In other words,
overcapacity refers to boats and technology; and overfishing to the
impact of the boats and gear on the target fisheries.

Overfishing and overcapacity reflect fundamental global demographic,
economic, and technological trends. Specifically, continuing population
growth, increased economic activity, the general trend toward more
abundant and protein-rich diets, and the evolution of fish finding and
capture technology, all tend to promote operations and investments in
the global fisheries sector. The resulting overfishing and overcapacity
has placed major and difficult responsibilities on governments,
especially with respect to management and fisheries enforcement. These
trends are exacerbated by the tendency of many governments to continue
to promote fishery development in the absence of meaningful access
controls.

In the United States, the passage of the 1976 Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act was intended to allow the domestic
fishing fleet to replace foreign fishing within the area between the
states' outer territorial sea limits (usually three miles) and 200 miles
seaward---the Exclusive Economic Zone. However, the fisheries management
system at that time was not operating under the premise that these
resources were threatened by overexploitation. In the late 1970s to late
1980s, managers did not adequately consider the impact that fishing,
albeit by domestic fishermen rather than foreign vessels, would have on
fish stocks. As a result, domestic fishing capacity increases were
generally unconstrained and even encouraged. By the early 1990s, one
objective of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act had
been accomplished---foreign fishing was gone. However, a second
objective---to stop overfishing---was far from being met. By the 1990s,
the realization that overfishing could occur on a large scale, and
actually had occurred, was reaching an audience beyond the scientific
community in the United States and throughout the world.

In the past two decades, the world's fishing nations have so excessively
increased their efforts that global fishing capacity in the traditional
fisheries is estimated to be 30 percent greater than required to take
the world catch (Garcia and Newton 1995). In the United States, it has
been estimated that about one- third of all the fisheries for which
sufficient data exist are overfished. There is no similar calculation
for the level of overcapacity in U.S. fisheries, but it is assumed to be
significant. A good example is the halibut fishery in the Gulf of
Alaska, which before regulations were instituted that limited access,
saw 8,000 boats vying for the catch quota in two 24-hour marathon
fishing derbies.

In summary, overfishing has become a global problem. Evidence indicates
that overfishing and overcapacity exist worldwide:

10. in the countries that are developed, traditional fishing powers;

11. in resource-rich coastal countries that have tended to overestimate
    the potential of these resources and have failed to institute
    adequate safeguards;

12. in countries in transition from centralized to market-based
    economies where governments are struggling to reorder investment and
    economic policies in the fisheries sector; and

13. in developing countries that have promoted their fishery sectors too
    aggressively, or where demographic changes have provided incentives
    for destructive fishing practices.

*Indirect fishing impacts*

The most significant indirect impacts of fishing on marine biodiversity
include bycatch, habitat destruction and ancillary impacts on
interacting species or ecosystems (NRC 1995). Bycatch is the capture and
associated mortality of nontarget species or of the mortality of the
target species that are discarded because of size, quality, or other
preferences. For example, in the southeast U.S. shrimp fishery, for
every pound of landed shrimp, approximately 4-5 pounds of non-target
species (mostly juvenile fish) are also captured and mostly discarded.
The high level of bycatch in shrimp trawls has contributed to the
closure of some commercial fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. Bycatch is
also a major concern for endangered or threatened speciese.g., sea
turtle bycatch in shrimp fisheries; marine mammal drowning in gillnets;
and shark, seabird, and sea turtle bycatch in longline fisheries. It is
estimated that the unregulated longline fisheries for toothfish in the
Southern Ocean may have contributed to the incidental mortality of
66,000 to 100,000 seabirds in 1997 alone (CCAMLR 1997).

By its very operation, fishing changes the relationships among species
in a marine foodweb. It can change the functioning of a marine system by
altering the composition of a particular marine communityeither by
simply removing large amounts of all types of organisms, as in the
shrimp example above, or by taking large numbers of fish of a certain
age or size from a system. For example, in the Georges Bank/Gulf of
Maine fishery, the "bottom fish" species of cod, hake, flounder, and
haddock were severely overfished resulting in their replacement by
commercially less valuable fish species (i.e., skates and dogfish). The
ensuing ecosystem shift may preclude the recovery of the cod fishery,
despite a stable but much reduced biomass for this species.

Marine fisheries may alter or destroy habitats. Fishery practices that
can harm habitats include bottom trawling, blast fishing, and the use of
fish traps and poisons on coral reefs. Bottom trawls can be particularly
destructive, with impacts on benthic habitats and invertebrate
communities lasting for many years (Jones 1992). Habitat destruction is
extensive and may contribute to the decline of fish and other species;
yet because the destruction is hidden below the surface, it is seldom
well documented or quantified.

**Chemical Pollution and Eutrophication**

Land-based sources are estimated to account for more than 75 percent of
the pollutants entering the world's ocean. Human communities daily
generate new pollution that further degrades already diminished
ecosystems. Some forms of pollution originate hundreds of miles inland
and are carried to the sea by rivers or through the air. Point sources
originate from a specific place, such as an industrial facility or
municipal sewage treatment plant. Non-point sources originate from
dispersed areas, such as agricultural lands (silt, pesticides,
fertilizers, and animal wastes), roadways and other paved surfaces
(hydrocarbons), deforested hillsides (silt), septic tanks, and
atmospheric deposition. These sources cause at least as much harm to
marine living resources as do point sources, but are generally much more
difficult to address.

The various land-based sources of pollution affect marine biodiversity
in many ways. Soil erosion and contamination from pesticides and
fertilizers all degrade ocean habitats. Chemical pollution also can
cause physiological effects such as increased mortality rates, decreased
growth, impaired reproduction, genetic mutations, tumors, disease, or
endocrine disruption. Pollution can cause physical as well as chemical
harm to ocean organisms and their habitats, for instance, by smothering
ocean bottom communities, blocking pathways, entangling animals, or by
changing the level of light availability for photosynthesis.
Eutrophication, the process of organic enrichment, results from excess
nutrients from runoff (particularly nitrogen in the coastal zone).
Eutrophication can cause harmful or noxious algal growth, shifts in food
chains, oxygen depletion (anoxia), and other undesirable effects on
marine ecosystems. Finally, pollution is believed to contribute to the
observed increase in the occurrence of blooms of unicellular marine
algae, which can cause mass mortalities in a variety of marine organisms
and cause illness and even death in humans who consume contaminated
seafood.[^6]

**Alterations of Physical Habitat**

The health of living marine resources is dependent upon the integrity of
their habitat. No organism can live in isolation; all are dependent upon
the health and biodiversity of the surrounding ecosystem, which provides
the necessary ingredients of life. However, human activities can change,
degrade, or destroy these habitats and the biodiversity associated with
them. Habitat degradation is an important factor in the decline of many
species, salmon being the prime example. Moreover, as world population
increases, so do demands on the coastal environment. According to the
United Nations, more than half of the world's population lives within 60
km of the shoreline and this could rise to 75 percent by the year 2020.

Coastal zones contain the planet's most productive marine ecosystems,
providing habitats and essential spawning and nursery areas for the
major portion of the commercially and recreationally important
fisheries. Coastal habitats (mangrove swamps, estuaries, wetlands,
seagrass beds, coral reefs, etc.) are fragile, biologically productive,
and susceptible to degradation through human activities. In addition,
the living marine resources in coastal wetlands often serve as efficient
filters for land-based contaminants, and coral reefs and wetlands buffer
storm surges and help retard coastal erosion. It is here, where the
shore meets the sea, and where people are most inclined to build,
manufacture, and recreate, that the most susceptible and diverse aspects
of marine life exist.

