to the Final Report

APPENDIX 6

REVIEW OF U.S. OCEAN

AND COASTAL LAW

THE EVOLUTION OF OCEAN GOVERNANCE OVER THREE DECADES
You may electronically download this document from:

http://www.oceancommission.gov

This document may be cited as follows: 

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law

The Evolution of Ocean Governance Over Three Decades

Appendix 6 to An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century

Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

Washington, D.C., 2004

ISBN#0–9759462–7–7
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

iii

PREFACE

The Oceans Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-256) charged the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy with making 

recommendations for a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy to promote the protection of 

life and property, responsible stewardship of ocean and coastal resources, protection of the marine 

environment, prevention of pollution, enhancement of maritime commerce, expansion of human knowledge 

of the environment and the role of the oceans in climate change, investment in technologies to promote 

energy and food security, close cooperation among government agencies and the private sector, and 

preservation of U.S. leadership in ocean and coastal activities. 

To carry out this broad mandate, among other reviews and assessments required by the Act, Section 3(f) 

directed the Commission to include in its final report: 

A review of the cumulative effect of Federal laws and regulations on United States ocean and coastal 

activities and resources and an examination of those laws and regulations for inconsistencies and 

contradictions that might adversely affect those ocean and coastal activities and resources, and 

recommendations for resolving such inconsistencies to the extent practicable. Such review shall also 

consider conflicts with State ocean and coastal management regimes. 

The Commission’s final report, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, addresses virtually all of those issues 

throughout its 31 chapters and over 200 recommendations. Many of its findings and recommendations are 

based on an assessment of the effect of over three decades of federal laws and regulations on the current state 

of the nation’s marine resources. 

Much of the background for that assessment is contained in this Appendix, which provides a descriptive 

review of ocean and coastal laws—the key governing statutes and selected issues that have evolved since the 

release of the Stratton Commission report—in a number of policy areas including ocean jurisdictions, coastal 

management, living and nonliving marine resources, water pollution, and marine operations. The Commission 

believes that an understanding of how the law has developed is essential in determining how to coordinate 

and improve the policies that guide the management and use of ocean and coastal resources, now and for 

future generations. 

To prepare this document, the Commission solicited the expertise of preeminent legal scholars, policy 

experts, and practitioners to assist in the research and review of U.S. ocean and coastal law. It was assisted in 

this effort by the Sea Grant Law Center at the University of Mississippi. As part of the overall process, draft 

chapters were circulated to reviewers from a wide range of sectors, including representatives from 

government, private industry, and nongovernmental organizations. Finally, this Appendix went through a 

rigorous internal review by the Commission, which bears full responsibility for its content. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This appendix resulted from the research, collaboration, and input of a significant number of people in ocean 

and coastal related fields. The Commission thanks the researchers, contributors, assistants, and reviewers who 

generously offered their time and expertise. 

Researchers/Writers 

Donna R. Christie 

David Dickman 

Kristen M. Fletcher 

Richard G. Hildreth 

Poe Leggette 

Linda A. Malone 

Dimitri Seletzky 

Contributors 

John A. Duff 

Matthew Harrington 

Richard McLaughlin 

Amy J. McMaster 

Edmund B. Welch 

Sea Grant Law Center 

Kristen M. Fletcher 

William Hooper 

Stephanie Showalter 

Research/Technical Assistants 

Josh Clemons 

Sarah Elizabeth Gardner 

Edie King 

Waurene Roberson 

Reviewers 

Robert Abel 

Captain Joseph Ahern 

Craig Allen 

Betty Anthony 

Martin Belsky 

Mike Beck 

Eric Bilsky 

Glenn Boledovich 

Joan Bondareff 

Dennis Bryant 

Gene Buck 

William Burke 

Doug Burnett 

Sarah Chasis 

John R. Coon 

Walter Cruickshank 

Tim Eichenberg 

Tom Fry 

Karl Gleaves 

Jean Godwin 

Montserrat Gorina-Ysern 

Michael Goslinger 

Susan Hanna 

Margaret Hayes 

Timothy M. Hennessey 

Ray Hilborn 

Kathy Hurld 

Casey Jarman 

David Kaiser 

Mary Hope Katsouros 

Tim Keeney 

Commander Scott Kenney 

Lauriston King 

Milo Mason 

Miriam McCall 

Jim McCallum 

Bob Moran 

Stacey Nathanson 

Sharonne O’Shea 

Captain Robert Ross 

Harry Scheiber 

Suzanne Schwartz 

Commander Susan Stewart 

Margaret Strand 

Dennis Suszkowski 

Craig Vogt 

Dawn Volk 

Robert Wayland 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

v

CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Setting the Stage 1 

Introduction 1 

 Challenges for Ocean and Coastal Law 2 

 A Complex Mosaic of Legal Authorities 2 

 Overlapping Jurisdictions, Isolated Issues 2

 Addressing New and Emerging Uses 3

International Law of Ocean Jurisdiction 3 

 Post-World War II Law of the Sea 4 

 Ocean Jurisdictional Zones 5 

 Some Confusing Jurisdictional Terminology 10

U.S. Federal and State Jurisdiction 12

 Establishment of State Seaward Boundaries 12

Imposing Environmental Responsibilities on Federal Agencies: 

 the National Environmental Policy Act 14 

Chapter 2: Coastal Management 17 

Introduction 17 

 Governing Statutes 17 

 Coastal Zone Management Act 17 

 National Flood Insurance Act 19 

 Coastal Barrier Resources Act 19 

 Selected Issues 20 

 State Coastal Management Program Development, Approval, and Review 20 

 CZMA Federal Consistency Requirement 21 

 Regulation of Coastal Development 27 

 Coastal Management and the Takings Issue 28 

 Public Access to Beaches and Shores 29 

Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 31

Introduction 31 

 Governing Statutes 31

 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 31 

 Marine Mammal Protection Act 34 

 Endangered Species Act 37 

Selected Issues 40

 State and Federal Jurisdictional Issues and Native American Rights 40 

 Habitat Protection 44 

 Consultation in Marine Resources Management 46 

 Managing the Allocation of Fishery Resources 48 

 Management of Take under the MMPA and ESA 54 

 Regulation of Take under the ESA 57 

 Fishery Interactions with Marine Mammals 59 

International Issues 62 

 Treaties 62 

 Meeting International Responsibilities and Implementing Federal Laws 63 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

vi

Chapter 4: Ocean and Coastal Pollution from Land-based Sources 69 

Introduction 69 

 Governing Statutes 69 

 Clean Water Act 69 

 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 73 

 Clean Air Act 74 

 Farm Bill Conservation Programs 76 

 Ocean Dumping Act 77 

 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 78 

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 79 

 U.S./Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 80 

 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 81

Selected Issues 82 

 Nonpoint Source Pollution 82 

 Point Source Pollution 87 

 Atmospheric Deposition 90 

Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 93 

Introduction 93 

 Historical Background 93 

 Overview of Mineral and Energy Resources 94 

 Governing Statutes 95 

 Submerged Lands Act 95 

 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 96 

 Clean Water Act 102 

 Oil Pollution Act 103 

 Clean Air Act 104 

 Statutes Protecting Living Marine Resources 105 

 Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act 106 

 Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act 107 

 Rivers and Harbors Act 108 

 Selected Issues 109 

 Application of Mineral Leasing Authority to Seabed off the Territories 

 and Possessions 109 

 Development of Non-Mineral Sources of Energy within the Exclusive 

 Economic Zone 109 

 Offshore Oil and Gas Development 110 

 Bilateral/International Issues: the Western Gap 112 

Chapter 6: Other Uses of Offshore Federal Waters 115 

Introduction 115 

 Selected Governing Statutes and Related Issues 115 

 Submerged Cultural Resources in the Oceans 115 

 National Marine Sanctuaries and Other Marine Protected Areas 121 

 Deepwater Ports 123 

 Bioprospecting 126 

 Artificial Reefs 127 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

vii

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 131 

Introduction 131 

 The Role of International Law and Standards in Marine Operations 131 

 Coast Guard Role in Regulating Marine Operations 136 

 Governing Statutes and International Agreements 137 

 Marine Safety and Security: International Treaties to which 

 the United States is Signatory 137 

 Marine Safety and Security: Federal Governing Statutes 141 

 Marine Environmental Protection: International Treaties to which 

 the United States is Signatory 147 

 Marine Environmental Protection: Federal Governing Statutes 152 

 Selected Issues 162 

 Federal versus State Regulation of Marine Operations 162 

 Uniform National Standards versus Clean Water Act National Pollutant 

 Discharge Elimination System Permitting for Vessel Discharges 164 

 Problems in National Implementation of International Vessel Pollution 

 Requirements 165 

 Jurisdiction over Enforcement of Marine Operations in Coastal Zones 168 

Chapter 8: Conclusion 171 

Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 1: Setting the Stage 1

CHAPTER 1 

SETTING THE STAGE 

INTRODUCTION

Like the oceans themselves, the Nation’s marine interests are vast, complex, composed of 

many critical elements, and not susceptible to simplicity of treatment. Realization and 

accommodation of the Nation’s many diverse interests require a plan for national action and 

for orderly development of the uses of the sea. The plan must provide for determined attack 

on immediate problems concurrently with initiation of a long-range program to develop 

knowledge, technology, and a framework of laws and institutions that will lay the foundation 

for efficient and productive marine activities in the years ahead. 

 —Our Nation and the Sea, January, 19691

The statute that created the Commission on Marine Sciences, Engineering, and Resources, known as the 

Stratton Commission, was the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966.2 From the 

resulting report of the Stratton Commission, entitled Our Nation and the Sea, came recommendations for a 

national ocean policy, including a concerted effort to plan and manage the coasts through an independent 

federal agency and laws to address the use of marine resources and coastal areas. 

Responding to the Stratton Commission report, Congress began to focus more on developing national 

marine natural resources and environmental policy. Notably, in 1970, Congress concurred with President 

Nixon’s Reorganization Plan Number 43 to establish an agency to focus on the oceans, the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, and in 1972 it enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). In 

passing the CZMA, Congress recognized the nation’s coasts as a national resource, rather than resources of 

merely local or state significance. Also in 1972, Congress enacted the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (commonly known as the Clean Water Act), and the 

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, which includes the Ocean Dumping Act and the Marine 

Sanctuary Program. The next year saw the enactment of the Endangered Species Act. These and existing 

shipping statutes and other jurisdictional authorities became the core of laws that govern the nation’s 

management of ocean and coastal resources. 

Over thirty years later, Congress enacted the Oceans Act of 2000,4 calling for the creation of a 

second national ocean commission, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, charged with establishing 

 

1

 Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources. Our Nation and the Sea: A Plan for National Action. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Office, 1969. 

2

 Pub. L. 89-54; 80 Stat. 205, June 17, 1966. (codified at 33 U.S.C. §§ 1101-1108 and subsequently amended.) 

3 See 5 U.S.C. App. at pp. 189-191 (2000); 35 Fed Reg. 15,627; 84 Stat. 2090; effective October 3, 1970. 

4

 Pub. L. 106-256, 114 Stat. 644, August 7, 2000. (codified as a note at 33 U.S.C. § 857-19 and subsequently amended.) 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

2 Chapter 1: Setting the Stage 

findings and developing recommendations for a new coordinated and comprehensive national ocean 

policy. Part of the Commission’s mandate includes a review of federal laws that affect ocean and 

coastal resources. This document consists of that review, presenting a summary of the primary 

federal ocean and coastal laws and a brief discussion of some of the issues that have emerged from 

implementation of those laws. Chapter 1 describes the framework of ocean jurisdictional zones and 

provides context that is relevant to the discussions that follow in each of the subsequent chapters. 

CHALLENGES FOR OCEAN AND COASTAL LAW

A Complex Mosaic of Legal Authorities 

Management of ocean and coastal resources and activities must address a multitude of different issues, and 

involves aspects of a variety of laws—at local, state, federal, and international levels—including those related 

to property ownership, land and natural resource use, environmental and species protection, and shipping and 

other marine operations—all applied in the context of the multi-dimensional nature of the marine 

environment. Several of those aspects of law may come into play simultaneously when addressing conflicts 

over public and private rights, boundaries, jurisdictions, and management priorities concerning ocean and 

coastal resources. In addition, some laws result in geographic and regulatory fragmentation and species-byspecies or resource-by-resource regulation. 

Further complexity results because international law recognizes several distinct geographic jurisdictional 

zones in the ocean and authorizes coastal nations to assert certain rights and jurisdiction within these zones. 

Additionally, U.S. law divides authority and responsibility between federal and state governments. Pursuant to 

the Submerged Lands Act (SLA), states hold title to the submerged lands and the natural resources in such 

lands and waters out to 3 nautical miles5 (9 nautical miles for Texas and the Gulf coast of Florida), subject to 

certain reservations.6 In general, the federal government exercises resource management jurisdiction and 

other authorities from that 3-mile line out to 200 nautical miles and in some instances beyond. Many federal 

ocean and coastal laws incorporate these and other jurisdictional lines, sometimes providing different levels of 

protection for different ocean jurisdictional zones without correlation to the ocean’s ecology. 

Overlapping Jurisdictions, Isolated Issues 

At the federal level, numerous departments and agencies have some authority over ocean waters or resources. 

For example, the offshore oil and gas leasing and permit review process involves a number of federal and 

state regulatory agencies. In federal waters, the federal government—specifically the Secretary of the 

Interior—has the authority to issue leases and permits for the extraction of oil and natural gas, pursuant to 

the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). Within the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), such 

authority has been delegated to the Minerals Management Service (MMS). However, an applicant also needs 

to comply with a variety of other laws, some of which are cross-referenced in the OCSLA: applicable 

requirements of state coastal zone management programs, pursuant to the CZMA; the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); permit requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for 

obstructions to navigation, under the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA); permit requirements of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for the discharge of pollutants 

into the ocean and pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) for certain air emissions; and additional legal 

requirements involving other federal agencies. 

 

5

 A nautical mile is approximately 6,076 feet, whereas the statute mile commonly used on land is 5,280 feet. All references 

hereinafter to miles in this Appendix are to nautical miles. 

6

 The seaward jurisdiction of the U.S. states, territories, and possessions is discussed in the section of this chapter entitled

Submerged Lands Act and other Law Establishing State Seaward Boundaries. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 1: Setting the Stage 3

In state waters, the state has sole jurisdiction to issue leases and permits for oil and gas extraction, but the 

applicant also has to meet the requirements of the state’s coastal zone management program, USACE, EPA 

(or a state agency exercising CWA and CAA legal authority in lieu of EPA), and perhaps other state and 

federal agencies exercising additional legal authorities. 

Existing federal and state laws generally focus on regulation of individual categories of resources or activities. 

For example: 

• the OCSLA, as noted, governs oil, natural gas, and mineral exploration and extraction on the outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS); 

• the CWA and other statutes regulate activities affecting water quality in “waters of the United States” 

(which generally means internal waters and ocean waters out to three miles), in the contiguous zone, and 

in many instances further seaward based on the CWA or as specified in another statute governing the 

offshore activity; and 

• the RHA regulates potential obstructions to navigation, both in state waters and on the OCS. 

Similarly, federal laws often focus on one category of living marine resource, rather than on ecosystems as a 

whole. For example: 

• the Marine Mammal Protection Act regulates actions affecting marine mammals; 

• the Endangered Species Act regulates actions affecting endangered species or their designated “critical 

habitat”; and 

• the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act regulates much of the fishing in 

federal waters, usually through species-specific management plans. 

With the geographic divisions of legal authority over ocean resources between the federal and state 

governments, the possibility of multiple agencies having a regulatory or consultation role at both the federal 

and state levels with respect to a particular resource or activity, and individual laws typically addressing 

individual categories of resources or issues, the protection and management of ocean and coastal resources 

and ecosystems can sometimes be a challenge for managers at all levels of government. 

Addressing New and Emerging Uses 

There are a number of new and emerging uses of ocean areas that lack a specific legal or management regime, 

and management of these uses also highlights the potential complexity of federal jurisdiction over oceanbased activities. For example, proposals to build wind farms on the OCS have accentuated the fact that no 

one federal agency has specific authority to comprehensively manage any new category of uses that may arise 

in federal offshore lands or waters. MMS leases federal submerged lands for mineral extraction pursuant to 

the OCSLA, but that Act does not apply to non-extractive facilities such as wind farms. The USACE, 

pursuant to Section 10 of the RHA, has jurisdiction to require a permit for a wind farm on the OCS as an 

obstruction to navigation and, in the initial application for an offshore wind farm, has used that authority to 

coordinate the review of the proposed wind farm by all other federal and state agencies having jurisdiction 

over some aspect of the wind farm’s siting or operations. The issue is more fully addressed in Chapter 5, 

Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean. 

INTERNATIONAL LAW OF OCEAN JURISDICTION

Although invisible to the naked eye, governments have carved the world’s oceans into many distinct zones, 

based on both international law and domestic statutes. The subject of ocean jurisdictions can become 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

4 Chapter 1: Setting the Stage 

complex, with sometimes-overlapping legal authorities and agency responsibilities. In general, under 

international law, the closer one gets to the shore, the more authority a coastal nation can exercise. 

This section explains the ocean jurisdiction of the United States under international law, as well as the 

domestic distinction between federal and state waters. 

Post-World War II Law of the Sea 

The modern era of the law of the sea began in 1945 with the Truman Proclamation7 declaring U.S. 

“jurisdiction and control” over the continental shelf contiguous to coasts of the United States. Prior to 1945, 

most countries’ offshore claims were limited to 3-mile territorial seas. The U.S. continental shelf assertion 

initiated a number of offshore claims by other countries. For example, in 1947, Chile claimed jurisdiction 

over natural resources to 200 miles offshore, reacting to a post-World War II Japanese return to whaling 

grounds off the Chilean coast. 

With other nations following suit and a rise in national jurisdictional claims in the ocean, the International 

Law Commission, part of the United Nations system, led the effort to codify a law of the sea. That effort 

resulted in the adoption, at the First U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I) in 1958, of four 

treaties known as the 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea: Convention on the Territorial Sea 

and Contiguous Zone;8 Convention on the Continental Shelf;9 Convention on the High Seas;10 and 

Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas.11

The Second U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS II) met in 1960, but failed to resolve many 

disputes, including the legality of expansion of territorial seas from 3 to 12 miles, and the growing assertion of 

200-mile exclusive economic zones. 

The Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) began its deliberations in 1973 and 

concluded in 1982 with the adoption of a treaty text, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea12

(UNCLOS). The United States was in a unique position during the UNCLOS III negotiations as the world’s 

greatest naval power and a nation with significant coastlines. The United States pushed for a special set of 

rules to preserve international freedoms of navigation and overflight in light of the consensus view that 

coastal nations could claim a 12-mile territorial sea, including rules to retain rights for straits and archipelagic 

passage, and for innocent passage for warships. 

While the Reagan administration acknowledged “many positive and very significant accomplishments . . . 

[including] extensive parts dealing with navigation and overflight,” the United States did not sign the 1982 

UNCLOS convention and limited U.S. “participation in the remaining conference process . . . [to] the 

 

7

 Presidential Proclamation 2667 of September 28, 1945. “Policy of the United States with Respect to the Natural Resources of the 

Subsoil and Sea Bed of the Continental Shelf.” 10 Fed. Reg. 12,303 (Oct. 2, 1945). Truman also issued a second proclamation 

asserting the power of the United States to create coastal fisheries “conservation zones” where fishing activities would be “subject to 

the regulation and control of the United States.” Presidential Proclamation 2668, 10 Fed. Reg. 12,304 (Oct. 2, 1945). 

8

 516 U.N.T.S. 205; 15 U.S.T. 1606; T.I.A.S. 5639. 

9

 499 U.N.T.S. 311; 15 U.S.T. 471; T.I.A.S. 5578. 

10 450 U.N.T.S. 82; 13 U.S.T. 2312; T.I.A.S. 5200. 

11 559 U.N.T.S. 285; 17 U.S.T. 138; T.I.A.S. 5969. 

12 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), done December 10, 1982, U.N. document A/Conf.62/122, 

reprinted in 21 I.L.M. 1261-1354 (1982). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 1: Setting the Stage 5

technical level and [involving] only those provisions that serve United States interests.”13 The primary 

concern was with the deep seabed mining regime that was viewed to be monopolistic, with an international 

mining entity determining access to and development of the deep seabed. 

By 1994, concerns of the United States and several other industrialized nations over the deep seabed mining 

provisions were addressed in additional international negotiations that resulted in an agreement modifying the 

1982 UNCLOS convention. The Clinton administration transmitted the convention to the Senate, requesting 

that body’s consent to accession to the treaty,14 and President George W. Bush’s administration has also 

asserted its support. Although the United States is still a party to the 1958 Conventions, the United States has 

asserted expanded ocean jurisdiction claims that reflect acceptance of essentially all of the articles in the 1982 

UNCLOS convention (other than those related to the deep seabed) as established international law. 

Nevertheless, the Senate has yet to act on the convention. 

Ocean Jurisdictional Zones 

As shown in the following figure, under international law a coastal nation’s jurisdiction consists of different 

geographic areas: its internal waters; territorial sea; contiguous zone; exclusive economic zone; and 

continental shelf. In contemporary international law, as reflected in UNCLOS, the jurisdictional zones of the 

high seas and the deep seabed lie beyond (seaward of) national jurisdiction.15 

The Baseline (0 Miles) 

Generally, for purposes of both international and domestic law, the boundary line dividing the land and 

internal waters from the ocean is called the baseline. The baseline is determined according to principles 

described in the 1958 United Nations Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone16 and the 

1982 UNCLOS, and is normally the low water line along the coast, as marked on charts officially recognized 

by the coastal nation.17 In the United States, the definition has been further refined based on federal court 

decisions; the U.S. baseline is the mean lower low water line along the coast, as shown on official U.S. 

nautical charts.18 

The baseline can be drawn across river mouths, the opening of bays, and along the outer points of complex 

coastlines (with some limitations). Waterbodies inland of the baseline—such as bays, estuaries, rivers, and 

lakes, and sometimes portions of coastal ocean waters—are considered internal waters and are subject to 

national sovereignty over nearly all persons and things located there (with some exceptions, such as foreign 

warships). 

 

13 Statement by President Ronald Reagan, Convention on the Law of the Sea, 18 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 887 (July 9, 1982). 

14 Letter by President William J. Clinton, Transmittal letter to the U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, October 6, 1994. In United States: 

President’s Transmittal of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Agreement Relating to the Implementation

of Part XI to the U.S. Senate with Commentary, October 7, 1994. U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement, Volume 6, 

Supplement No. 1 (February 1995). 

15 As is explained further below, many freedoms formerly considered as high-seas freedoms continue to pertain in the EEZ as well 

as in areas beyond national jurisdiction. 

16 516 U.N.T.S. 205; 15 U.S.T. 1606; T.I.A.S. 5639. 

17 UNCLOS, Articles 3-16. 

18 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Services Center. Federal Geographic Data Committee Marine 

Boundary Working Group: U.S. Marine Cadastre —Seabed and Subsoil Boundaries. December 31, 2002. Available at 

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/mbwg/htm/cad_sla.htm (accessed January 14, 2004). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

6 Chapter 1: Setting the Stage 

The Territorial Sea (0 to 12 Nautical Miles) 

Under international law, every coastal nation has sovereignty over the air space, water column, seabed, and 

subsoil of its territorial sea, subject to certain rights of passage for foreign vessels.19 The territorial sea is located 

adjacent to and seaward of the nation’s land territory and internal waters. 

The United States asserted a 3-mile territorial sea in 1793, when Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson sent two 

diplomatic notes to the British and French ambassadors to the United States.20 After U.S. ratification of the 

 

19 UNCLOS, Article 2 et seq. 

20 See e.g,. diplomatic note from Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson to the French ambassador to the U.S. on November 8, 1793, 

see, American State Papers, I Foreign Relations 183 (1832). In 1794, Congress enacted a statute that gave federal district courts 

authority over complaints filed concerning captures of vessels and their property within a marine league (3 nautical miles) of the 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 1: Setting the Stage 7

1958 U.N. Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone,21 the United States based its 3-mile 

territorial sea claim on that convention. Until 1988, the U.S. territorial sea generally overlapped with state 

waters from 0 to 3 miles offshore and shared a common seaward boundary with most states.22 In 1988, 

President Reagan proclaimed a 12-mile territorial sea for the United States,23 the maximum breadth consistent 

with UNCLOS.24 The proclamation extended the United States territorial sea only for purposes of 

international law, and explicitly stated that it did not alter existing federal or state law.25

The Contiguous Zone (12 to 24 Nautical Miles) 

International law recognizes a contiguous zone adjacent to and seaward of the territorial sea of each coastal 

nation. Within its contiguous zone, a nation can assert authority to prevent or punish infringement of its 

customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitary laws that apply in its territory or territorial sea. Under the 1958 

United Nations Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the United States formerly 

claimed a contiguous zone extending from 3 to 12 miles offshore.26 In 1999, eleven years after President 

Reagan extended the U.S. territorial sea to 12 miles, President Clinton proclaimed a contiguous zone from 12 

to 24 miles offshore for the United States,27 consistent with UNCLOS,28 and thereby enhanced the authority 

of the U.S. Coast Guard to take enforcement actions against foreign flag vessels in this zone.

The Exclusive Economic Zone (12 to 200 Nautical Miles) 

The 1982 UNCLOS confirms the right of each coastal nation to establish a zone, known as the exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ), adjacent to the territorial sea and extending a maximum of 200 miles seaward from the 

baseline from which the territorial sea is measured, within which the coastal nation has sovereign rights for 

the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing the natural resources, both living and 

nonliving, of the ocean waters, the seabed, and subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic 

exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents, and 

winds. The coastal nation also has jurisdiction in the EEZ over artificial islands or other installations and 

structures having economic purposes, as well as the protection and preservation of the marine environment.29

 coast of the United States; this is considered to be the first statutory assertion of a United States territorial sea, the assertion being 

implicit in the wording of the statute. See, § 6 of the Act of June 5, 1794, 1 Stat. 381, at 384. 

 

21 516 U.N.T.S. 205; 15 U.S.T. 1606; T.I.A.S. 5639. The U.S. became a party to the convention on September 10, 1964. 

22 Seaward boundaries of the U.S. states, territories, and possessions are discussed in the section of this chapter entitled 

Submerged Lands Act and other Law Establishing State Seaward Boundaries. 

23 Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988. The Territorial Sea of the United States of America. 54 Fed. Reg. 777 

(Jan. 9, 1989). 

24 UNCLOS, Article 3. 

25 Some confusion in the application of federal law has resulted from the fact that for purposes of international law the United States’ 

territorial sea extends 12 miles offshore, while some U.S. statutes still define the term “territorial sea” as extending only 3 miles. The 

geographic jurisdictional scope of certain international law terms has been modified over time. Since these terms have been used in 

U.S. statutes over the years, it is likely that Congress needs to enact amendments to some U.S. laws to ensure the legislation 

reflects the intended territory as currently defined under international law. For a further discussion of this issue, see the section in 

this chapter entitled Some Confusing Jurisdictional Terminology. 

26 516 U.N.T.S. 205; 15 U.S.T. 1606; T.I.A.S. 5639. The U.S. declared its contiguous zone in State Department Public Notice 358 of 

June 1, 1972, 37 Fed. Reg. 11,906 (June 15, 1972). 

27 Presidential Proclamation 7219 of September 2, 1999. “The Contiguous Zone of the United States.” 64 Fed Reg. 48,701(Sept. 8, 

1999). 

28 UNCLOS, Article 33. 

29 UNCLOS, Article 55 et seq. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

8 Chapter 1: Setting the Stage 

President Reagan proclaimed an EEZ for the United States in 1983,30 consistent with international law as 

reflected in UNCLOS.31 The U.S. EEZ, as originally established, occupied a belt of ocean between 3 and 200 

miles offshore. The 1988 presidential proclamation on the territorial sea had the effect of changing the width 

of the U.S. EEZ to between 12 and 200 miles offshore for international purposes. Consistent with 

international law, the U.S. EEZ proclamation did not assert any control over vessel traffic (surface or 

submarine), aircraft overflight, or the laying of cables and pipelines on the ocean floor, which generally are 

traditional high-seas freedoms (high seas are described below). Generally, the United States does not regulate 

marine scientific research in the U.S. EEZ, although it does require advance consent for marine scientific 

research if any portion of the research is conducted within the U.S. territorial sea, involves the study of 

marine mammals, requires taking commercial quantities of marine resources, or includes contact with the U.S. 

continental shelf.32

The Continental Shelf (12 to 200 Nautical Miles or Outer Edge of Continental Margin) 

The legal concept of the continental shelf has evolved over the last sixty years. As noted above, the 1945 

Truman Proclamation first asserted a United States claim to resources of its continental shelf.33 The 

proclamation set a precedent for other coastal nations to assert similar claims over resources far from their 

shores. The need to establish greater uniformity among such claims was one of the driving forces behind the 

1958 United Nations Convention on the Continental Shelf.34 However, the 1958 Convention showed limited 

vision, defining the continental shelf based on a nation’s ability to physically recover resources from the 

seabed.35 As technological capabilities improved over the years, uncertainty about the seaward boundary of a 

nation’s exclusive rights to continental shelf resources was renewed. 

 

30 Presidential Proclamation 5030 of March 10, 1983. “The Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States of America.” 48 Fed. Reg, 

10,605 (Mar.14, 1983). 

31 UNCLOS, Article 55 et seq. 

32 Procedures for applying for advance consent to conduct these four types of research are found on the U.S. Department of State’s 

Web site, “Foreign-Flag Vessels Seeking Authorization to Conduct MSR in U.S. Waters” available at 

http://www.state.gov/g/oes/ocns/rvc/3503.htm (accessed May 27, 2004). 

33 Presidential Proclamation 2667 of September 28, 1945. “Policy of the United States with Respect to the Natural Resources of the 

Subsoil and Sea Bed of the Continental Shelf.” 10 Fed. Reg. 12,303 (Oct. 2, 1945). The Secretary of the Interior was designated to 

administer the OCS, through authority of Executive Order 9633 of September 28, 1945. In 1953, the Truman Proclamation was 

basically codified in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. §§ 1331 et seq.). The Truman Proclamation extended the 

U.S. claim to submerged lands and offshore resources of the continental shelf for conservation and prudent development of the 

natural resources of the seabed, without reference to any specific depth of water or distance from shore. The Proclamation 

explained that: 

“[t]he exercise of jurisdiction over the natural resources of the subsoil and sea bed of the continental shelf by the 

contiguous nation is reasonable and just . . . since the continental shelf may be regarded as an extension of the landmass of the coastal nation and thus naturally appurtenant to it, [and] since these resources frequently form a seaward 

extension of a pool or deposit lying within the territory.” 

The Truman Proclamation specifically preserved the right to free and unimpeded navigation on the high seas of the 

waters above the continental shelf.

34 499 U.N.T.S. 311; 15 U.S.T. 471; T.I.A.S. 5578. 

35 The 1958 Convention provides that the continental shelf refers to: 

 “[T]he sea-bed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a 

depth of 200 meters or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the 

natural resources of the said areas.” 

The ”exploitability criterion“ of the 1958 Continental Shelf Convention, however, itself created considerable uncertainty as 

to how far seaward a country was entitled to exclusive rights over the resources of the shelf. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 1: Setting the Stage 9

With passing decades, the evolving international consensus began to coalesce around the concept of coastal 

nations’ rights to, and jurisdiction over, all natural resources of the seabed, subsoil, and water column out to 

200 miles offshore. When the UNCLOS convention was concluded in 1982, it established the EEZ regime 

out to 200 miles from the baseline, and modified the legal concept of the continental shelf. 

The 1982 UNCLOS defines the continental shelf for purposes of international law as the seafloor and subsoil 

(not the water column) that extend beyond the territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of a coastal 

nation’s land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin (with some limitations), or to 200 miles 

from the baseline if the continental margin does not extend that far.36 Reflecting the geomorphology of 

submerged lands, UNCLOS notes that the continental margin includes the seabed and subsoil of the 

continental shelf, the slope, and the rise. The legal definition of the continental shelf thus substantially 

overlaps geographically with the EEZ, although the continental shelf does not include the water column. 

Where a coastal nation can demonstrate that its continental margin extends beyond 200 miles, UNCLOS has 

a complex process for asserting such claims internationally. The U.S. continental margin extends beyond 200 

miles in numerous regions, including the Atlantic Coast, the Gulf of Mexico, the Bering Sea, and the Arctic 

Ocean. However, because the United States is not a party to UNCLOS, it cannot assert its claims to extended 

continental shelf jurisdiction through the UNCLOS mechanism. 

The High Seas (Areas Seaward of National Jurisdictions) 

For several centuries, international law has considered areas of the ocean (including the water column and the 

seabed) beyond national jurisdiction to be the high seas. On the high seas, all nations have certain traditional 

freedoms, including the freedom of surface and submerged navigation, the freedom to fly aircraft over the 

water, harvest fish, lay submarine cables and pipelines, conduct scientific research, and construct artificial 

islands and certain other installations. Some of these freedoms are subject to certain qualifications, such as the 

duty to conserve living resources and to cooperate with other nations toward this end. In addition, a nation 

exercising its high seas freedoms must give “due regard” to the interests of other nations in its exercise of 

these freedoms.37 

The high seas were formerly defined by the 1958 Convention as the area beyond the territorial seas of coastal 

nations.38 Today, they are defined by UNCLOS as the area seaward of the territorial seas and EEZs of coastal 

nations.39 Sixty percent of the world’s oceans remain high seas and, in general, the traditional freedoms of the 

high seas still prevail.40 With a few exceptions, such as natural resource management-related matters and 

scientific research, many high-seas freedoms also apply in the EEZ. 

Even on and above the high seas beyond the EEZ, the United States and other coastal nations have some 

limited ability to exercise governmental jurisdiction and legal authority to make or enforce law. For example, 

U.S. citizens on the high seas remain subject to U.S. law, as do people on U.S.-flagged vessels and aircraft. 