In the United States and worldwide, coastal salt marshes have been
destroyed by dredging and filling, mangroves have been removed for
shrimp aquaculture, coastal development has altered natural patterns of
erosion and sedimentation, and mining and dredging have directly altered
habitats for marine species. The effects of development are not limited
to the shoreline. As noted above, trawl-fishing operations are a major
cause of underwater habitat destruction. Similarly, activities such as
unsustainable forestry, mining, the diversion of water for agriculture,
and dams or other construction far upstream can alter habitats for
anadromous species (those that spend part of their life at sea, and part
in fresh water) and alter sedimentation and water flow downstream.

**Invasions of Exotic Species**

A marine scientist noted several years ago that the bottom of San
Francisco Bay looked much like the bottom of Tokyo Harbor. Species that
were at home on the opposite side of the Pacific had moved in and taken
over, in some cases pushing out the local fauna. Over 234 exotic species
have been identified in San Francisco Bay and Delta, and exotic species
may account up to 99% of the biomass in some habitats (Cohen and Carlton
1998). The phenomenon, known as invasions of alien or exotic species, is
one of the least known threats to marine biodiversity. Non-indigenous
species are introduced both inadvertently and intentionally. Not all
intentional introductions are harmful. In the marine environment, for
example, introductions of oysters and other shellfish have been the
basis of a multi-million dollar aquaculture industry. Yet, these same
introductions have also unintentionally introduced new disease organisms
traveling in shipments of the aquaculture species.

Many introductions of marine organisms occur via the exchange of ballast
water in international shipping. The increase in international trade has
greatly increased this pathway for non-indigenous species introductions.
Inadvertent introductions through ballast water have been implicated in
outbreaks of red-tide dinoflagellates in Australia; the invasion of the
Black Sea by the American comb jellyfish with disastrous effects on
plankton biomass and the anchovy fishery; and the invasion of the Great
Lakes by Eurasian zebra and quagga mussels that have caused great
economic damage in inland waterways. In most cases, the ecosystem
effects of invasions of exotic species are still unknown.

**Global Climate Change**

Historically, changes in global climate have significantly altered the
ecosystems and processes of the world's ocean. Today, these natural
changes are being joined by alterations to the earth's atmosphere as a
result of human activities. Chief among these are decreases in
stratospheric ozone caused by ozone-depleting substances such as
chlorofluorocarbons, and global warming caused by increased atmospheric
concentrations of so-called greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and
methane, which are produced by human activities.

Ozone depletion---particularly in higher latitudes---has resulted in
increases of ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation reaching the earth. A number
of studies have confirmed that increased UV-B can damage phytoplankton
and zooplankton, the basis for much of the ocean's enormous
productivity. The world community has taken the issue of ozone depletion
seriously, and the Montreal Protocol to the Vienna Convention has set
countries on a course to the phase-out of most classes of
ozone-depleting substances.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Second
Climate Change Assessment concluded that human influences on the earth's
climate were already discernible, and that the climate is expected to
continue to change in the future in response to human influences (IPCC
1995). IPCC further noted that "Climate change and a rise in sea level
or changes in storms or storm patterns could result in the erosion of
shores and associated habitat, increased salinity of estuaries and
freshwater aquifers, altered tidal ranges in rivers and bays, changes in
sediments and nutrient transport, a change in patterns of chemical and
microbial contamination in coastal areas, and increased coastal
flooding. Some coastal ecosystems are particularly at risk, including
saltwater marshes, mangrove ecosystems, coastal wetlands, coral reefs,
coral atolls, and river deltas. Changes in these ecosystems would have
major negative effects on tourism, freshwater supplies, fisheries and
biodiversity. Such impacts would add to the modifications in the
functioning of coastal ocean and inland waters that already have
resulted from pollution, physical modification and material inputs due
to human activities."

**Summary**

Through research and from the hard lessons of experience, it is now
acknowledged that the ocean is not limitless. It cannot continue to
absorb all the garbage, chemical spills, and other wastes from human
activities, nor can it maintain its productivity in the face of ever
increasing harvests of its marine life. It no longer is acceptable to
act from the assumption that all is well until proven otherwise, or
until the ocean itself offers proof in declining catches, diminished
productivity, or lingering contamination. The primary threats to marine
biodiversity are fisheries operations, chemical pollution and
eutrophication, physical alteration of marine habitats, and invasions of
exotic species. Looming on the horizon is the threat of human-caused
climate change and its potential to aggravate existing problems.

**THE U.S. STRATEGY FOR ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE**

**LIVING MARINE RESOURCES**

The past decade has seen two fundamental changes in the processes for
making decisions about living marine resources: first, adoption of the
precautionary, risk averse approach, and second, the new inclusiveness
and openness of resource management decision making. In addition to
these underlying process changes, the information base has been
increased, new technologies have been applied, and a new way of looking
at marine wildlife has been adopted---as ecosystems as opposed to single
species.

Using these approaches, the U.S. government, in partnership with public
and private stakeholders, is taking action to address the threats to
living marine resources and to ensure the productivity and promise of
these resources for future generations. In particular, the United States
is investing in improved science; taking action to eliminate
overfishing; promoting environmentally sustainable approaches to marine
aquaculture; ensuring the health of protected marine species; and
improving planning and management in coastal and marine environments.

In some cases, living marine resources are well on the way to recovery.
In other cases, the policy framework has been set and new policy is just
beginning to be implemented. In all cases, the themes of improved
science, the precautionary approach, expanded partnerships, and
application of ecosystem principles will be applied to better management
of the nation's living marine resources.

**Science in the Interest of Stewardship**

Effective stewardship of ocean living resources requires investment in
science to better understand the components and processes of marine
biodiversity. Only through a much better understanding of marine
biodiversity and ecological relationships will it be possible to manage
fisheries and marine aquaculture sustainably, reap the biotechnology
benefits of marine genetic resources, and conserve these critical
resources for future generations.

The United States is committed to improving the knowledge base necessary
to conserve and manage the world's marine living resources. In these
efforts, the U.S. system of private and public universities, and state
and federally funded research institutions and laboratories, play a
crucial role through worldwide scientific collaborations. In addition,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other federal
agencies work in cooperation with state agencies, the environmental
community, Native American tribes, Pacific Islanders, international
entities, non-governmental organizations, the fishing industry, and
others in the private sector, to ensure access to the most recent and
comprehensive data available.

Much, however, remains to be done. Most marine biological communities
still need to be characterized, and there are still vast numbers of
undescribed species of invertebrates and bacteria. This represents more
than idle scientific curiosity, since economic opportunities in marine
biotechnology will depend on this knowledge. Moreover, as information on
multi-species relationships, ecosystem interactions, and environmental
influences become more available, management approaches can move toward
more explicit considerations of the impact of human activities on all
components of the ecosystem. (See Box 2)

In every aspect of the strategic vision of U.S. marine resource
management agencies, the acquisition of sound biological, economic, and
social information is highlighted as the first step to focused policy
decision making. Such information is crucial to pursuit of a
precautionary approach to management that focuses decisions rather than
allowing scientific uncertainty to fuel controversy and confusion. This
information is required not just for current management decisions, but
also to conserve resources and anticipate future trends, assure future
use opportunities, and assess the success of management efforts.