 

36 UNCLOS, Article 76 et seq. 

The 1982 UNCLOS convention discards the “exploitability criterion” definition of the continental shelf from the 1958 Convention, in 

favor of expanded objective limits and a method for establishing their permanent location. This change was designed to 

accommodate coastal nation interests in broad control of resources and in supplying the certainty and stability of geographic limits 

necessary to promote investment and avoid disputes. Adapted From United States: President's Transmittal of the United Nations 

Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI to the U.S. Senate with 

Commentary, October 7, 1994 (U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement, Volume 6, Supplement No. 1 (February 1995)). 

37 UNCLOS, Article 86 et seq. 

38 1958 United Nations Convention on the High Seas; 450 U.N.T.S. 82; 13 U.S.T. 2312; T.I.A.S. 5200. 

39 UNCLOS, Article 86. 

40 UNCLOS, Article 86 et seq. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

10 Chapter 1: Setting the Stage 

Also, a coastal nation has the right of hot pursuit onto the high seas, provided that the pursuit was 

commenced in a geographic zone subject to the coastal nation’s jurisdiction over the activity in question. 

Some Confusing Jurisdictional Terminology 

As noted, beginning in 1983, Presidents Reagan and Clinton issued a series of proclamations that changed the 

geographic extent and substantive nature of U.S. jurisdiction over the oceans for purposes of international 

jurisdiction, consistent with the 1982 UNCLOS convention. The changes—beginning with President 

Reagan’s proclamation of a U.S. EEZ to 200 miles and followed by his extension of the territorial sea to 12 

miles and President Clinton’s extension of the contiguous zone to 24 miles—have not been comprehensively 

reflected in domestic law. Also, other legal terms, such as “high seas,” now have a different geographic scope 

in international law under UNCLOS; such changes in international law have not always been accounted for in 

domestic law. 

The public policy concern regarding these changes in international jurisdiction and terminology is that federal 

jurisdiction over, and management and enforcement regimes for, ocean resources, environmental protection, 

and national security are established by statutes that sometimes reference geographic jurisdictions that may be 

outdated and thus could limit effective implementation of the law. For example, the Clean Water Act and the 

Oil Pollution Act each define the seaward limit of the “territorial seas” at 3 miles41; to date, that definition has 

not caused a major problem in the implementation or enforcement of either law, but the discrepancy remains. 

Inconsistencies or ambiguities in geographic jurisdiction definitions, for example, concerning the intended 

breadth of the contiguous zone for the purpose of a particular statute, have also caused problems in federal 

civil and criminal cases not related to natural resources, such as the regulation of offshore gambling. 

It may not be necessary or desirable to amend every single U.S. statute to conform the terminology or 

breadth of its geographic zones to the new international jurisdictional zones. Notably, a number of U.S. 

federal statutes distinguish clearly between federal and state ownership or management of ocean resources, 

based on the division of jurisdiction and authority established in the SLA; these laws include the OCSLA, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the CWA. Amending these laws to conform state jurisdiction over resources, 

now usually seaward to 3 miles, to the geographic area encompassed by the 12 mile territorial sea that the 

United States asserts for international purposes, would in large part rewrite the SLA and affect a very 

significant change in federal-state legal, political, and economic relationships. 

Although certain statutes reflect, either through original enactment or subsequent amendment, President 

Reagan’s Proclamation that extended the U.S. territorial sea to 12 miles for purposes of international law, 

relatively few domestic laws have been amended to be consistent with that change.42 Thus, in some U.S. 

statutes, the territorial sea is still defined or referred to as a 3 mile zone.43 

Several shipping and vessel safety provisions apply within a seaward geographic area that is more, or less, than 

3 miles from the baseline from which the U.S. territorial sea is measured, without expressly asserting a 3 mile 

U.S. territorial sea for purposes of the particular statute.44 

 

41 The term territorial seas is defined as a 3 mile belt of sea in the Clean Water Act (see 33 U.S.C. § 1362(8)) and the Oil Pollution 

Act of 1990 (see 33 U.S.C. § 2701(35)). 

42 The Proclamation expressly did not alter any federal or state law. The discussion presented in this section is illustrative only and 

is not a thorough review of federal laws that refer to the territorial sea. 

43 E.g., in the Clean Water Act and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as noted above. 

44 These include: Shipping: Uninspected Vessels, 46 U.S.C. § 4102; Shipping: Uninspected Commercial Fishing Vessels, 46 U.S.C. 

§§ 4502, 4506; and Shipping: Manning of Vessels: Pilots, 46 U.S.C. §§ 8502, 8503. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 1: Setting the Stage 11

Some federal laws, particularly those related to maritime commerce and shipping and maritime law 

enforcement, do specifically reflect or assert, either in the law’s original enactment or by amendment, a 12 

mile U.S. territorial sea.45 At least one federal law uses the term territorial sea but does not define it.46

Other laws refer to or seem to allude to a 12 mile zone based on the baselines from which the territorial sea is 

measured, without expressly asserting a 12 mile U.S. territorial sea for purposes of the particular statute.47

Finally, at least one statute references the right of a coastal nation to assert a 12 mile territorial sea under 

international law, but does not expressly establish a U.S. 12 mile territorial sea for purposes of the particular 

statute.48 

This complex situation concerning the geographic reach of the term territorial sea (3 miles versus 12) has 

analogs in federal statutes that use other international law terms, such as contiguous zone and high seas, whose 

scope also have changed over the years, but have not been formally amended. 

 

45 For example, the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA), enacted in 1990, defines territorial sea

as “the belt of the sea measured from the baseline of the United States determined in accordance with international law, as set forth 

in Presidential Proclamation Number 5928, dated December 27, 1988.” See 16 U.S.C. § 4702(14). See also § 4702(16), defining 

the term waters of the United States for purposes of NANPCA as “the navigable waters and the territorial sea of the United States,” 

i.e., as including the 12 mile territorial sea proclaimed by President Reagan, as referenced in the law’s definition of territorial sea. 

The territorial sea also is defined as 12 miles in the following statutes: Crimes and Criminal Procedure: Shipping: violence against 

maritime fixed platforms, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2280, 2281; and Crimes and Criminal Procedure: Terrorism, Acts of terrorism 

transcending national boundaries, see 18 U.S.C. § 2332b. 

In 1998, Congress amended the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, and defined the term navigable waters of the United States to 

include “all waters of the territorial sea of the United States as described in Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988.” 

See 33 U.S.C. § 1222(5), as amended by the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-383, Title III, § 301(a). 

Also in 1998, Congress amended Subtitle II of Title 46, U.S. Code to establish that the term navigable waters of the United States as 

used in those laws includes the 12 mile territorial sea as proclaimed by President Reagan. See Coast Guard Authorization Act of 

1998, Pub. L. 105-383, Title III, § 301(b). 

Similarly, the Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge Radiotelephone Act was amended in 2002 to extend its jurisdiction from 3 to 12 miles, by

revising reference to the navigable waters of the United States to include “all waters of the territorial sea of the United States as 

described in Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988.” See 33 U.S.C. § 1203(b), as amended by § 321 of the 

Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-295. 

The Act of June 15, 1917, as amended, sometimes referred to as the Espionage Act, as amended by the Magnuson Act of 1950 

also was amended in 2002, to add a definition of the term territorial waters, as follows: “The term ‘territorial waters of the United 

States’ includes all waters of the territorial sea of the United States as described in Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 

1988.” See 50 U.S.C. § 195, as amended by § 104 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-295. 

Similarly, the 1996 amendments to the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 define the term import with reference to “any place 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including the 12 mile territorial sea of the United States.” See 16 U.S.C. § 2402(8). 

46 For example, the Ocean Dumping Act (Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, ODA), see 33 U.S.C. §§ 

1401 et seq. The ODA defines the term ocean waters to mean “those waters of the open seas lying seaward of the base line from 

which the territorial sea is measured, as provided for in the [1958] Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone [. . .].” 

See 33 U.S.C. § 1402(b). This indicates that Congress intended a 3 mile territorial sea and a contiguous zone extending seaward to

12 miles. However, although the term territorial sea is used in the “Prohibited acts” section of the statute and is crucial to enforcing 

the statute in certain circumstances, see 33 U.S.C. § 1411(b), the term is not specifically defined in the ODA. 

47 A navigation law dealing with demarcation lines for high seas and inland waters refers to lines that are not more than 12 miles 

seaward from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured; see 33 U.S.C. § 151. 

The Atlantic Salmon Convention Act of 1972, as amended, makes it unlawful for any person or vessel subject to the 

jurisdiction of the Unites States “to conduct directed fishing for salmon in waters seaward of twelve miles from the 

baselines from which the breadths of territorial seas are measured,” in certain waters of the Atlantic Ocean; see 16 U.S.C. 

§ 3606(a)(1). 

See also the definition of “Agreement Area” in the Eastern Pacific Tuna Licensing Act of 1984, at 16 U.S.C. § 972(2). 

48 See e.g, Condemnation of Cuban attack on American aircraft, 22 U.S.C. § 6046. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

12 Chapter 1: Setting the Stage 

Furthermore, federal laws sometimes use imprecise or inconsistent terms to refer to ocean jurisdictions, 

including navigable waters, coastal waters, ocean waters, territory and waters, waters of the United States, and waters subject to 

the jurisdiction of the United States. These terms can have disparate meanings in different statutes and sometimes 

are not defined at all. 

There has been no comprehensive and systematic effort to review and evaluate U.S. statutes and regulations 

to make corrections, either to conform to changed international geographic jurisdictions or to revise and 

conform confusingly different geographic terminology. When considering whether and how to amend each 

such law to update the scope of its geographic jurisdiction, care is needed to ensure that any amendment does 

not inadvertently alter the division of legal jurisdiction and authority between the federal and state 

governments concerning resources and activities in the ocean as established in the SLA and other statutes. 

U.S. FEDERAL AND STATE JURISDICTION

In general, lands under tidewaters are held by the state in a special capacity—in trust for the benefit of the 

public, pursuant to what is referred to as the public trust doctrine. Under this doctrine, which has evolved 

from ancient Roman law and English common law, governments have an obligation to protect the interests 

of the general public (as opposed to the narrow interests of 

specific users or any particular group). Public interests have 

traditionally included navigation, fishing, and commerce. In 

recent times, the public has also looked to the government to 

protect their interests in recreation, environmental protection, 

research, and preservation of scenic beauty and cultural heritage. 

The division between private and public ownership varies 

somewhat from state to state. Generally, legal title to land located 

above the mean high-tide line (illustrated in the figure) will be 

held in private ownership. Title to the lands below the mean 

high-tide line will be held by the state as public trust lands. While 

there can be private ownership or other property interests in 

public trust lands, the state has a duty to ensure that the public’s 

interest in those lands is protected. 

Establishment of State Seaward Boundaries 

Until the 1940s, the common understanding was that states owned the submerged lands under the waters off 

their shores, and many coastal states had laws in place that established offshore boundaries.49 Several state 

constitutions and federal acts admitting states to the Union described state boundaries as extending a marine 

league or more offshore.50 

Controversies emerged in the 1930s regarding oil recovered from, and the ownership of mineral rights in, 

submerged lands. In United States v. California,

51 the United States sought declaration in the U.S. Supreme 

Court that the federal government was the owner of the seabed and minerals from the mean low water line to 

3 miles seaward. California argued that because the original colonies had acquired from the Crown of 

 

49 Christie, Donna R. and Richard G. Hildreth. Coastal and Ocean Management Law, 2nd Edition. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1999. 

50 Id. 

51 United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19 (1947). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 1: Setting the Stage 13

England all lands under navigable waters, including all marginal seas within their boundaries, these lands also 

vested in California upon admission to the Union by virtue of the equal footing doctrine as an element of 

sovereignty. 

The Supreme Court quickly dismissed California’s arguments, concluding that “acquisition...of the three-mile 

belt [had] been accomplished by the National Government,” rather than by the English Crown or the 

colonies.52 The Court depicted the federal government’s role not as merely a property owner, but as the entity 

responsible for the security and defense of the marginal seas and for the conduct of foreign relations. 

The Supreme Court determined that states had no title to, or property interest in, the submerged lands off 

their coasts. The Court held “that California is not the owner of the three-mile marginal belt along its coast, 

and that the Federal Government rather than the state has paramount rights in and power over that belt, an 

incident to which is full dominion over the resources of the soil under that water area, including oil.”53

After the United States v. California holding, the United States brought suit against both Texas and Louisiana on 

the basis that the broad principles of the California case also dictated federal ownership or control of the oil 

fields of the Gulf of Mexico.54 The United States prevailed against both states. 

Congress responded in 1953 by enacting the Submerged Lands Act (SLA),55 which essentially quitclaimed to 

the coastal states federal proprietary rights over a zone extending 3 miles seaward from the baseline 

(commonly referred to as state waters and state submerged lands) and rights to the natural resources in such lands 

and waters.56 The SLA gives states the authority to manage, develop, and lease the natural resources 

throughout the water column and on and under the seabed.57 

Under the SLA, the federal government retains the right, authority, and jurisdiction to regulate commerce, 

navigation, power generation from the water, national defense, and international affairs throughout state 

waters.58 

Although one of the purposes of the SLA was to relieve both state and federal governments of the extensive 

litigation initiated by United States v. California, aspects of the boundary provisions of the SLA created 

additional legal problems. For example, the SLA left it to the courts to determine whether a state could 

establish a historic claim beyond 3 miles. Only Texas and Florida have been able to establish such claims. In 

1960, the Supreme Court recognized the 3 marine league (equivalent to 9 miles) boundaries in the Gulf of 

Mexico of both Florida, based on congressional approval of its 1868 constitution,59 and Texas, based on its 

historic claim when an independent republic before joining the United States.60 In 1969, the United States 

 

52 Id. at 34. 

53 Id. at 38-39. 

54 United States v. Texas, 339 U.S. 707 (1950). 

55 The Submerged Lands Act of 1953 is Pub. L. 83-31, 67 Stat. 29, May 22, 1953 (codified at 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301 et seq.). 

Sometimes also cited as the Act of May 22, 1953, ch. 65, title I. 

56 See 43 U.S.C. §§ 1311 and 1314(a). 

57 As discussed above in The Public Trust Doctrine section of this chapter, states have similar authorities on the land side of the 

baseline, usually up to the mean high tide line, an area often referred to as state tidelands. 

58 See 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301(e), 1311(d), and 1314(a). 

59 United States v. Florida, 363 U.S. 121 (1960). 

60 United States v. Louisiana, 363 U.S. 1 (1960). See also National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Services 

Center. Federal Geographic Data Committee Marine Boundary Working Group: U.S. Marine Cadastre —Seabed and Subsoil 

Boundaries. December 31, 2002; available at http://www.csc.noaa.gov/mbwg/htm/cad_sla.htm (accessed June 1, 2004). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

14 Chapter 1: Setting the Stage 

brought an action against the thirteen states bordering the Atlantic Ocean, in which the Supreme Court 

upheld the reasoning in California and precluded state claims beyond 3 miles.61 

Some U.S. territories and possessions also have the equivalent of state waters and submerged lands. Congress 

granted Puerto Rico a 9 mile jurisdictional boundary by statute in 1917.62 In 1974, Congress granted the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa jurisdiction out to 3 miles by statute.63

The federal government’s management regime for outer Continental Shelf mineral resources, located in a 

broad expanse of ocean beyond U.S. state seaward boundaries, was enacted in the Outer Continental Shelf 

Lands Act (OCSLA)64 a few months after the enactment of the SLA. The OCSLA is discussed in Chapter 5, 

Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean. 

IMPOSING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES ON FEDERAL AGENCIES: 

THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)65 has been called many things through its three decades of 

existence, including the Magna Carta or centerpiece of environmental law, and the “most important [of our] 

environmental legislation.”66 Signed into law in 1970 with the inspiring goal to “create and maintain 

conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and 

other requirements of present and future generations of Americans,”67 NEPA “sets forth a ringing and vague 

statement of purposes.”68 This vagueness grew into a powerful tool for challenging federal agency actions that 

ignored potential environmental impacts. Federal agencies’ obligation to comply with NEPA is a common 

issue in federal environmental and natural resources law, including ocean and coastal law. This chapter 

addresses NEPA’s requirements in general, and several subsequent chapters refer to particular cases in which 

an agency’s compliance with NEPA has been at issue in carrying out ocean and coastal statutes. 

Aside from its statements of policy objectives, NEPA’s “action-forcing” mechanism is in Section 102, which 

requires all federal agencies to include a detailed statement of the environmental impact of all “major federal 

actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”69 A “major” federal action is one that 

requires substantial planning, time, resources, or expenditure that a federal agency proposes or permits. 

Through conducting Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) reviews, 

 

61 United States v. Maine, 420 U.S. 515 (1975). 

62 48 U.S.C. § 749. 

63 48 U.S.C. § 1705. 

64 Pub. L. 83-212, 67 Stat. 462, August 7, 1953 (codified at 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331 et seq.). 

65 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852, January 1, 1970 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.).

66 Arthur W. Murphy, The National Environmental Policy Act and the Licensing Process: Environmentalist Magna Carta or Agency 

Coup de Grace?, 72 Colum. L. Rev. 963, 965 (1972). For a thorough review of NEPA, see William H. Rodgers, Jr., Environmental 

Law, Chapter 9 (1994); James W. Spensley, National Environmental Policy Act, in Environmental Law Handbook 321 (J. Gordon 

Arbuckle et al. Eds., 12th ed. 1993); Michael C. Blumm, A Primer on Environmental Law and Some Directions for the Future, 11 VA. 

Envtl. L.J. 381, 382 (1992). 

67 42 U.S.C. § 4331(a). 

68 Rodgers at 801. 

69 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)C). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 1: Setting the Stage 15

federal agencies are required to consider environmental impacts before action is taken.70 Federal agencies are 

also required to consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of regulated federal activities.71 

In addition, NEPA mandates coordination and collaboration among federal agencies. Specifically, “[p]rior to 

making any detailed statement, the responsible federal official shall consult with and obtain the comments of 

any federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact 

involved.”72 Many federal agencies, including those with substantial ocean and coastal programmatic 

responsibilities, such as NOAA, EPA, and the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS)—and state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and members of the public—frequently 

comment on NEPA documents. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the Executive Office of 

the President, established under NEPA, plays the role of interagency dispute resolution mediator when 

necessary. 

This is where NEPA’s mandates end. The Supreme Court has declared that NEPA’s reach is procedural 

rather than substantive: NEPA cannot “mandate particular results but only prescribe the necessary 

process.”73 Thus, once a federal agency has completed the detailed statement that NEPA requires, the agency 

may continue its proposed activity regardless of the actual impact upon the receiving environment, although 

other legal authorities still apply and might preclude or limit the federal agency’s action. For example, the 

information provided in the NEPA process may indicate that a proposed activity is not consistent with 

applicable enforceable policies of a state’s federally approved coastal zone management program. 

A federal district court has found that NEPA applies to federal actions that may affect the environment in the 

U.S. EEZ.74 This case involved the U.S. Navy’s Littoral Warfare Advanced Development (LWAD) program, 

which develops and tests active sonar technology for detecting submarines. The Navy argued that its activities 

in the EEZ are not subject to environmental review under NEPA. The court held that while the United 

States does not exercise the same jurisdiction in the EEZ as in the territorial sea, the United States does 

exercise certain sovereign rights within the EEZ “for the purposes of exploring, exploiting, conserving and 

managing natural resources.”75 “Because the United States exercises substantial legislative control of the EEZ 

 

70 The Environmental Impact Statement is a detailed statement prepared by the responsible official within the relevant federal 

agency that addresses: 

 “(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action; 

(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; 

 (iii) alternatives to the proposed action; 

(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity; and 

(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it 

be implemented.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)C). 

Where there is a question as to whether a particular government action requires an environmental analysis, regulations 

implementing NEPA promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) require the federal agency seeking to undertake 

the action to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA). An EA is a document that “[b]riefly provide[s] sufficient evidence for 

determining whether to prepare an . . . [environmental analysis] or a finding of no significant impact.” After preparation of the EA, if 

the agency makes a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), then preparation of an EIS is not necessary. CEQ’s NEPA regulations 

are at 40 C.F.R. Part 1500 et seq.

71 See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.16, 1508.7, and 1508.8. 

72 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). 

73 Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989); see also Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. 

Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519, 548 (1978); Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (1976). The Court stated that 

once an agency has made a decision subject to NEPA’s procedural requirements, “[t]he only role for a court is to ensure that the 

agency has taken a ‘hard look’ at the environmental consequences; it cannot ‘interject itself within the area of discretion of the 

executive as to the choice of the action to be taken.’” Id. at 410. 

74 Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Department of the Navy, No. CV-01-07781; 2002 WL 32095131. Slip op. at 

21. (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2002). The Court’s decision was not appealed. 

75 Id. at 20, citing President Reagan’s Proclamation 5030 on the EEZ. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

16 Chapter 1: Setting the Stage 

in the area of the environment stemming from its ‘sovereign rights’ for the purpose of conserving and 

managing natural resources, the Court finds that NEPA applies to federal actions which may affect the 

environment in the U.S. EEZ.”76 The court noted that the kind of general planning in which the LWAD 

engages apart from planning associated with the organization of particular sea tests does not call for or create 

activities which impact the environment and is not an irreversible commitment of resources. In contrast, the 

individual sea tests conducted as part of the LWAD process are federal actions, which may affect the 

environment. Accordingly, the court held that the Navy’s “LWAD program, as distinct from its component 

parts, is not subject to NEPA review,”77 while “[i]ndividual LWAD sea tests will still be subject to NEPA 

requirements.”78

This chapter describes the mosaic of international, national, and state marine boundaries and legal authorities 

that define the institutions which have the responsibility to manage ocean and coastal resources. The scope 

ranges from the Great Lakes, coastal watersheds and margins to the high seas and encompasses estuaries, 

beaches, the coastal zone, and offshore federal waters. The following chapters describe the origin and 

evolution of the basic laws, regulations, and procedures that are currently in place to govern the nation’s 

oceans and coasts. 

 

76 Id. at 21. 

77 Id. at 27. 

78 Id. at 32. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 2: Coastal Management 17

CHAPTER 2 

COASTAL MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

Management of the nation’s coastal areas is influenced by numerous laws and programs at the local, state, and 

federal levels of government. This chapter begins with a summary of a number of the federal laws that are 

relevant to coastal management. The primary focus, however, is an overview of the Coastal Zone 

Management Act. It should be noted that laws and programs discussed in the other chapters of this Appendix 

are also relevant to coastal management, including the Clean Water Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Oil Pollution Act, Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, and many others. In particular, readers are advised to consult 

Chapter 4, Ocean and Coastal Pollution from Land-Based Sources, for a discussion of water pollution prevention and 

habitat protection, and Chapter 5, Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production, for a discussion of the Coastal Zone 

Management Act and its relation to oil and gas development on the outer Continental Shelf. 

GOVERNING STATUTES

Coastal Zone Management Act 

In its 1969 report, the Commission on Marine Sciences, Engineering, and Resources (Stratton Commission), 

found that the value of the coast was threatened by increasing population and commercial, recreational, and 

residential development.1 As a result of the Stratton Commission’s findings, a number of other studies on 

estuaries, and a national debate about comprehensive land use planning, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone 

Management Act of 1972 (CZMA). The CZMA was designed “to preserve, protect, develop, and where 

possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the nation’s coastal zone for this and succeeding 

generations.”2 Enacted during the same period as other major federal environmental legislation, the CZMA 

differed substantially from legislation like the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act. The CZMA set the 

ground rules for a voluntary partnership between federal and coastal state governments, with a goal of 

balancing the conservation of the coastal environment with the responsible development of economic and 

cultural interests. 

Administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the CZMA provides 

incentives for coastal states to voluntarily develop and conduct coastal management programs, financial and 

technical assistance, and what is referred to as “federal consistency” authority. This provision assures a state 

that, with certain exceptions, federal agency activities, and those that are sponsored or permitted by the 

 

1 Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources. Our Nation and the Sea: A Plan for National Action. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Office, 1969. 

2

 16 U.S.C. § 1452. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

18 Chapter 2: Coastal Management 

federal government, will be consistent with the enforceable policies of state-developed and federally approved 

coastal management programs. 

Under the CZMA, participating states are given the flexibility to design programs that address their individual 

priorities; however, the Act does direct states to develop policies in several areas, including: protecting natural 

and cultural resources; protecting people and property from natural hazards; giving development priority to 

coastal-dependent uses and revitalizing waterfronts; facilitating public access to ocean and coastal areas; and, 

improving coastal water quality.3

The CZMA also created the National Estuarine Research Reserve System.4 The purpose of the program is to 

encourage states and territories to set aside representative estuaries for long-term research, education, and 

stewardship purposes. State governors nominate areas for inclusion in the program, and NOAA designates an 

estuarine area upon finding that it is a representative estuarine ecosystem suitable for long-term research and 

that state laws provide sufficient protection and an appropriate environment for research. Once an area is 

designated, federal financial assistance is available for property acquisition, management, research, and 

educational activities. NOAA is responsible for overseeing state management of the twenty-six estuarine 

research reserves (as of 2004) that have been designated in coastal states and territories.5 

The CZMA has been amended a number of times. The Arab oil embargo in 1973 and energy crisis of the 

mid-1970s led to major amendments to the Act in 1976 to address energy facility siting and other coastal 

development issues. One of the primary provisions of the amendments was the establishment of the Coastal 

Energy Impact Program, providing coastal states with loans and direct grants to address the economic, 

coastal, and environmental impacts from offshore oil and gas activities. The amendments in 1976 also 

clarified the process for determining whether offshore energy activities in federal waters were consistent with 

state CZM programs (discussed more extensively below). 

The Coastal Zone Management Improvement Act of 1980 reflected a continuing concern that coastal states 

incorporate national interests in coastal planning. One of the key premises of the modifications was that the 

CZMA program was ready to move from an exclusive focus on process to one that strengthened state efforts 

at implementation of their programs. New program goals and policies were introduced to enhance coastal 

management and a section with modest financial assistance was added to help states meet low cost 

construction, land acquisition, and shoreline stabilization efforts.6 In 1985, amendments included new 

procedures for the review and modification of state coastal programs, a number of administrative and 

housekeeping changes, and a five year reauthorization of the various components of the program, some at 

reduced levels.7 

The last major amendments to the CZMA were the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 

1990.8 The amendments clarified the scope and application of the federal consistency provision, specifically 

reversing the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Secretary of the Interior v. California9. A new Coastal 

 

3 16 U.S.C. § 1452. 

4

 16 U.S.C. § 1461. 

5 Additional information about the National Estuarine Research Reserve System available at http://noaa.nerrs.gov (accessed May 21 

2004). 

6

 Pub. L. 96-464. 

7 Pub. L. 99-272. 

8 Pub. L. 101-508, tit. VI, subtit. C, 104 Stat. 1388. 

9 464 U.S. 312 (1984). For a discussion of the federal consistency provision and Secretary of the Interior v. California, see the CZMA 

Federal Consistency Requirement section in this chapter. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 2: Coastal Management 19

Zone Enhancement Grant Program was initiated to encourage states to improve their programs in one or 

more of several areas of coastal concern, including coastal wetlands protection, management of development 

in high hazard areas, public access, control of marine debris, studying cumulative and secondary impact of 

coastal development, special area management planning, ocean resources planning, and siting of coastal 

energy and government facilities.10 The 1990 amendments also established a requirement that state coastal 

management programs incorporate enforceable policies to enable them to implement a new Coastal 

Nonpoint Pollution Control Program.11 For discussion of the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, 

see Chapter 4, Ocean and Coastal Pollution from Land-Based Sources. Amendments to the CZMA enacted in 1996 

did not make major substantive changes. 

National Flood Insurance Act

The establishment of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by the National Flood Insurance Act of 

196812 led to widespread adoption of minimum federal building standards for flood-prone areas, including 

coastal regions. Administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the program is the 

federal government’s primary tool for managing natural hazards through incentives and regulation. Under the 

program, FEMA maps the flood-prone areas throughout the nation, and provides flood insurance (or backs 

the private providers of flood insurance) to owners of commercial and residential structures if their 

communities have adopted standards for the construction of buildings in those areas. The program is 

intended to reduce federal flood disaster relief by supplying guaranteed insurance coverage to communities 

that adopt building standards and land use controls which minimize flood damages and property losses. State 

and local regulation may be stricter than federally imposed safety and building standards, and governments 

are encouraged to adopt land use regulations that guide development away from flood hazard areas.13 

In addition to guaranteeing flood insurance for communities that participate in the program, the NFIP also 

imposes disincentives for nonparticipation. If a community with areas susceptible to flooding does not join 

the program, federal agencies, like the Small Business Administration and the Department of Veterans 

Affairs, are prohibited from providing federal assistance for development in flood-prone areas.14 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act

The Coastal Barrier Resources Act15 was passed in 1982 and established the John H. Chaffee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) to minimize the loss of human life, wasteful federal expenditures, and damage to 

fish, wildlife, and other natural resources associated with coastal barriers, such as barrier islands. The Act 

defines coastal barriers as “bay barriers, barrier islands, and other geological features composed of sediment 

that protect landward aquatic habitats from direct wind and waves.”16 As part of the program, which is 

administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the federal government discourages development on 

designated coastal barriers by restricting certain federal financial assistance, including flood insurance 

coverage, loans, funding for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers development projects, and construction of sewer 

systems, water supply systems, and transportation infrastructure. 

 

10 16 U.S.C. § 1456b(a). 

11 Id. § 1455b. 

12 42 U.S.C. §§ 4001-4128. 

13 See e.g., Fla. Stat. § 161.55(1)(d) (requiring major coastal structures to withstand wind velocities of 110 miles per hour and 

structures in the Florida Keys to withstand winds of 115 miles per hour). 

14 See 42 U.S.C. § 4106(a). 

15 16 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3510. 

16 16 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3510. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

20 Chapter 2: Coastal Management 

The CBRS is specifically designated on maps maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary is 

directed to review and update the maps every five years to reflect the changes in size or location of any of the 

barriers. Nearly 1.3 million acres of land, wetlands, and water along the East Coast, Great Lakes, and Gulf of 

Mexico are part of the “full system unit,” with “otherwise protected areas” covering an additional 1.8 million 

acres of coastal barriers already held for conservation or recreational purposes. The program does not ban 

development in these areas; rather, it creates disincentives by denying federal subsidies and imposing the full 

costs of development on the developer or property owner. 

SELECTED ISSUES

State Coastal Management Program Development, Approval, and Review 

Under the CZMA, states are charged with directly implementing the national coastal management program 

through coastal programs developed at the state level. The premise behind choosing states as the principal 

implementing bodies was that state and local governments can most effectively manage human activities 

because historically they have had primary jurisdiction over land use of nonfederal property. Although each 

state coastal program is different, collectively the programs address the broad spectrum of coastal issues 

identified by Congress. In reality, the national impact of the coastal management program is the result of 

many thousands of individual state and local decisions that impact the way coastal areas are developed. 

The CZMA requires that environmental protection, access to natural and cultural resources, and economic 

development be essential parts of each program. In some states, one state agency has the responsibility to 

address all of these activities, while others are based on networking among state agencies and local 

governments. States use a variety of different tools to manage human activities, including regulation, zoning, 

financial incentives, outreach, and education. States develop plans that reflect their priorities regarding 

resources to be protected or enhanced and the methods for doing so, and then submit these plans to the 

Secretary of Commerce for approval. 

The methods for creating the internal partnerships needed to develop and implement state coastal 

management programs vary by state, yet generally involve the governors, several state agencies, local 

governments, and public participation in the form of citizen advisory groups within each coastal area. 

Different state constitutions and statutory frameworks assign land and water use management responsibilities 

to state agencies and local governments in diverse ways. The geographic definition of the coastal zone also 

varies, ranging from the entire state as in Florida, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Hawaii, or as in California, to 

narrow areas that range from a few hundred feet in some places to several miles in others. 

Currently, 99 percent of the nation’s marine and Great Lakes coasts are governed by state coastal 

management programs; thirty-four out of thirty-five coastal and Great Lakes states (as well as the territories 

of Puerto Rico, the Northern Marianas, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa) have federally 

approved coastal management programs. Only Illinois is not participating in the federal program.17

Early in the CZMA program, the California Coastal Management Program was challenged that it lacked the 

specificity necessary to meet statutory requirements and that the program did not adequately consider the 

national interest in the siting of energy facilities in the coastal zone. The federal appeals court determined that 

Congress did not intend for the states to include detailed criteria of such specificity that a private user of the 

 

17 Coastal Zone Management: Celebrating Thirty Years of the Coastal Zone Management Act available at 

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/czm/ (accessed May 21, 2004).
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 2: Coastal Management 21

coastal zone would have a high level of predictability that its activities would be consistent with the state’s 

program. 18 Instead, the program is intended to create a framework within which each state can make rational 

decisions balancing competing interests.

The CZMA offers a state the flexibility to adopt the management approach for the coastal zone most 

compatible with that state’s general process of land use regulation and management. For example, if the focal 

point of the state’s approach is local decision making, the coastal management program can use that method. 

States relying more on centralized controls may use that process, either through direct state control or 

through state review of local and regional decisions.19

The CZMA also exhibits flexibility in terms of geographic emphasis and intensity of the program.20 States 

may focus regulatory efforts on particular areas that will experience more development or require a greater 

degree of protection. Finally, the CZMA allows states to recognize that actions outside the coastal zone 

boundary may affect coastal resources and require attention in their program.21

Federally approved state coastal management programs are subject to continuing review by NOAA to 

determine the extent to which the state is implementing and enforcing the program. Often, NOAA will 

include “necessary actions” in its evaluation of state programs that the state addresses in subsequent grants. 

Also, program approval may be withdrawn or financial assistance may be suspended under certain 

circumstances, a process that was clarified by the 1990 amendments to the CZMA. If a state fails to adhere to 

its approved program or the terms of a grant, financial assistance may not be suspended until NOAA 

provides the state’s governor with specifications and a schedule for compliance. Program approval may not 

be withdrawn unless the state fails to take the actions required for compliance.22

CZMA Federal Consistency Requirement

The CZMA’s federal consistency provision is found at Section 307 of the Act,23 and has been a major 

incentive for states to join the national coastal management program, providing them an important tool for 

facilitating cooperation and coordination with federal agencies. Federal consistency reviews are the 

responsibility of the lead state agency that implements or coordinates the state’s federally approved coastal 

management program.24

Federal consistency provides that federal actions that have reasonably foreseeable effects on land use, water 

use, or natural resources in the coastal zone must be consistent with the enforceable policies of a state’s 

federally approved coastal management program. An enforceable policy is legally binding under state law 

(e.g., through constitutional provisions, laws, regulations, land use plans, ordinances, or judicial or 

administrative decisions), and by which a state exerts control over private and public coastal uses and 

resources, and which are incorporated in the state’s federally approved program. Federal actions include 

 

18 American Petroleum Institute v. Knecht, 456 F. Supp. 889 (C.D.Cal.1978), affirmed 609 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1979). 

19 16 U.S.C. § 1455(d)(ii); 15 C.F.R. § 923.42-923.44. 

20 J.B. Ruhl, Biodiversity Conservation and the Ever-expanding Web of Federal Laws Regulating Nonfederal Lands: Time for 

Something Completely Different? 66 U. COLO. L. REV. 555, 619 (1995). 

21 This is in contrast to the Clean Water Act Section 404, for example, that would not address an activity potentially harmful to a 

wetlands area if the activity takes place outside the wetlands and involves no fill into the wetlands. Id. at 620. 

22 See 16 U.S.C. § 1458 (c)-(d). 

23 16 U.S.C. § 1456. 

24 This section taken in part from NOAA, Federal Consistency Requirements, July 31, 2003, available at

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/pdf/fedconreqmts.pdf. (accessed May 21, 2004). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

22 Chapter 2: Coastal Management 

federal agency activities such as development projects carried out by a federal agency, federal license or 

permit activities, and federal financial assistance to state and local governments. 

At the heart of the federal consistency provision is the “effects test.” The 1990 amendments to the CZMA: 

Establish...a generally applicable rule of law that any federal agency activity (regardless of its 

location) is subject to [the consistency requirement] if it will affect any natural resources, 

land uses, or water uses in the coastal zone. No federal agency activities are categorically 

exempt from this requirement.25

The 1990 amendments added the new “effects” language to replace previous statutory language that referred 

to activities “directly affecting the coastal zone.” The amendments also reflect congressional intent to 

supercede Secretary of the Interior v. California,

26 and further to: 

eliminate “categorical exemptions” from consistency, and instead to establish a uniform 

threshold standard requiring federal agencies to make a case-by-case factual determination of 

reasonably foreseeable effects on the coastal zone. The amendments to section 307(c)(1) 

were intended to leave no doubt that all federal agency activities meeting the “effects” 

standard are subject to the CZMA consistency requirement; that there are no exceptions or 

exclusions from the requirement as a matter of law; and that the new “uniform threshold 

standard” requires a factual determination, based on the effects of such activities on the 

coastal zone, to be applied on a case-by-case basis.27

 

Section 307(c)(1) Consistency: Federal Activities

The CZMA Section 307(c)(1) states: 

Each federal agency activity within or outside the coastal zone that affects any land or water 

use or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner which is 

consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved state 

management programs. A federal agency activity shall be subject to this paragraph unless it is 

subject to paragraph (2) [federal development projects] or (3) [federally licensed or permitted 

activities and OCS exploration and development plans].28

The CZMA requires federal agency activities to be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the 

enforceable policies of a state’s federally approved program. NOAA’s regulations interpret that to mean fully 

 

25 Conference Report to 1990 CZMA Amendments, H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 964, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., 970-972 (1990). 

26 464 U.S. 312 (1984). In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that OCS lease sales were not subject to the federal consistency 

provision of the CZMA. The 1990 amendments to the CZMA superceded that decision, clarifying in the Conference Report that such 

sales are subject to a state consistency review, and making a number of other changes to the interpretation of the federal 

consistency provision. As a result, NOAA issued a final rule incorporating those changes in 2000. See 65 Fed. Reg. 77,123-77,175 

(Dec. 8, 2000). 

27 Conference Report to 1990 Amendments at 970-71. The Conference Report provides further clarification as follows, “[t]he 

question of whether a specific federal agency activity may affect any natural resource, land use, or water use in the coastal zone is 

determined by the federal agency. The conferees intend this determination to include effects in the coastal zone which the federal 

agency may reasonably anticipate as a result of its action, including cumulative and secondary effects. Therefore, the term 

“affecting” is to be construed broadly, including direct effects which are caused by the activity and occur at the same time and place, 

and indirect effects which may be caused by the activity and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably 

foreseeable.” 

28 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(1). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 2: Coastal Management 23

consistent unless federal legal requirements prohibit full consistency. This ensures that federal agencies are 

able to meet their legally authorized mandates, even though the activity may not be fully consistent with a 

state’s enforceable policy. If a federal agency has the discretion to meet a state’s enforceable policy, then it 

needs to be consistent with that policy. However, federal law may limit a federal agency’s discretion and an 

agency may also deviate from full consistency due to “exigent circumstances” such as an emergency or 

unexpected situation requiring the agency to take quick or immediate action. Section 307(c)(1) also provides a 

mechanism to exempt certain aspects of a federal agency’s activities from compliance if “the President 

determines that the activity is in the paramount interest of the United States.”29 To date, this mechanism has 

not been used. 

Consistent to the maximum extent practicable and exigent circumstances refer to consistency with a state 

program’s substantive requirements as well as the procedural requirements of NOAA’s regulations. There 

may be times that a federal legal requirement or an emergency situation requires a federal agency to act 

sooner than the end of the 90-day period for a state to issue a consistency decision. On the other hand, a 

federal agency cannot use a lack of funds as a basis for not being consistent to the maximum extent 

practicable. Thus, federal agencies are encouraged to consult early with states to ensure that the federal 

agency has budgeted for meeting enforceable policies in the state’s program. 

Section 307(c)(3)(A) Consistency: Federally Licensed or Permit Activities 

The CZMA Section 307(c)(3)(A) provides in part: 

any applicant for a required federal license or permit to conduct an activity, in or outside of 

the coastal zone, affecting any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone of 

that state shall provide in the application to the licensing or permitting agency a certification 

that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies of the state’s approved 

program and that such activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program.30

A private individual or business, state or local government agency, or any other type of nonfederal entity, 

applying to the federal government for a required permit or license or any other type of an approval or 

authorization, needs to follow the requirements of CZMA Section 307(c)(3)(A).31 All federal license or permit 

activities occurring in the coastal zone are deemed to affect coastal uses or resources, if the state coastal 

management program has listed the particular federal license, permit, or approval in its federally approved 

program document. For a listed activity occurring in the coastal zone, the applicant shall submit a consistency 

certification to the approving federal agency and the state. In addition to the certification, the applicant must 

provide the state with the necessary data and information required by NOAA’s regulations to allow the state 

to assess the project’s effects.32 

Within six months after receiving a copy of the consistency certification, the state is to notify the federal 

agency concerned that it concurs with or objects to such certification. If the state fails to submit a notification 

within the six month period, its concurrence is conclusively presumed. The federal agency may not grant the 

requested license or permit unless the state concurs or is conclusively presumed to concur with the 

 

29 16 U.S.C. § 1456 (c)(1)(B). 

30 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(A). 

31 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(A). See also 15 C.F.R. pt. 930, subparts A, B and D, as revised by 65 Fed. Reg. 77,123-77,175 (Dec. 8, 

2000). 

32 15 CFR § 930.58. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

24 Chapter 2: Coastal Management 

certification.33 An aggrieved applicant may appeal the non-concurrence to the Secretary of Commerce and 

request an override of the state’s decision or the Secretary may initiate his or her own review.34 

If a state wants to review an unlisted activity, it must seek NOAA approval on a case-by-case basis.35 For 

listed activities outside the coastal zone, the applicant must submit a consistency certification to the state and 

the federal agency if the activity falls within the geographic location described in the state program document 

for listed activities outside the coastal zone. For such activities where the state has not described the 

geographic location, the state must follow the unlisted activity procedure described above, if it wants to 

review the activity. 

Section 307(c)(3)(B) Consistency: Outer Continental Shelf Exploration and Development Activities

The CZMA Section 307(c)(3)(B) provides in part: 

any person who submits to the Secretary of the Interior any plan for the exploration or 

development of, or production from, any area which has been leased under the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act. . . shall, with respect to any exploration, development, or 

production described in such plan and affecting any land or water use or natural resource of 

the coastal zone of such state, attach to such plan a certification that each activity . . . 

complies with the enforceable policies of such state’s approved management program and 

will be carried out in a manner consistent with such program.36 

A private person or business applying to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service 

(MMS) for outer Continental Shelf (OCS) exploration, development, and production activities must follow 

the requirements of CZMA Section 307(c)(3)(B). Any person who submits to MMS an OCS plan for the 

exploration, development, or production of any area leased under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act37

(OCSLA), must certify to the relevant state coastal management program that any activities described in detail 

in such OCS plans will be conducted in a manner consistent with the enforceable policies of the state’s 

program. The process and requirements for this section generally mirror those of federal license or permit 

activities discussed above. In addition, the Section 307(c)(3)(B) consistency obligation is specifically 

reinforced and repeated in the OCSLA regarding Department of the Interior approval of lessee exploration, 

and development and production plans.38 

With respect to an OCS exploration plan, the Secretary of the Interior, through MMS, shall not approve a 

license or permit for any activity described in detail in such plan that affects the resources of a state’s coastal 

zone unless the state concurs with, or is conclusively presumed to concur with, the consistency certification 

attached to the plan, or the Secretary of Commerce overrides the state based on the criteria established under 

the CZMA.39 Because of certain deadlines in the OCSLA, it is common practice for MMS to approve an 

exploration plan subject to the consistency review by the state. For a development and production plan, 

however, MMS is directed to disapprove such plan if any of the activities described in it that affect the coastal 

 

33 16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(3)(A). 

34 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(A)-(B) and (d). 

35 See 15 C.F.R. § 930.54. 

36 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(B). 

37 Pub. L. 83-212, 67 Stat. 462, August 7, 1953 (codified at 43 U.S.C. §§ 1333 et seq.). 

38 43 U.S.C. § 1340(c)(2) and § 1351(h)(1). 

39 43 U.S.C. 1340(c)(2). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 2: Coastal Management 25

zone and require a federal license or permit do not receive concurrence by the state with respect to the 

consistency certification attached to the plan. The conclusive presumption and Secretarial override exceptions 

that pertain to the exploration plan also apply to this development and production plan process.40

Federal Assistance to State and Local Governments 

The CZMA Section 307(d) provides in part: 

State and local governments submitting applications for Federal assistance under other Federal 

programs, in or outside of the coastal zone, affecting any land or water use of natural resource of the 

coastal zone shall indicate the views of the appropriate state or local agency as to the relationship of 

such activities to the approved management program for the coastal zone....Federal agencies shall not 

approve proposed projects that are inconsistent with the enforceable policies of a coastal state’s 

management program, except upon a finding by the Secretary that such project is consistent with the 

purposes of this chapter or necessary in the interest of national security.41

States list in their coastal management programs the federal financial assistance activities that are subject to 

review, and the state may also notify an applicant agency and the appropriate federal agency that it will review 

an unlisted activity. NOAA approval is not required for the review of unlisted federal financial assistance 

activities. NOAA regulations allow state programs to develop flexible procedures for reviewing and 

concurring with federal assistance activities. A federal agency may not issue funding until the relevant state 

management program has concurred. If the state coastal agency does not concur, the applicant state agency or 

local government may appeal the state objection to the Secretary of Commerce. 

Other Federal Actions 

A federal action that will have reasonably foreseeable coastal effects, but that does not fall under 

requirements for a federal license or permit, OCS plans, or financial assistance to a state agency or local 

government, is a federal agency activity that must follow the requirements of the CZMA and its implementing 

regulations. For example, if a federal agency is providing funds to a private citizen for disaster relief from a 

hurricane, and the funds will be used for an activity with coastal effects, then the federal agency must follow 

the requirements for federal agency activities and provide the state coastal management program with a 

consistency determination.42

Secretarial Appeals and Mediation 

The CZMA provides two procedures for addressing disagreements concerning state consistency objections: a 

mediation process for disagreements between federal agencies and coastal states;43 and a secretarial appeal 

process for federal licenses or permits, OCS exploration and development plans, or federal assistance to state 

agencies and local governments that are found by a state to be inconsistent with the state program.44 

In the event of a disagreement between a state management program and a federal agency, either party may 

request that the Secretary of Commerce mediate the dispute. All parties must agree to participate, agreement 

 

40 43 U.S.C. 1351(h)(1). 

41 16 U.S.C. § 1456(d); 15 CFR pt 930, subparts A, B, and F (as revised by 65 Fed. Reg. 77,123-77,175 (Dec. 8, 2000)). 

42 NOAA, Federal Consistency Requirements, July 31, 2003 at 9. 

43 16 U.S.C. § 1456(h). 

44 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(A)-(B) and (d). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

26 Chapter 2: Coastal Management 

to participate is nonbinding, and either party may withdraw from the mediation at any time. Secretarial 

mediation is a formal process that includes a public hearing, submission of written briefs, and meetings 

between the parties. A hearing officer, appointed by the Secretary, will propose a solution. Secretarial 

mediation is only for states and federal agencies and exhaustion of the mediation process is not a prerequisite 

to judicial review. The availability of secretarial mediation or litigation does not preclude the parties from 

informally mediating the dispute through NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, or 

another facilitator. 

In the case of a federal license or permit, an OCS exploration or development plan, or an application for 

federal financial assistance, the applicant may request that the Secretary of Commerce override the state’s 

consistency objection if the activity is consistent with the objectives of the CZMA (Ground I), or is otherwise 

necessary in the interest of national security (Ground II).45 If the requirements of either Ground I or Ground 

II are met, the Secretary overrides the state’s objection.46 The Secretary’s inquiry into whether the grounds for 

an override have been met is based upon an administrative record developed for the appeal. While the 

Secretary will review the state objection for CZMA compliance, e.g., whether the objection is based on 

enforceable policies, the Secretary does not review the objection for compliance with state laws and policies. 

If the Secretary overrides the state’s objection, the authorizing federal agency may permit or fund the activity. 

A secretarial override does not obviate the need for an applicant to obtain any state permits or authorizations. 

The secretarial appeal process is a final federal agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act and is a 

necessary administrative action prior to litigation.47

Related to the appeal process is the question of who has authority to appeal or even enforce consistency 

decisions. Courts have found that the CZMA does not create a right for private citizens or local governments 

to sue to enjoin construction of developments that are inconsistent with a federally approved state 

management program.48 

Interstate Consistency

The federal consistency provisions can also lead to interstate conflicts when an applicant’s activity in one 

state, which requires a federal permit or approval, is not consistent with the coastal program policies of 

another state. The CZMA does not specifically address whether the consistency process applies in such 

situations, but courts have reviewed the possibility. For example, in 1994, the state of North Carolina 

objected to water being drawn from Lake Gaston, on the boundary between it and Virginia, to provide water 

to Virginia Beach. On the appeal of North Carolina’s finding that the activity was inconsistent with its coastal 

program, the Secretary of Commerce found that the plain language of the statute required that the federal 

government apply the consistency provision to such activities. The Secretary stated: 

 

45 Id. 

46 The requirements for appeals are found at 15 C.F.R. pt. 930, subpart H, as revised by 65 Fed. Reg. 77,123-77,175 (Dec. 8, 

2000). 

47 NOAA, Federal Consistency Requirements, July 31, 2003, at 9. 

48 City of Sausalito v. O’Neil, No. C-01-01819 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Cal. July 3, 2002; Lincoln City v. U.S., Civil No. 99-330-AS (D.C. 

Ore. April 17, 2001); See also Town of North Hempstead v. Village of North Hills, 482 F. Supp. 900 (E.D.N.Y. 1979) (finding the 

CZMA “is neither a jurisdictional grant, nor a basis for stating a claim upon which relief can be granted,” the court dismissed a CZMA 

claim against a village by neighboring town). See also Save Our Dunes v. Alabama Dep’t of Envtl. Management, 834 F.2d 984 (11th 

Cir. 1987) (holding plaintiffs had no standing to appeal a coastal permit decision); But see City and County of San Francisco v. 

United States, 443 F. Supp. 1116 (N.D. Cal 1977), affirmed, 615 F.2d 498 (9th Cir. 1980). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 2: Coastal Management 27

While the CZMA does not give one state direct authority to control activities in another 

state, the CZMA does grant to states with federally approved coastal management programs 

the right to seek conditions on or prohibit the issuance of federal permits and licenses that 

would “affect” their state. Thus, Congress has, in effect, granted to states with a federally 

approved coastal management program, in exchange for their protecting the nation’s coasts, 

the right to ensure that federal permittees and licensees will not further degrade those coasts. 

The ability to prevent the granting of federal permits and licenses is a federal authority, 

which has been granted to coastal states, not a state authority which has been usurped from 

the states. However, as a safeguard to a state’s unrestrained use of this authority, an applicant 

can, as the City has, appeal for an override by the Secretary of Commerce.49

Ultimately, the Secretary of Commerce did override North Carolina’s objection, thereby allowing the City of 

Virginia Beach to obtain federal permits to build a pipeline for the withdrawal of water from Lake Gaston.50 

Regulations adopted in 2000 endorse interstate use of the consistency process.51 The regulations were revised 

to provide a process for a coastal state to review a federal action occurring in another state that will have 

coastal effects in the reviewing coastal state.52 

Regulation of Coastal Development 

Coastal places—including beaches, dunes, and barrier islands—are sensitive natural areas, but are also among 

the most attractive for recreation and development. Development on beaches and dunes can cause serious 

erosion, resulting in the loss of recreation areas, habitat, and storm protection. Federal, state, and local 

governments have, perhaps inadvertently, encouraged growth in sensitive coastal areas by providing funding 

and assistance for activities such as construction of roads, bridges, and other infrastructure, flood insurance, 

and disaster relief. 

Governments can employ several different methods for regulating development on beaches, dunes, and 

barrier islands. Withholding infrastructure funding and other types of governmental support for development 

on barrier islands is an indirect way of controlling growth that government subsidies often stimulate. 

Governments also regulate growth directly through land use planning and by restricting or prohibiting 

structures in sensitive or hazard-prone areas. 

Infrastructure Funding 

Much of the burgeoning development in coastal areas could not happen without federal and state assistance 

and subsidies. As discussed earlier in this chapter, through the passage of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

(CBRA)53 and establishment of the John H. Chaffee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), Congress 

expressed its intent to minimize the loss of human life, wasteful federal expenditures, and damage to fish, 

wildlife, and other natural resources associated with coastal barriers, such as barrier islands. Under the Act, 

the federal government discourages development on designated coastal barriers by restricting certain federal 

financial assistance, covering a broad range of flood insurance and public works benefits, including U.S. Army 

 

49 See City of Virginia Beach v. Brown, 858 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. Va. 1994). 

50 In the Consistency Appeal of the Virginia Electric and Power Company from an Objection by the North Carolina Department of 

Environment, Health and Natural Resources, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Secretary (1994). 

51 See 15 C.F.R. § 930.150. 

52 The interstate regulations are found at 15 C.F.R. pt. 930, subpart I, as revised by 65 Fed. Reg. 77,123-77,175 (Dec. 8, 2000).

53 16 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3510. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

28 Chapter 2: Coastal Management 

Corps of Engineers projects. The program is designed to impose the full costs of development on the 

developer or property owner. 

While the CBRA has slowed growth and discouraged development on coastal barrier islands, the extent to 

which its approach is working is mixed. Some states have followed the lead of CBRA, limiting state 

expenditures on coastal barrier islands.54 Other state and local governments, however, thwart the intent of 

CBRA by creating their own subsidies that encourage potentially unwise development that may otherwise not 

have been possible. In addition, CBRA’s geographic range is limited, and some areas have been exempted 

from the system by acts of Congress.55 Additionally, CBRA does not limit federal expenditures for coastal 

barriers that were developing or already developed at the time of the Act’s passage,56 prevent private 

developments within the CBRS, nor constrain the issuance of federal permits necessary for development. 

Also, as noted, it does not prevent states from providing financial assistance for projects that are within the

CBRS. As a result, private developments, while slowed in many areas, have continued in others despite the 

withdrawal of federal support.57

Coastal Construction Regulation 

Coastal states have attempted to protect coastlines from harmful development using a number of different 

regulatory tools. In many instances, they have developed permit systems to restrict development in fragile 

coastal regions, although laws vary considerably from state to state with respect to stringency, focus, and 

clarity. Some states set forth explicit directives, such as requiring a permit for certain designated activities, or 

for all activities within a designated coastal region. Others have detailed provisions to conserve specific 

resources or provide public beach access. 

Many coastal states have implemented a retreat policy to some degree by creating zones at the ocean’s edge 

where development is prohibited or strictly regulated. Referred to as setback restrictions, they generally 

prohibit or limit construction in areas within a prescribed distance from a baseline, usually the mean high 

water line, the vegetation line, or a line associated with the primary dune. 

Coastal Management and the Takings Issue 

The “takings” clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from taking 

private property for public use without just compensation.58 When there has been a permanent physical 

invasion of land by the government, it is generally incontrovertible that there has been a taking of private 

property that requires compensation.59

In addition to instances of physical invasion or government confiscation of property, a government 

regulation, such as a limitation on coastal development, may be recognized as a taking if it “goes too far.”60

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that “government hardly could go on if to some extent values 

incident to property could not be diminished without paying for every such change in the general law...when 

 

54 Fla. Stat. § 380.27(1). 

55 For example, see Pub. L. 106-116, Section 1 (1999); Pub. L. 106-128 (1998); Pub. L. 105-277 (1998). 

56 Rutherford H. Platt, Disasters and Democracy: The Politics of Extreme Natural Events, at 30 (Island Press 1999). 

57 Coastal Barrier Resources System Fact Sheet, available at http://www.fws.gov/cep/cbrfact.html (accessed June 4, 2004). 

58 U.S. CONST. amend. V. 

59 Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982). 

60 Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415 (1922). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 2: Coastal Management 29

it reaches a certain magnitude, in most if not all cases, there must be an exercise of eminent domain and 

compensation to sustain the act.”61 More recent Supreme Court cases have placed emphasis on the economic 

impact of the regulation on the property owner and the degree to which the owner’s distinct investmentbacked expectations have been frustrated.62 

Determining the appropriate balance between regulation of coastal lands and private property interests makes 

takings issues a significant policy dilemma for coastal managers. Beachfront property owners often find there 

is little flexibility for locating structures on their land. Setback lines and other restrictive zones may 

encompass the entire lot. In addition, coastal construction regulations may disproportionately affect 

unimproved lots in developed coastal areas. All of these factors make regulation of coastal construction 

particularly susceptible to claims that a regulation equals a taking of beachfront property. 

While no set formula exists for determining when a government regulation of private property amounts to a 

regulatory taking, the Supreme Court has held that when the landowner has lost all economically beneficial 

use of the property, a taking has occurred. In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council,

63 developer David Lucas 

sued South Carolina for denying him the right to build residential homes on two waterfront lots on a South 

Carolina barrier island. The South Carolina Coastal Council denied his building permit under authority of the 

state’s Beachfront Management Act, which limited development behind the setback line, effectively 

prohibiting Lucas from building any structures on the property. The Court held that a taking had occurred 

because the state’s actions had deprived the land of all of its economic viability. 

Public Access to Beaches and Shores 

Coastal population growth and increased tourism have accelerated public demand for beach access. At the 

same time, fewer shoreline areas are available as they are developed or set aside to protect sensitive habitats. 

Although the geographic definition is subject to some variability from state to state, generally the beach below 

the high tide line is held by the state in trust for the public, and is open to all for swimming, recreation, 

fishing, and other uses. 

As a general rule, lateral or horizontal access along the wet sand area is a public right. While the area above 

the high tide line is subject to private ownership, the public may acquire the right to use perpendicular access 

routes to reach the wet sand area or to use the dry sand area. These rights arise under common law doctrines, 

including public easements by prescription, dedication, or customary use. 

In addition, many states have created rights of public access through legislation or regulation. The CZMA 

encourages states to provide for public access for recreational purposes in their state coastal management 

programs.64 Before the Secretary of Commerce can approve a state’s program, the program must define the 

term “beach” and have a planning process for access to public beaches and “other public coastal areas of 

environmental, recreational, historical, esthetic, ecological, or cultural value.”65 

 

61 Id. at 413. 

62 Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). 

63 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). See also John Tibbetts, Beachfront Battles over Seawalls, 12 

Coastal Heritage 3 (1997) (discussing the current issue between regulators in South Carolina and North Carolina prohibiting the

building of seawalls and beachfront property owners claiming that seawalls are the only method of saving their property from falling 

into the sea due to extreme erosion). 

64 16 U.S.C. § 1452 (2)(E). 

65 16 U.S.C. § 1455(d)(2)(G). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

30 Chapter 2: Coastal Management 

Statutory and regulatory access requirements have, however, been subject to challenges that authorizing 

access across private property constitutes a “taking.” In Nollan v. California Coastal Commission,

66 owners of 

beachfront property objected to the California Coastal Commission’s conditioning a permit to demolish a 

small house on the property to replace it with a larger house on the owners granting an easement for lateral 

public access across the property above the high water mark. The Supreme Court held that the condition 

would constitute a taking because it was not sufficiently related to the legitimate purposes underlying the 

state’s authority to restrict development. In Dolan v. City of Tigard,67 the Court applied the standard of a clear 

nexus between the government interest to be advanced and the regulation imposed. In that case, the Court 

held that if the state has both a legitimate interest, such as preventing erosion or protecting a floodplain, and 

the exactions bear a relationship to the impact of the proposed development, then the state’s requirements 

will not be considered a taking.68

 

66 Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987). 

67 Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). For a complete analysis of Dolan, see James H. Freis, Jr. & Stefan V. Reyniak, 

Putting Takings Back into the Fifth Amendment: Land Use Planning After Dolan v. City of Tigard, 21 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 103 (1996). 

68 Id. For a complete analysis of Dolan, see James H. Freis, Jr. & Stefan V. Reyniak, Putting Takings Back into the Fifth 

Amendment: Land Use Planning After Dolan v. City of Tigard, 21 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 103 (1996). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 31

CHAPTER 3 

LIVING MARINE RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION 

Managing living marine resources ranges from assuring that the resource is maintained at sustainable levels 

for food and other uses, to protecting the health and biodiversity of an ecosystem, to preventing extinction of 

certain species. When attempting to manage individual species in the marine environment, these goals may 

collide: an exploitable species becomes endangered; an endangered species requires an exploitable species for 

food or its habitat to survive; harvesting one species has secondary impacts on a protected species or its 

habitat; or the harvesting of one species impacts the viability of another in the ecosystem. This chapter 

discusses the primary federal statutes enacted to manage living marine resources and addresses some of the 

difficult balancing goals inherent in this area of marine policy. 

GOVERNING STATUTES 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires management of fisheries to 

conserve the resource to produce a sustainable yield. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) attempts to protect 

threatened and endangered species and provide for their recovery. The Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) protects marine mammals that are in danger of extinction or depletion, and also controls the taking 

of healthy populations to keep them at optimum sustainable levels. These statutes interact with other federal 

and state laws and international treaties as they are applied to living marine resources. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

Prior to 1977, states were the primary managers of U.S. fisheries. Since colonial times, states regulated 

fisheries in inland waters, the 3 mile territorial sea, and beyond. The Submerged Lands Act of 19531

confirmed state jurisdiction by specifically granting the states “title to and ownership of . . . natural 

resources,” including the “right and power to manage, administer, lease, develop and use” marine resources 

within their boundaries, generally up to 3 miles offshore.2 In Skiriotes v. Florida,

3 the U.S. Supreme Court also 

recognized the right of a state to regulate the activities of its citizens outside territorial waters, stating: 

If the United States may control the conduct of its citizens upon the high seas, we see no 

reason why the state of Florida may not likewise govern the conduct of its citizens upon the 

high seas with respect to matters in which the state has a legitimate interest and where there 

is no conflict with acts of Congress. Save for the powers committed by the Constitution to 

 

1

 Pub. L. 83-31, 67 Stat. 29 (1953), (codified at 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1315 (2002). 

2

 43 U.S.C. § 1311(a). Florida’s and Texas’ state waters extend 9 miles in the Gulf of Mexico. 

3

 313 U.S. 69 (1941). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

32 Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 

the Union, the state of Florida has retained the status of a sovereign. . . . 

. . . When its action does not conflict with federal legislation, the sovereign authority of the 

state over the conduct of its citizens upon the high seas is analogous to the sovereign 

authority of the United States over its citizens in like circumstances. 

In addition, citizens are subject to regulation by other states within the waters of such states. State regulation 

cannot, however, unreasonably discriminate against citizens of other states.4 Less clear has been the extent to 

which a state can regulate citizens of other states beyond state waters. Indirect regulation of citizens of other 

states can occur through state use of landing and possession laws to enforce its regulations. In addition to 

regulating state citizens and other fishermen within state waters, these types of laws indirectly and incidentally 

affect fisheries and fishermen outside the state. Prior to 1977, the Supreme Court upheld these laws when 

necessary for effective enforcement of state fishery legislation, in spite of the impacts on interstate 

commerce.5 Some states, notably Alaska, have asserted jurisdiction to directly regulate citizens of other states 

beyond state waters. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed this issue, the Alaska Supreme 

Court has held that legitimate state interests can justify direct state regulation of activities beyond state 

boundaries.6 

Foreign fishing in seas off U.S. coasts increased dramatically in the decades after World War II. 

Developments in fishing technology and the growth of offshore foreign fishing fleets resulted in significantly 

increasing fish catches. Countries like the United States and Canada were seeing the overexploitation of 

resources off their shores by growing foreign fishing fleets and finding that their relatively small and 

unsophisticated fleets were at a severe competitive disadvantage. Multilateral treaties and regional fishery 

organizations attempted to address the depletion of fish stocks. However, neither international agreements 

nor the creation of a 12 mile fishing zone around the United States in 19647 were slowing the depletion of 

fish stocks. Freedom of the high seas was quickly leading to a classic tragedy of the commons.8

By the early 1970s, a number of countries were asserting extended fishery jurisdiction. As the United Nations 

convened the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) in 1973, issues 

concerning coastal nation jurisdiction and the conservation of fish stocks were of central concern. 

 

4

 See Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948) (South Carolina law that charged a $25 fee for a shrimping license for residents and a 

$2500 license fee for nonresidents violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution); Torao Takahashi v. Fish & 

Game Comm’n, 334 U.S. 410 (1948) (California law prohibiting “persons ineligible for citizenship” from obtaining commercial fishing 

licenses violated the Equal Protection Clause when applied to discriminate against resident aliens); Douglas v. Seacoast Prods., 

Inc., 431 U.S. 265 (1977) (discrimination against vessels not meeting a Virginia statute’s citizenship requirements was preempted by 

federal licensing and enrollment statutes). 

5

 Bayside Fish Flour Company v. Gentry, 297 U.S. 422 (1936) (upholding a landing law on sardines to prevent waste and conserve 

the fish within California waters even though the state law indirectly regulated beyond state waters and had some effect on interstate 

commerce). 

6

 State v. Bundrant, 546 P.2d 530 (Alaska 1976) (state had legitimate interest in regulation of the offshore crab fishery and the 

regulation was necessary in light of the importance of conservation of the fishery). 

7 See e.g., Bartlett Act, Pub. L. No. 88-308, 78 Stat. 194 (1964) (previously codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1081-86) (3 mile territorial sea 

jurisdiction); Pub. L. No. 89-658, 80 Stat. 908 (1966) (previously codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1091-94) (3 to 12 mile conservation zone 

jurisdiction) (both repealed by the Magnuson Act, title IV, § 402(a), (b), 90 Stat. at 360). 

8

 The tragedy of the commons is a parable used to explain the decline of resources held in common with other people, focusing on a 

pasture that herders use in common for grazing their cattle. Problems arise when the number of animals reaches the carrying 

capacity of the pasture but in order to gain extra profits, herders add additional animals to the common pasture. The continual

addition of animals eventually leads to overgrazing of the pasture. The end result is the destruction of the pasture. Garrett Hardin, 

The Tragedy of the Commons, SCI., Dec. 13, 1968, at 1243, 1245. See also Patrick A. Nickler, A Tragedy of the Commons in 

Coastal Fisheries: Contending Prescriptions for Conservation, and the Case of the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna, 26 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 

549 (1999). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 33

Early in UNCLOS III negotiations, substantial consensus was reached that coastal nations should have 

sovereign rights over fishery resources to 200 miles offshore, but it was clear that conclusion of the 

conference was nowhere in sight. The concern of Congress that negotiations were proceeding too slowly to 

prevent the decimation of offshore fisheries and the U.S. fishing industry led to passage in 1976 of the 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act, now named the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).9 The Act extended exclusive U.S. fishery jurisdiction to 200 miles 

offshore, a distance that became coterminous with the outer limit of the U.S. exclusive economic zone 

(EEZ).10 For purposes of applying the Act, the inner boundary of the EEZ is defined as a line coterminous 

with the seaward boundary of each of the coastal states,11 which is 3 miles offshore except for the 9 mile 

boundaries of Texas, Florida in the Gulf of Mexico, and Puerto Rico.12 

Within the EEZ, as defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the United States claims exclusive authority to 

manage and regulate all fisheries. Management authority over anadromous species spawning inside the United 

States (e.g., salmon) is claimed throughout their migratory range in the high seas beyond the EEZ. The Act 

originally excluded tuna from the EEZ management regime; however, amendments in 1990 extended the 

Act’s jurisdiction to include all fish in the EEZ, but committed the United States to cooperate with 

international organizations to manage highly migratory species throughout their range. The policies and 

purposes of the Act address the conservation, development, and management of fishery resources and also 

the development of domestic commercial and recreational fishing. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act established eight regional fishery management councils (RFMCs) to develop 

management plans13 that are implemented and enforced through regulations established by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), an agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce. The RFMCs include 

a NMFS regional director and state fishery management officers, as well as non-governmental representatives 

from each affected state who are recommended by state governors and appointed by the Secretary of 

Commerce. The appointed council members, who constitute more than half of the membership, must be 

knowledgeable about fishery conservation and management, commercial or recreational fishing, or the fishery 

resources of a region. 

The Act contains detailed descriptions of the required and optional elements of fishery management plans 

(FMPs) and includes ten national standards that provide overarching principles to guide the entire fishery 

management process. FMPs, their amendments, and proposed regulations, are approved by the Secretary of 

Commerce if they are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other laws. 