> **Box 2: Research Priorities**
>
> The National Research Council (NRC 1995) has identified five
> fundamental research objectives to better understand marine living
> resources. These objectives are:
>
> • to understand the patterns, processes, and consequences of changing
> marine biodiversity by focusing on critical environmental issues and
>
> their threshold effects;
>
> • to improve the linkages between the marine ecological and
> oceanographic sciences;
>
> • to strengthen and expand the field of marine taxonomy;
>
> • to facilitate and encourage the incorporation of (1) new
> technological advances in sampling and sensing instrumentation,
> experimental techniques, and molecular genetic techniques; (2)
> predictive models for hypothesis development, testing, and
> extrapolations; and (3) historical perspectives in investigations of
> the patterns, processes and consequences of marine biodiversity; and
>
> • to use the new understanding of the patterns, processes and
> consequences of marine biodiversity derived from regional-scale
> research to improve predictions of the impacts of human activities on
>
> the marine environment.

**A Precautionary Approach to Building Sustainable Fisheries**

The United States has realigned its core marine fishery programs to
address more effectively the domestic and global crisis confronting
living ocean resources. To restore sustainability in this sector, the
United States is dedicated to a long-term program of recovery for
overfished fisheries in its own 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. It is
also working with foreign governments, international organizations, and
regional fishery management bodies to move toward the same goal in all
other waters.

The new strategic direction in U.S. fisheries management is based upon
the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (also known as the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act). While not
explicitly stated in the Act, the precautionary approach concept

shapes the core of mandated actions to reverse the decline of U.S.
fisheries and move toward rebuilding them.

Toward these ends, Congress has provided directives and discretionary
means to:

1\. Establish guidelines to assist in the description and identification
of "essential fish habitat" and impacts on that habitat, and to take
steps to ensure that programs further the conservation and enhancement
of that habitat

2\. To the extent practicable, avoid bycatch, and to the extent that
such bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch

3.  Place stricter conditions on the use of new fishing gear

4.  Apply measures that will eliminate overfishing in domestic waters
    and identify management actions to rebuild those fisheries within
    ten years (except in cases where the biology of the fish, other
    environmental conditions, or specific international agreements
    dictate otherwise)

5\. Study and, if appropriate, implement a fishing capacity reduction
program

The Sustainable Fisheries Act includes U.S. commitments to apply
domestically many of the same principles that have been negotiated
internationally in the U.N. Straddling Stocks Agreement and the Code of
Responsible Fishing. The Act now requires the optimum yield for each
fishery to be set equal to or less than the maximum sustainable yield.
Overfishing is now defined in the law, and managers have explicit time
frames and milestones for identifying overfished fisheries and getting
them on the road to recovery. The Act also directs that recommendations
be developed to expand the application of ecosystem principles in
fishery conservation and management activities.

The Sustainable Fisheries Act has set the stage for turning the product
of a failed fisheries management system into healthy, productive, and
sustainable fisheries in the very near future. The fundamental changes
in the approach to management have begun, and some successes have
already been witnessed.

> **Box 3: International Sustainable Fisheries Initiatives**
>
> For centuries, customary international law and practice have been
> *mare liberum*, freedom of the sea. It was customary that anyone
> possessing the wherewithal to ply the seas and cast nets was free to
> fish. Further, it was assumed that anyone wishing to impose any
> restrictions on fishing (or other activity) on the seas bore the
> burden of proof to show that the activity was harmful before any
> limitations were necessary. Moreover, the only persons permitted
> access to the arenas where decisions about marine wildlife were made
> were government officials and user groups. Over time, these two
> presumptions have shifted, most recently and most thoroughly in an
> international agreement about ocean fishing.
>
> The United States has been a leader in promoting international
> agreements and initiatives that shift the focus from increasing
> catches at all costs to sustainable fishing, ecosystem protection,
> conservation of biodiversity, and the precautionary approach to
> fishery management. These agreements include:
>
> • The 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea contains a
> comprehensive menu of dispute settlement procedures. Universal
> acceptance of the Convention (including accession to the Convention
>
> by the United States) would provide additional tools to deal promptly
>
> and constructively with disputes involving fisheries management.
>
> • The Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United
> Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Relating to the Conservation
>
> and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish
>
> Stocks has been heralded as a "sea change" in international fisheries
>
> law (Freestone 1997). The UN Agreement on Straddling Stocks has
>
> been held up as a measure against which effective fishery management
>
> regimes should be measured. In addition to its precautionary
> provisions,
>
> the Agreement calls for collection and use of best available
> scientific
>
> information, and directs signing nations to conduct their fishery
>
> business in open, accessible "transparent" forums where interested
>
> parties can observe and participate.
>
> **(continued)**
>
> **Box 3 (continued)**
>
> • The 1994 Agreement to Promote Compliance with International
> Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High
> Seas requires flag states to strictly regulate the activities of their
> high seas fishing vessels.
>
> • The 1995 UN FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, is a
> nonbinding document that details the full range of principles that
> undergird sustainable (responsible) fisheries management.
>
> Subsequently, NMFS produced a plan in 1997 to implement these
>
> principles in domestic fisheries.
>
> • The United Nations adopted a global moratorium on the use of large-
> scale pelagic driftnets on the high seas which took effect in 1992.
> The United States has played a lead role in the detection,
> apprehension, and prosecution of fishing vessels violating the UN
> moratorium on large- scale pelagic driftnets.
>
> • The United States is participating more actively in various regional
> management bodies, particularly those dealing with North Atlantic and
> North Pacific issues, and is a strong supporter of a recently
> initiated effort to launch a new management organization for the tuna
> fisheries
>
> of the Western Pacific.
>
> • The United States is also promoting international efforts to reduce
> fishery impacts on dolphins, sea turtles, sharks, and seabirds.
>
> • Finally, the United States is supporting initiatives designed to
> enhance conservation and improve the sustainability of fisheries
> through a number of international organizations and agreements,
> including FAO, the UN Commission for Sustainable Development, the
> World Trade Organization, the Organization for Economic Cooperation
> and Development, Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, the Convention on
> International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora,
>
> and the Convention on Biological Diversity.[^7]

The depletion of the world's fish stocks and the impact of fisheries
activities on biodiversity and fishery ecosystems are a global problem
and have attracted international attention in recent years. In
partnership with other nations, the United States has embarked on a
series of initiatives designed to improve the management of fisheries
that are not restricted to one coastal nation's Exclusive Economic Zone
and explore ways of dealing more effectively with the effects of
environmentally harmful practices and economic incentives in the
fisheries sector. (See Box 3)

**Developing Robust and Environmentally Sound Marine Aquaculture**

World population is expected to increase by one billion people during
the next decade. This, coupled with the increasing affluence of the
world's people, means that future demand for seafood is projected to
continue growing for the foreseeable future. Despite this increase in
demand, future seafood harvests from the wild are not expected to
increase significantly above the current levels.

A major junction in world history is fast approachingone where humans
for the first time will need to move from increased harvesting of wild
fish stocks to aquaculture (the production of farmed crops of fishes,
shellfishes and other aquatic plants and animals). This shift will be
the next in a series of historical food production revolutions that have
allowed humankind to continue feeding itself despite shrinking farmland
and growing population worldwide.

Aquaculture already accounts for 25 percent of world food fish supplies,
with China, India, Taiwan, and Thailand among the leaders in this field.
Given current population projections, aquaculture production would have
to double to 52 million metric tons by 2025 in order to maintain the
present level of per-capita fish consumption. The potential for growth
in this industry is obvious. The United States currently produces only
about \$800 million of the \$33 billion annual value worldwide of
aquaculture products, or less than 3 percent of the total. Aquaculture
in marine and brackish water holds particular promise for increased
growth.