Although a major impetus for the Magnuson-Stevens Act was the eventual exclusion of foreign fishermen, 

the law allows foreign fishing in the U.S. EEZ to the extent that the yield in fisheries exceeds domestic 

harvesting capacity (as determined in the FMP) and then only when pursuant to a fishing treaty or 

international agreement. The combination of a growing U.S. effort and declining stocks quickly pushed 

foreign fishermen from the U.S. EEZ. 

 

9

 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1882 (2002). 

10 The Act originally designated the management area a fishery conservation zone, but it was later amended to reflect the 1983 U.S. 

claim to a 200 mile EEZ that incorporated fishery management jurisdiction. 

11 16 U.S.C. § 1802 (11).

12 As noted in Chapter 1, the 1953 Submerged Lands Act gave states title to the submerged lands 3 miles from their coastline, with 

a few exceptions. Submerged Lands Act, Pub. L. 83-31, 67 Stat. 29 (1953), (codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1315). In 

the Gulf of Mexico, Florida and Texas both claim 9 miles. Puerto Rico has a 9 mile territorial sea pursuant to 48 U.S.C. § 749.

13 Management plans for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species are developed by NOAA and are an exception to the council 

management system. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

34 Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 

Two important terms that are used with reference to U.S. fishery management are maximum sustainable yield

(MSY) and optimum yield (OY). The Magnuson-Stevens Act uses MSY as a tool to measure the fish that can be 

sustainably harvested. MSY is defined as the largest average catch that can be taken continuously from a stock 

under average environmental conditions. OY is defined as the harvest level for a species that achieves the 

greatest overall benefits, including economic, social, and biological considerations; in contrast, MSY considers 

only the biology of the species. 

Although the Magnuson-Stevens Act continued to evolve in the decades after its enactment, reauthorization 

legislation in 1996 arguably brought about the most significant changes to the law since its passage in 1976. 

The Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA)14 carried a number of major modifications and added several new 

concepts and requirements to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These included major changes and new elements in 

the fishery management process and reflected international developments in resource management principles. 

Some of the most important new elements are: 

• Requiring that RFMCs define and develop plans to prevent overfishing and restore stocks that are already 

overfished. 

• Providing that MSY creates a ceiling on OY. 

• Requiring FMPs to identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for each fishery, minimize to the extent 

practicable the adverse impact of fishing activities on EFH, and identify other actions to conserve and 

enhance EFH. 

• Incorporating three new national standards: Standard 8 concerning the economic impact of regulatory 

measures on fishing communities; Standard 9 requiring FMPs to minimize to the extent practicable the 

bycatch of non-target species; and Standard 10 promoting the safety of human life at sea. 

The SFA amendments imposed ambitious timelines for implementation of these far-reaching reforms. NMFS 

and the RFMCs have made progress in implementing the provisions of the SFA amendments, but problems 

such as scarce funding, lack of adequate scientific information, and frequent litigation over SFA amendment 

provisions have contributed to significant delays in implementation of some provisions. 

In general, an indicator of the complexity and difficulty in implementation of fishery management measures is 

the increase in fishery litigation. More lawsuits were filed in 1997 than in any of the prior years of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act’s history and the number of challenges has remained at a high level. 

NMFS and the RFMCs have been criticized by the fishing industry, environmental groups, and some 

members of Congress over the implementation of the SFA amendments. Among the complaints are that 

NMFS has been excessively slow in providing guidance to the RFMCs and lax in its oversight. The RFMCs 

have been accused of only minimally implementing or failing to comply with the standards of the MagnusonStevens Act, particularly as amended by the SFA. The fishing industry has challenged new regulations and 

quotas as unsupported by sufficient scientific evidence and disregarding economic impacts. The courts have 

also joined the critics. In Conservation Law Foundation v. Evans, for example, a federal district court reprimanded 

the agency for its “record of inaction and delay.”15

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

Congress passed the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)16 in 1972, motivated in part by public concern 

for the increasing mortality of marine mammals. The MMPA is different in the sense that it uses management 

principles that focus on the health of marine mammal populations, rather than yield, and in its fundamental 

 

14 Pub. L. 104-297 (Oct. 11, 1996), 110 Stat. 355 (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.). 

15 209 F. Supp. 2d 1, 10 (D.D.C. 2001). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 35

approach of establishing a moratorium on the taking of all marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. 

citizens on the high seas. This moratorium is not absolute, however, and contains a waiver provision, an 

exemption for Alaskan Natives, and a number of other exceptions. 

The MMPA authorizes two agencies to manage marine mammal populations. NMFS has jurisdiction over 

cetaceans, which include whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, and sea lions.17 The U.S. Department of the 

Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for all other marine mammals, including 

polar bears, walruses, sea otters, manatees, and dugongs.18

The starting point for the protection afforded by the MMPA is a moratorium on the taking and importation 

of marine mammals and marine mammal products. The Act defines the term ‘take’ to mean “to harass, hunt, 

capture, or kill . . . or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”19 To authorize a waiver of the moratorium, 

the Secretary of Commerce or the Interior must determine that a species or stock is at its “optimum 

sustainable population” (OSP)20 and that the waiver will not disadvantage the population, i.e., that it will not 

reduce the population below that level. Waivers on the importation of marine mammals or products require 

the Secretary to certify that the program for taking marine mammals in the country of origin is “consistent” 

with the MMPA. Taking marine mammals subject to a waiver of the moratorium is procedurally complex, 

requiring formal rulemaking. If regulations are promulgated, permits are issued that set out the number and 

kind of animals to be taken, the time period and place, and other conditions. 

The MMPA also contains several significant statutory exceptions to the moratorium: 

• The Secretary may issue permits “for purposes of scientific research, public display, photography for 

educational or commercial purposes, or enhancing the survival or recovery of a species or stock.”21

Applicants must justify the need for taking the animal. Permits for lethal research are issued only in 

limited circumstances when alternatives are not feasible. Public display permits are limited to applicants 

who meet Animal Welfare Act licensing requirements and who offer public programs with education or 

conservation purposes that are based on professionally recognized standards in the public display 

community. A permit for public display may not be issued for a stock which has been designated by the 

Secretary as depleted. 

• Another exception, added by amendments in 1981, authorizes the Secretary to permit the unintentional 

taking of “small numbers of marine mammals” incidental to activities other than fishing, such as outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas development, seismic survey activity, and military activities.22 The 

Secretary is required to make specific findings that the incidental taking will have a “negligible impact” on 

the species. Small take authorizations are allowed even for depleted species. 

• Amendments to the Act enacted in 1994 added an exception to the moratorium for taking marine 

mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations.23

 16 Pub. L. 92-522, (Oct. 21, 972), 86 Stat 1027 (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq.). 

17 16 U.S.C. § 1362(12)(A)(i). 

18 16 U.S.C. § 1362(12)(A)(ii). 

19 16 U.S.C. § 1362(13). 

20 The term optimum sustainable population means, with respect to any population stock, the number of animals that will result in the 

maximum productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the 

ecosystem of which they form a constituent element. 

21 16 U.S.C. § 1371 (a)(1). 

22 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(5). 

23 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(2). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

36 Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 

• Other exceptions allow marine mammals to be taken for their protection or welfare, or for the protection 

of the public health and welfare, to deter marine mammals from damaging property (including fishing 

gear and catch), or when necessary to protect human life.24

The MMPA also contains an exemption from the moratorium on takings by Alaskan Natives (Indian, Aleut, 

or Eskimo) if the taking is for subsistence purposes or creating “authentic native articles of handicrafts and 

clothing” and is not accomplished in a wasteful manner.25

Since its enactment in 1972, the MMPA and the management of marine mammals has been governed by a 

single focus—maintenance of a species or stock at its OSP. Amendments in 1981 added the current 

definition of OSP and clarified the definition of “depleted” to refer to a population below OSP. The 1994 

amendments reconciled the provisions of the MMPA with the impact of incidental taking of marine 

mammals in commercial fishing operations. A 1988 judicial ruling had threatened to close numerous major 

fisheries because the court found that incidental take permits were required for the fisheries, but that permits 

could not be issued for healthy stocks if it were likely that marine mammals from depleted stocks or of 

unknown status would also be taken.26 In response to that ruling, Congress enacted a five-year interim 

exemption on the incidental take provisions while NMFS developed a management regime concerning the 

effects of commercial fishing on marine mammals. 

The 1994 amendments authorized the continued taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing, 

but with an immediate goal of reducing mortality to less than the stocks’ potential biological removal (PBR) 

level27 and a longer term goal of reducing mortality and serious injury to marine mammals in the course of 

such operations to “insignificant levels approaching zero mortality and serious injury rate.”28 PBR was 

introduced as an alternative mechanism of setting acceptable take levels that would allow depleted stocks to 

recover without undue delay and would maintain healthy stocks within their OSP range. 

The amendments included requirements to: 

• Prepare assessments for all marine mammals in U.S. waters. 

• Develop and implement take reduction plans for “strategic stocks of marine mammals which interact 

with commercial fisheries that the Secretary has determined have frequent or occasional incidental 

mortality and serious injury of marine mammals.”29 

• Study pinniped-fishery interactions.

While the 1994 amendments have been considered by some commentators to signal a change in the dominant 

policy of the MMPA from one of preservation to one of resource management, the PBR approach is 

confined to incidental taking by commercial fisheries and designed to assure that stocks stay within OSP or 

recover without appreciable delay. 

 

24 Specifically, the statute provides for permits for photography for educational or commercial purposes and for importation of polar 

bear parts taken in sport hunts in Canada, 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(1), 16 U.S.C. § 1374(c)(5), (6); the use of measures by certain listed 

people to deter marine mammals for listed purposes, 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(4); import of a marine mammal product under listed 

circumstances in conjunction with travel or cultural exchange, 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(6); taking in defense of self or others, 16 U.S.C. 

§ 1371(c); the good Samaritan exemption, 16 U.S.C. § 1371(d); any marine mammal or marine mammal product taken before the 

effective date of the Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1372(e); and taking of marine mammals as part of official duties, 16 U.S.C. § 1379(h). 

25 16 U.S.C. § 1371(b). 

26 Kokechick Fishermen’s Association v. Secretary of Commerce, 839 F.2d 795 (D.C. Cir. 1988). 

27 The term potential biological removal level means the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be 

removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population. 

28 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(2). 

29 16 U.S.C. § 1387(f). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 37

Numerous major amendments to the MMPA specifically addressed dolphin mortality in commercial tuna 

fishing. The 1981 amendments required that dolphin mortality be reduced to “insignificant levels.” In 1988 

amendments, Congress required observers on all U.S. tuna boats and provided for trade sanctions for 

countries that did not reduce dolphin mortality in their tuna fisheries to levels comparable to the United 

States. The International Dolphin Conservation Act of 1992 imposed a five-year moratorium on tuna 

harvesting with purse seines and lifted embargoes against countries committing to the moratorium and 

international cooperation in the reduction of dolphin mortality. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (NDAA) made three significant changes to the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act. First, the NDAA modified the definition of “harassment” as it applies to 

military readiness activities and scientific research conducted by or on behalf of the federal government. This 

modification affects whether a particular activity will be considered a “taking” under the MMPA. Second, the 

NDAA modified the review process for “incidental take” permits by requiring the reviewing Secretary, in 

consultation with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), to consider impacts on the effectiveness of the 

military readiness activity that may result in the taking. Under this provision DOD is also exempt from 

certain standards for evaluating the impact of its military readiness activities on marine mammals. Third, the 

NDAA granted the Secretary of Defense broad authority to exempt any actions undertaken by DOD from 

compliance with any requirement of the MMPA for a period of up to two years if necessary for “national 

defense.” This exemption may subsequently be renewed every two years thereafter for an indefinite period of 

time. The Secretary of Defense is required to consult with the appropriate Secretary under the MMPA prior 

to approving the original exemption and any subsequent extensions.30 

Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)31 created the current regulatory regime for threatened and 

endangered species, providing for the conservation of species that are in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of their range.32 “Species” includes a species, a subspecies or, for vertebrates only, a 

distinct population segment. Species that are determined likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 

future are listed as “threatened.”33 USFWS administers ESA activities for terrestrial and freshwater species; 

NMFS is responsible for marine and anadromous species. The discussion in this chapter focuses on the role 

of NMFS, although USFWS also has authority to manage a number of species found within the marine 

environment. 

Any individual or organization may petition to have a species considered for listing as endangered or 

threatened under the ESA. Within ninety days of the filing of a listing petition, the agency must determine 

whether the petition presents substantial information that listing may be warranted. A status review of the 

species is then triggered. NMFS or USFWS can also initiate a status review of a species independently. A 

species is to be listed if it is threatened or endangered by any of the following circumstances: 

• Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range. 

• Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. 

• Disease or predation. 

 

30 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Pub L. 108-136, 117 Stat 1392, § 319: Military Readiness and Marine 

Mammal Protection (2003). 

31 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544. 

32 16 U.S.C. § 1532(6). 

33 16 U.S.C. § 1532(20). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

38 Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 

• Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. 

• Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.34

The listing decision must be based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, not on 

economic factors. When a species is listed, NMFS or USFWS is required to develop and implement a 

recovery plan for the conservation and survival of the species. 

To the “maximum extent prudent and determinable,” the Secretary of Commerce or the Interior must make 

critical habitat designations concurrently with the listing of a species. “Critical habitats” for endangered or 

threatened species are areas that are “essential to the conservation of the species” that may require “special 

management considerations or protection.” Designation of critical habitat must be based on “the best 

scientific data,” but unlike listing decisions, is to consider the economic impact of the designation. Areas can 

be excluded from critical habitat designation when the economic impacts of the designation outweigh the 

benefits of including the areas, unless the failure to designate the critical habitat will result in extinction of the 

species. 

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits any person subject to U.S. jurisdiction from “taking” any endangered species 

within the territorial sea or on the high seas and from importing or exporting such species.35 The term “take” 

means “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect. . . or attempt to engage in 

any such conduct.”36 Prohibited takings include significant habitat modifications that kill or injure listed 

species by altering their essential behavior patterns.37

The ESA contains a number of exceptions to the takings prohibition. NMFS or USFWS may issue permits 

for scientific purposes, to enhance survival, and for the establishment of experimental populations. Like the 

MMPA, the ESA contains an exemption for the taking of endangered or threatened species by Alaska 

Natives, who may also sell the non-edible byproducts of the wildlife when incorporated into “authentic native 

articles of handicrafts and clothing.”38

Amendments to the ESA passed in 1982 created an incidental take exception. NMFS or USFWS may permit 

a taking of an endangered species that is “incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an 

otherwise lawful activity.”39 Applicants for an incidental taking permit must submit a conservation plan that 

specifies: 1) the impact of the taking; 2) a mitigation plan that specifies measures to be taken to minimize the 

impacts and that assures adequate funding is available; and 3) the alternative actions considered and why they 

were not adopted. After the opportunity for public comment, the permit may be issued if the Secretary finds 

that the applicant has adequate funding to implement the conservation plan and that “the taking will not 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild.” The ESA also 

contains a separate incidental taking exception for actions funded, authorized, or carried out by federal 

agencies under similar circumstances.40

 

34 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1). 

35 While the statute does not define the term territorial sea specifically, it was enacted in 1973, before the presidential proclamation 

in 1988 that extended the territorial sea from 3 to 12 miles for international purposes only. 

36 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19). 

37 See Sweet Home v. Babbitt, 515 U.S. 687 (1995). 

38 16 U.S.C. § 1539(e)(1)(B). 

39 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(1)(B). 

40 16 U.S.C. § 1539 (b)(4). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 39

Section 7 of the ESA requires all federal agencies to consult with NMFS or USFWS under certain 

circumstances. The Act provides that: 

Each federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, 

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 habitat of such species which is determined by 

the Secretary . . . to be critical. . . .41 

After initiation of consultation . . . the federal agency and the permit or license applicant 

shall not make any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources . . . which has the 

effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any reasonable and prudent 

alternative measures . . . .42

When a formal consultation is required, NMFS or USFWS must prepare a “biological opinion” to determine 

whether the activity will jeopardize an endangered species or adversely modify its critical habitat. If the 

opinion makes a “jeopardy finding,” NMFS or USFWS will recommend “reasonable and prudent 

alternatives” to avoid the jeopardy to the species or adverse modification of its critical habitat. The action 

agency is not required to follow the specific recommendations, but the agency must still ensure that its action 

will not jeopardize the continued existence of a species or destruction or adverse modification of its habitat. 

The action agency must also inform NMFS or USFWS how it intends to implement the reasonable and 

prudent alternatives. This consultation process can result in complicated issues between agencies with respect 

to when consultation is required and how it is implemented.43

The ESA also establishes the Endangered Species Committee (sometimes referred to as the “God squad”) 

which is made up of the Secretaries of Agriculture, Army, and the Interior, the Chairman of the Council of 

Economic Advisors, the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the 

Administrator of NOAA, and an individual from each affected state appointed by the President.44 The 

Endangered Species Committee, upon application from a federal agency, the governor of a state in which the 

agency action will occur, or a federal permit applicant, may determine whether an agency may be exempted 

from the requirement to ensure that its action to fund, authorize, or carry out any activity will not “be likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of [critical] habitat.”45 The committee has only been used once.46

The NDAA, referred to earlier in the section on the MMPA, also amended the ESA to allow military lands to 

be conditionally exempt from certain requirements. Since 1997, DOD has been required to prepare an 

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) for each military installation in the United States 

having significant natural resources. The Act grants the Secretary of the Interior authority to exclude military 

 

41 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). 

42 16 U.S.C. § 1536(d). 

43 See Jeffrey S. Kopf, Comment, Steamrolling Section 7(d) of the Endangered Species Act: How Sunk Costs Undermine 

Environmental Regulation, 23 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 393 (1996) (discussing issues of sunk costs, the practice of irreversibly 

committing resources during consultation in order to foreclose the adoption of alternatives); and Nathan Baker, Water, Water, 

Everywhere, and At Last a Drop for Salmon? NRDC v. Houston Heralds New Prospects Under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act, 29 Envtl. L. 609 (1999) (discussing issues of agencies narrowly interpreting the types of events that trigger consultation 

and delay). 

44 16 U.S.C. § 1536(e)(1)-(2). 

45 16 U.S.C. § 1536(e)-(o). 

46 This was in the case of the spotted owl. See John Lowe Weston, The Endangered Species Committee and the Northern Spotted 

Owl: Did the “God Squad” Play God?, 7 Admin. L.J. Am. U. 779 (1994). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

40 Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 

lands from designation as critical habitat upon determining that the required INRMP already provides a 

“benefit” to the species that was to be protected. The Act also requires the appropriate Secretary to consider 

the “impact on national security,” in addition to economic and other impacts, when designating critical 

habitat. However, the Act explicitly states that DOD must continue to comply with the ESA consultation 

requirements and with the prohibitions against the taking of endangered and threatened species.47

Listing of a species can have budget and economic implications for NMFS regarding the development and 

implementation of recovery plans, and potentially serious economic impacts for the activities that may affect 

the listed species. These potential economic impacts can have major political implications. The fact that 

NMFS plays multiple roles under the ESA, MMPA, and Magnuson-Stevens Act adds yet another factor to the 

complexity of the current situation. It is not surprising that the courts have, in some cases, scrutinized agency 

actions closely when NMFS has been both the agency seeking consultation and the agency issuing the 

biological opinion, or the agency considering the listing of a species that may be affected by an FMP 

implemented by NMFS. 

SELECTED ISSUES

This section will address the major legal issues affecting management tools and agency actions, starting with 

federal and state authority for managing living marine resources. Because many living marine resources have a 

wide or changing geographic distribution during their life, jurisdiction over them can be ambiguous, with 

state, federal, and international claims to management and allocation. Once jurisdiction is established (for the 

most part at the federal level), agencies must then balance the mandates of various living marine resources 

legislation and the management tools laid out in each. 

State and Federal Jurisdictional Issues and Native American Rights

Issues of federalism and jurisdiction are significantly different in fishery management from those in the 

MMPA and the ESA. Because the states had historically managed fisheries both within and outside state 

waters, a significant proportion of fishery resource activities occur within state waters, and management 

decisions have significant local economic and social impacts, states were reluctant to relinquish authority for 

fishery management to the federal government. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act generally preserved the jurisdiction of states to regulate fisheries within their 

waters, allowing for federal intervention only if the Secretary of Commerce finds that state action or inaction 

with regard to a fishery within state waters will “substantially and adversely affect” an FMP covering a fishery 

that is predominately within the EEZ.48

States also continued to have jurisdiction over vessels “registered under the laws of that state” even in the 

EEZ beyond state waters,49 but the Act prohibited regulation by the state of a vessel in the EEZ that is not 

registered in that state. The original provision lacked important definitions and left major questions about 

preemption and the continuing scope of state authority after RFMCs began developing and implementing 

FMPs. The SFA amendments substantially amended the relevant section, but left major issues unresolved. 

Because the original provisions of the Act did not define the term “registered,” states were left with apparent 

discretion concerning its meaning. Several courts have rejected the interpretation that the term refers to 

 

47 Pub L. 108-136, 117 Stat 1392, § 318: Military Readiness and Conservation of Protected Species (2003). 

48 16 U.S.C. § 1856(b). 

49 16 U.S.C. § 1856. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 41

federal licensing and enrollment.50 States have applied creative interpretations that substantially expanded the 

definition beyond citizens of the state and vessels which are homeported or principally used in that state. As a 

result, a vessel fishing in the EEZ can be concurrently “registered” under the definitions of several states with 

different, possibly conflicting, regulations. 

The SFA amended the section to provide that a state may regulate a fishing vessel outside its boundaries 

when a fishing vessel is registered under the laws of that state, and one of two conditions apply: (1) there is 

no fishery management plan or other applicable federal fishing regulations for the fishery in which the vessel 

is operating; or (2) the state’s laws and regulations are consistent with the fishery management plan and 

applicable federal fishing regulations for the fishery in which the vessel is operating.51 Although language was 

introduced to define “registered,” no definition was included in the SFA amendments as enacted. 

The 1996 SFA amendments attempted to address the question of when states would be preempted by federal 

fishery management plans from regulating registered vessels in the EEZ. However, substantial confusion 

continued because the amendments did not entirely preempt state regulation when a federal plan and 

regulations were in place. States could still regulate state-registered vessels if their laws and regulations were 

“consistent” with “the fishery management plan and applicable federal fishing regulations.”52 The significant 

term “consistent” was not defined, however. While it is clear that less restrictive regulation would not be 

consistent with the conservation regime of FMPs, it is not entirely clear that more restrictive state regulations 

are consistent. Several courts have held that because the purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act include 

development of the fishing industry, state regulations that restrict fishing in the EEZ beyond the level 

allowed in federal FMPs are not consistent.53

Less directly, questions have arisen about whether state laws that prohibit landings of fish that can be legally 

harvested in the EEZ under an FMP are consistent.54 The language in the original Act concerning no 

“indirect regulation” in the EEZ of vessels not registered in the state called into question the use of landing 

laws, the most effective and efficient state enforcement mechanism. Although these laws operate indirectly to 

regulate vessels beyond state jurisdictions, such landing laws had long been held to be necessary for 

enforcement and have been found to be constitutional.55 

 

Most states have made the issue moot, however, by defining registered for purposes of the Act to include 

vessels owned by parties who have landing or wholesale licenses. The 1996 revisions to the provision deleted 

the language concerning direct or indirect regulation. Instead, the amendments included a number of 

circumstances in which a state could regulate fisheries beyond state waters. For example, the amendments 

contain provisions under which states, in the absence of an FMP, have jurisdiction and authority to regulate 

vessels in specifically designated areas of the EEZ, even when the vessels are not registered in the state.56 In 

addition, in certain cases, states can be delegated authority under an FMP to regulate beyond state waters if 

the state’s laws and regulations are consistent with the FMP. Again, the term “consistent” is not defined. 

Thus, fishing vessels find themselves subject to the jurisdiction of not only federal regulations when fishing in 

the EEZ, but also to the potential jurisdiction of several states. 

 

50 See People v. Weeren, 607 P.2d 1279 (Cal. 1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 839 (1980). 

51 16 U.S.C. § 1856(3)(A). 

52 16 U.S.C. § 1856(2)(A). 

53 See e.g. Southeastern Fisheries Ass’n., Inc. v. Chiles, 979 F.2d 1504 (11th Cir. 1992); State v. Sterling, 448 A.2d 785 (R.I. 1982); 

Vietnamese Fishermen Ass’n. of America v. California Dept. of Fish and Game, 816 F. Supp. 1468 (N.D. Cal. 1993). 

54 In one case, although redfish could be harvested in the Gulf of Mexico under the FMP, four out of five Gulf states prohibited or 

restricted landing of the fish. Southeastern Fisheries Ass’n. v. Mosbacher, 773 F. Supp. 435 (D.D.C. 1991). 

55 See Bayside Fish Flour Co. v. Gentry, 297 U.S. 422 (1936). 

56 16 U.S.C. § 1856(3)(B)-(C). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

42 Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 

State Jurisdiction under the MMPA and ESA

The MMPA provides that “[n]o State may enforce . . . any State law or regulation relating to the taking of any 

species of . . . marine mammal within the State unless the Secretary has transferred authority for the 

conservation and management of that species . . . to the State.”57 However, any state may enter into a 

cooperative arrangement or agreement with the appropriate federal agency for the delegation of the 

administration and enforcement of the MMPA. The Secretary may also provide funding to develop or 

administer state programs that assist with the conservation and management of marine mammals. The 

MMPA also sets out requirements for states to have management authority delegated for a species. However, 

this process involves lengthy procedures, including a formal public hearing. Only two states have ever applied 

to have management authority transferred, but in neither case was the authority delegated. 58 

In spite of clear preemption of state law, several states and territories have passed statutes regulating the 

taking of marine mammals.59 However, state attempts to regulate takings have been successfully challenged as 

preempted by the MMPA. In 2004, a federal court found that a Hawaii statute imposing a seasonal ban on 

parasailing in certain areas, although passed with the “laudable goal” of protecting humpback whales, 

specifically conflicted with an MMPA provision allowing approaches up to 100 yards from a whale, and was 

also contrary to the MMPA’s express preemption clause. For these reasons, the court determined that the 

Hawaii statute was preempted absent any evidence that the federal government had transferred appropriate 

authority to the state.60 

The ESA also provides for conservation agreements with states to protect listed species. The ESA provides 

that “the Secretary shall cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with States.”61 Upon finding that a 

state’s conservation program meets the requirements of the ESA for “an adequate and active program for the 

conservation of endangered species and threatened species,” the Secretary is required to enter into a 

cooperative management agreement with the state.62 

 

57 16 U.S.C. § 1379 (a). 

58 California first applied for a transfer of management authority over sea otters shortly after the MMPA was enacted, but withdrew 

its application when the sea otter was listed as “threatened” under the ESA. See J. Armstrong, The California Sea Otter: Emerging 

Conflicts in Resources Management, 16 San Diego L. Rev. 249 (1979). Management of walrus was transferred to Alaska in 1975. 

However, in People of Togiak v. United States, 470 F. Supp. 423 (D.D.C. 1979), the court found the transfer preempted Alaska 

regulations on subsistence hunting by Alaskan Natives. The court succinctly stated the basic policy conflict as follows: 

Substantively, two major competing policy considerations are . . . the need for protecting marine mammals from 

depletion, on the one hand, and the responsibility of the federal government to protect the way of life of the 

Alaskan Natives, including their tradition of hunting marine mammals for their subsistence, on the other. What 

emerges vividly from an examination of the total statutory scheme is that the Congress carefully considered 

these competing considerations and deliberately struck a balance which permits continued hunting by the 

Alaskan Natives as long as this is done in a non-wasteful manner, is restricted to the taking of non-depleted 

species, and is accomplished for specified, limited purposes. It is also clear that, to the extent that it was 

necessary to do so, Congress intended to preempt the field so as to eliminate inconsistent state regulation while 

permitting regulation which complements the statute’s design. 

59 Following are some state marine mammal take prohibitions: Fla. Stat. sec. 370.12 (Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act—prohibits take

of manatees and provides other protections beyond ESA and MMPA); Cal. Fish & Game Code sec. 4500 (prohibits take of marine 

mammals except in accordance with MMPA); Alaska Stat. sec. 16.05.905 (prohibits take of marine mammals from state’s territorial

waters by aliens); Ala. Code sec. 9-11-394 (prohibits take of marine mammals from Alabama’s lands or waters); N.H. Rev. Stat. sec. 

210:3-b (prohibits take of marine mammals except in accordance with MMPA and other state statutes). 

60 UFO Chuting of Hawaii, Inc. v. Young, 327 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (2004).

61 16 U.S.C. § 1535(a). 

62 16 U.S.C. § 1535(c). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 43

Alaska Native Exemptions and Other Native Rights 

The MMPA contains an exemption from the moratorium on takings by Alaska Natives (Indian, Aleut, or 

Eskimo) unless the Secretary of Commerce or the Interior imposes limits on harvest of a species determined 

to be depleted. The exemption only applies if the taking is for subsistence purposes or “for purposes of 

creating and selling authentic native articles of handicrafts and clothing” and, “in each case, is not 

accomplished in a wasteful manner.”63 The ESA contains an almost identical provision to exempt certain 

Alaska Natives.64 

The concept of “subsistence” continues to be a controversial issue, with some environmental groups 

maintaining that the take of some species under the subsistence exemptions is excessive and unwarranted. 

The Secretary of Commerce or the Interior has authority under the MMPA to regulate the Alaska Native take 

of depleted species65 and under the ESA to regulate take when “such taking materially and negatively affects 

the threatened or endangered species.”66 In addition, the Alaska Native take of endangered and threatened 

species arguably is subject to Alaska state regulation, and the management of non-depleted marine mammals 

may be better addressed through cooperative management. 

The 1994 MMPA amendments clarified the authority of the Secretary of Commerce and the Interior to enter 

into agreements with Alaska Native organizations to facilitate: 

• Collecting and analyzing data on marine mammal populations. 

• Monitoring the harvest of marine mammals for subsistence use. 

• Participating in marine mammal research conducted by the federal government, states, academic 

institutions, and private organizations. 

• Developing marine mammal co-management structures with federal and state agencies. 

These provisions allow for enhanced cooperation and the sharing of information concerning subsistence 

harvesting. They also provide research opportunities and data on the animals harvested, contributing to better 

assessments of stocks and the information base about marine mammals. 

An important element of these provisions is the authorization for co-management agreements. The Secretary 

of Commerce or the Interior may only regulate subsistence harvest if a marine mammal species is depleted, 

but through co-management agreements, the Secretary can work with Alaska Native organizations to manage 

subsistence take of non-depleted stocks to assure the continued health of the stock and the ecosystem. A 

number of co-management agreements have been enacted, and a Memorandum of Agreement signed with 

the Indigenous People’s Council for Marine Mammals provides a framework for the development of comanagement agreements. Compliance with any harvest limit established under such a cooperative agreement 

is voluntary. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act does not exempt Alaska Natives or other Native Americans from fishery 

management regulation. The Act does require, however, that FMPs contain a description of the nature and 

extent of Indian treaty fishing rights in a fishery. Several cases in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have 

addressed certain treaties agreed to in the mid-1850s that give tribes the right to take fish, whales, and seals 

“at usual and accustomed grounds” in common with other U.S. citizens. Tribes are not entitled to a specific 

allocation under these treaties, but a right to a “fair share.” The right to fish in “usual and accustomed” areas 

 

63 16 U.S.C. § 1371(b). 

64 16 U.S.C. § 1539(e). 

65 16 U.S.C. § 1371. 

66 16 U.S.C. § 1539(e)(4). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

44 Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 

has been interpreted by the courts as not restricted to any species, nor dependent on whether the species was 

historically exploited by the tribe. 

The interest of Northwest tribes in fishery management and allocation has been recognized by Congress in 

the SFA amendments by requiring the appointment of one representative to the Pacific RFMC of “an Indian 

tribe with Federally recognized fishing rights from California, Oregon, Washington, or Idaho from a list of 

not less than 3 individuals submitted by the tribal governments.”67 The tribes have also been given authority 

to manage their fishery allocations, which has been recognized as making the tribes co-managers of a shared 

resource. 

Habitat Protection 

This section discusses in greater detail the habitat-related aspects of the principal federal laws discussed above 

and of other marine protection initiatives. 

Critical Habitat and Essential Fish Habitat

A species cannot prosper if the habitat necessary for important parts of its life cycle is lost. The ESA requires 

the designation and protection of critical habitat for endangered species. Critical habitat was defined by 1978 

amendments to the ESA to include not only areas occupied by the species at the time of listing and essential 

to conservation of the species, but also areas outside the occupied area “essential for the conservation of the 

species.”68 The ESA anticipates that critical habitat will be designated at the time of the listing of a species. 

The Secretary has considerable discretion in the designation of critical habitat to the “maximum extent 

prudent and determinable.” The ESA does not define prudent or determinable, but does require the Secretary to 

make the determination based on the “best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the 

economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.” In Sierra 

Club v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the court noted that by the frequent use of the “not prudent” exception, 

the NMFS and USFWS disregarded the “intent of Congress that a ‘not prudent’ finding regarding critical 

habitat would only occur under ‘rare’ or ‘limited’ circumstances.” 

Habitat protection considerations have also been incorporated into fishery management. In the 1996 SFA 

amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Congress concluded that: 

[o]ne of the greatest long-term threats to the viability of commercial and recreational 

fisheries is the continued loss of marine, estuarine, and other aquatic habitats. Habitat 

considerations should receive increased attention for the conservation and management of 

fishery resources of the United States.69

The SFA amendments introduced the concept of essential fish habitat (EFH), which is defined as “those 

waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity.”70 FMPs must 

now describe and identify “essential fish habitat for the fishery . . . , minimize to the extent practicable 

adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation 

and enhancement of such habitat . . . .”71

 

67 16 U.S.C. § 1852(b)(5)(A). Representation is to be rotated among the tribes. 

68 16 U.S.C. §§ 1532(5). 

69 16 U.S.C. § 1801(a)(2). 

70 16 U.S.C. § 1802(10). 

71 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(7). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 45

The broad definition of EFH in the SFA amendments has led to difficulties in determing what areas of the 

ocean should be defined as essential. Distinguishing “essential” habitat from “nonessential” habitat has been 

difficult with the amount of information available; nonetheless, EFHs have been established throughout the 

entire range of almost every federally managed fishery, based generally on distributions and density of stock 

population. The usefulness of EFH as a management tool is compromised if truly essential habitat cannot be 

ascertained or distinguished. If the RFMCs are to recommend effective measures to address adverse effects 

from fishing that will not be subject to challenges in legal and political forums, the measures should apply 

only to areas that can be justified as “essential.”72

A step in this direction is the guidance from NMFS for RFMCs to encourage identification of “habitat areas 

of particular concern” (HAPC) which are EFHs that are of major importance for the long-term productivity 

of one or more species, or are particularly vulnerable to human activities and development.73 This approach 

still suffers from the lack of available information, but it does provide a clearer focus for conservation. 

The SFA amendments required that FMPs must minimize adverse effects on EFH from fishing “to the 

extent practicable.”74 However, until recently, no measures were actually incorporated into plans to mitigate 

fishing impacts. NMFS had taken the position that the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires site-specific scientific 

evidence and “there was virtually no information connecting fishing gear or activities to destruction of 

[particular] EFHs . . . nor was there any information on the efficacy of methods to reduce any adverse 

effects.”75 

When a coalition of environmental groups challenged five FMPs that lacked any measures to address fishing 

impacts on EFHs, the court found NMFS’ interpretation reasonable, but held that the agency failed to meet 

NEPA requirements by not describing and discussing the environmental impacts of fishing practices on the 

particular EFHs, and by not considering a broader range of feasible alternatives.76 

Sensitive Areas and Coral Reefs 

Significant habitat protection is also implemented under other statutes and federal programs. The National 

Marine Sanctuary System and National System of Marine Protected Areas are two key examples and are 

useful in protecting coral reefs both as living marine resources and as significant marine habitat. For more 

discussion of National Marine Sanctuaries and marine protected areas see Chapter 6, Other Uses of Offshore 

Federal Waters. 

In 2002, NOAA, in coordination with the International Maritime Organization (IMO), created a 3,000 square 

nautical mile “Particularly Sensitive Sea Area” in the Florida Keys, stretching from Biscayne National Park to 

the Tortugas and encompassing all of NOAA’s Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.77 Since December 1, 

 

72See generally, Kristen M. Fletcher and Sharonne E. O’Shea. Essential Fish Habitat: Does Calling It Essential Make It So?, 30 

Envtl. L. 51 (2000). 

73See 50 C.F.R. § 600.81, which identifies considerations for identification of HAPCs as follows: 

(i) The importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat. 

(ii) The extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation. 

(iii) Whether, and to what extent, development activities are, or will be, stressing the habitat. 

74 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(7). 

75 See American Oceans Campaign v. Daley, 183 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (D.D.C. 2000). 

76 Id. For a discussion of NEPA, see Chapter 1, Setting the Stage. 

77 Press Release, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Florida Keys Coral Reefs First in U.S. to Receive International 

Protection (November 13, 2002) available at http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s1062.htm (accessed May 24, 2004). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

46 Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 

2002, ships greater than 50 meters (164 feet) in length transiting the zone have been held to internationally 

accepted and enforceable rules, which direct ship captains to avoid certain areas and abide by three noanchoring areas within the zone. 

In the Florida Keys, four voluntary “areas to be avoided” have been created that prohibit large ships from 

traveling too close to the coral reefs. Another measure declares three mandatory no-anchoring areas that 

protect fragile reefs in the Tortugas. While the areas to be avoided and no-anchoring areas have been in place 

in the United States for several years, adoption by the IMO would mean that these areas would appear on 

international charts. This wider publication will result in greater awareness of these measures within the 

international shipping community, increased compliance, and more effective enforcement. The five other 

IMO particularly sensitive sea areas are: the Great Barrier Reef, Australia; the Sabana-Camaguey Archipelago, 

Cuba; Malpelo Island, Colombia; the Wadden Sea, off of Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands; and 

Paracas National Reserve, Peru. 

Consultation in Marine Resources Management

Many environmental laws require federal agencies to consult with each other to understand the potential and 

probable impacts of agency activities on the environment, a species, or habitat. For example, existing federal 

statutes, such as the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Endangered Species Act, and National 

Environmental Policy Act, require consultation or coordination between NMFS and other federal agencies 

regarding the effect of federal actions on certain marine habitat. Therefore, although the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act added consultation provisions in regard to essential fish habitat, the need for federal agencies to consult 

regarding the effects of their actions on fish habitat is not a new concept. 

Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act

Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by 

such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence” or “result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of habitat” critical to listed species.78 To accomplish this objective, an agency must consult with 

the Secretary of Commerce or the Interior if the agency determines that the proposed action may affect listed 

species or critical habitat. In the case of consultation required in the development of FMPs, the Secretary of 

Commerce consults with himself. 

When a consultation is required, the Secretary must prepare a biological opinion. The biological opinion is to 

include a “detailed discussion of the effects of the action on listed species or critical habitat” and the 

Secretary’s “opinion on whether the action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or 

result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat” (a “jeopardy opinion”), or whether the 

proposed action poses no threat of jeopardy or adverse modification (a “no jeopardy opinion”). The 

biological opinion must, again, be based on the best scientific and commercial data available. In the case of 

biological opinions, courts have found that NMFS has a duty to conduct independent research to provide 

information upon which to base its findings. 

At least two lines of cases (concerning monk seals and Steller sea lions) demonstrate that the courts are 

willing to review closely the scientific bases and methodologies used by NMFS to justify policy decisions in 

biological assessments and the consultation process. In both cases, the Alaskan groundfish trawl fishery 

operating within critical habitat of Steller sea lions and Hawaiian lobster fisheries operating in critical habitat 

of monk seals, courts enjoined the fisheries, requiring NMFS to complete adequate consultation and 

biological opinions. 

 

78 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(1). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 47

In Greenpeace Foundation v. Mineta,

79 the court addressed issues related to the lack of adequate information in 

the consultation process to determine whether a species is likely to be jeopardized or whether habitat will be 

adversely affected by an activity. The court held that “when an agency concludes after consultation that it 

cannot ensure that the proposed action will not result in jeopardy, and yet proceeds to implement such 

action, the agency has flouted the plain requirements of Section 7. . . . NMFS cannot speculate that no 

jeopardy to monk seals or adverse modification of their critical habitat will occur because it lacks enough 

information regarding the impact of the fishery on seals.”80 

In Greenpeace v. NMFS,

81 the court found that the proper scope of the biological opinion is crucial to the 

adequacy of the opinion. The biological opinion must be “coextensive” with, and address all aspects of, the 

agency action. The case held that FMPs in their entirety require “a comprehensive biological opinion 

coextensive with the scope” of the FMP. In the case of the groundfish FMP, the court held that cumulative 

effects of the FMP in its entirety on the Steller sea lion and its habitat had to be analyzed. 

Consultation on Actions Affecting Essential Fish Habitat

Direct impact on habitat by fishing activity is only one cause of habitat loss or destruction. Other activities 

that can adversely affect EFH include coastal development; dredging, filling and excavation; activities that 

result in nonpoint source pollution and sedimentation; discharges, including thermal discharges; mining; 

impoundment or water diversions; introduction of hazardous materials or exotic species; and aquatic habitat 

conversion. None of these activities are within the scope or jurisdiction of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 

Secretary, or the RFMCs. The Act provides that “[e]ach Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary with 

respect to any action . . . by such agency that may adversely affect any essential fish habitat identified under 

this Act.”82

The Magnuson-Stevens Act imposes a number of requirements on the Secretary to protect EFH identified by 

the RFMCs, including: 

• Providing other federal agencies with information that will further the conservation and enhancement of 

essential fish habitat.83 

• Creating an interagency consultation process for other federal agencies to consult with the Secretary 

regarding actions they propose to authorize, fund or undertake “that may adversely affect any essential 

fish habitat identified under this Act.”84

RFMCs may make recommendations to the Secretary and to federal or state agencies on actions that they 

believe may affect the “habitat, including essential fish habitat, of a fishery resource under their authority.” If 

the Secretary receives information from an RFMC or other agency, or determines from other sources that a 

proposed or undertaken action by a federal or state agency threatens an identified EFH, the Secretary is 

required to recommend measures to the responsible agency to conserve that habitat. A federal agency 

undertaking or proposing the action is not required to follow the recommendations, but it must provide a 

detailed response to the RFMC and the Secretary explaining the reasons for not following the 

 

79 122 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (D. Hawaii 2000). 

80 122 F. Supp. 2d at 1133. 

81 80 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (W.D. Wash. 2000). 

82 16 U.S.C. § 1855(b)(2). 

83 16 U.S.C. § 1855(b)(1)(D). 

84 Id. § 1855(b)(2). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

48 Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 

recommendations and describing the measures it will take to avoid, mitigate, or offset the impact of the 

activity on the EFH.85 

RFMCs and the Secretary are authorized to comment upon state actions that may adversely affect EFH, but 

unlike federal agencies, state agencies are under no obligation to consult with the Secretary, or to respond to 

comments of the Secretary or the RFMCs. 

Managing the Allocation of Fishery Resources

RFMCs have the obligation to prepare FMPs that protect fishery resources while optimizing opportunities for 

domestic commercial and recreational fishing at sustainable levels of effort and yield. To accomplish this, 

each RFMC identifies fish species and species groups that are in danger of overfishing, or are in need of 

management. With the help of its staff and committees, the RFMC then analyzes the biological, 

environmental, economic, and social factors affecting these fisheries, and prepares and modifies, as needed, 

FMPs and regulations for domestic and foreign fishing in the region. 

Regional Fishery Management Councils and the Decision-making Process 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that appointed members of the RFMCs “be individuals, who, by reason 

of their occupational or other experience, scientific expertise, or training, are knowledgeable regarding the 

conservation and management, or the commercial or recreational harvest, of the fishery resources of the 

geographic area concerned.”86 The Act requires the Secretary in making appointments to ensure a “fair and 

balanced apportionment . . . of the active participants in the commercial and recreational fisheries,”87 but does 

not require the Secretary to ensure participation of other interested stakeholders. 

Perhaps the most often heard criticism of the Magnuson-Stevens Act concerns the conflict of interest issues 

within RFMCs. At the root of the issue is the widely held perception that a person with a vested financial 

interest can never be totally impartial. Congress has already incorporated financial disclosure88 and recusal 

provisions89 into the Act, but concerns persist. Council members are not subject to federal rules on conflict 

of interest that apply to other agencies and advisory groups. 

Preventing Overfishing 

In the Magnuson-Stevens Act, National Standard 1 requires that FMPs “prevent overfishing while achieving, 

on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry.”90 The Act defines 

the terms overfishing and overfished to mean “a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a 

fishery to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis.”91 Each FMP must contain measures 

to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks, including criteria for determining when a fishery is 

 

85 Id. § 1855(b)(3)-(4). 

86 16 U.S.C. § 1852(b)(2)(A). 

87 16 U.S.C. § 1852(b)(2)(B). 

88 Nominees, appointees, and voting members of the RFMCs must disclose financial interests of themselves, their immediate family 

or partner, and any organization with which the council member has a position as “an officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee.” 

16 U.S.C. § 1852(j). 

89 The Act requires that a council member may “not vote on a Council decision which would have a significant and predictable effect 

on such financial interest.” Id. 

90 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(1). 

91 16 U.S.C. § 1802(29). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 49

overfished and, if a fishery is nearing such condition or is already overfished, measures to prevent or end 

overfishing and rebuild the fishery.92

The Secretary of Commerce must report annually to Congress and the RFMCs on the status of fisheries and 

identify fisheries that are either overfished or are approaching a condition of being overfished.93 Within one 

year of receiving notice that a fishery is overfished, the relevant RFMC must submit a plan, plan amendment 

or proposed regulations to end or prevent overfishing and to rebuild the affected stock. RFMCs must 

establish a time period to end overfishing and rebuild the stock that is as “short as possible, taking into 

account the status and biology [of the stocks], the needs of fishing communities, recommendations of 

international organizations . . . , and the interaction of the overfished stock of fish within the marine 

ecosystem.” The time period is not to exceed ten years except where “the biology of the stock, other 

environmental conditions, or management measures under an international agreement . . . dictate 

otherwise.”94 If a RFMC does not submit a plan, plan amendment, or regulations to stop overfishing or to 

rebuild the affected stocks within one year, the Secretary of Commerce is required to prepare a plan, plan 

amendment, or any accompanying regulations within nine months to stop overfishing and rebuild the 

stocks.95 

The complex nature of fishery interactions complicates implementation. Fishing at MSY for one species may 

result in the overfishing of another species. NMFS has been criticized by environmental groups for dealing 

with this issue by creating regulatory exemptions that permit overfishing in certain circumstances.96 

Some courts are finding a tension between the need to set quotas at a level that will prevent overfishing and 

the requirement, discussed below, to alleviate economic impacts on fishing communities. Courts have found 

that NMFS must adopt quotoas with at least a fifty percent probablility of reaching targets that will prevent 

overfishing.97 Courts have rejected quotas with only an eighteen percent likelihood of meeting targets as 

“unreasonable, plain and simple,”98 while upholding a very restrictive quota with an estimated eighty percent 

probability of success when supported by the best available science and adequately justified under the 

circumstances.99 

Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality 

The SFA amendments included the addition of new National Standard 9 that requires FMPs “to the extent 

practicable, (a) minimize bycatch and (b) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of 

such bycatch.”100 Bycatch is defined in the Act to include all fish harvested that are not sold or kept for 

personal use, and includes economic and regulatory discards.101 Because bycatch in this context is being 

 

92 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a). 

93 “A fishery shall be classified as approaching a condition of being overfished if, based on trends in fishing effort, fishery resource 

size, and other appropriate factors, the Secretary estimates that the fishery will become overfished within two years.” 16 U.S.C. § 

1854(e)(1). 

94 16 U.S.C. § 1854(e)(3). 

95 16 U.S.C. § 1854(e)(5). 

96 See 50 CFR § 600.310(d)(6), which permits overfishing if it will result in long term benefits, if mitigating measures have been 

considered, and if the level of fishing will not cause any species to require protection under the ESA. 

97 NRDC v. Daly, 209 F. 3d 747 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 

98 Id., 754. 

99 See, e.g., Fisherman’s Dock Cooperative v. Brown, 75 F. 3d 164 (4th Cir. 1996). 

100 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(9). 

101 16 U.S.C. § 1802(2). The Magnuson-Stevens Act also defines economic discards as fish targeted by the fishery, but discarded 

because of undesirable size, sex or quality, id. at § 1802(9); and regulatory discards as those fish discarded as required by 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

50 Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 

considered for fishery management purposes, non-fish bycatch (e.g., sea birds) is not included in the 

definition, although some commentators suggest that incidental catch of other living resources should also be 

included. 

Bycatch increases the uncertainty concerning fishing-related mortality and consequently increases the 

difficulty of achieving goals related to preventing overfishing and rebuilding stocks. Under the 1996 

Magnuson-Stevens Act amendments, FMPs were required by 1998 to “establish standardized reporting 

methods to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery, and include conservation and 

management measures that, to the extent practicable . . . (A) minimize bycatch; and (B) minimize the 

mortality of bycatch which cannot be avoided.”102 The efforts of RFMCs and NMFS to meet this 

requirement have been described as minimal, and numerous cases to enforce this requirement have been filed 

since the 1998 deadline. 

Problems exist in the collection of accurate data and with the financial burden data collection may impose. 

While some point to the unreliability of self-reporting by fishermen to estimate bycatch levels,103 others note 

that even NMFS observers must estimate bycatch. 

There also is a problem with treating all bycatch equally. Some critics suggest the separate consideration of 

regulatory and non-target discards. Requiring regulatory discards of target fish contributes to fishing 

mortality, encourages highgrading (discarding fish to ensure that only the highest-value fish are landed and 

counted against quota), exacerbates mortality rates, and demoralizes fishermen who must discard marketable, 

dead fish. Because most discarded bycatch is dead, regulatory bycatch must be included and ultimately 

counted against total allowable catch quotas for fishing mortality rates to be accurately calculated. This creates 

an additional disincentive for fishermen to report bycatch. 

Individual Fishing Quotas 

Quotas are fundamental tools for fishery management, but fishery-wide quotas do not seem to eliminate 

problems associated with the tragedy of the commons. Quotas can encourage “derby fishing,” where 

fishermen compete to catch as many fish as fast as possible, often putting the lives of fishermen in danger 

before the quota is exceeded and the fishery is closed. Because fish flood the market during the beginning of 

a quota period, prices are often depressed as well. Some argue that by allocating individual fishing quotas, the 

derby is eliminated and markets are more stable because fishermen can take their allocated quotas at any time 

during the designated period. 

Individual transferable quotas (ITQs) and individual fishing quotas (IFQs) were in use for years before the 

SFA amendments provided a federal definition of an IFQ: 

The term “individual fishing quota” means a federal permit under a limited access system to 

harvest a quantity of fish, expressed by a unit or units representing a percentage of the total 

allowable catch of a fishery that may be received or held for exclusive use by a person.104 

 regulation, id. at § 1802(33). 

102 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(11). 

103 See Conservation Law Foundation v. Evans, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2001), citing the conclusions of the New England Council 

MSMC that vessel trip reports are insufficient to estimate bycatch because “fishermen unlawfully under-report bycatch in vessel trip 

reports.” 

104 16 U.S.C. § 1802(21). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 51

Under the statute, a “person” is any individual, corporation, or federal, state or local government.105 Because 

the right under an IFQ is expressed as a percentage of the total allowable catch, no person receives an 

entitlement to a certain amount of fish. The IFQ system creates the opportunity for fleet consolidation, 

allowing for increased stability for a fishery, as well as the potential for eliminating derby fishing and 

increasing vessel and crew safety. The flip side of an IFQ system is a danger of inequity because those with 

the capital to own and operate vessels are the ones who potentially receive a financial windfall of a quota 

award. For crewmembers saving to buy a vessel, the IFQ can represent another barrier. Unless carefully 

designed to ensure broad participation, the system can lead to monopolistic behavior, making it easier for a 

small group to obtain power at the harvesting or processing level. Finally, critics of IFQs also claim they do 

little to address the problems of enforcing closed areas, using illegal equipment, and monitoring landings. 

The SFA amendments placed a moratorium on the development of FMPs using IFQs106 and directed the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study the options for a national policy on IFQs. The resulting NAS 

report, Sharing the Fish: Toward a National Policy on Individual Fishing Quotas,

107 recommends that the moratorium 

be removed. The report further proposes that Congress leave considerable discretion and flexibility108 to 

design and implement IFQ programs at the regional level. The NAS report recommends that RFMCs define 

“excessive share” and set limitations on accumulation of quota shares,109 and have authority to establish 

standards for concentration limits, transferability, and distribution of shares based on the nature of the 

fisheries and the objectives of the specific FMPs. The NAS report also supports a requirement for fees to be 

imposed for initial quota allocation, first sales and leases of IFQs, as well as an annual tax. The IFQ moratoria 

has expired; however, most RFMCs are awaiting the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to see 

whether Congress provides guidance or legislation regarding the development and implementation of IFQ 

programs. 

Review under National Standard 8 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act

National Standard 8 was added by the SFA amendments and states that “conservation and management 

measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of this chapter (including the prevention of 

overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to 

fishing communities in order to (A) provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to 

the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.”110 The contents of an 

FMP must include a “fishery impact statement for the plan” to “assess, specify, and describe the likely effects 

. . . [on] participants in the fisheries and fishing communities affected by the plan or amendment . . ..”111 In 

NRDC v. Daley,

112 however, the Court of Appeals emphasized that the duty to prevent overfishing under 

Standard 1 takes precedence over Standard 8. Regulations provide that the effect of Standard 8 is that, all 

things being equal, when two alternatives achieve similar conservation goals, the agency will choose the 

alternative that better achieves Standard 8 goals as well.113

 

105 Id. at (31). 

106 The moratorium was extended by Congress in 2000 until October 1, 2002. 

107 National Academy of Sciences. Sharing the Fish: Toward a National Policy on Individual Fishing Quotas. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 1999. 

108 For example, commercial fishermen suggest that authorization of IFQs should be broad enough and flexible enough to 

incorporate alternatives, such as cooperative fishing quotas. 

109 Standard 4 requires that any fishery allocation be fair and prevent any individual or group to obtain an excessive share. 

110 16 U.S.C. § 1851(8). 

111 16 U.S.C. § 1853(9). 

112 209 F.3d 747 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 

113 See 50 C.F.R. § 666.345(b). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

52 Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 

Fishing community is defined as “a community which is substantially dependent on or substantially engaged in 

the harvest or processing of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs, and includes fishing vessel 

owners, operators, and crew and U.S. fish processors that are based in such community.”114 In application, 

this definition has left wide latitude for interpretation of the term “community” and led to litigation over the 

meaning of the term.115 In A Guide to the Sustainable Fisheries Act, the NOAA General Counsel interpreted the 

provision as including “any place where vessel owners, operators, and crew or U.S. fish processors are 

based.”116 This has been seen as an extremely narrow view of fishing communities, and some commercial 

fishermen are concerned that such communities may be harmed by being limited to a shared geographic 

place, rather than considering shared interests. In its 1999 study Sustaining Marine Fisheries, the National 

Academy of Sciences reports that some fishermen and social scientists recommend that the definition include 

“virtual communities;” that is, the scope of the fishing community should include not only fishermen and 

processors, but businesses and services that rely heavily on fishing activities for their livelihood.117

Regulations adopted in 1998 to implement Standard 8 take a broad view of the members of a fishing 

community while continuing to focus on the community as a place. The regulations define fishing communities

as: 

a community that is substantially dependent on or substantially engaged in the harvest or 

processing of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs, and includes fishing 

vessel owners, operators, and crew, and fish processors that are based in such communities. 

A fishing community is a social or economic group whose members reside in a specific 

location and share a common dependency on commercial, recreational, or subsistence 

fishing or on directly related fisheries-dependent services and industries (for example, 

boatyards, ice suppliers, tackle shops).118

NMFS has interpreted fishing communities to include both commercial and recreational 

communities.119

All of the above definitions address who are members of the community, but continue to leave the geographical 

context of the term undefined. In North Carolina Fisheries Association, Inc. v. Daley, the federal district court 

rejected the agency’s analysis of the impacts that “considered the entire state of North Carolina as one fishing 

community,” and found that “analysis of impacts on fishing communities should have been grounded in a 

geographical context.”120 In Ace Lobster Co., Inc. v. Evans,

121 however, the court found that the Secretary had 

complied with Standard 8 even though NMFS did not make an individualized assessment of impact on 

Rhode Island, the state with the smallest number of lobster vessels. In Little Bay Lobster Co. v. Evans, the court 

noted that there was “no authority for the proposition that National Standard 8 required NMFS to conduct, 

and document, an analysis of the potential impacts of each element of the management plan on each 

 

114 16 U.S.C. § 1702 (116). 

115 It should be noted that a similar issue arises in defining the “relevant universe” of small businesses under the RFA. 

116 NOAA Office of General Counsel, A Guide to the Sustainable Fisheries Act, Public Law 104-297 (1997) available at

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/sfaguide/index.html (accessed May 28, 2004). 

117 National Academy of Sciences. Sustaining Marine Fisheries (1999). Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999. 

118 50 C.F.R. § 600.345(b)(3) (2002). 

119 See Recreational Fishing Alliance v. Evans, 172 F. Supp. 25 (D.D.C. 2001). 

120 27 F. Supp. 2d 650, 663 (E.D. Va. 1998). 

121 165 F. Supp. 2d 148 (D.R.I. 2001). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 53

potentially impacted fishing community rather than conducting an analysis of the impact of the plan as a 

whole.”122

Because such a large proportion of U.S. commercial fisheries would also fall within the category of “small 

business,” the analysis required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)123 is directly related to Standard 

Eight and the fishery impact statement (FIS). The purpose of the RFA is to assure that agencies take into 

account the disproportionate impacts regulations may have on small businesses and to require agencies to 

consider less burdensome alternatives if the impact on small businesses is significant.124 The RFA is primarily 

procedural; it does not require the agency to take specific substantive measures. The RFA is intended to 

require the agency to explain the bases of its actions and assure serious consideration of alternatives that 

minimize significant economic impacts on small businesses. 

The Fisheries Management Plan Development and Approval Process 

Once the FMP has been written, incorporating the requirements of the ten national standards and relevant 

research about the fishery, the plan must be approved by the Secretary of Commerce. Many groups have 

complained that delays in agency approval and implementation of FMPs and plan amendments are damaging 

fishery resources and the livelihood of commercial fishermen. These delays seem to be attributable to a 

number of factors. The sheer number and complexity of the amendments to existing FMPs required by the 

SFA amendments created an enormous amount of work that was supposed to be addressed in a short time 

period. The complexity of the amendments has led to a high volume of litigation, which has in turn created 

further delays. 

Management plans and plan amendments developed by the RFMCs must be submitted to the Secretary. The 

Secretary is directed to approve the plan if it is consistent with applicable law. If Secretarial review finds that a 

plan or amendment submitted by the RFMC is inconsistent with the national standards, other provisions of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or other applicable law, the plan or amendment can be disapproved or only 

partially approved by the Secretary. Unless the Secretary notifies the RFMC of the plan’s inadequacies within 

thirty days of the end of the comment period for reviewers, the plan “shall take effect as if approved.” If a 

plan is not approved or partially approved, the RFMC may submit a revised plan or amendment that will then 

be reviewed under the same process.125 The Act puts no time limit on the RFMCs to take action, nor does it 

limit the number of times a plan or amendment may go through this review exercise. 

The Secretary has independent authority to prepare an FMP in certain circumstances. When a RFMC does 

not submit a plan for rebuilding an overfished fishery within one year of notification by the Secretary of the 

overfished status of the fishery, the Secretary is required to prepare a plan.126 When a RFMC fails to develop 

and submit a plan “after a reasonable period” and when a RFMC fails to resubmit a revised plan or 

amendment after the Secretary has disapproved or partially disapproved the plan or amendment, the Secretary 

“may prepare” an FMP.127 Because the Magnuson-Stevens Act sets no specific time limits except in some 

limited circumstances, RFMCs may not act in a timely manner, but may still view any exercise of the 

Secretary’s independent discretionary authority in these circumstances as usurping their authority. 

 

122 2002 DNH 96, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8978, at *82 (2002). 

123 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612. 

124 See generally M. Jean McDevitt. Comment: Impact of the Regulatory Flexibility Act on the Implementation and Judicial Review 

Provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 6 Ocean & Coastal L. J. 371 (2001). 

125 16 U.S.C. § 1854(a). Similar procedure applies to regulations to implement the FMP. Id. at (b). 

126 16 U.S.C. § 1854(e)(5). 

127 16 U.S.C. § 1854(c). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

54 Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 

The Role of Aquaculture

The National Aquaculture Act (NAA),128 passed in 1980, established a national policy of encouraging 

development of aquaculture in the United States. The NAA called for the creation of a National Aquaculture 

Development Plan to identify species with significant commercial potential and include research and 

development, technical assistance, and training programs as necessary. The NAA also established an 

interagency coordinating group, called the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA), chaired by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA). Its purpose is to increase the effectiveness and productivity of federal 

aquaculture programs, to assess the industry and its potential, and to report to Congress. Finally, the Act 

created a National Aquaculture Information Center and called for a review of regulatory constraints that may 

have a negative impact on the industry. 

For ocean aquaculture in offshore waters, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a primary review 

responsibility through its permit authority under the Rivers and Harbors Act. In addition, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency must issue permits for those activities that discharge into waters of the 

United States under the Clean Water Act. NMFS and USFWS have review and commenting responsibilities 

under the ESA and MMPA. NMFS also has authority over the activity as a harvest of a fish resource under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and RFMCs have review authority under that Act. The U.S. Coast Guard has 

authority over the marking and lighting of cages or other structures for navigational safety. Finally, a federallypermitted project affecting the coastal resources of a state must be consistent with the enforceable policies of 

that state’s federally-approved coastal management program under the federal consistency requirements of 

the Coastal Zone Management Act. 

Management of Take under the MMPA and ESA

“Take” is the term used in both the MMPA and ESA to define a prohibited activity under each statute as a 

tool to limit the mortality or harassment of marine mammals or endangered species. 

Taking by Harassment 

The term “take” in the MMPA is defined to include harassment of marine mammals. The 1994 amendments 

defined “harassment” and divided the term into two categories. “Harassment” means any act of pursuit, 

torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment) or has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).129 Questions have been raised about when scientific 

research, anthropogenic noise, and other human interactions with marine mammals rise to the level of 

harassment and result in a prohibited taking or require a permit under the MMPA. 

Because marine mammals use sound in communicating, navigating, and feeding, environmental groups have 

expressed concern about the possible harm to marine mammals and the effects on the ecosystem of the many 

types of scientific study that use sound in the marine environment. Oceanographers and other scientists use 

sound for a variety of purposes not directly related to marine mammal research, including assessing fish 

stocks, measuring ocean bathymetry, communicating and transmitting data to the surface, studying ocean 

currents, and measuring ocean temperature. The 1994 amendments to the MMPA provide for a general 

authorization for scientific research that limits its impacts to Level B harassment of marine mammals.130 The 

 

128 16 U.S.C. §§ 2801-2810. 

129 16 U.S.C. § 1362(18). 

130 16 U.S.C. § 1374(c)(3)(C). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 55

Department of Commerce has issued regulations to implement this provision.131 The two-part definition of 

harassment has proved to be difficult to interpret and apply, however, in determining what activities fall 

within the general authorization provisions. The threshold is not clear with respect to determining when 

anthropogenic “noise” becomes Level B harassment or when its impact is great enough to be Level A 

harassment. Some scientists have criticized the threshold and limits for Level B harassment as being too low; 

it restricts scientific research that may cause a detectable reaction in marine mammals, but does not 

significantly effect behavior. The National Research Council proposes that Level B harassment be redefined 

as follows: 

Level B has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 

by causing meaningful disruption of biologically significant activities, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breeding, care of young, predator avoidance or defense, and feeding. (Emphasis 

added.)132

Amendments to the MMPA in 1994 were intended to expedite small take authorizations by Level A and B 

harassment. A small take is a portion of a marine mammal species or stock whose taking would have a 

negligible impact on that species or stock. NMFS issued interim rules allowing for authorizations to be issued 

pursuant to general rules addressing small takes by harassment. Thus, NMFS would not issue specific rules 

for each individual activity that may result in a small take of marine mammals.133 Many of the authorizations 

under these rules are for seismic-related activities. The rules do not distinguish between Level A and Level B 

harassment for these authorizations. The MMPA sets out a relatively expedited procedure for issuing 

scientific research permits for studies on or directly benefiting marine mammals, including depleted species. 

The issue of anthropogenic “noise” as harassment has been particularly controversial with regard to noise 

generated by sonar from naval ships. While these military activities do not qualify for Level B harassment 

authorization for scientific research, authorization may still be received under the MMPA provisions for takes 

of small numbers of marine mammals.134 Authorizations may be issued upon request for incidental, but 

unintentional, takings during activities other than commercial fishing that have “negligible impact.” 

Regulations specific to the activity must be issued to address mitigation, monitoring, and reporting. 

Illustrative of the controversy is the 2002 issuance of a Letter of Authorization by NOAA under this 

provision for the U.S. Navy to take small numbers of marine mammals by Level A and B harassment 

incidental to the use of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA). A 

coalition of environmental groups headed by the Natural Resources Defense Council immediately brought 

suit to challenge the action.135 The court issued a preliminary injunction, noting the likelihood that the 

environmental groups would prevail on several grounds, including: that the authorization violated the “small 

numbers” limitation and impermissibly narrowed the definition of harassment; and that NMFS acted 

arbitrarily and capriciously in choosing the specified geographic regions identified in the Final Rule. The court 

also noted that the NMFS action likely was in violation of NEPA and ESA provisions.136

Taking into account the importance of the sonar for national security, the court concluded that “a carefully 

tailored preliminary injunction should issue, which permits the use of LFA sonar for testing and training in a 

 

131 50 CFR § 216.45. 

132 National Research Council, Marine Mammals and Low-Frequency Sound: Progress Since 1994. Washington. DC: National 

Academy Press, 2000. 

133 61 Fed. Reg. 15,884 (Apr. 10, 1996). 

134 Small take authorizations may be issued for both depleted and non-depleted species. 

135 NRDC v. Evans, 232 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (N.D. Cal. 2002). 

136 232 F. Supp. 2d at 1013. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

56 Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 

variety of ocean conditions, but provides additional safeguards to reduce the risk to marine mammals and 

endangered species.”137 

In August 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued its order in the case, 

found violations of MMPA, ESA and NEPA, and barred the planned Navy deployment of sonar.138 The case 

was subsequently impacted by the amendments to the MMPA and ESA contained in the National Defense 

Authorization Act, and further court action awaits a review of the ramifications of the new legal provisions.139 

Controversy has also arisen over the extent to which marine mammal viewing and direct human interactions 

constitute harassment as defined under the MMPA and ESA. Marine wildlife viewing is allowed, but has to be 

conducted in a way that, by itself or in combination with other activities, does not result in a “take” by 

harassment. Level A “harassment” is prohibited under both statutes and includes any act of pursuit, torment, 

or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal stock in the wild. 

In comparison to activities involving direct interaction (Level A), it is less clear when marine wildlife viewing 

should be considered Level B harassment. While feeding or attempting to feed marine mammals in the wild is 

prohibited in regulations, other contacts, such as swimming with dolphins, interactions with boats, kayaks and 

personal watercraft, and approaching seals and sea lions on land, are not specifically prohibited. These 

activities may result in Level B harassment and in several circumstances, NMFS has issued regulations 

governing viewing of marine mammals in the wild. The agency proposed, but subsequently withdrew, 

minimum approach rules for marine mammal viewing. Currently, all six NMFS regional offices have 

developed guidelines for viewing marine mammals in the wild. In 2002, NMFS also published an advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking to address human interactions with marine mammals, including consideration 

of codifying viewing guidelines, establishing minimum approach rules, and amending the definition of take to 

specifically include certain activities, such as swimming with or coming into contact with a marine mammal.140

Final action on these regulations is still pending. 