Legitimate concern about the negative environmental effects of some
aquaculture operations has hindered industry growth in the United
States. Addressing these concerns and developing new
environment-friendly technologies will allow the industry to expand. Two
examples of new technologies that address water quality issues
associated with aquaculture are: (1) the development of ways to move
aquaculture to the open ocean where the water has a greater nutrient
carrying capacity, and (2) using onshore recirculating systems. These
technologies can be a model for other nations to use to reduce the
negative environmental impacts of aquaculture. Additionally, uniform
observance of an international code of conduct, such as the aquaculture
provisions of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, will
help to minimize future negative impacts on the environment.

Whether aquaculture is done in ponds or tanks on land, or in the ocean,
it always depends on the availability of clean water and a source of
broodstock (frequently from wild stocks). Many aquaculture operations
also depend on wild-caught fish for feed. At the same time, aquaculture
can contribute to the restoration of fisheries through stock enhancement
and by reducing pressure on wild-stock harvest. This interaction between
aquaculture and fisheries suggests that a holistic fisheries management
approach to the marine environment should include both components.

The goal of U.S. ocean programs should be to maximize the benefits from
the nation's ocean resources that are received by U.S. citizens. This
goal includes sustainable fisheries in the context of a healthy coastal
and ocean environment. Marine aquaculture can begin to fulfill its
potential to help achieve these goals through a dynamic effort by the
federal government in cooperation with other state and local governments
and the private sector to promote and refine it.

**Enhancing the Protection and Recovery of Marine Species by Working in
Partnerships**

Protected marine species in the United States include marine mammals and
species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Many of the direct
threats to protected marine species arise from human activities such as
fishing, shipping, coastal and watershed development, water pollution,
seismic exploration, and offshore mineral development. Reducing
conflicts between these species and human activities in the marine
environment is the key to their conservation and recovery. In addition,
some marine mammals may cause harm to other protected marine species,
such as salmon, or interfere with fishing or aquaculture operations. All
these conflicts require more "people management" than "wildlife
management." Years of regulatory approaches have not been completely
successful in reducing human-caused mortality and injury to protected
species. A number of federal programs and policies now recognize the
value of involving local stakeholders in decision making and
implementation of management actions. Natural resource managers have
begun employing new stakeholder models to gather information, assess
problems, and find the technology or ingenuity to solve them.

Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, the National Marine Fisheries Service has been
working with fishermen to identify means to reduce interactions with
marine mammals during fishing operations, restore habitats for
endangered salmon in the Pacific Northwest and California, develop
conservation plans to restore coho salmon, and reduce the entanglement
of albatrosses in longline fishing gear in the North Pacific. Similar
efforts to engage user groups in helping to solve protected species
problems is one strategy for recovering protected species and
incorporates the new goal of openness or transparency in marine resource
decision making.

In addition, the United States is working to:

14. Assess the status of, and impacts to, protected species. Information
    is needed to identify and focus management actions, limit the scope
    of restrictions, and promote the recovery of all protected species.

15. Develop and implement conservation and recovery plans for depleted
    marine mammals and endangered and threatened species. This is being
    done in partnership with states and the private sector.

As knowledge about the interconnectedness of living systems increases,
the importance of acting with foresight and preventive measures when
conserving protected marine species likewise increases. Waiting for a
species to reach the brink of extinction before taking action is
counterproductive. By applying ecosystem approaches, conserving
remaining critical habitats, and restoring degraded habitats, the
opportunity exists to conserve for future generations both individual
species and the web of life on which they depend.

The United States is also working internationally to conserve marine
species. The International Whaling Commission, through its ban on
commercial whaling, has been instrumental in promoting the recovery of
many large whale species from the brink of extinction. The Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
actively supports nations' efforts to manage species sustainably and
reduce the negative impacts of international trade in species and
products of species. Increasingly, the Convention has devoted attention
to marine species protection. The United States has also been a leading
force in the development of numerous other treaties and agreements. For
example, it played a key role in the recently concluded negotiation of
the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea
Turtles,[^8] the first international agreement devoted solely to the
protection of sea turtles. The Convention establishes national sea
turtle conservation programs in the signatory countries. These programs
will include prohibiting intentional take (except for subsistence take
as allowed under the convention), prohibiting domestic or international
sale of turtle parts or products, conserving and restoring marine
habitat and nesting beaches, and promoting efforts to enhance sea turtle
populations. All Parties will establish a monitoring and observation
program to verify that these measures are being applied.

**Sustaining Healthy Coasts by Focusing on Whole Ecosystems**

Clearly, efforts to rebuild and sustain fisheries and recover and
protect endangered species are important. But they rely to a large
degree on traditional wildlife management approaches that concentrate on
one species at a time. Single species management is limited in its
effectiveness, especially as pressures on the marine environment
intensify. Each individual species has a habitat which it needs to live
and reproduce, and depends on a community of other species for food and
survival. This community of species\--their dynamic interactions with
each other and the physical environment, and their overlapping mosaic of
habitats\--together constitute an ecosystem. Increasingly, the United
States and the world community are recognizing the critical importance
of conserving whole habitats and communities, both for the recovery of
individual species, and for the ecosystem functions that they provide.
Internationally, the Convention on Biological Diversity exemplifies this
approach, as does the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

The importance of habitat conservation has always has been a part of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act, and it has
gained increased emphasis in fisheries with passage of the Sustainable
Fisheries Act in 1996. The Sustainable Fisheries Act has provided
significant new tools to protect and conserve the habitat of marine,
estuarine, and anadromous fish and shellfish resources. By October 1998,
all Fishery Management Plans must be amended to identify and describe
"essential fish habitat"---defined as those waters and substrate
necessary to fishes for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to
maturity---for each federally managed species. The Act also includes new
provisions to ensure the conservation and management of essential fish
habitats once these areas are designated. Fishery Management Plans must
include measures to minimize to the extent practicable adverse fishing
and non-fishing related effects on essential fish habitats. In addition,
federal agencies that authorize, fund, or undertake actions that may
adversely affect these habitats must consult with the National Marine
Fisheries Service to evaluate the effects of their actions on the
habitat and the associated life stages of the fisheries involved. These
new policies represent an important application of the precautionary
approach to fisheries and environmental management.

Just as the sources, types, and routes by which land-based pollution
affect species and ecosystems are complex, so are the mitigating
measures. The human side of the equation is an equally complex, dynamic
web of interrelationships among human institutions, societal and
economic demands for products and services, and natural resources.
Society's demands from a coastal area can exceed the area's capacity to
meet the combined demands simultaneously. For that reason it can be
difficult to maintain an area's long-term environmental integrity, which
is critical to marine biodiversity. The management system that attempts
to achieve this balance must be flexible and adaptable, and must be
capable of responding to dynamic changes over time.

As a process for decision making, integrated marine and coastal area
management aims to prevent, control, or mitigate adverse impacts of
human activities on the coastal environment. It involves all
stakeholders, including decision makers in public and private sectors,
resource managers, non-governmental organizations, land users, and the
general public. A central feature is the use of economic incentives.
These are often more effective at changing human behavior, and can be
more politically feasible. They also can be more effective in terms of
results and cheaper to manage and enforce than the use of restrictive
regulations.

Marine protected areas, as part of a larger integrated area management
scheme, provide

one of the most effective mechanisms for conserving marine living
resources and the habitats on which they depend. Marine protected areas
can:

16. be a valuable management tool to protect areas that are repositories
    for marine biodiversity;

17. protect unique and/or ecologically significant resources;

18. provide a living "laboratory" against which to test the
    effectiveness of management measures;

19. enrich and form a critical link among nations' food supplies;

20. attract revenue-generating tourism activities; and

21. provide potential future benefits from marine biotechnology
    development.

Marine protected areas provide one key tool for the protection,
conservation, and restoration of coastal and marine habitats (and their
biodiversity) in which multiple uses and demands can be balanced.