Taking for Display 

NMFS may issue permits that authorize the take or import of a marine mammal for purposes of public 

display. To qualify for such a permit, an applicant must offer an education or conservation program that is 

assessed by NMFS using the “professionally recognized standards in the public display community.”141 Prior 

to the 1994 amendments to the MMPA, NMFS shared authority with the USDA over marine mammals kept 

in captivity. The 1994 amendments clarified that USDA has exclusive authority to manage most aspects of 

the care of marine mammals in public display facilities under the Animal Welfare Act.142 USDA developed 

rules for such facilities through a negotiated rulemaking process. 

 

137 232 F. Supp. 2d at 1013. 

138 Natural Resources Defense Council v. Evans, No. C-02-3805-EDL, (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2003). 

139 The federal agencies appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit 

stayed the appeal until the agencies have an opportunity to request the District Court to vacate certain portions of its opinion that 

may have been rendered moot by recent amendments to the MMPA included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136, November 24, 2003, NDAA). Section 319 of the NDAA amended the MMPA with regard to “military 

readiness activities” in several ways, including eliminating the requirements under 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(5) that such activities occur 

“within a specified geographical region” and that they involve the taking “of small numbers” of marine mammals of a species or 

population stock. 

140 See 67 Fed. Reg. 4379 (Jan. 30, 2002). 

141 16 U.S.C. § 1374(c)(2)(A)(i). 

142 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131-2159. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 57

USDA authorizes numerous programs for dolphin/human interactions, including feeding pools and swimwith-dolphin programs. Critics claim these programs put the dolphins and humans at risk and that allowing 

such programs also sends mixed signals to the public who are prohibited from having similar interactions 

with dolphins in the wild. 

At least twenty-one marine parks have closed in the last decade, and problems are emerging with respect to 

dealing with their surplus animals. Rehabilitation of animals for release may be feasible, but expensive, and 

finding alternative sites and transporting animals to other parks or research facilities also involve substantial 

costs. Rehabilitation also raises other problems, including training to extinguish behavior learned in captivity, 

disease transmission, and genetic contamination of wild stocks. An insurance requirement has been proposed 

to provide funds in the event a facility closes.143 In addition, NMFS has also proposed that a permit be 

required for release of captive animals into the wild. Release of unrehabilitated marine mammals is currently 

considered a taking and subject to penalties if not authorized.144

Taking for Deterrence 

The MMPA allows the use of deterrents to discourage marine mammals from damaging fish catch, gear, or 

other private property, and to deter marine mammals from endangering human safety, as long as the 

deterrents do not result in the death or serious injury of any marine mammal. One commonly used deterrent 

is an acoustical harassment device. Like other noise in the environment, little is known about the broader or 

long term ecological effects of the use of such devices. The burden of proof is currently on the government 

to establish whether particular deterrents have “significant adverse effects” that would justify prohibiting their 

use. In light of the insufficiency of scientific information, many groups have suggested that the law take a 

more precautionary approach and require manufacturers to demonstrate that specific deterrents have 

negligible effects before NMFS can authorize their use. 

The 1994 amendments to the MMPA deleted a provision that allowed fishermen to kill certain pinnipeds as a 

last resort when deterrents did not work.145 Seals and sea lions can be very aggressive, and deterrents (and 

even removal) have not always proved effective. There are concerns that increasing populations of California 

sea lions and West Coast harbor seals may not only interfere directly with fishing operations, but adversely 

affect other marine resource populations (e.g., salmon), the development of aquaculture, and coastal land 

uses. Some commentators advocate the reinstatement of a limited lethal take provision for “nuisance 

animals,” culling “over-populated” areas, and allowing local officials to deal with site specific conflicts 

involving the species. These actions may currently be undertaken only under the MMPA’s cumbersome and 

seldom-used waiver provisions. 

Regulation of Take under the ESA 

The MMPA identifies the specific species that it protects; for a species to be protected under the ESA, it 

must be “listed” through an administrative process. The protections under the MMPA and ESA can be 

similar, and many species categorized as depleted under the former may also qualify to be listed as 

endangered or threatened under the latter. One significant difference in the laws is that the ESA provides for 

emergency procedures in certain circumstances.146 As one court has pointed out, however, “listing [a species 

 

143 Id. at 25. 

144 See Department of Commerce, Annual Report on Administration of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 1999-2000, at 28 (2002). 

145 Cf. 16 U.S.C. § 1379(h), which still allows lethal takes by federal, state or local officials if done in a humane manner for the 

protection or welfare of the animal, and for the protection of public health or welfare. The Secretary may permit the intentional taking 

of pinnipeds in accordance with 16 U.S.C. § 1389 for applications by a state for the intentional lethal taking of individually identifiable 

pinnipeds that are having a significant negative impact salmonid fishery stocks. 

146 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(7). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

58 Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 

as depleted] under the MMPA does not have the regulatory, economic, and environmental fallout of a listing 

as ‘threatened’ or ‘endangered’ under the ESA.”147

ESA Listing 

Despite ESA language that mandates listing a species if any of five factors requiring designation exists, courts 

have allowed the agencies considerable discretion in determining whether listing is warranted. In the case of 

Cook Inlet beluga whales,148 NMFS was considering listing the species as both depleted under the MMPA 

and endangered or threatened under the ESA (which also automatically triggers “depleted” status). A month 

after NMFS promulgated a final rule designating the Cook Inlet beluga whale as depleted under the MMPA, 

the agency determined that listing under the ESA was not warranted.149 The ESA requires that the decision be 

made solely on the basis of the best scientific evidence available, and agency experts found that the evidence 

supported the listing of the species. Nonetheless, the court accepted the agency’s determination that, under 

the depleted designation and a legislative moratorium on taking, the whale would no longer be overutilized 

and did not warrant listing as endangered.150

In assessing whether a species should be listed, the Secretary is required to use the best scientific and 

commercial data available, but apparently has no duty to perform additional research if data are insufficient. 

The requirement merely prohibits the Secretary from disregarding available scientific evidence that is in some 

way better than the evidence upon which the Secretary relied.151 On the other hand, the fact that data are 

“inconclusive” does not preclude the Secretary from listing a species as endangered or threatened under the 

ESA. 

Prohibited Take under the ESA 

As in the MMPA, prohibiting taking of protected species under Section 9 of the ESA is the starting point for 

regulation. The ESA defines the term “take” as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such activity.”152 NMFS (and USFWS) regulations provide 

that the term “harm” includes significant alteration or destruction of the habitat of a listed species. The 

regulation further provides that take includes actions that change or degrade the habitat of a listed species 

where it actually kills or injures the species by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns, including 

breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, and sheltering.153

These taking prohibitions have been found to extend to governmental entities that authorize or license 

activities that result in prohibited takings of marine endangered species – for example, a county’s 

authorization of driving on beaches in turtle nesting areas or a state’s licensing of fishermen to use gear in 

areas that would cause entanglement of endangered Northern Right whales. 

Recently, a court addressed whether NMFS’ adoption of a plan for a lobster fishery takes endangered monk 

seals by adverse modification of habitat, such as the removal of an essential prey species. Although the court 

 

147 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale v. Daley, 156 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2001). 

148 Alaska Native harvesting of the Cook Inlet beluga whales was leading to a decline in the stock of Cook Inlet whales. Until the

population was actually designated as depleted, however, NMFS could not regulate the Native taking under the MMPA. 

149 Available at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-SPECIES/2000/May/Day-31/e13371.htm. 

150 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale v. Daley, 156 F.Supp. 2d 16, 22 (D.D.C. 2001). 

151 Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 215 F.3d 58, 60 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 

152 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1). 

153 50 C.F.R. § 222.102. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 59

found that the scientific data were insufficient for it to rule as a matter of law that lobster is so essential to the 

monk seal diet that the FMP constitutes “harm,” the NMFS was criticized for making such a determination 

based on inadequate data.154 

 

Two other provisions are important in the scheme of protection afforded under the ESA. NMFS and 

USFWS have authority to issue regulations to prevent takings155 and “as . . . necessary and advisable, to 

provide for the conservation of [threatened] species.”156 The most conspicuous use of these provisions is the 

requirement for turtle excluder devices imposed on shrimpers. The other important provision is the 

requirement for the Secretary to “develop and implement plans for the conservation and survival” of listed 

species.157 Almost all courts have found recovery plans not to be directly enforceable, offering only 

discretionary guidance. 

Fishery Interactions with Marine Mammals 

While the MMPA provides for a permit to authorize takes of marine mammals in the course of fishing 

activities, other statutory obligations and international activities complicate the management of marine 

mammal populations that interact with fishing activities. At or near the top of the food chain, marine 

mammals are often in direct competition with fishermen for the same resources. They may be injured or 

killed by becoming entangled or caught in fishing gear, often in an attempt to take bait or fish caught on the 

lines or in nets; they can destroy or damage gear and may be harassed to deter them from taking catch or 

harming gear. Prior to 1988, taking of marine mammals incidental to fishing operations could be authorized 

under three provisions of the MMPA: 1) a permit under a waiver; 2) a permit for take incidental to 

commercial fishing operations; or 3) a small take permit through informal rulemaking if the total taking has 

“negligible impact” on the species or stock.158 Importantly, none of these sections provided authority for 

permitting a taking in fishing operations of depleted species. 

Interactions under the MMPA

In Kokechik Fishermen’s Association v. Secretary of Commerce,

159 fishermen and environmentalists challenged the 

issuance of a permit to the Japan Salmon Fisheries Cooperative Association to take Dall’s porpoises in the 

course of their salmon fishing in the North Pacific. The permit did not include northern fur seals and other 

marine mammals that would foreseeably be taken. The Secretary had concluded that it was not possible to 

make a finding as to whether the potentially affected northern fur seal populations were at or above OSP. 

(For the definition of OSP, see footnote 20.) The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that issuance of the 

permit was contrary to the MMPA because “it allowed incidental taking of various species of protected 

marine mammals without first ascertaining as to each such species whether or not the population of that 

species was at the OSP level.”160

The court’s decision had a number of immediate ramifications for both domestic and foreign fishermen. With 

no authority in the MMPA for issuing permits for the incidental take of depleted species, the Secretary’s 

ability to issue incidental take permits for any fishery was put into question. First, no permit could be issued if 

 

154 Greenpeace Foundation v. Mineta, 122 F. Supp.2d 1123 (D. Haw. 2000). In the same case, the court found that the interactions 

between the bottom fish fishery and monk seals had resulted in takes. 

155 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a). 

156 16 U.S.C. § 1533(d). 

157 16 U.S.C. § 1533(f). 

158 16 U.S.C. § 1387. 

159 839 F.2d 795 (D.C. Cir. 1988). 

160 839 F.2d at 802. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

60 Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 

it was known that even small numbers of depleted species would be taken in a fishery. Second, in almost any 

fishery, the Secretary would likely be unable to make the findings required by the Act for all species taken in a 

fishery and to issue a permit, either because information was inadequate to determine which animals were 

likely to be taken incidentally, or because data were insufficient to determine whether an identified population 

was at OSP and would not be disadvantaged. 

Congress responded in 1988 by enacting a five-year interim exemption to allow commercial fisheries to 

operate while information necessary for the management of interactions was compiled. The 1994 MMPA 

amendments set up a regime for dealing with the impacts of commercial fisheries on marine mammals with a 

goal that incidental kill and serious injury of marine mammals “be reduced to insignificant levels approaching 

a zero mortality and serious injury rate.”161 Initially, the Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of the Interior 

had to prepare assessments on all marine mammal stocks that occur in U.S. waters.162 The assessments 

categorized each stock as either strategic or non-strategic, i.e., at a level where human-caused mortality and 

serious injury is likely or not likely to cause the stock to be reduced below its OSP. The Secretaries must also 

prepare and annually revise a list of fisheries classified on the basis of whether the fishery has frequent 

(Category I), occasional (Category II), or remote (Category III) likelihood of incidentally taking marine 

mammals. Owners of vessels operating in fisheries listed in Category I or II must register for authorizations 

for incidental takings and comply with any regulations required to reduce takes. Vessels in these fisheries are 

also required to carry observers upon request. 

The Secretary Commerce must develop and implement take reduction plans to assist in the recovery or 

prevent the depletion of designated strategic stocks of marine mammals that interact with Category I or 

Category II fisheries. The take reduction plans are developed by take reduction teams composed of 

representatives of the commercial fisheries and conservation communities, scientists, members of appropriate 

RFMCs, and others, consisting of “to the maximum extent practicable, . . . an equitable balance among 

representatives of resource user interests and nonuser interests.” The plans must recommend regulatory or 

voluntary measures for reducing marine mammal death and injury. The goal of the plans is to reduce 

incidental take levels to below the potential biological removal level for these stocks within six months and to 

insignificant levels approaching zero within five years. The Secretary may implement an approved plan and 

set fishery-specific limits on takes, which can include time and area restrictions on fishing operations. If a plan 

fails to achieve these targets, the Secretary must revise it and establish regulations to meet the goals. 

NOAA has noted that the taking of marine mammals in the course of non-commercial fishing is also a 

problem in some instances. In some non-commercial fisheries, for example, the gear used is identical in 

design, manner, and location of deployment to commercial fishing gear. 

Because of the large amount of information that had to be compiled and generated (stock assessments, 

determinations of OSP and PBR, etc.), implementation of the 1994 amendments dealing with the interactions 

of marine mammals and commercial fisheries has been slow. Insufficiency of scientific data contributes to the 

difficulty in developing and implementing the plans. Convening take reduction teams also turned out to be 

controversial and has slowed the process of plan development. In general, however, implementation has not 

proceeded to the point that specific issues with the amendments or regulations have become apparent, with 

one exception. 

 

161 16 U.S.C. § 1387. 

162 16 U.S.C. § 1386. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 61

Steller Sea Lion 

Circumstances surrounding the Steller sea lion near Alaska uniquely embody some of the difficulties in 

managing both marine mammals and fisheries. The Steller is the largest of the sea lions and is found in coastal 

waters along the Pacific Rim. Its main food sources are groundfish, such as pollock and mackerel, and 

cephalopods, including octopus and squid. Over the last thirty years, the western population of Steller Sea 

Lions near Alaska has declined by up to 80 percent, resulting in the stock being listed as endangered under 

the ESA in 1997. NMFS is responsible for managing both the Steller sea lion stock and the Alaskan fisheries, 

which, at times, results in conflicting statutory obligations. In 1991, Greenpeace and other environmental 

organizations sued NMFS, asserting that the agency failed to adequately consider the role of commercial 

fishing in the continuing decline of the Steller sea lion stock. The lack of information on sea lion behavior, 

the impact of commercial fishing on Steller sea lions, and the role of environmental changes in the Gulf of 

Alaska and Bering Sea ecosystems, have resulted in considerable uncertainty and competing scientific views, 

constraining the ability of courts to resolve legal issues and make decisive rulings. The relationship between 

NMFS’ concurrent responsibilities to protect marine mammals under the MMPA while simultaneously 

managing commercial fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Act is not made clear in either act. Further, the 

listing of the Steller sea lion under the ESA and the different procedural requirements and timeframes of 

these laws, as well as NEPA, have further challenged the agency’s capacity to address such multiple 

obligations and have been the focus of numerous legal challenges.163

Tuna-Dolphin Controversy

The dolphin mortality rate resulting from tuna fishing practices in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean spurred a 

provision in the MMPA to allow dolphins to be taken in the fishery “by a continuation of the application of 

the best . . . safety techniques and equipment that are economically and technologically practicable.”164 During 

the 1980s, regulation of U.S. fishing activity greatly reduced the mortality of marine mammals, but high 

mortality associated with growing foreign fleets led to preservationists and US tuna fishermen pressuring 

Congress to adopt additional statutory restrictions. Thus, in 1988, Congress amended the MMPA, providing 

trade sanctions against nations that did not reduce dolphin mortality in the tuna fishery to levels comparable 

to the U.S. fishery. This action precipitated the controversy, ultimately leading to determinations under 

international trade law that the United States had improperly mandated foreign compliance with its MMPA 

provisions. 

The International Dolphin Conservation Act of 1992 amended the MMPA by imposing a five-year 

moratorium on the harvesting of tuna with purse seine nets, and lifting tuna embargos in place against those 

nations making a commitment to implement the moratorium and take further steps to reduce dolphin 

mortality.165 The same year, the United States entered into the La Jolla Agreement, a non-binding 

international agreement to reduce dolphin mortality in the eastern tropical Pacific (ETP), and to allow purse 

seine fishing with dolphin mortality caps. This agreement led to the United States and eleven other nations 

signing the Panama Declaration of 1995 to strengthen the protection of dolphins by: reducing dolphin 

mortality to levels approaching zero, with the goal of eliminating dolphin mortality in the ETP; establishing 

annual dolphin mortality limits; avoiding bycatch of immature yellowfin tuna and other non-target species 

such as sea turtles; strengthening national scientific advisory committees; establishing a system of incentives 

for vessel captains to continue to reduce dolphin mortality; and enhancing the compliance of participating 

nations to these commitments. The Panama Declaration initiated negotiations for an agreement to establish 

the International Dolphin Conservation Program on the basis that the United States amend its laws to lift the 

 

163 See Marc Halpern, Steller Sea Lions: The Effects of Multi-Statute Administration on the Role of Science in Environmental 

Management, 19 UCLA J. Envtl. L & Pol’y 449 (2001/2002). 

164 16 U.S.C. § 1378(a)(2)(B). 

165 Pub. L. 102-5231, 106 Stat. 3425 (1992). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

62 Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 

MMPA embargoes imposed, permit the sale of both dolphin-safe and non-dolphin safe tuna in the U.S., and 

change the definition of “dolphin-safe tuna” from tuna harvested without dolphin purse seine encirclement 

to “tuna harvested without dolphin mortality.”166 In 1997, in response to the Panama Declaration, Congress 

passed the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act, which became effective March 3, 1999. The Act 

primarily amends the MMPA to provide exceptions to the import prohibitions on yellowfin tuna for those 

nations participating in the International Dolphin Conservation Program in the eastern tropical Pacific 

Ocean. 

INTERNATIONAL ISSUES

As just shown in the context of the fisheries’ interactions with marine mammals, the United States’ 

management of marine resources often overlaps, and sometimes conflicts with, international law affecting 

such resource management, protection, or trade. The United States is a party to numerous treaties relating to 

international living marine resource management, including the primary agreements listed below. 

Treaties 

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 

As noted in Chapter 1, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 167 concluded in 

1982, provides a comprehensive legal framework governing uses of the oceans and the rights and obligations 

of nations. Though the United States is not a party to the Convention, it has recognized most non-seabed 

mining provisions of UNCLOS as reflecting international law. President Reagan’s 1983 Ocean Policy 

Statement, accompanying the proclamation of the U.S. EEZ, states that the United States would follow the 

non-seabed mining provisions of UNCLOS because they reflect “traditional uses of the oceans” and 

“generally confirm existing maritime law and practice.”168 

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 169 creates the framework for the international free 

trade regime. Originally drafted in 1947, GATT now has over 100 parties and is administered through the 

World Trade Organization, established in 1994.170 The purpose of GATT is to expand international trade by 

removing barriers and eliminating discriminatory and protectionist practices. GATT also provides a forum for 

settling international trade disputes through consultations, and when consultations are unsuccessful, through 

a formal dispute resolution process. 

The most fundamental proscription of GATT is the prohibition on quotas. Article XI of GATT provides, in 

relevant part, that: 

[n]o prohibitions or restrictions . . . whether made effective through quotas, import or 

export licenses or other measures, shall be instituted or maintained by any contracting party 

on the importation of any product of the territory of any other contracting party . . . . 

 

166 See generally Department of Commerce, Annual Report on Administration of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 1999-2000 at 

61-67 (2002). 

167 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/122, opened for signature, Dec. 10, 1982, reprinted in 21 I.L.M. 1261. 

168 President Ronald Reagan’s Ocean Policy Statement, 19 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 383 (Mar. 10, 1983). 

169 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, opened for signature Oct. 30, 1947, 61 Stat. A3, 55 U.N.T.S. 14 (hereinafter GATT). 

170 See Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, April 15, 1994, 33 I.L.M. 1125. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 63

However, GATT does contain exceptions, including measures that are necessary to protect human, animal, 

and plant life or health; or that “relat[e] to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources.”171 The United 

States uses State trade restrictions as an economic tool to advance the protection of marine species in a 

number of statutes. Challenges to some of these restrictions have resulted in adverse decisions under GATT, 

although the United States has worked to resolve the conflicts. 

Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling Stocks and Highly Migratory Stocks 

(U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement) 

UNCLOS contemplated that future agreements would be necessary to deal with issues related to highly 

migratory and straddling fish stocks. Although fishing is recognized as a freedom of the high seas, fishing 

near EEZ boundaries and fishing for stocks that migrate between EEZs, and between EEZs and high seas, 

have the potential to render EEZ conservation efforts ineffective. 

Negotiations spurred by the recommendations of the United Nations Conference on Environment and 

Development during the Rio Summit in July 1992 resulted in the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions 

of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management 

of Straddling Stocks and Highly Migratory Stocks (U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement)172. Under the Agreement, 

countries that fish for straddling or highly migratory species are obligated to cooperate through existing 

treaties and international arrangements or by the creation of regional fishery organizations. The Agreement 

elaborates on Articles 63 and 64 of UNCLOS and provides a basis for reconciling fishery management 

beyond and within EEZs. The Agreement requires compatible management to be implemented based on 

“the conservation and management measures adopted and applied . . . by the coastal [nations] within areas 

under national jurisdiction” and further “ensure[s] that measures established in respect of such stocks for the 

high seas do not undermine the effectiveness of such measures [within the EEZ].”173 

The U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement was adopted in August 1995 and came into force on December 11, 2001, 

after ratification by thirty signatory nations. Although the United States is not a party to UNCLOS, it was 

among the first countries to ratify the Agreement in August 1996. 

Meeting International Responsibilities and Implementing Federal Laws 

Federal agencies may encounter significant challenges in attempting to meet mandates under federal laws 

while not violating U.S. responsibilities under international agreements. As shown below, U.S. actions must 

be based on domestic authority and also meet international commitments under UNCLOS, the Fish Stocks 

Agreement, and other international trade agreements. 

Compatibility of U.S. Living Marine Resources Management with the United Nations Convention 

on the Law of the Sea 

In the allocation of rights and responsibilities of coastal nations in the EEZ, UNCLOS provides for exclusive 

coastal jurisdiction of nations over fisheries with sovereign rights to explore and exploit those resources. In 

return, coastal nations are to ensure “proper conservation and management” of the living resources of the 

EEZ to assure they are “not endangered by over-exploitation.” The primary obligations of coastal nations in 

 

171 GATT at Article XX(b) and XX(g). 

172 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.164/37 (1995), done Sept. 8, 1995, reprinted in 34 I.L.M. 1542 (1995). 

173 U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement, art. 7(2)(a). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

64 Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 

managing fishery resources of their EEZ are set out in Articles 61 and 62 of UNCLOS. Article 61 addresses 

the principles applicable to conservation of living resources, which include: 

• The determination of allowable catch by the coastal nation. 

• Use of the best available scientific information. 

• Adoption of measures to prevent overexploitation. 

• Maintenance of stocks to produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY), as qualified by 

 relevant environmental and economic factors. 

• Consideration of associated or dependent stocks. 

The requirement to prevent overexploitation is the clearest obligation created for coastal nations by Article 

61. 

Many of the UNCLOS provisions anticipated that there would be a surplus of harvestable fish beyond 

domestic capacity, and the Convention requires access by agreement with other nations to surplus. However, 

the right to set the harvest level—optimum yield—rests exclusively with the coastal nation. No country has 

the right under UNCLOS’ compulsory dispute resolution provisions to challenge the setting of optimum 

yield at conservative limits or at the level of domestic harvesting capacity. The U.S. fishery management 

RFMCs have set the yield of all fisheries at or below domestic harvesting capacity for over a decade. There is 

currently no identified exploitable surplus for foreign fishing. 

Article 61(2) directs coastal nations to “tak[e] into account the best scientific evidence available” in 

management of the living resources of the EEZ. This language is generally considered to be facilitative, 

authorizing fishery management regulation even when scientific information is inadequate or unavailable. 

Article 61(3) of UNCLOS provides that conservation measures be designed to “produce the maximum 

sustainable yield, as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors.” This formulation authorizes 

coastal nations to adjust MSY to meet the specific interests of the nation. The Convention does not limit 

adjustments to set the catch below MSY, as the Magnuson-Stevens Act currently does. In fact, the list of 

factors that may be taken into account in qualifying MSY includes “the economic needs of coastal fishing 

communities and the special needs of developing States.” 

The fundamental approaches to fishery management in UNCLOS and the Magnuson-Stevens Act are quite 

similar because they were being developed at the same time. Each reflects developments in the negotiation of 

the other. The Magnuson-Stevens Act, while completely compatible with the UNCLOS EEZ management 

principles, provides a much better-defined and stronger framework for fishery management. 

UNCLOS also addresses management and jurisdiction over some particular types of marine living resources. 

Consistent with United States law, Articles 66 and 67 provide for coastal nation jurisdiction over anadromous 

and catadromous stocks, and generally limit the harvesting of these species to waters landward of the EEZ 

limit. The United States also meets the obligations of these sections to cooperate internationally as a party in 

other agreements, including the Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific 

Ocean and the Convention for Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic. 

UNCLOS does not specifically limit management by coastal nations of highly migratory species within the 

EEZ, but Article 64 requires nations that fish in the region to cooperate to effectively manage the species 

throughout their range. After 1990, the United States asserted exclusive jurisdiction over all highly migratory 

species within the EEZ, and has also continued to seek global cooperation as a member of international and 

regional organizations, including the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, the Indo-Pacific Fisheries 

Commission, the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, the Convention for the 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 65

Prohibition of Fishing with Long Driftnets in the South Pacific, and the Agreement on the International 

Dolphin Conservation Program. 

Finally, UNCLOS recognizes the right of coastal nations to provide special protections for marine mammals. 

Article 65 provides that “[n]othing in this Part restricts the right of a coastal [nation] or the competence of an 

international organization, as appropriate, to prohibit, limit or regulate the exploitation of marine mammals 

more strictly than provided for in this Part.” 

The U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement

The obligation for cooperation under the Agreement can be implemented through existing treaties and 

international arrangements or by the creation of new regional fishery organizations. The obligation to 

cooperate affects not only parties to the treaty, but also non-parties. Article 8(3) and (4) provide that nonparties may not participate in the management of high seas fisheries unless they are members of the regional 

fishery organization or accept the organization’s management measures. Articles 17(4) and 33(2) call for 

parties to take “measures consistent with the Agreement and international law” to deter non-parties from 

undermining the effectiveness of regional management measures. 

With regard to management of highly migratory and straddling stocks within national jurisdiction, the 

Agreement heightens the degree of obligation on the coastal nation imposed by Article 61 of UNCLOS. 

Terms used in Article 61, such as “take into account” and “consider,” are generally replaced in the Agreement 

with “shall” adopt, ensure and protect. Effective management of coastal nations is further encouraged by 

Article 7(a)(2) of the Agreement, which requires compatible fishery management beyond national jurisdiction, 

taking into account “the conservation and management measures adopted and applied . . . by the coastal 

[nations] within areas under national jurisdiction and ensur[ing] that measures established in respect of such 

stocks for the high seas do not undermine the effectiveness of such measures.” 

The U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement expands upon the conservation and management concepts of UNCLOS, 

such as qualified maximum sustainable yield. The Agreement specifically incorporates more contemporary 

management concepts recommended by UNCED and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations on sustainability, ecosystem management, and integrated management, including requirements to: 

adopt measures to assure long-term sustainability of straddling and migratory fish stocks; adopt measures to 

protect species within the same ecosystem; take measures to prevent or eliminate overfishing and excess 

capacity to ensure fishing effort that will allow sustainable use of fishery resources; minimize pollution, waste, 

discards, and impact on associated or dependent species; protect biodiversity of the marine environment; and 

assess the impact of fishing, other human activities, and environmental factors on target stocks, associated 

and dependent species, and other species in the ecosystem.174 The Agreement also requires application of a 

precautionary approach.175 The 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act led 

to major progress toward meeting the management goals of the Agreement. 

Since the Agreement came into force, the United States has been actively promoting the development of new 

regional fishery arrangements to facilitate its implementation. In particular, the United States in November 

1995 joined the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization and has been instrumental in the organization’s 

adoption of the principles of the U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement as rules governing member compliance and 

non-member fishing activities. The United States also participated in negotiation of the recently concluded 

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention, which establishes conservation and management measures 

for all countries and vessels operating in the region. A new regime has also been negotiated under the 

Convention on the Conservation and Management of Fishery Resources in the Southeast Atlantic Ocean. 

 

174 U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement, Articles 5(a)-(h). 

175 U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement, Articles 5(c), 6. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

66 Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 

Like other new regional high seas organizations, the governing principles incorporate elements of the U.N. 

Fish Stocks Agreement. The United States has participated in the South Pacific Tuna Treaty since 1988 and 

has been a member of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) since 

1976. ICCAT has also recently incorporated important principles of the U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement into 

rules for members and for non-member nations fishing within the region. 176

International Trade and Protection of Living Marine Resources 

The United States is party to a number of international treaties and international organizations that use trade 

sanctions to bolster the effectiveness of the treaties by creating an enforcement mechanism for protecting 

high seas resources, ensuring the compliance of parties, and constraining free riders. The Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered Species,177 for example, prohibits trade in species listed as endangered in 

its Appendix I as well as certain species protected unilaterally within certain jurisdictions. ICCAT178 does not 

directly provide for trade measures, but resolutions taken by ICCAT have contained trade restrictions. Under 

the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act,179 the Secretary of Commerce is directed to promulgate regulations 

necessary and appropriate to carry out ICCAT recommendations.180 In a recent action to implement a 

recommendation of the ICCAT, for example, NMFS is banning the import of undersized Atlantic swordfish. 

Those types of regional and multilateral approaches to solving such transnational problems have been 

generally encouraged. 

Unilateral protection of a marine species within a nation’s jurisdiction can have limited success if the species 

has a wide migratory range (e.g., whales) or is impacted by activities outside of national boundaries. Because 

of the economic power the United States wields as one of the world’s largest markets, it would seem that all 

of these issues could be addressed if the United States simply restricts imports from countries that do not 

 

176 A useful reference concerning the status of international negotiations is found at the NOAA Web site on International 

Agreements, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/International (accessed May 28, 2004). 

177 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, done March 3, 1973, 27 U.S.T. 1087, 993 

U.N.T.S. 243. 

178 International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, done 14 May 1966, entered into force, 21 Mar 1969, 673 

U.N.T.S. 63. 

179 16 U.S.C. §§ 971-971i. 

180 The Atlantic Tunas Conventions Act, section 971c, also provides that: 

(4) Upon the promulgation of regulations [to implement ICCAT Commission resolutions], the Secretary shall 

promulgate, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State . . . additional regulations which shall become 

effective simultaneously . . . which prohibit 

 (A) the entry into the United States of fish in any form of those species which are subject to regulation pursuant 

to a recommendation of the Commission and which were taken from the Convention area in such manner or in 

such circumstances as would tend to diminish the effectiveness of the conservation recommendations of the 

Commission; and 

 (B) the entry into the United States, from any country when the vessels of such country are being used in the 

conduct of fishing operations in the Convention area in such manner or in such circumstances as would tend to 

diminish the effectiveness of the conservation recommendations of the Commission, of fish in any form of those 

species which are subject to regulation pursuant to a recommendation of the Commission and which were 

taken from the Convention area. 

(5) In the case of repeated and flagrant fishing operations in the Convention area by the vessels of any country 

which seriously threaten the achievement of the objectives of the Commission’s recommendations, the 

Secretary with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, may by regulations . . . prohibit the entry in any form 

from such country of other species covered by the Convention as may be under investigation by the 

Commission and which were taken in the Convention area. Any such prohibition shall continue until the 

Secretary is satisfied that the condition warranting the prohibition no longer exists, except that all fish in any 

form of the species under regulation which were previously prohibited from entry shall continue to be prohibited 

from entry. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 3: Living Marine Resources 67

provide comparable environmental protections. Although this approach has been subject to challenge, WTO 

rulings have recognized that conservation can be a legitimate objective of trade policy. 

. 

As noted above, laws attempting to protect marine resources internationally were first challenged under 

GATT when the United States banned importation of tuna from Mexico because dolphins were not 

comparably protected in the Mexican tuna fishery. Although a trade ban is a per se violation of GATT’s Article 

XI prohibition on quotas, there are exceptions. Trade restrictions may be justified, for example, by exceptions 

under Article XX(b) and (g), which allow trade measures “necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or 

health” and “relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources if such measures are made effective 

in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption.” 

In 1994, the establishment of the WTO to administer GATT resulted in changes in its dispute resolution 

process. Most important, an Appellate Body was created to review panel decisions about violations of the 

trade agreement. In 1998, a WTO panel found the United States in violation for prohibiting imports of 

shrimp from countries whose harvesting techniques may adversely affect sea turtles. The United States appeal 

of the panel’s decision to the WTO’s Appellate Body yielded important new interpretations of the Article 

XX(g) exceptions. Specifically, it held that: (1) along with nonliving resources, living resources such as the five 

species of sea turtles protected by the U.S. import prohibition are “exhaustible natural resources;” (2) the U.S. 

prohibition is a measure “relating to the conservation of” such resources; and (3) the prohibition is a measure 

“made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production.”181 The Appellate Body did not find 

that the exceptions cannot apply extraterritorially (although the Body did seem to suggest there was a 

requisite “nexus”), and it did not prohibit regulations that go to the means of production and not just the 

product. The decision is hailed as restoring a balance between free trade principles and environmental 

protection. 

In the years following the tuna/dolphin decisions by the GATT panels, the United States has primarily 

pursued dolphin protection in the tuna fishing industry through international negotiations and has 

significantly amended the MMPA trade restriction provisions to reflect international agreements and GATT 

requirements. 