The United States has been a leader in establishing areas within its
maritime jurisdiction designed to protect and conserve the biological
resources of its marine and coastal regions. The National Marine
Sanctuary Program was established under legislation because "this Nation
historically has recognized the importance of protecting special areas
of its public domain" (Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972). Under this legislation, the Sanctuary Program identifies,
designates, and manages areas of national significance with respect to
conservation, research, recreational, ecological, historical,
educational, or aesthetic qualities. The program administers 12 sites
nationally, with two more in development. The primary goal of the
National Marine Sanctuaries is to protect biodiversity, biological
productivity, cultural resources, and areas of pristine condition. In
addition, a number of national parks, seashores, and monuments
throughout U.S. coastal regions are administered by the National Park
Service, and even more areas are managed by the states. In the Caribbean
region, the United States has worked toward the adoption of the
Specially Protected Areas of Wildlife Protocol,[^9] which promotes the
concept of protected areas within the region. The concepts applied by
the U.S. Man and the Biosphere in the Biosphere Reserve Program offer an
ideal setting for coordination, cooperation, and interdisciplinary
research in fostering harmonious relationships between humans and the
biosphere.

The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act have also served to enhance
marine species protection efforts through the establishment of the
National Estuary Program. Unlike traditional regulatory approaches, the
National Estuary Program focuses on protecting not just water quality or
individual species, but whole ecosystems. It also engages local
communities in protecting estuaries and the species that inhabit them,
and requires stakeholders to create a comprehensive conservation and
management plan for long-term protection of these resources. Currently,
28 National Estuary Programs are working to safeguard the health of some
of the nation's most important coastal waters. A second program, the
National Estuarine Research Reserve System, provides for the cooperative
management, with states, of estuarine areas representing various regions
and estuarine types in the United States.

The United States has also begun to address the threat of exotic
invasive species in the marine environment, through interagency and
international initiatives. The Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act of 1990 established an interagency Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force. This effort has begun to document the
extent of the problem, develop management approaches and provide public
outreach. Ballast water discharge from ships appears to be the major
vector of aquatic invasions. Internationally, the United States has
joined with other nations in promoting measures to control the spread of
non-indigenous organisms through the regulation of ships\' ballast water
through International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialized agency
of the United Nations that addresses issues involving international
shipping matters.

Integrated marine and coastal area management will also play a critical
role in U.S. adaptation to global climate change. While the essential
step to protect marine living resourcesand the first responsibility of
nationsis to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are generated by
humans and contribute to global warming, some level of adaptation to a
changing climate will be necessary. Integrated planning efforts will
help to protect the huge economic investments in coastal zones, while
beginning to take into account the interactions with critical marine
ecosystems.

**CONCLUSIONS AND OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION**

Ocean living resources, the ecosystems they form, and the ecological
processes they mediate, provide immense benefits to the United States
and to all of human society. Increasingly, however, these resources and
their benefits are threatened by human activities. Fishing, waste
disposal and runoff, coastal development, and invasions of exotic
species have led to worldwide declines in marine species and the
integrity of marine ecosystems, particularly coastal ecosystems. Global
climate change caused by human activity has the potential to further
exacerbate this situation.

The United States is committed to addressing these threats in order to
ensure the long-term sustainability of living marine resources and the
benefits they represent. Evidence already shows that U.S. management and
conservation practices are paying dividends in healthier resources.
Continued improvement will require enhanced domestic action and
international cooperation to:

22. Expand understanding of marine genetic resources, species,
    ecosystems, and their functions and processes

23. Address the direct and indirect impacts of fishing operations and
    introduce ecosystem approaches to management to ensure
    sustainability of the resources

24. Develop environmentally sustainable marine aquaculture to meet
    growing demands for food

25. Provide enhanced protection for species and habitats at risk

26. Implement integrated marine and coastal area management to protect
    coastal and nearshore marine living resources

27. Address the problems of the introduction and spread of
    non-indigenous invasive species

Against the backdrop of recent reform of the underlying fishery
management law in the United States and increased national and
international awareness of the value and threats to ocean resources,
managers are charting the future and planning strategies for sustaining
marine biodiversity. The critical elements at the heart of this new
strategic vision are improvements in science; use of the precautionary
approach in fisheries and environmental management; developing
cooperative partnerships with users of marine resources and other
stakeholders; and exploiting the full potential of ecosystem-based
management. Human knowledge and approaches to life beneath the sea have
come far in the past 20 years, and international observance of the Year
of the Ocean provides an excellent focal point for a renewed commitment
to better management in the next 20 years.

**REFERENCES**

Allsopp, W., 1997. World Aquaculture Review: Performance and
Perspectives. Pages 153-166 *in* E.L. Pikitch, D.D. Huppert, and M.P.
Sissenwine, editors. Global trends: fisheries management. American
Fisheries Society Symposium 20, Bethesda, Maryland.

Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon,
B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Niell, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G.,
Sutton, P., and van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world's
ecosystem services and natural capital. *Nature*, 387: 253-260.

CCAMLR 1997. Report of the 16^th^ Annual Meeting of the Commission and
Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources.

Cohen, A. and Carlton, J. 1998. Accelerating invasion rate in a highly
invaded estuary. Science 279:555-558.

FAO, 1993. Fisheries Series No.40 Fisheries Statistics Series No. 111.
Food and Agriculture Organization (United Nations).

FAO 1996. State of the World Fishery and Aquaculture. FAO Fisheries
Circular. Food and Agriculture Organization (United Nations).

FAO 1997. FAO Marine Resources Service, Fishery Resources Division.
1997. Review of the state of world fishery resources: marine fisheries.
FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 920. Rome, FAO. 173 pp.

Freestone, D.. 1997. "International Fisheries Law: Who is Leading Whom?"
The Magnuson Stevens Act: Sustainable Fisheries for the 21st Century?
Tulane Law School Symposium, Sept. 7-9, New Orleans, LA

Garcia, S.M. and Newton, C. 1995. Current Situation, trends and
prospects in world capture fisheries. FAO Conference on Fisheries
Management and Global Trends. Rome, FAO.

IPCC, 1995. Climate Change 1995: IPCC Second Assessment Report.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Jameson, S.C., McManus J.W., and Spaulding, M.D. 1995. State of the
Reefs: Regional and Global Perspectives. NOAA Publication.

Jones, J.B. 1992. Environmental impact of trawling on the seabed: a
review. *N.Z. J.* *Mar. Fresh. Res.* 26:59-67.

Matlock, G.C. (in press). Management history - management future. Paper
presented at: The Magnuson-Stevens Act: Sustainable Fisheries for the
21st Century. September 1997. Tulane Law School, New Orleans, LA.

The Mellman Group. 1997. U.S. Poll -- Majority of Americans Say that
Oceans Should be Priority over Space Exploration. Report for SeaWeb
Marine Conservation Initiative, a project of the Pew Charitable Trusts,
December 1997.

NMFS. 1996. Our Living Oceans: Report on the Status of the U.S. Living
Marine Resources, 1995. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo.
NMFS-F/SPO-19, 160 pp.

NMFS. 1997. Report to Congress on the Status of Fisheries in the United
States, September 1997.

NOAA 1998 (on-line). "The extent and condition of U.S. coral reefs" by
S.L. Miller and M.P. Crosby. NOAA's State of the Coast Report. Silver
Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. URL:
http://state_of_coast.noaa.gov

Norse, E., Ed. 1993. Global Marine Biological Diversity: A Strategy for
Building Conservation into Decision Making. Island Press, Washington,
D.C., 384 pp.

NRC. 1995. *Understanding Marine Biodiversity: A Research Agenda for the
Nation*. National Academy Press; Washington D.C. 114 pp.