 

181 United States Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, adopted Oct. 12, 1998, Appellate Body Report No. AB1998-4. The Appellate Body invalidated the U.S. prohibition under Article XX’s introductory clauses (chapeau), however, which 

require that measures otherwise justifiable under Article XX(g) are “not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of 

arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail.” 

Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 69

CHAPTER 4 

OCEAN AND COASTAL POLLUTION FROM LAND-BASED SOURCES 

INTRODUCTION

A variety of pollutants, from a multitude of sources, can have serious adverse effects on the quality of ocean and 

coastal waters.1 Pollution arises from distinct point source discharges, such as municipal wastewater treatment plants 

and industrial outfall pipes, from diffuse nonpoint sources, such as runoff from agricultural or urban areas, and from 

atmospheric deposition from distant sources such as coal-burning power plants. This chapter presents the federal 

legal authority enacted to protect water quality and control pollution in ocean and coastal waters from land-based 

sources, and includes a discussion of some of the current issues associated with those authorities. The legal regime 

and issues related to other types of water pollution, such as oil releases or spills, vessel wastewater discharges, and 

ballast water containing nonindigenous species, are discussed in Chapter 7, Marine Operations. 

GOVERNING STATUTES 

The primary federal statute that addresses control of water pollution from land-based point and nonpoint sources 

is the Clean Water Act (CWA). The authority for addressing nonpoint source pollution of ocean and coastal 

waters is also found in Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). 

The legal regime for addressing pollution from atmospheric deposition is found in the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

Along with the CWA, CZARA, and CAA, several other laws addressing pollution from land-based sources and its 

effects on U.S. waters include the Ocean Dumping Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Other efforts to address 

ocean and coastal pollution are more recent, including the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health 

Act of 2000 (an amendment to the CWA), attempts to revise the implementation of the total maximum daily load 

provisions of the CWA, and increased funding for conservation programs in the 2002 Farm Bill. These laws use a 

variety of tools, ranging from regulatory controls to incentive-based measures, as means for improving the quality 

of the nation’s waters. 

Clean Water Act 

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of the Nation’s waters.”2 The CWA set forth national goals: to make all waters “fishable” and 

 

1

 The overall national coastal condition was rated in the National Coastal Condition Report in 2001 as being from “fair” to “poor,” 

varying from region to region. Reports of states and tribes under § 305(b) of the CWA indicate that the leading stressors on 

receiving waters are pathogens, oxygen-depleting substances, metals, and nutrients. U.S. EPA, National Coastal Condition Report, 

September 2001, EPA-620/R-01/005, available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/ (accessed May 6, 2004). 

2

 Pub. L. 92-500; 86 Stat. 816; October 18, 1972. (codified at 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.) The quoted goal is at 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

70 Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 

“swimmable” by 1983; and to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United States by 1985.3

The CWA, which is administered primarily by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), significantly 

strengthened pre-existing federal legal authority to control water pollution, and established a national program 

with both federal and state roles to achieve the goals of the Act. Previously, federal water pollution law relied 

almost entirely on state planning and management. Provisions of the CWA primarily relating to water pollution 

from land-based sources are described below. 

Under the CWA, Congress has enacted programs to establish: 

• National discharge standards for criteria pollutants. 

• National effluent standards for major industrial categories. 

• The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program. 

• State planning and implementation of state authorities to control nonpoint sources. 

• Development of water quality standards and total maximum daily load determinations, and allocations among 

point and nonpoint sources to meet water quality standards, where needed in addition to the discharge and 

effluent limitations for point sources. 

• Federal funding to assist states in implementing those programs. 

• Federal funding to upgrade publicly owned wastewater treatment works. 

As these broad elements of the CWA make clear, the law depends in large part upon state planning and 

implementation.4 

The CWA provides for federal, technology-based standards to be imposed on point sources, such as municipal 

wastewater treatment plants and industrial facilities, through “end-of-the-pipe” quantitative restrictions on 

discharge.5 EPA establishes effluent limitation standards by industrial categories, through notice and comment 

rulemaking. Under the Act’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulatory program, 

these standards are incorporated into permits issued to individual point sources by EPA or by a state that has been 

delegated authority by EPA.6 The NPDES program also regulates discharges of stormwater from municipal 

separate storm sewer systems, certain categories of industrial facilities, and many construction sites. Congress has 

provided for exemptions from the requirement for a permit for certain point sources, including agricultural 

irrigation return flows and agricultural stormwater discharges.7

Section 401 of the CWA authorizes states to require federal agencies to obtain certification, or require permit 

applicants to do so, from the state before issuing permits that would result in increased pollutant loads to waters 

and wetlands. The certification is issued only if such increased loads would not cause or contribute to violations of 

the state’s water quality standards. States may grant, deny, or condition these certifications.8

 

3

 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251(a)(1)-(2). 

4

 An exception is that discharges of one category of pollutants—dredged or fill material—are regulated primarily by the USACE 

under Section 404 of the CWA. The 1987 amendments to the CWA allow states to take over the responsibility for the Section 404 

permit program but very few states have chosen to do so. 

5

 33 U.S.C. § 1311. As adopted in 1972, the CWA required that all discharges of pollutants (other than those from publicly owned

treatment works (POTWs)) were to be treated with the “best practicable control technology” (BPT) by July 1, 1977, and with the “best 

available technology economically achievable” (BAT) by July 1, 1983. Under Title II, the sewage treatment level at POTWs was to

be increased (typically from none) to a minimum of “secondary treatment” by 1977, and “best practicable waste treatment over the 

life of the works” by 1983 (although this was eliminated in 1981). See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b)(1)(A), (b)(2)(A). 

6

 33 U.S.C. § 1342. 

7 Id. § 1362(14). 

8

 33 U.S.C. § 1341. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 71

Congress created the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) program as part of extensive amendments to the 

CWA in 19879 in an effort to shift from outright federal grants to states and localities to build sewage treatment 

plants, to a more self-sustaining system of state-administered revolving loan funds. Congress, through 

appropriations to EPA, has provided capitalization grants to all fifty states and Puerto Rico. States must match 

part of the federal capitalization grants and set the priorities for making loans from the SRFs. Loans usually 

finance major public infrastructure such as construction of municipal wastewater treatment plants and correction 

of wet-weather sewer overflows, but also can be made for stormwater control and nonpoint source pollution 

control activities.10

Diffuse sources, such as polluted runoff, are addressed by the CWA Section 319 National Nonpoint Source 

Pollution Program, in which EPA provides matching grants to states to develop and implement statewide 

programs for managing nonpoint sources of water pollution. States must prepare an assessment of waters where 

the control of nonpoint source pollution is necessary to meet water quality standards, identify the significant 

sources of that pollution, and specify control measures. States also must develop a program that sets forth the best 

management practices necessary to remedy the problems.11 

Another important part of efforts to address nonpoint sources is the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 

program. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to ensure that their waters meet water quality standards, 

identify and prioritize their waters according to the level of pollution, and then establish TMDLs for those waters. 

TMDL refers to the maximum amount of a pollutant, from point or nonpoint sources, that can be present in a 

waterbody while still maintaining water quality standards. States must develop a TMDL for each pollutant of 

concern, and develop and implement plans to achieve and maintain TMDLs by allocating reductions among point 

and nonpoint sources.12

Section 304(a) of the CWA also plays a role in addressing nonpoint source pollution, as it requires EPA to 

develop risk-based criteria for water quality that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge and address the 

impact of pollutant concentrations on the environment and human health. Section 304(a) also provides guidance 

to states for developing the 303 water quality standards. Under the CWA, states must review these standards at 

least once every three years and revise them as appropriate. Revisions determined to be less stringent must receive 

approval from EPA prior to use in CWA programs.13 

Section 404 of the CWA is the primary federal regulatory program providing protection for the nation’s wetlands, 

prohibiting the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States without a permit.14 Under the 

regulations implementing the CWA, the term “waters of the United States” includes some wetlands.15 Section 404 

permits are issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) after application of its regulatory review 

standards, as well as guidelines developed by EPA.16 EPA, which implements all other sections of the CWA at the 

 

9

 The 1987 amendments to the CWA are in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100-4, 101 Stat. 60, February 4, 1987. 

10 For additional information on the State Revolving Fund program, see Financing America’s Clean Water Since 1987, U.S. EPA, 

Office of Water, EPA-832-R-00-011, May 2001, available at http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/progress.pdf (accessed April 

22, 2004). 

11 33 U.S.C. § 1329. 

12 See http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl. 

13 General information is available at http://www.epa.gov/wqsdatabase (accessed June 1, 2004). Individual state water quality 

standards are available at http://www.epa.gov/ost/wqs (accessed June 1, 2004). 

14 33 U.S.C. § 1344. 

15 33 C.F.R. §§ 328.3(a) and (b). 

16 40 C.F.R. Part 230. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

72 Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 

federal level, has joint responsibility with the USACE to administer Section 404, ultimate authority to interpret the 

statute, and authority to veto a Section 404 permit that the USACE issues.17 

Under Section 404, USACE can also issue general permits on a state, regional, or national basis.18 Rather than 

applying for an individual permit, a person may qualify to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the 

United States under one of these general permits, issued for projects with minimal adverse effects, by agreeing to 

comply with certain regulations.19 General permits decrease the administrative burden for the federal and state 

regulatory agencies, but controversy exists about their use. 

The law governing the definition of “waters of the United States” has been in flux as a result of recent Supreme 

Court rulings, notably Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.20 In 

that case, the Supreme Court restricted the previous geographic scope of jurisdiction under CWA Section 404, to 

exclude “non-navigable, isolated, intrastate” waters or wetlands from the category of “waters of the United States” 

under the CWA if the sole basis for considering such waters to be “waters of the United States” is because they 

may be used as habitat by migratory birds. After the Supreme Court’s ruling in SWANNC, EPA and the USACE 

issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking designed to clarify the scope of federal jurisdiction over 

isolated, intrastate waters, but the agencies subsequently decided not to elaborate on the SWANCC ruling.21 

Section 311 of the CWA provides the primary mechanism for enforcing oil pollution control standards and 

establishing responsibility and liability for oil spill and hazardous substance cleanup and damages.22 Although the 

Oil Pollution Act of 199023 replaced most of the CWA legal provisions for responsibility for cleanup costs and 

damages for oil spills, Section 311 continues to provide the framework for civil and criminal enforcement by the 

federal government for oil spills and for notification to EPA or the U.S. Coast Guard when a spill of oil or a 

hazardous substance occurs.24

Section 320 of the CWA, added by amendments to the Act in 1987, established the National Estuary Program 

(NEP), which focuses on point and nonpoint source pollution in high priority estuaries.25 EPA assists state, 

regional, and local governments in developing a watershed-based, Comprehensive Conservation and Management 

Plan (CCMP) that “recommends priority corrective actions and compliance schedules addressing point and 

 

17 33 U.S.C. § 1344(c); see also Jurisdiction of Dredge and Fill Program, Memorandum of Understanding between the 

Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers, 45 Fed. Reg. 45,018 (1980). 

18 33 U.S.C. § 1344(a), (e). USACE authorizes projects involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United 

States using either individual permits or general permits. However, even when a party applies for an individual permit, USACE 

regulations state that USACE District Engineers “should” look for possible eligibility under a general permit. 33 C.F.R. § 330.1(f) 

(1998). 

19 Id.

20 531 U.S. 159 (2001). See also American Mining Congress v. U.S. EPA, 497 U.S. 1003 (1997). 

21 The agencies’ discussion of possible ways to implement the SWANCC decision is found at Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking of the Clean Water Act Regulatory Definition of “Waters of the United States,” 68 Fed. Reg. 1991-1998 (Jan. 15, 2003). 

The decision not to issue a new rule concerning federal regulatory jurisdiction over isolated wetlands is found at EPA and Army 

Corps Issue Wetlands Decision, USACE press release, December 16, 2003, available at

http://www.usace.army.mil/net/functions/cw/hot_topics/16dec_epa.htm (accessed November 9, 2004). Further discussion of 

wetlands law is beyond the scope of this document. 

22 33 U.S.C. § 1321. 

23 Pub. L. 101-380; discussed in Chapter 7 of this Appendix. 

24 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, which includes the program commonly 

known as Superfund) establishes a parallel legal regime to CWA § 311 and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 for hazardous substances

(not including petroleum). See 42 USC §§ 9601 et seq. Section 311 of the CWA is also discussed in Chapters 5 and 7. 

25 33 U.S.C. § 1330. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 73

nonpoint sources of pollution to restore and maintain” estuarine water quality, fish populations, and other 

designated uses of the estuary.26 Implementation of the CCMPs depends on the jurisdiction, mechanisms, and 

authorities of multiple players, including federal and state agencies, towns, counties, nongovernmental 

organizations, and industry representatives. In addition to the NEP program, estuarine management and 

protection programs are authorized by the CWA for the Chesapeake Bay,27 the Great Lakes,28 and Long Island 

Sound,29 and EPA established a similar program for the Gulf of Mexico.30 

In 2000, the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act),31 amended the Clean 

Water Act to require states to set pathogen water quality standards for their coastal waters. The BEACH Act was 

passed to counteract the growing problems of increased beach closures and incidences of infectious diseases in 

recreational areas, and is, in essence, a national plan to protect the health of the people who visit the nation’s 

beaches.32 

The BEACH Act requires states with coastal recreation waters to adopt water quality criteria and standards for 

pathogen levels in those waters, and to develop pathogen indicators with published criteria. Coastal recreation 

waters are defined as “the Great Lakes [and] marine coastal waters (including coastal estuaries) that are designated 

under [Clean Water Act Section 303(c)] by a State for use for swimming, bathing, surfing, or similar water contact 

activities.”33 The Act, and EPA’s program implementing it, seek to improve the following areas: strengthening 

beach water quality standards, monitoring, and testing; providing faster laboratory test methods; predicting 

pollution; investing in health and methods research; and better informing of the public.34 The success of the 

BEACH Act has yet to be determined, but EPA has indicated that enhanced state monitoring programs will be 

necessary in order for EPA and states to understand (and address) the true extent of this problem. 

Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 

As noted in Chapter 2, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) was enacted during the same period 

as the Clean Water Act and other major federal environmental legislation. In contrast to many of these other laws, 

the CZMA is voluntary and does not impose regulatory requirements on states. 

When Congress reauthorized and amended the CZMA through the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization 

Amendments of 1990 (CZARA),35 it perceived that the CZMA’s goal of “control[ling] land use activities which 

have a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters” had not been achieved.36 To help meet this goal, 

Congress created the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, more commonly known as the CZARA 

Section 6217 program.37 The Section 6217 program is intended to enhance state and federal coordination, 

 

26 33 U.S.C. § 1330(b)(4). 

27 33 U.S.C. § 1267. 

28 33 U.S.C. § 1268. 

29 33 U.S.C. § 1269. 

30 The Gulf of Mexico Program 2001 Stakeholders Report is available at http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/welcome/pdf/Gulf2001_sec1.pdf 

(accessed June 1, 2004). 

31 Pub. L. 106-284, 114 Stat. 870, October 10, 2000. 

32 The BEACH Act amended (through additions) part or all of the CWA sections 104, 303, 406, 502, and 518. A detailed discussion 

of these new additions is available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/act.html (accessed April 22, 2004). 

33 33 U.S.C. § 1362(21)(A). 

34 See Overview, available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/about.html (accessed April 22, 2004). 

35 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, Pub. L. 101-508, Title VI, Subtitle C, 104 Stat. 1388. November 5, 1990. 

36 136 Cong. Rec. 26,033 (Sept. 26, 1990). 

37 16 U.S.C. § 1455b. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

74 Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 

promote stronger links between state coastal management programs and state water quality programs, and 

enhance state and local land use management efforts aimed at protecting coastal water quality, particularly with 

respect to nonpoint source pollution. To facilitate development of state coastal nonpoint programs and ensure 

coordination among states, Congress assigned administration of the program at the federal level to NOAA and 

EPA. 

Under Section 6217, every state with a federally-approved coastal management program must develop and submit 

a coastal nonpoint pollution control plan to NOAA and EPA for approval. In these plans, the coastal state is 

required to identify land uses that contribute to coastal water quality degradation and critical coastal areas. 

Congress further required that state programs provide for implementation of best management practices compiled 

by EPA, and directed the states to identify enforceable policies and mechanisms that will allow them to implement 

those measures and others as part of the state’s federally-approved coastal management program.38 Federal 

financial assistance to a state’s program depends upon the approval of both NOAA and EPA. 

Clean Air Act 

Congress passed comprehensive amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1970 to regulate air pollution from 

stationary and mobile sources.39 The CAA establishes a number of mechanisms and programs to address air 

pollution, including health- and welfare-based ambient standards that are implemented through air quality 

management programs administered by the states, technology-based standards, and market-based “cap-and-trade” 

programs. The establishment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) is the foundation of the CAA. 

Under the CAA, EPA is charged with establishing primary and secondary NAAQS for all “criteria pollutants” 

(those pollutants that EPA has determined endanger the public health or welfare). Primary NAAQS are directed at 

protecting the public health, while secondary NAAQS are concerned with protecting the public welfare. 

The six criteria pollutants currently regulated under the CAA include particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, 

lead, carbon monoxide, and ozone (with hydrocarbons rescinded in 1982). After establishing the primary and 

secondary NAAQS levels for the criteria pollutants, these amounts must still be translated into emission 

limitations on individual sources. It is at this stage in the implementation process that responsibility under the 

CAA shifts to the states, which are required to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) stringent enough to 

achieve the NAAQS by a statutorily-set deadline and maintain them thereafter. In some situations, the CAA 

authorizes regulatory controls to be imposed at the federal level by EPA through a detailed Federal 

Implementation Plan when states fail to satisfy their obligations under the Act. The CAA also provides for 

financial disincentives, notably reduction in federal highway funds, for states that do not meet the NAAQS as 

required. Deadlines for compliance with the NAAQS standards were extended in the 1977 amendments to the 

CAA, as Congress grappled with conflicting concerns for economic growth, technological capability, and air 

quality. The deadlines were again extended in the 1990 CAA amendments, which also made numerous other 

changes to the basic statute.40 

Because the air transports pollutants into the ocean, improving water quality depends on improvements in air 

quality, including limiting interstate and international trans-boundary air pollution. The CAA has included 

programs to address such issues since 1970, but due to their cumbersome nature, EPA for many years chose not 

to implement them. Although CAA Section 110 requires states to consider the effects that major source emissions 

may have on other states, when it was challenged, courts held that there is no statutory duty on behalf of EPA to 

 

38 16 U.S.C. § 1455(d)(16). 

39 Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676, December 31, 1970. (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq., as amended.) 

40 Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, November 15, 1990. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 75

address interstate pollution problems.41 As information on the dangers to human health and the adverse effects on 

the environment from interstate and international trans-boundary pollution grew, however, so too did pressure for 

action. 

The 1990 amendments to the CAA include acid rain control provisions that impose controls on sulfur dioxide and 

nitrogen oxides emissions from fossil fuel-burning power plants and industrial facilities. The 1990 amendments 

also established a new program of technology-based standards for toxic air pollutants mandating maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) on at least 189 designated hazardous chemicals, including mercury, 

dioxins, and PCBs. This amendment was prompted in part by research indicating that atmospheric deposition of 

toxic pollutants, particularly mercury, and its corresponding bioaccumulation42 in fish and other marine life, was 

becoming a matter of serious concern. 

The 1990 amendments to the Act also attempted to more effectively address the long distance transportation of 

pollutants by expanding the category of sources subject to interstate pollution enforcement. None of these 

provisions regarding transport of air pollutants, however, specifically addresses impacts of air pollution on 

waterbodies. The amendments authorize EPA to set up interstate transport regions—areas where a particular 

pollutant emitted from one or more states contributes significantly to a NAAQS violation in one or more other 

states. EPA must then establish a transport commission consisting of EPA and representatives from all states 

involved. The transport commission is charged with assessing the degree of interstate pollution and strategies for 

mitigating such pollution, and eventually recommending prevention measures to EPA.43 To date, such transboundary efforts have been used only occasionally; thus, it remains to be seen whether they will significantly 

reduce interstate and trans-boundary pollution problems, including ocean and coastal pollution. 

In addition to emission limits on stationary sources, the CAA also contains national, technology-forcing emission 

limitations on mobile sources (including cars, trucks, and heavy off-road vehicles, and engines for recreational and 

commercial vessels). While the original regulations imposed on the automotive industry in 1970 proved 

unachievable, the 1990 amendments of the CAA were deemed more realistic and attainable. The 1990 

amendments strengthened vehicle emission standards and provided for a variety of additional measures, including: 

stronger inspection and maintenance programs; anti-tampering penalties; encouragement and development of 

alternative clean fuels and clean vehicles; controls on fuel volatility and evaporative emissions and sulfur content 

in gasoline and diesel fuel; and regulations for off-road vehicles.44 In 2004, EPA announced new initiatives 

designed to improve air quality through a combination of emission controls and cleaner fuels for certain marine 

diesel engines and other nonroad engines. (See Chapter 7, Marine Operations.) 

EPA’s Office of Water and Office of Air and Radiation have developed an Air-Water Interface Work Plan 

detailing an array of actions that EPA will take over the next several years to address atmospheric deposition of 

pollutants—including nitrogen compounds and toxics—into waterbodies nationally, using the authorities of both 

the CAA and the CWA.45

 

41 See e.g., Connecticut v. EPA, 656 F.3d 902 (2nd Cir. 1981). 

42 Bioaccumulate means to accumulate in a biological environment, including within aquatic organisms and the animals that 

consume them, including humans. Obviously, this is problematic when bioaccumulating substances are toxic to the organisms, 

animals, or people who consume them.

43 42 U.S.C. § 7506a, as amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Pub. L. 101-549, § 102(f)(1). 

44 See generally “The Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act, Mobile sources (cars, trucks, buses, off-road vehicles, planes, etc.)” 

available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/peg_caa/pegcaa04.html#topic4a (accessed May 3, 2004). 

45 Air-Water Interface Work Plan is available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/airdep/airwater_plan16.pdf (accessed April 29, 

2004). 

Examples of actions to control nitrogen compounds include: 

• CAA Title IV Acid Rain Program Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Reductions. 

• NOx SIP Call, § 126 Petitions, and Federal Implementation Plans (CAA). 

• New Source Performance Standards (CAA) (new power plants). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

76 Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 

Farm Bill Conservation Programs 

Prior to 1985, there were numerous federal programs in different agencies designed to control soil erosion. All of 

these programs were voluntary and moderately funded, with no direction or targeting of funds to the most erosive 

soils. The 1985 Farm Bill signified a major turning point in agriculture programs by introducing the original 

Conservation Reserve Program to preserve and protect highly erodible soil. The law also introduced two other 

new conservation programs—known as the Sodbuster and Swampbuster programs—designed to pay farmers to 

remove highly erodible soils and wetlands from agricultural production for an agreed number of years. The 1996 

Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act consolidated the Agricultural Conservation Program, Great 

Plains Program, Water Quality Incentives Program, and the Colorado River Salinity Program into one cost-sharing 

conservation program: the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Under EQIP, cost-sharing, 

incentive payments, technical assistance, and educational assistance are provided to farmers and ranchers who 

enter into contracts of generally five to ten years to install best management practices on their lands. 

While Congress made several changes to the conservation programs covered in the 2002 Farm Bill, the substantial 

increase in funding for conservation and commodity programs sparked considerable interest.46 In addition to 

farming and livestock subsidies, the 2002 Farm Bill dramatically increased the budget for conservation programs, 

for example, increasing EQIP funding from roughly $200 million per year to $5.8 billion over a six-year period 

(fiscal years 2002-07).47 It also created a new Conservation Security Program, which will provide financial and 

technical assistance to farmers and ranchers who implement certain conservation practices. 

Many of the changes in the EQIP program were made because of concern about the agricultural community’s 

ability to comply with other government programs, including the CWA NPDES requirement for the largest 

animal feeding operations to prepare and implement comprehensive nutrient management plans, and the CWA 

TMDL program that affects nonpoint sources. Congress intended that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA) implementation of the Farm Bill conservation programs ensure better integration with the other federal 

environmental programs.48 For example, the 2002 Farm Bill directs that 60 percent of EQIP funds be targeted at 

 • Mobile Source Control (CAA) (NOx reductions for new cars, SUVs, others). 

• Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) (a few CAFOs are regulated pursuant to the CAA). 

Examples of actions to control air toxics include: 

• National Technology-Based Standards (CAA “Maximum Achievable Control Technology” standards for 188 CAA 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from stationary sources). 

• Solid Waste Combustion Standards (CAA) (municipal combustors, medical, industrial, and other incinerators emitting 

mercury, lead, dioxins, others). 

• Area Source Standards (CAA) (drycleaners, gas stations, POTWs, others). 

• Utility Determination and Actions (EPA study of cost/effectiveness of technologies for mercury reduction and pollution 

prevention from coal-fired electric utilities). 

• Water Quality Criteria and Standards (CWA) (EPA is studying the possible need to revise human health and aquatic life 

protective criteria (such as the reference dose) for methylmercury, which is the biologically-transformed, highly toxic form 

of atmospheric deposition mercury). 

46 The 2002 Farm Bill is officially entitled the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-171, signed into law May 

13, 2002. 

47 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Conservation Programs, available at

http://www.ers.usda.gov/features/farmbill/analysis/conservationoverview.htm, (accessed April 23, 2004). 

48 Notably, § 2301 of the 2002 Farm Bill amended the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. §§ 3839aa et seq.), at § 1240, to state—

in federal law—the following purposes for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): 

The purposes of the EQIP established by this chapter are to promote agricultural production and environmental quality as 

compatible goals, and to optimize environmental benefits, by 

 (1) assisting producers in complying with local, State, and national regulatory requirements concerning 

 (A) soil, water, and air quality; 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 77

practices relating to livestock production, with specific goals such as improving water quality and meeting Clean 

Water Act standards through the reduction of excess nutrients, pollutants, and salinity associated with animal 

feeding operations.49

Ocean Dumping Act 

Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA), known as the Ocean Dumping 

Act (ODA),50 provides for the regulation of the ocean disposal of wastes by persons or vessels, within U.S. 

jurisdiction. The ODA uses a permitting program to regulate intentional disposal or dumping of all materials into 

ocean waters. Related provisions of the MPRSA authorize research into ocean disposal and its effects. 

Four federal agencies have responsibilities under the ODA: USACE, EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and NOAA. 

The ODA prohibits the transportation by any vessel from the United States, or by U.S. flag vessels from any 

location, of any material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters, except as may be authorized by a 

permit. It also prohibits the dumping, without a permit, of material transported from a location outside the United 

States into the U.S. territorial sea or into the contiguous zone to the extent that it may affect the territorial sea or 

the territory of the United States.51

Ocean waters are defined as waters of the open seas lying seaward of the baseline from which the territorial sea is 

measured.52 Material is broadly defined as matter of any kind or description, including, but not limited to, dredged 

material, solid waste, incinerator residue, garbage, sewage, sewage sludge, munitions, radiological, chemical, and 

biological warfare agents, radioactive materials, chemicals, biological and laboratory waste, wrecked or discarded 

equipment, rock, sand, excavation debris, and industrial, municipal, agricultural, and other waste. It does not 

include sewage from vessels regulated under Section 312 of the CWA, and oil within the meaning of Section 311 

of the CWA is included only to the extent that it is taken on board a vessel or aircraft for the purpose of 

dumping.53 Dumping is defined as a disposition of material, but does not include a routine discharge of effluent 

incidental to the propulsion of, or operation of motor driven equipment on, vessels or the disposition of material 

from any outfall structure that is regulated by the CWA, Section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, or the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954.54 Furthermore, dumping does not mean the construction of any fixed structure or 

artificial island nor the intentional placement of any device in ocean waters or on or in the submerged land 

 (B) wildlife habitat; and 

 (C) surface and ground water conservation; 

 (2) avoiding, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for resource and regulatory programs by assisting producers in 

protecting soil, water, air, and related natural resources and meeting environmental quality criteria established by Federal, 

State, tribal, and local agencies; 

 [. . .] and 

 (5) consolidating and streamlining conservation planning and regulatory compliance processes to reduce administrative 

burdens on producers and the cost of achieving environmental goals. 

Pub. L. 107-171, § 2301 (emphasis supplied). 

These statutory purposes demonstrate that Congress intends for the Farm Bill conservation programs to be substantially bolstered, 

specifically in hopes of avoiding the need for regulatory programs addressing agricultural producers who are adversely affecting the 

nation’s natural resources, including estuaries and coastal waters. 

49 Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. § 3839aa et seq.), § 1240B(g), as amended by § 2301of the 2002 Farm Bill. 

50 Pub. L. 92-532, 86 Stat. 1052, October 23, 1972. (Title I, the ODA, is codified at 33 U.S.C. §§ 1401 et seq.). 

51 33 U.S.C. § 1411. 

52 33 U.S.C. § 1402(b). 

53 33 U.S.C. § 1402(c). 

54 The ODA definition of “dumping” is found at 33 U.S.C. § 1402(f). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

78 Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 

beneath such waters, for a purpose other than disposal, when such construction or placement is otherwise 

regulated.55

The Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1998, which made it unlawful to dump sewage sludge or industrial waste into 

ocean waters after December 31, 1991, amended the ODA. All those engaged in dumping these materials when 

the statute was enacted were required to enter into compliance and enforcement agreements with EPA, and those 

continuing to dump after the 1991 deadline were subject to substantial civil penalties. This regime effectively 

ended the dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste into ocean waters.56 In addition, high-level radioactive 

wastes, medical wastes, and radiological, chemical, and biological warfare agents, were not permitted for ocean 

dumping under any circumstances.57

Virtually all material dumped in the oceans in the United States is dredged material removed from the bottom of 

waterbodies to maintain navigation channels and berthing areas. Other materials that are currently disposed of in 

the oceans include fish waste, human remains, and vessels. In the case of dredged material, the decision to issue a 

permit is made by the USACE using EPA’s environmental criteria and subject to EPA’s concurrence. For all other 

materials, EPA is the permitting agency. EPA is also responsible for designating recommended ocean dumping 

sites for all types of materials. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

The federal environmental statutes that were enacted in the 1970s were oriented mainly to preventing or 

reducing current pollution from ongoing activities. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA),58 as amended by the Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA),59 established a mechanism for responding to the health and 

environmental dangers posed by toxic materials that may have been released, discharged, or buried prior 

to the adoption of laws regulating these practices or which were illegally deposited. CERCLA and the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, discussed below) are the principle federal laws with 

the goal of preventing and cleaning up pollutants that may be introduced to ocean and coastal waters via 

the groundwater pathway.60 

 

55 Id.

56 Pub. L 100-688, November 18, 1988 (codified at 33 U.S.C. §§ 1414b). 

57 33 U.S.C. §§ 1412. 

58 Pub. L 96-510, December 11, 1980, as amended (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq.) 

59 Pub. L. 99-499, October 17, 1986. 

60 Superfund sites located in, or affecting, marine waters: Callahan Mine, Brooksville, Maine; Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery,

Maine; New Bedford Site, New Bedford, Massachusetts; Atlas Tack Corp., Fairhaven, Massachusetts; Newport Naval Education 

and Training Center, Newport, Rhode Island; Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, Maryland; Patuxent River Naval Air Station, St. 

Mary's County, Maryland; Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head, Maryland; Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Glen 

Cove, New York; North Sea Municipal Landfill, North Sea, New York; Fort Eustis (Army) Newport News, Virginia; Norfolk Naval 

Base, Norfolk, Virginia; Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia; 

Parris Island Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Beaufort, South Carolina; Brunswick Wood Preserving, Brunswick, Georgia; LCP 

Chemicals Georgia, Brunswick, Georgia; Tyndall Air Force Base, Panama City, Florida; Pensacola Naval Air Station, Pensacola, 

Florida; American Creosote Works, Pensacola, Florida; Bayou Bonfouca, Slidell, Louisiana; Star Lake Canal, Port Neches, Texas; 

Palmer Barge Line, Port Arthur, Texas; State Marine of Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas; Malone Service Company, Texas City, 

Texas; MOTCO, Inc., La Marque, Texas; Brio Refining, Inc., Friendswood, Texas; Patrick Bayou, Deer Park, Texas; GulfCo Marine 

Maintenance, Freeport, Texas; Brine Service Company, Corpus Christi, Texas; Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, San Diego 

County, California; Fort Ord, Marina, California; Treasure Island Naval Station-Hunters Point Annex, San Francisco, California;

Concord Naval Weapons Station, Concord, California; Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel, Tacoma, Washington; 

Commencement Bay, Nearshore/Tideflats, Pierce County, Washington; Harbor Island (LEAD), Seattle, Washington; Naval 

Undersea Warfare Engineering Station, Keyport, Washington; Old Navy Dump/Manchester Laboratory (EPA/NOAA), Kitsap County, 

WA; Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Complex, Bremerton, Washington; Port Hadlock Detachment (Navy), Indian Island, Washington; 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 79

The principle focus of CERCLA is remedial and corrective, rather than preventative, which distinguishes it from 

most other federal environmental statutes. However, concerns about potentially large financial liabilities under 

CERCLA for the improper handling of hazardous chemicals and wastes provide a strong incentive for industrial 

users of chemicals and generators of wastes to comply with other pollution control and prevention laws. 

The Act uses two complementary approaches. It gives governmental authorities and private parties the legal tools 

to respond to containment and cleanup problems presented by hazardous waste sites and spills, and it imposes 

financial liability for cleanup on responsible parties. CERCLA gives federal agencies, notably EPA and the Coast 

Guard, authority to respond in an emergency or other manner to releases of hazardous substances into the 

environment, and seeks, in both the short and long term, to abate and clean up hazardous wastes in existing 

uncontrolled disposal sites. However, despite the use of the term “compensation” in the name of the statute, 

CERCLA contains no private right of action for consequential damages. For example, private citizens may not be 

compensated under CERCLA for economic or personal injuries suffered as a result of exposure to toxic waste 

sites. 

CERCLA is unusual because of its funding mechanism and the fact that it is administered at the federal rather 

than the state level. Wherever possible, CERCLA places the ultimate financial burden of toxic waste cleanup on 

those responsible for creating the harmful conditions—fashioned under a “polluter pays” principle—although as 

the amount of operating funds obtained from polluters decreases, taxpayers pay more of the program costs. 