Reaka-Kudla, M.L. 1997. The global biodiversity of coral reefs: A
comparison with rain forests. In: Reaka-Kudla, M.L, D.E. Wilson, and
E.O. Wilson (eds.) Biodiversity II: Understanding and Protecting our
Biological Resources. Washington, D.C., John Henry Press. 551 pp.

Spurgeon, P.G. 1992. The economic valuation of coral reefs. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 24:11, pp. 529- 536. Also, Our Living Oceans: The
Economic Valuation of U.S. Fisheries. 1996. NOAA Technical Memorandum.

UNEP/CBD. 1995. The Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biological
Diversity; Decisions of the Second meeting of the Conference of the
Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Jakarta, Indonesia,
6-17 November 1995. United Nations Environment Programme.

UNEP. 1995. Global Biodiversity Assessment. United Nations Environment
Programme. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 1140 pp.

USDA/NRCS 1995. National Resources Inventory Summary. U.S. Department of
Agriculture.

**DOMESTIC LEGAL REGIME**

**Contents**

1.  Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 757a‑757g)

2.  Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. §§ 2401‑2412)

3.  Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 1984 (16 U.S.C.
    §§ 2431‑2444)

4.  Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (16 U.S.C. §
    5101)

5.  Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975 (16 U.S.C. §§ 971‑971i)

6.  Atlantic Salmon Convention Act of 1982 (16 U.S.C. §§ 3601‑3608)

7.  Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 1851 note)

8.  Central, Western, and South Pacific Fisheries Development Act (16
    U.S.C. §§ 758e‑758e‑5)

9.  Control of "Crown of Thorns" Seastar (16 U.S.C. §§ 1211‑1213)

10. Control or Elimination of Jellyfish or Sea Nettles (16 U.S.C. §§
    1201‑1205)

11. Driftnet Impact Monitoring, Assessment and Control Act (16 U.S.C. §
    1826)

12. Eastern Pacific Tuna Licensing Act of 1984 (16 U.S.C. §§ 972‑972h)

13. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531‑1543)

14. Fur Seal Act Amendments of 1983 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1151‑1175)

15. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and associated provisions (16 U.S.C.
    §§ 742a‑742d, 742e‑742j 742k, 744‑748, 750‑753, 753a‑753b, 754,
    758‑758d, 760a-­760g)

16. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 661-666c)

17. Indian Treaty Rights to Hunt and Fish

18. Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. §§ 3371-­3378)

19. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
    §§ 1801‑1883)

20. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1361‑1407)

21. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-715s)

22. The National Aquaculture Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. §§ 2801-2810)

23. The National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984 (16 U.S.C. § 1220, 33
    U.S.C. §§ 2101 [et]{.underline} [seq]{.underline}.)

24. National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. §§1431 [et]{.underline}
    [seq]{.underline}.)

25. Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (16 U.S.C. §§ 773‑773k)

26. Pacific Salmon Treaty Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. §§ 3631‑3644)

27. South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988 (16 U.S.C. §§ 973‑973r)

28. Sponge Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 781‑785)

29. Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 (16 U.S.C. §§ 951­-991)

30. Whaling Convention Act of 1949 (16 U.S.C. §§ 916 - 916l)

The legal regime covering this topic is based on a collection of
important federal statutory authorities. The following is a brief
description of some of those authorities relating to ocean living
resources. The list is selective and is designed to illustrate some
major ocean living resources acts. The list is not meant to be
comprehensive.

**[Anadromous Fish Conservation Act]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§
757a‑757g

The Anadromous Fish Conservation Act provides authority to enter into
cooperative agreements to conserve, develop and enhance anadromous fish
resources, including conducting research and investigations, stream
clearances, constructing and maintaining devices to assist with feeding,
spawning and migration. The Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
to enter into cooperative agreements with one or more States for the
purpose of conserving, developing and enhancing anadromous fish
resources and the fish in the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain that ascend
streams to spawn.

**[Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§
2401‑2412

The purpose of the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 is to provide for
the conservation and protection of the fauna and flora of Antarctica,
and of the ecosystem upon which such fauna and flora depend, consistent
with the Antarctic Treaty, signed in Washington on December 1, 1959, and
the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, signed
October 4, 1991, in Madrid.

**[Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of
1984]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§ 2431‑2444

The Act provides the domestic legislative authority necessary to
implement the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources. In order to fulfill its purpose, the Act prohibits activities
that harass, molest, harm, wound, or kill finfish, mollusks,
crustaceans, birds, or any other species of living organism found south
of the Antarctic Convergence. The transportation, sale, importation,
exportation, custody, or possession of any of these species by a person
who knew or reasonably should have known that the species were taken in
violation of the Convention is also illegal. The Secretary of Commerce
is responsible for promulgating regulations to implement this Act and
for enforcing its statutory prohibitions. Both civil and criminal
penalties, as well as seizure and forfeiture remedies, are available
under this statute.

**[Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act]{.underline}**,
16 U.S.C. § 5101

The purpose of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act
is to support and encourage the development, implementation, and
enforcement of effective interstate conservation and management of
Atlantic coastal fishery resources. The Secretary of Commerce, in
cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, is responsible for
developing and implementing a program to support the interstate fishery
management efforts of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission is responsible for
preparing and adopting a coastal fishery management plan to provide for
the conservation of coastal fishery resources. States are required to
implement and enforce the plan. If the Secretary of Commerce finds that
a state has failed to carry out its responsibilities, the Secretary must
declare a moratorium on fishing in the fishery in question within the
waters of the noncomplying state.

**[Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§
971‑971i

The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975 implements the International
Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, signed at Rio de
Janeiro May 14, 1966. The Act authorizes not more than three
Commissioners to serve as U.S. delegates to the International Commission
for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. The Secretary of State is
authorized to act on behalf of the United States with respect to
Commission activities, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce
and the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating, when appropriate. The Secretary of Commerce is authorized to
administer and enforce the Convention, and to promulgate necessary and
appropriate regulations. The Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating is primarily responsible for enforcement
activities at sea. The Act also provides for enforcement of the Act and
its implementing regulations.

**[Atlantic Salmon Convention Act of 1982]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§
3601‑3608

The Atlantic Salmon Convention Act of 1982 implements the Convention for
the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean, signed at
Reykjavik, Iceland, on March 2, 1982. The United States is represented
on the Council established by the Convention by three United States
Commissioners. The Secretary of State may receive and act upon
communications of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization.
The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating, promulgates regulations necessary to carry out the purposes
and objectives of the Convention and the Act and prepares statements,
reports and notifications required by the Convention. The Act provides
for enforcement of the Act and its implementing regulations.

**[Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §
1851 note

The Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act is intended "to support and
encourage the development, implementation, and enforcement of effective
interstate action regarding the conservation and management of the
Atlantic striped bass." Each year, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission determines whether coastal states are in compliance with the
Interstate Fisheries Management Plan for Striped Bass. If a coastal
state is not in compliance with the Plan, the Secretary of Commerce and
the Secretary of the Interior must declare a moratorium on fishing for
Atlantic striped bass within the coastal waters of that coastal state.

**[Central, Western, and South Pacific Fisheries Development
Act]{.underline},** 16 U.S.C. §§ 758e‑758e‑5

The Central, Western, and South Pacific Fisheries Development Act
authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to carry out a program for the
development of the tuna and other latent fisheries resources of the
Central, Western, and South Pacific Ocean.

**[Control of "Crown of Thorns" Seastar]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§
1211‑1213

The Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution are authorized to cooperate with and provide assistance to
the governments of the State of Hawaii, the territories and possessions
of the United States, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Island, and the
other island possessions of the United States, in the study and control
of the seastar "Crown of Thorns" (*Acanthaster planci*).

**[Control or Elimination of Jellyfish or Sea Nettles]{.underline}**, 16
U.S.C. §§ 1201‑1205

The Secretary of Commerce is authorized to cooperate with, and provide
assistance to, the states in controlling and eliminating jellyfish and
other pests and in conducting research for the purposes of controlling
floating seaweed. The Congress also consents to any compact or agreement
between any two or more states for the purpose of carrying out a program
of research, study, investigation and control of jellyfish and other
such pests in the coastal waters of the United States.

**[Driftnet Impact Monitoring, Assessment and Control
Act]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. § 1826

The Secretary of Commerce, through the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, is
required to seek to secure international agreements to implement an
international ban on large scale driftnet fishing. The Secretary of
Commerce, after consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, must
submit to the Congress an annual report describing the steps taken to
carry out the Act. If the Secretary identifies any nations that conduct,
or authorize their nationals to conduct, large-scale driftnet fishing
beyond the exclusive economic zone, the Secretary must certify that fact
to the President. Such certification is deemed to be a certification for
the purposes of section 8(a) of the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967.

**[Eastern Pacific Tuna Licensing Act of 1984]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C.
§§ 972‑972h

The Eastern Pacific Tuna Licensing Act of 1984 implements the Eastern
Pacific Ocean Tuna Fishing Agreement, signed in San Jose, Costa Rica, on
March 15, 1983. The Secretary of State is authorized to act on behalf of
the United States and appoint a United States representative to the
representative body. The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating, promulgates necessary regulations. The Act
provides for enforcement of the Act and its implementing regulations.

**[Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§
1531‑1543

The ESA protects species of plants and animals listed as threatened or
endangered. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce
determine, through regulations, whether any species are endangered or
threatened. The Secretaries also are required to designate critical
habitat and develop and implement recovery plans for threatened and
endangered species. Federal agencies must insure that any action
authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat.

The ESA prohibits the taking of any member of an endangered species.
"Take" is defined broadly and includes harassment, harm, pursuit,
hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or
collecting, or attempting to engage in any of this type of conduct. The
requirements of the ESA are enforceable.

**[Fur Seal Act Amendments of 1983]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§
1151‑1175

The Fur Seal Act Amendments prohibit the taking of fur seals in the
North Pacific Ocean, except as provided by the Act. Indians, Aleuts and
Eskimos who dwell on the North Pacific Ocean may take fur seals for
subsistence purposes. The Secretary of Commerce is responsible for
regulating the taking of fur seals. The Amendments authorize a North
Pacific Fur Seal Commission.

The Fur Seal Act Amendments also authorize the Secretary to administer
the fur seal rookeries and other federal real and personal property on
the Pribilof Islands.

**[Fish and Wildlife Act]{.underline}** of 1956 and associated
provisions, 16 U.S.C. §§ 742a‑742d, 742e‑742j, 742k, 744‑748, 750‑753,
753a‑753b, 754, 758‑758d, 760a-­760g.

The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 authorizes the National Marine
Fisheries Service to conduct investigations and prepare and disseminate
information and reports regarding fish and their habitats in order to
provide for the proposed development of fish resources.

**[Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§
661-666c

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that wildlife
conservation receive equal consideration with other features of
water-resource development. The Act requires that Federal permitting and
licensing agencies consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service,
Fish and Wildlife Service before issuing a permit for activities that
modify any body of water. The National Marine Fisheries Service provides
comments and recommendations to prevent loss of, and damage to, fish
populations and their habitats.

**[Indian Treaty Rights to Hunt and Fish]{.underline}**

Certain Indian tribes in the Puget Sound and Columbia River basins of
the Pacific Northwest and on the Great Lakes have federally recognized
and protected treaty guaranteed rights to take fish including shellfish
and, in the case of the Treaty with the Makah, 12 Stat. 939 (Jan 31,
1855) also to take whales and seals. These rights are protected and
enforced under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
The federal government also protects these rights pursuant to its trust
responsibility towards the affected tribes. These rights, which were
reserved in treaties entered into by the United States with various
Indian tribes in the mid-1800's have been the subject of numerous court
decisions, including seven decisions by the United States Supreme Court.

The treaties in the Pacific Northwest, commonly known as the Steven
Treaties after the principal federal negotiator at the time, Territorial
Governor Isaac Stevens, generally contain a provision similar to the
following Article 3 of the Medicine Creek Treaty, 10 Stat. 1132
(December 26, 1854):

The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and
stations, is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens
of the Territory, \*\*\*: *Provided however,* that they shall not take
shellfish from any bed staked or cultivated by citizens,\*\*\*.

The courts have interpreted these treaties rather broadly, recognizing
that they reserved unto the tribes several important legal rights,
including: (1) a right of access to all usual and accustomed fishing
places; (2) a right to a fair share of the fishery, which has been
interpreted to mean 50 percent of the harvestable resource within each
tribe's usual and accustomed area; and (3) a right to harvest each
tribe's fair share free from state and federal regulations except those
non-discriminatory laws necessary for conservation. Moreover, although
the focal point of litigation to date has been on anadromous fish such
as salmon, the courts and federal regulatory agencies have recently
applied these principles to shellfish and other fish species. The
interrelationship of these treaty rights with international treaties and
other domestic federal laws concerning ocean living resources often
raises complex legal issues.

**[Lacey Act Amendments of 1981]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3371-­3378

The Lacey Act prohibits domestic and international trafficking in
protected fish, wildlife, and plants. It does so in two ways. First, it
requires that most shipments of fish and wildlife moving in interstate
or foreign commerce be accurately marked and labeled as to their
contents. Second, the Lacey Act makes it unlawful to import, export,
transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife, and
certain indigenous plants taken, possessed, transported, or sold in
violation of state, federal, Indian tribal, or foreign laws or
regulations that relate or refer to fish or wildlife or plants.
Violators are subject to both criminal and civil sanctions. The
prohibitions apply broadly to all wild animals, whether dead or alive,
and to any part, product, egg, or offspring, including captive-bred
animals, and more narrowly to certain wild plants indigenous to the U.S.

**[Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801‑1883

Under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA), the United
States claimed sovereign rights and exclusive fishery management
authority over all fish, and all Continental Shelf fishery resources,
within the exclusive economic zone. The FCMA established a procedure for
authorizing foreign fishing, and prohibited unauthorized foreign fishing
within the exclusive economic zone.

The FCMA established national standards for fishery conservation and
management within the exclusive economic zone. The FCMA established
eight Regional Fishery Management Councils composed of state officials
with fishery management responsibility, the regional administrators of
the National Marine Fisheries Service, and individuals appointed by the
Secretary of Commerce who are knowledgeable regarding the conservation
and management, or the commercial or recreational harvest, of the
fishery resources of the geographical area concerned. The Councils are
responsible for preparing and amending fishery management plans for each
fishery under their authority that requires conservation and management.

Fishery management plans describe the fisheries and contain necessary
and appropriate conservation and management measures, applicable to
foreign fishing and fishing by vessels of the United States. The plans
are submitted to the Secretary of Commerce for approval. If approved,
the Secretary of Commerce promulgates implementing regulations. The
Secretary of Commerce may prepare Secretarial fishery management plans
if the appropriate Council fails to develop such a plan. The FCMA also
provides for enforcement of the Act.

In 1996, the Sustainable Fisheries Act amended the FCMA and renamed it
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

**[Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA)]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C.
§§ 1361‑1407

Under the MMPA, the Secretary of Commerce is responsible for ensuring
the protection of cetaceans and pinnipeds (except walruses). The
Secretary of the Interior is responsible for ensuring the protection of
sea otters, polar bears, walruses and manatees. The MMPA established a
moratorium on the taking and importation of marine mammals and marine
mammal products, except: 1) for purposes of scientific research, public
display, photography for educational or commercial purposes, or
enhancing the survival or recovery of a species or stock, or for
importation of polar bear taken in sports hunts in Canada; 2) when taken
incidentally in the course of commercial fishing operations; 3) to deter
a marine mammal from damaging fishing gear or catch, damaging private
property, endangering personal safety, or damaging pubic property; 4)
when taken incidentally by citizens engaged in a specified activity
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region;
5) when the Secretary has waived the moratorium; or 6) if the marine
mammal was taken by an Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo for subsistence purposes
or for purposes of creating and selling authentic native articles of
handicrafts and clothing. The MMPA provides for enforcement of the Act
and its implementing regulations.

The Secretaries are directed to initiate negotiations with foreign
governments to protect and conserve marine mammals. The Secretaries may
transfer management authority for a species of marine mammal to a state.
The MMPA also established the Marine Mammal Commission composed of three
members appointed by the President.

**[Migratory Bird Treaty Act]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-715s

It is unlawful "to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill . . . any migratory
bird, any part, nest or egg" or any product of any such bird protected
by the Migratory Bird Convention, except as permitted by regulations.
The Secretary of the Interior is charged with determining when, to what
extent, and how to permit these activities.

**[The National Aquaculture Act of 1980]{.underline},** 16 U.S.C. §§
2801-2810

The purpose of the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 is to promote
aquaculture in the United States. The Secretaries of Agriculture,
Commerce, and the Interior are required to establish and periodically
amend a National Aquaculture Development Plan. The Secretaries are
required to submit a biennial report to Congress that contains a
description and evaluation of the actions undertaken with respect to the
Plan. The Secretaries are to provide information and assistance on
aquaculture activities.

**[The National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984]{.underline}**
(Artificial Reefs), 16 U.S.C. § 1220, 33 U.S.C. §§ 2101 [et
seq]{.underline}.

States may apply to the Secretary of Transportation for obsolete ships
which would be designated for scrapping if the state intends to sink
such ships for use as an offshore artificial reef for the conservation
of marine life.

**[National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA)]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C.
§§1431 [et]{.underline} [seq.]{.underline}

The NMSA provides the Secretary of Commerce with the authority to
designate and manage nationally significant marine areas as national
marine sanctuaries. The NMSA lists recreational and esthetic qualities
as among the things that might give an area special national
significance.

The NMSA\'s stated purposes and policies include comprehensive and
coordinated conservation and management; enhancing public awareness,
understanding, appreciation and wise use of the marine environment; and
facilitating, to the extent compatible with the primary objective of
resource protection, all public and private uses of resources not
prohibited pursuant to other authorities.

Among the factors the Secretary must consider in determining whether an
area merits designation as a national marine sanctuary are present and
potential uses of the area that depend on maintenance of the area\'s
resources, including commercial and recreational fishing, other
commercial and recreational activities, and research and education; the
public benefits to be derived from sanctuary status, with emphasis on
the benefits of long-term protection of nationally significant
resources, vital habitats, and resources which generate tourism.

**[Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§
773‑773k

The Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 implements the Convention
between the United States of America and Canada for the Preservation of
the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea. The
Act authorizes the appointment of Commissioners to the International
Pacific Halibut Commission, outlines the responsibilities of the
Secretary of Commerce and North Pacific Fishery Management Council in
regulating the Pacific halibut fishery, and provides for enforcement of
the Act.

**[Pacific Salmon Treaty Act of 1985]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§
3631‑3644

The Pacific Salmon Treaty Act of 1985 implements the Treaty between the
Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada
Concerning Pacific Salmon, signed at Ottawa, January 28, 1985. It
authorizes the appointment of four United States Commissioners to the
Pacific Salmon Commission, members of the Northern Panel, Southern Panel
and Fraser River Panel, and members of an advisory committee. The
Secretary of Commerce promulgates regulations necessary to carry out the
United States' international obligations under the Treaty. The Secretary
of Commerce may preempt state or tribal law if necessary to fulfill the
United States' obligations under the Treaty.

**[South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§ 973‑973r

The South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988 implements the Treaty on Fisheries
Between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the
Government of the United States of America, signed in Port Moresby,
Papua New Guinea, April 2, 1987. The Secretary of State is authorized to
act on behalf of the United States in Treaty matters. The Secretary of
Commerce, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating, issues regulations necessary to
carry out the objectives of the Treaty and the Act. Operators of vessels
may request licenses to fish in the Licensing Area. The Secretary may
order fishing vessels to leave the Licensing Area upon making certain
findings. Vessels must stow gear while in closed areas and must allow
and assist observers. The Act provides for enforcement of the Act and
its implementing regulations.

**[Sponge Act]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§ 781‑785

The Sponge Act regulates the landing, curing and sale of sponges taken
from the Gulf of Mexico and Straits of Florida.

**[Tuna Conventions Act of 1950]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§ 951­-991

The Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 authorizes the appointment of not more
than four Commissioners to the International Commission for the
Scientific Investigation of Tuna and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission. The Secretary of State is authorized to act on behalf of the
United States with respect to Commission activities, and the Secretary
of Commerce is authorized to promulgate necessary regulations. The Act
also provides for enforcement of the Act and its implementing
regulations.

**[Whaling Convention Act of 1949]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§ 916 -
916l

The Whaling Convention Act of 1949 implements the International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, signed at Washington on
December 2, 1946. The President appoints the United States Commissioner
to the International Whaling Commission. The Secretary of Commerce is
authorized to administer and enforce the Act. The Act prohibits persons
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in whaling,
or shipping, transporting, purchasing, selling, offering for sale,
importing, exporting, or possessing whales in violation of the
Convention or implementing regulations. The Act provides for enforcement
of the Act.

**LIST OF ACRONYMS**

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (United Nations)

ESA Endangered Species Act

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NMSP National Marine Sanctuary Program

UN United Nations

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

[^1]: Taxonomy is the system used by biologists to describe and classify
    organisms. The so-called taxonomic pyramid is divided into kingdom,
    phylum, class, order, family, genus, species. A whole new Kingdom,
    the Archaea, was discovered in deep sea hydrothermal vents. The
    Archaea are as different from bacteria as bacteria are from plants
    and animals.

[^2]: The system for valuations for marine biodiversity (direct,
    indirect, option, and non-use values), follows: UNEP 1995. Global
    Biodiversity Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
    1140 pp.

[^3]: The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 reauthorized and amends the
    Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (which has been
    renamed the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
    Act.)

[^4]: Endangered stocks are the Sacramento River winter run chinook
    (*Oncorhynchus tshawytscha*), Snake River sockeye (*O. nerka*),
    Umpqua River cutthroat trout (*O. clarki clarki*), southern
    California steelhead (*O. mykiss*) and the upper Columbia River
    steelhead (*O. mykiss*). There are two chinook stocks, two coho (*O.
    kisutch*) stocks and three steelhead stocks listed as threatened.

[^5]: Note: The United States has signed but not yet ratified the
    Convention on Biological Diversity

[^6]: For a more comprehensive discussion of marine pollution, please
    see the Year of the Ocean Marine Environmental Quality Discussion
    Paper.

[^7]: Note: The United States has signed but not yet ratified the
    Convention on Biological Diversity

[^8]: Note: The United States has not yet ratified the newly completed
    Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea
    Turtles.

[^9]: The United States has not yet ratified the SPAW Protocol.