Under CERCLA, funds are derived from a special tax on the petroleum and chemical feedstock industries and 

placed in a dedicated funding account in the U.S. Treasury (known as the Superfund) that is also replenished 

through cost recovery actions.61 The federal government may use the Superfund to finance governmental 

response activities, to pay claims arising from the response activities of private parties, and to compensate federal 

or state governmental entities for damage caused to natural resources.62 CERCLA also provides that the federal 

government, state governments, and private parties may sue those responsible for the generation, transportation, 

or disposal of hazardous substances when there has been a release or threatened release of hazardous substances.63

Courts have uniformly imposed strict, joint and several, and retroactive64 liability in construing the liability 

provisions in Section 107(a) of CERCLA. Limited defenses are available, such as if the release of a hazardous 

substance is caused solely by an act of God, an act of war, or an act or omission by a third party unrelated to the 

defendant.65

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)66 was enacted to protect both ground and surface 

water from poorly managed disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. The Act reflects an increasing federal interest 

in addressing hazardous and nonhazardous waste disposal in all states, embracing a regulatory structure that sets 

 Tulalip Landfill, Marysville, Washington; Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Whidbey Island, Washington; Pearl Harbor Naval 

Complex, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. See http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/npl.htm (accessed June 22, 2004).

61 The corporate environmental tax and taxes on the petroleum and chemical feedstock industry expired in 1995, and Congress 

has not extended the collection of those taxes. Since 1995, the Superfund has been operating on the interest from existing funds, 

cleanup costs paid to EPA by private parties, and appropriations from the general Treasury. 

62 42 U.S.C. § 9611(a). 

63 Id. § 9607(a). 

64 I.e., the fact that disposal activities were legal at the time they occurred, including before enactment of CERCLA, does not provide 

a defense against liability pursuant to CERCLA. 

65 42 U.S.C. § 9607(b). 

66 Pub. L 94-580, 90 Stat. 2796, October 21, 1976 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seq.). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

80 Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 

federal protective minimum standards, but relies on state implementation. RCRA’s primary goals are “to protect 

human health and the environment from the dangers of waste disposal, to conserve energy and natural resources, 

to reduce the amount of waste generated, and to ensure that wastes are managed in an environmentally sound 

manner.”67

Congress significantly expanded the scope and requirements of RCRA in 1984, when the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA were enacted.68 The HSWA places an outright ban on the disposal of 

liquid hazardous wastes in landfills in an effort to cease the contamination of groundwater supplies caused by the 

release of such liquids.69 In addition, under the HSWA, owners or operators of treatment, storage, or disposal 

(TSD) facilities are responsible for investigating and, if required, cleaning up releases from their facilities, 

regardless of when such releases occurred. The 1984 amendments also establish more stringent performance 

schedules for EPA’s administration of its hazardous waste program, require increased design and performance 

standards for hazardous waste landfills to minimize leaking, and contemplate the complete phasing out of land 

disposal of hazardous waste. The mandated transformation from land disposal to treatment alternatives—known 

as the Land Ban—is accompanied by stringent statutory fallback requirements referred to as the hammer provisions, 

which trigger automatically to prohibit land disposal with respect to certain waste categories if EPA fails to set 

treatment standards by specified deadlines.70

U.S./Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 

Beginning with the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, Canada and the United States have officially cooperated to 

address issues of water quality within the Great Lakes basin.71 In the early 1970s, however, various biological 

indicators demonstrated that segments of the Great Lakes were in grave danger. Perhaps the most dramatic 

incident was when the Cuyahoga River, which flows into Lake Erie near Cleveland, caught fire because of debris 

and oil on its surface.72 Algal blooms, diminishing fish populations, high levels of chemicals, human and animal 

wastes, minerals from manufacturing plants, municipal sewage, urban and farmland runoff, and other activities 

had seriously deteriorated the quality of water in the Great Lakes.73 

In an attempt to gain control of the situation, in 1972 the United States and Canada entered into the U.S./Canada 

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). Last amended in 1987, the GLWQA has served as a 

framework for managing and achieving environmental results, and for conserving and rebuilding the Great Lakes 

ecosystem.74 The GLWQA has achieved numerous, impressive environmental successes, including reducing the 

amount of discharged nutrients and many persistent toxic substances, as well as improving the Lakes ecosystem 

and promoting the recovery of several key species (most notably the osprey, the bald eagle, and the lake trout). 

However, it proved insufficient in addressing other key environmental issues. Levels of certain persistent toxic 

substances remained unacceptably high, long-range atmospheric transportation of contaminants was not being 

 

67 EPA, Corrective Action, Background, available at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/backgnd.htm (accessed June 1, 

2004). See also 42 U.S.C. § 6902. 

68 Pub. L. 98-616, 98 Stat. 3224, November 8, 1984. 

69 42 U.S.C. § 6924(c). 

70 Id. § 6924(g). 

71 EPA Press Release, U.S., Canada Move to Eliminate Toxics in Great Lakes, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/canada/04.htm (accessed June 1, 2004). 

72 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, A Short History of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, available at 

http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/glwqa/sht-history-e.html (accessed June 1, 2004). 

73 Id. 

74 EPA Press Release, U.S., Canada Move to Eliminate Toxics in Great Lakes, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/canada/04.htm (accessed June 1, 2004). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 81

adequately addressed, non-native species continued to be introduced, and changing populations and land uses 

around the Great Lakes region were not being adequately planned or managed.

To more fully address these remaining issues, the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Reduction Strategy: CanadaUnited States Strategy for the Virtual Elimination of Persistent Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes, was signed 

by EPA and Environment Canada on April 7, 1997.75 This agreement marked the first time that leaders from both 

countries had agreed to specific reductions for toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes, targeting 2006 as the year by 

which significant reductions in persistent toxic substances would be achieved.76 This new plan is primarily based 

on voluntary pollution prevention activities, but continues to build on the older regulatory scheme of the 

GLWQA.77 Its focus is on bilateral cooperation between the two countries in addressing trans-boundary air 

pollution and cleanup of contaminated sediment, as well as increased cooperation in research and technological 

efforts.78

The International Joint Commission (IJC) for the Great Lakes Agreement has recently advocated that the U.S. 

and Canadian governments abide by their mandate to perform regular status reports on the forty-three areas of 

concern identified in the 1987 agreement. The IJC has argued that without this information it is impossible for it 

to assess the overall impact of cleanup efforts or to determine what still remains to be done. In addition, the IJC 

has called for identification of more clearly defined geographic areas in need of restoration, as well as improving 

accountability and responsibility.79 

 

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)80 was adopted and opened for signature in 

1982 and came into force on November 16, 1994. Some 59 of its 320 articles pertain to environmental protection 

and conservation. At least six sources of ocean pollution are addressed in UNCLOS: 

• Land-based and coastal activities. 

• Continental-shelf drilling. 

• Potential seabed mining. 

• Ocean dumping. 

• Vessel-source pollution. 

• Pollution from or through the atmosphere. 

UNCLOS provides that nations shall take measures necessary to protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of 

depleted and threatened species. Nations are also required to notify others in cases where the marine environment 

is in imminent danger of being damaged. Throughout Part XII of UNCLOS, the duty to cooperate is emphasized 

and nations are called on to keep under surveillance any permitted activities that may cause significant and harmful 

changes to the marine environment. 

 

75 See http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/p2/bns.html (accessed June 4, 2004). 

76 EPA Press Release, U.S., Canada Move to Eliminate Toxics in Great Lakes, available at

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/canada/04.htm (accessed June 1, 2004). 

77 Id. 

78 Id. 

79 Menyasz, P. Binational Commission Cites Lack of Data On Cleanup of Polluted ‘Hot Spots’ in Lakes, 34 Env’t Rep. (BNA) 1067 

(May 9, 2003). 

80 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (21 I.L.M. 1261 et seq. 1982). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

82 Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 

Part XII of the Convention looks primarily to flag nation enforcement of pollution from vessels, but also provides 

for port nation enforcement in specific circumstances. Careful safeguards for vessels and nations are specified to 

assure an appropriate balance between protection of the marine environment and freedom of navigation. 

In addition, Article 194 specifically authorizes measures “designed to minimize to the fullest possible extent [...] 

the release of toxic, harmful, or noxious substances, especially those which are persistent, from land-based 

sources, from or through the atmosphere or by dumping [...].” Article 210 further provides that all nations must 

adopt measures “to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment by dumping.” 

Although not a signatory, the United States has for the past two decades conducted its domestic and international 

environmental protection and natural resources conservation activities in accordance with the legal principles set 

forth in UNCLOS. (Aspects of UNCLOS are also discussed in Chapter 1, Setting the Stage, and Chapter 7, Marine 

Operations.) 

SELECTED ISSUES

Successfully addressing coastal and ocean pollution from land-based sources will require improved enforcement 

and upgraded technological controls with regard to point sources, enhanced legal authority to address nonpoint 

sources, improved responses to the problem of atmospheric deposition, and sustained funding. The following 

discusses some of the issues related to these challenges. 

Nonpoint Source Pollution 

While the United States has made tremendous advances in the past twenty-five years in cleaning up the aquatic 

environment by controlling pollution from industrial point sources and sewage treatment plants, nonpoint source 

pollution remains the nation’s largest source of water quality problems. The National Water Quality Inventory 2000 

Report 81 indicates that agriculture and urban runoff are the two leading contributors to nonpoint source pollution. 

Common nonpoint source pollutants include sediments and nutrients (nitrates and phosphates) that are washed 

from agricultural lands,82 animal feeding operations, construction sites, urban and suburban lawns and golf 

courses, and other areas.83, 84 Release of nitrogen from anthropogenic sources along the Atlantic Coast and Gulf 

 

81 Available at http://www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/ (accessed June 1, 2004). 

82 One of the most notorious examples of impairment due to nitrogen runoff is the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, which presents a 

striking example of the destructive impact of hypoxia. Excess nitrogen, primarily from agricultural runoff, has caused extensive algal 

growth in the Gulf, triggering the growth of a large hypoxic zone that varies in size up to as large as 12,000 square miles, recurring 

every spring and summer off the mouth of the Mississippi and extending through the Mississippi River watershed. Committee on 

Environment and Natural Resources. Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Washington, DC: National 

Science and Technology Council, 2000. The Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Action Plan, developed by federal and state officials, concludes 

that about 90 percent of the nitrate load to the Gulf is from nonpoint sources. Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient 

Task Force. Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, Washington, DC: 2001. 

See also National Research Council, Clean Coastal Waters: Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution, 

Washington DC, 2000; Nancy N. Rabalais et al., Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, 30 J. Env. Quality 320-29 (2000). 

83 Changes in flows and habitat disruption caused by dams, channelization, and other forms of hydromodification are another source 

of impairment. These changes in flow also cause erosion of stream banks and bottoms and contribute to suspended solids in the 

water column and downstream sedimentation. 

84 Also, a recent National Academy of Sciences report Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects suggests that oil runoff from urban 

streets and driveways that ultimately reaches the estuaries and oceans may need to be included among nutrients, pesticides, and

mercury, as serious threats to the coastal environment from nonpoint source pollution. National Research Council, Oil in the Sea III: 

Inputs, Fates, and Effects (Washington DC, 2002). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 83

of Mexico has increased fivefold since the preindustrial era, and is expected to increase by another 30 percent by 

the year 2030 if current practices continue unchanged.85

Growing development of coastal areas and the accompanying increases in nutrient and other runoff, airborne 

pollutants, and toxic contaminants present a significant threat to water quality in oceans and estuaries. The spread 

of urban surfaces—paved roads, parking lots, rooftops—replaces naturally permeable surfaces with impervious 

ones and greatly increases the problems of runoff.86 As a result, the pattern and rate of flow of rainwater and 

snowmelt to waterbodies is affected; more significantly, this runoff collects pollutants and rapidly transports them 

into nearby waterbodies.87

Total Maximum Daily Loads 

Although established in the 1972 CWA, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program was given little 

attention while the states and EPA emphasized the implementation of the CWA’s National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) program to control point sources. Beginning in the 1980s, a series of citizen suits 

challenged EPA’s inaction on TMDLs and nonpoint sources, and the courts held that the continued 

nonsubmission of TMDLs by a state eventually equates to no TMDL submission. This failure required EPA to 

step in and either direct the states to establish TMDLs or promulgate acceptable TMDLs on their behalf.88

Those citizen suits illustrate that the TMDL program, with its requirement to allocate waste loads among point 

and nonpoint sources, is, and for years has been, politically controversial. The history of EPA’s efforts to revise 

and strengthen the regulations for the TMDL program in the 1990s and the early years of this century offers a 

sense of how controversial the program is and how difficult it is to make legally-binding progress toward 

controlling nonpoint source pollution. 

In 1996, EPA convened a committee pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)89 to bring a 

diversity of viewpoints to resolving several problems concerning the TMDL program and to addressing nonpoint 

source pollution.90 Despite reaching agreements on a number of difficult issues, the committee failed to achieve a 

consensus on whether the TMDL process should be used to address nonpoint source pollution.91 EPA then 

proceeded to integrate the recommendations into its revision of the existing TMDL regulations.92 As EPA was 

working on its revision, a congressional subcommittee also conducted hearings on the TMDL program and the 

proposed changes. Following these hearings, Congress asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to determine 

whether EPA’s water quality data were reliable and representative of water quality conditions nationwide, and 

whether the available data were sufficient to allow state officials to make key decisions. GAO raised concerns on 

both issues in its report of March 2000.93

 

85 Howarth, R.W. et al., Nitrogen Use in the United States from 1961-2000 and Potential Future Trends, 31(2) Ambio 88-96 (2002). 

86 Beach, D. Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States, Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans 

Commission 2002. 

87 Id. 

88 See Scott v. City of Hammond, 530 F. Supp. 288 (N.D. Ill. 1981), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 741 F.2d 992, 14 ELR 20,631 (7th Cir. 

1984): Northwest Envtl. Defense Ctr. v. Thomas, No. 86-1578PA (D. Or. complaint filed Dec. 12, 1986); Alaska Ctr. for the Env't v. 

Reilly, 762 F. Supp. 1422, 21 ELR 21,305 (W.D. Wash. 1991), injunctive relief granted, 796 F. Supp. 1374, 22 ELR 21,204 (W.D. 

Wash. 1992), aff’d sub nom. Alaska Ctr. for the Env’t v. Browner, 20 F.3d 981, 24 ELR 20,702 (9th Cir. 1994). 

89 Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770, October 6, 1972 (codified at 5 U.S.C. Appendix). 

90 Houck, O.A. TMDLs Ill: A New Framework for the Clean Water Act’s Ambient Standards Program, 28 ELR 10,415, 10,422 (Aug. 

1998). 

91 Id. 

92 Rogers, B. & A. Hazlett, TMDLs: Are They Dead Letters?, Agric. L. Update, Aug. 2001, at 4. 

93 See General Accounting Office, Water Quality, Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data, 

GAO/RCED-00-54 (Mar. 2000). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

84 Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 

Despite GAO’s concerns, EPA promulgated its revised final TMDL rule in July 200094 that substantially altered 

the TMDL process. For example, nonpoint sources of pollution were explicitly included within the 2000 TMDL 

framework.95 States were to schedule the establishment of TMDLs within ten years after July 10, 2000.96

Moreover, this regulation required that all impaired waterbodies, even those for which TMDLs were not yet 

required, be placed on a four-part list and prioritized.97 States were further required to provide an implementation 

plan and a “reasonable assurance” that TMDL waste loads and load allocations would be met.98

Some of the changes included in the 2000 rule were controversial, especially the inclusion of nonpoint sources and 

the revisions to the TMDL schedule, and both legal and political challenges resulted.99 The American Farm 

Bureau Federation, concerned about the implications of the inclusion of nonpoint sources in the TMDL program, 

immediately filed a lawsuit to challenge the new regulation.100 Other agricultural organizations, states, and 

industrial associations also sued.101 Interested parties persuaded Congress not only to prohibit EPA from using 

any appropriations from fiscal years 2000 or 2001 to implement the new regulations,102 but also insisted that EPA 

hire the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to analyze the TMDL program and the new regulation.103 The NAS 

determined that there is enough scientific information available to implement the TMDL program, finding that 

any uncertainty could easily be compensated for in the process of fulfilling the program’s goals; such uncertainties 

must simply be acknowledged and taken into account.104

On March 13, 2003, EPA formally withdrew the July 2000 TMDL rule, stating that the rule was “unworkable.”105

EPA indicated that it needed additional time beyond April 30, 2003 (when the rule was last scheduled to take 

effect) to determine how best to revise the TMDL program to achieve the goals of the CWA. Thus, the TMDL 

program now operates under rules that were promulgated in 1985 and last amended in 1992,106 and a 1997 

guidance document.107

 

94 Revisions to the Water Quality Planning and Management Regulation and Revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Program in Support of Revisions to the Water Quality Planning and Management Regulation, 65 Fed. Reg. 

43,586 (July 13, 2000). 

95 Id. at 43,588. 

96 Or, the due date on the first list on which the waterbody appeared, although this schedule may be extended for five years if the 

original deadline cannot be met despite expeditious action. Id. at 43,591. 

97 Id. at 43,590. 

98 Id. at 43,591. 

99 Rogers & Hazlett, at 5. 

100 American Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Browner, No. 00-1320 (D.C. Cir. July 18, 2000). 

101 See Bruninga, S. Nine Petitions Filed in Major Fight Over Final Rule Revising TMDL Program, 31 Env’t Rep. (BNA) 2618 (Dec. 

15, 2000). 

102 Military Construction Appropriations Act, Pub. L. 106-246; 114 Stat. 511 (2000). 

103 Department of Veteran Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Act, Pub. L. 106-377, 114 Stat. 

1441, 1441A-3 (2000). 

104 National Research Council. Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management, Washington, DC: National Academy 

Press, 2001. 

105 68 Fed. Reg. 13,607-13,614 (Mar.19, 2003). See also, “Final Withdrawal of 2000 TMDL Rule Takes Effect; Existing Rules Make 

Progress Cleaning Up Impaired Waters,” U.S. EPA Headquarters Press Release, R-068, March 13, 2003, available at 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b1ab9f485b098972852562e7004dc686/601385d1f25da12485256ce800824d38?OpenDo

cument (accessed May 5, 2004). 

106 40 C.F.R. Part 130, § 130.7. 

107 See, 68 Fed. Reg. 13,607-13,614 (Mar. 19, 2003). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 85

The scope of the TMDL program was clarified in Pronsolino v. Nastri, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit affirmed that Section 303(d) imposes TMDL requirements even on waterbodies impaired solely by 

nonpoint source pollution.108 On June 16, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari, letting the Ninth Circuit 

decision in Pronsolino stand. The Ninth Circuit’s decision concludes not only that EPA’s application of the TMDL 

requirements to waterbodies impaired by nonpoint source pollution was reasonable, but also that the statutory 

scheme mandated such application. 

Clean Water Act Section 401 

Section 401 of the CWA requires that every applicant for a federal license or permit for any activity that may result 

in a “discharge” into navigable waters receive certification from the state that the discharge will comply with state 

water quality standards.109 The Supreme Court, in a decision involving point source discharges, has broadly 

interpreted the state water quality requirements to include a minimum instream flow (water quantity) requirement 

that the state deemed necessary to meet its designated use for the stream segment affected.110 However, the Ninth 

Circuit has held that the certification requirement does not apply to nonpoint source discharges from federally 

issued grazing permits.111 

The Supreme Court upheld state-imposed requirements when necessary to meet the criteria or use contained in a 

water quality standard. In addition, it suggested in dicta that an even broader range of restrictions might be 

imposed whenever necessary to support the designated use, such as for fishing or recreation. The Ninth Circuit, in 

contrast, concluded that Congress intended to limit the reach of Section 401 to point source discharges in 1972 

when it incorporated into the provision (originally enacted in 1948) the specific statutory references. The court did 

not find the reference to state water quality standards in Section 301(b)(1)(C) sufficient to bring nonpoint source 

discharges into the coverage of Section 401. The court emphasized that Section 303 does not itself regulate 

nonpoint sources, and that in fact there is “no direct mechanism” to regulate nonpoint source pollution in the 

CWA. 

In addition, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed a prior holding that the citizen suit provision of the CWA only 

authorizes suits to compel compliance with point source requirements included within the definition of “effluent 

standard or limitation.”112 These judicial decisions make clear that, although EPA must provide guidance for 

nonpoint source pollution control, EPA lacks the legal authority to impose limits and controls on nonpoint 

dischargers. 

Clean Water Act Section 319 

CWA Section 319 mandates a two-step implementation process to address nonpoint sources. First, states must 

prepare an assessment of navigable waters where the control of nonpoint source pollution is necessary to meet 

water quality standards, and identify the significant sources of nonpoint source pollution of these waters. Control 

measures must also be identified. Second, states are directed to prepare a management program that sets out the 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) necessary to remedy the problems. EPA must approve or disapprove both 

steps, but it has limited authority to act if a state fails to act. Significantly, Section 319 does not require that states 

 

108 291 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2002), cert denied, 2003 U.S. Lexis 4608 (U.S. Supreme Court, June 16, 2003). 

109 33 U.S.C. § 1341. Section 401 of the CWA gives the state the opportunity to certify that the discharge will be in compliance with 

state standards for activities under CWA Section 301 (BPT, BAT and BCT), Section 302 (federal water quality standards), Section

303 (state water quality standards), Section 306 (new source performance standards), and Section 307 (pretreatment standards). 

110 See PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Dept. of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 114 S. Ct. 900 (1994) (finding, with the 

authority of CWA Section 303 and Section 401(d), that state water quality standards adopted pursuant to Clean Water Act were 

among the “other limitations” with which a state could ensure compliance through a certification process). 

111 Oregon Natural Desert Ass’n v. Dombeck, 151 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 1998). 

112 Id. at 1097, citing with approval Oregon Natural Resources Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 834 F.2d at 842 (9th Cir. 1987). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

86 Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 

actually enforce the BMPs or any other mandatory controls in their management programs, and does not give 

EPA authority to mandate or enforce BMPs if the state fails to do so. 

Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments: Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program 

The CZARA Section 6217 Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program seeks to combine the expertise of state 

water quality agencies with the land use expertise of coastal management agencies to more effectively manage 

nonpoint source pollution in coastal areas. The CZARA Section 6217 program is similar to the CWA Section 319 

in that it delegates program implementation and control to the states. To facilitate development of state coastal 

nonpoint programs and ensure coordination between states, administration of the Section 6217 program at the 

federal level was assigned to NOAA and EPA. 

Arguably, enforceability of the CZARA Section 6217 program should be more effective than that of the CWA 

Section 319 program, because the former requires states to employ enforceable policies and mechanisms to 

implement the BMPs and management measures.113 Yet, there are concerns about the program’s administration 

and implementation. Focus to date has been on developing approvable, enforceable state plans, with less emphasis 

on implementation. In addition, if a state fails to develop an adequate CZARA plan, or fails to implement an 

approved plan, the only recourse for NOAA and EPA is to withhold CWA or CZMA grant funds, creating the 

counterproductive result of decreasing states’ ability to address nonpoint source pollution problems. Finally, the 

lack of adequate congressional funding has been a significant restraint on the CZARA Section 6217 program.

Agricultural Conservation Programs 

 

The 1985 Farm Bill introduced the Sodbuster, Swampbuster, and Conservation Reserve Programs, designed to 

pay farmers to remove highly erodible soils and wetlands from agricultural production for designated terms. Prior 

to the enactment of that legislation there were no meaningful sanctions that could be imposed on a landowner 

who contributed to or failed to control excessive erosion. The 1985 Farm Bill altered this slightly, by making any 

person who produces an agricultural commodity on a field in which highly erodible land is predominant (without 

an approved conservation plan) ineligible for USDA program payments. Nevertheless, these programs are 

considered to be “carrots,” not “sticks,” because of their reliance on voluntary participation of landowners. The 

1985, 1996, and 2002 Farm Bills show a clear increase in emphasis on agricultural conservation policy and funding 

for farm conservation programs; however, the conservation characterization of some of these programs has been 

questioned.114 For example, conservation measures may include the construction of waste lagoons by large 

livestock producers. The conservation programs also include many exemptions, including a hardship exemption 

and, for wetlands, an exemption for prior-converted cropland. 

The legal context of agricultural nonpoint source conservation programs115 is built on incentives and on the farm 

price support program, rather than command and control pollution laws such as the NPDES permitting 

requirements of the CWA. Congress has determined that agriculture should remain exempt from many types of 

pollution laws and that U.S. national policy is to provide technical and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers 

to achieve desirable national goals, such as the restoration and conservation of certain lands and wetlands and 

improvement in water quality by addressing agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Despite the predominantly 

voluntary nature of the Farm Bill programs, there appears to be a consensus that the conservation provisions first 

 

113 See 16 U.S.C. § 1455(d)(16). 

114 See John H. Davidson, Sustainable Development and Agriculture in the United States, 32 ELR 10,543 (May 2002). 

115 Some sources of agricultural pollution that would be considered point sources (if they were not agriculture-based) subject to 

regulation under the NPDES program are discussed below. Some agricultural sources, notably concentrated animal feeding 

operations, are subject to the CWA NPDES point source regulatory program, as also discussed below. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 87

adopted in the 1985 legislation and since expanded and enhanced are effective in reducing nonpoint source 

pollution on agricultural land and remain a useful tool for improving and maintaining water quality, restoring 

wetlands, retaining land as farmland in lieu of urban development, and achieving other environmentally desirable 

results.116

Water Pollutant Trading 

On January 13, 2003, EPA issued its water pollutant trading policy for impaired and unimpaired waters.117 While 

the pollutant trading policy is a voluntary, incentive-based approach, EPA remains hopeful that it will enable 

greater efficiency in the protection and restoration of impaired waterbodies, pursuant to the CWA and 

implementing regulations.118

Water pollutant trading has been under consideration since both before and after the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990, when air pollutant trading was codified into law. EPA has used a water pollutant trading policy since the 

1990s, primarily among and between publicly owned treated works, i.e., point source to point source, but also in 

some water pollutant trading programs in the Great Lakes and Long Island Sound areas. The 2003 policy is 

particularly significant, however, because it elevates water pollutant trading as a viable option for a broader range 

of sources, with the ultimate goal of reducing impacts to receiving waters. Under the trading policy, if a source 

reduces its pollutant loading below the amount allocated in its permit, it would have a credit that could be traded 

(sold) to another source on that waterbody. This may encourage pollution reduction by nonpoint sources to create 

credits that could be sold to point sources. For example, a farmer could create credits by changing cropping 

practices to reduce use of nitrogen fertilizer, and a wastewater treatment plant could then acquire those nitrogen 

credits to meet water quality limits. 

Point Source Pollution

Clean Water Act permits, and the technology-based limitations they incorporate, are required only for point 

source discharges into navigable waters. “Point source” is broadly defined by the Act to include any discrete 

conveyance, including an urban stormwater runoff pipe, sewage treatment plant discharge outfall, or factory pipe 

that discharges pollutants to a waterbody. The definition excludes, however, “agricultural stormwater discharges 

and return flows from irrigated agriculture.”119 

A 2003 report by EPA, A Pilot for Performance Analysis of Selected Components of the National Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance Program, indicates that while most point source discharges are regulated by NPDES permits, the 

necessary enforcement of such permits, as well as accompanying penalties for violations, may be lacking.120 

 

116 Linda A. Malone, Environmental Regulation of Land Use 5:8 (2002). 

117 68 Fed. Reg. 1608-1613 (Jan.13, 2003). 

118 Id. 

119 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14). 

120 Bruninga, S. Most Large Industrial Sites Not Penalized for Violations of Their Discharge Permits, 34 Env’t Rep. (BNA) 1339 (June 

19, 2003). 

Of the 6,652 major industrial facilities regulated by the NPDES program, approximately 1,670 (25 percent) are classified by EPA as 

being in significant noncompliance with the CWA. “Significant noncompliance” can include paperwork violations; however, in 2001

nearly half of the industries that violated their NPDES permits exceeded allowable levels by 100 percent, while 13 percent of 

violators discharged toxic pollutants that exceeded allowable levels by 1000 percent. This rate of noncompliance among major 

industrial facilities has remained constant since about 1994. Despite this noncompliance, the majority of major industrial facilities are 

not undergoing enforcement proceedings or receiving penalties from EPA. During the past two years, only 24 percent of major 

facilities listed as being in significant noncompliance faced either formal or informal enforcement proceedings, with 27 percent of 

“repeat significant noncompliance” facilities and 32 percent of “perpetual significant noncompliance” facilities facing similar

proceedings. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

88 Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 

Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

The CWA originally required that all publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) achieve a minimum of secondary 

treatment by 1977 to remove specific amounts of suspended solids and other wastes that deplete the oxygen in 

water.121 

While technology exists to significantly reduce sewage pollution, particularly nitrogen, far beyond those levels 

currently achieved by the majority of POTWs, upgrading sewage treatment plants beyond secondary treatment 

levels has not been common. Technology is now available that allows for wastewater treatment facilities to 

substantially reduce the total nitrogen discharge.122 However, the primary focus of secondary treatment is on 

lowering the biological oxygen demand123 in the wastewater, rather than on nitrogen removal. To reduce the 

nitrogen levels of receiving waters, upgrading POTWs to tertiary treatment may be necessary. 

Stormwater Discharges 

Stormwater is regulated under the CWA differently depending on whether the discharge into surface water is from 

a combined sewer system, a sanitary sewer system, or a separate stormwater system. Combined sewer systems are 

designed to collect sanitary sewage, industrial and commercial wastewater, and stormwater runoff in a single pipe 

for transport to and treatment at a POTW before discharge to a receiving waterbody. Combined sewer systems 

must comply with the technology- and water quality-based requirements of the CWA and not cause or contribute 

to exceeding applicable state water quality standards. Combined sewer systems are a concern because storm or 

other events can result in flows that exceed a system’s capacity, resulting in overflows that discharge untreated 

wastes into waterbodies. 

In 1994, EPA issued its Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy.124 Codified in 2000, that policy 

provides clear direction on how EPA and states are to address CSO control within the NPDES program. Under a 

NPDES permit or other enforceable mechanism, communities with CSOs are required to implement nine 

minimum technology-based control measures (specified in the policy) and develop and implement long-term 

control plans (LTCPs) that ultimately meet appropriate health and environmental objectives and requirements. In 

 EPA has indicated it has no plans to formally publish the report, as it was conducted as an internal assessment of compliance and 

enforcement issues. Id. 

121 Approximately forty POTWs have waivers from EPA allowing them to operate at less than secondary treatment levels. In total, 

these forty POTWs serve 5.1 million persons within the U.S.; about half are served by treatment systems in San Diego and Orange

Counties, California. After passage of the CWA in 1972, some large cities with POTWs discharging into marine waters maintained 

that the requirement for secondary treatment was unnecessarily stringent, as POTWs discharging into deep oceanic waters with 

strong currents benefit from greater mixing and dispersion of pollutants than POTWs discharging into shallow fresh waters. As a

result, Congress amended section 301(h) of the CWA in 1977 (and again in 1981 and 1987) to allow for a case-by-case review of 

treatment requirements for marine dischargers. After the review, EPA may waive the secondary treatment requirements for the 

conventional pollutants of pH, biochemical oxygen demand, and suspended solids, and allow a POTW that discharges into marine 

waters to utilize specified less-than-secondary treatment and other pollution controls such as industrial pretreatment in lieu of full 

secondary treatment. EPA’s review is to determine whether certain statutory environmental criteria have been met, including a 

showing that the discharge will not harm the habitat and community of marine life. See generally 40 C.F.R. Part 125, Subpart G. 

122 See Governor of Maryland, Executive Order: Nutrient Pollution Reduction Goals for Chesapeake Bay, available at

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/enr_exec_order.pdf (accessed June 1, 2004); see also Point Source Pollution: Status & 

Trends, available at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/info/pointsource.cfm (accessed June 1, 2004). 

123 Biological oxygen demand (BOD) is a measure of the oxygen used by microorganisms to decompose organic matter in aquatic 

environments. Runoff nutrients, such as fertilizers from farms and lawns, can cause an explosion in the growth and subsequent 

death of aquatic plants and algae, in turn triggering an upsurge of bacteria that decompose these materials and consume a large

amount of dissolved oxygen in the process. When less dissolved oxygen is available in the water, fish and other aquatic organisms 

may experience increased disease and death. 

124 59 Fed. Reg. 18,688 (Apr. 19, 1994). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 89

2001, EPA published a Final Guidance entitled CSO Long-Term Planning with Water Quality Standards Reviews.

125 The 

Guidance provides “that the LTCP should be coordinated with the review and revision, as appropriate, of water 

quality standards and implementation procedures on CSO-impacted waters. The process is intended to ensure that 

the long-term controls will be sufficient to meet water quality standards under the CWA.126 These controls 

generally involve considerable sums of money to correct existing infrastructure or to build new facilities to contain 

the sewer flow until it can be routed to a POTW for appropriate treatment. 

A second category of sewers associated with POTWs—sanitary sewers that are designed to transport only 

sanitary waste and not stormwater—also can overflow in wet weather if the sewer has water infiltration, and for 

other reasons. Correcting these overflows also requires considerable sums of money to repair and replace the 

infrastructure. 

Regulation of discharges “entirely of stormwater” was addressed by Congress in 1987 by adding Section 402(p) of 

the CWA.127 In response, EPA published regulations in 1990 that required permits for discharges “associated with 

industrial activity,” discharges from large and medium municipal separate storm sewer systems, and discharges 

that have been identified and designated by the state or EPA as causing a violation of water quality standards or 

otherwise significantly contributing pollutants to waters of the United States.128

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 

Although legal authority to regulate them has existed in the CWA since 1972, concentrated animal feeding 

operations (CAFOs) have been largely unregulated by EPA until recently. CAFOs contribute to serious water 

quality problems throughout much of the United States. USDA estimates that operations that confine livestock 

and poultry produce an estimated 500 million tons of manure per year, which is more than three times the amount 

of sanitary waste that EPA estimates is produced by humans in the United States.129 Water quality impairment 

from CAFOs arises largely through improper management, which results in discharge and runoff of manure and 

nutrients, and volatilization and atmospheric deposition into waterbodies of ammonia from the onsite manure and 

urine. 

In December 2002, EPA issued a final rule to regulate large and problematic animal feeding operations (AFOs).130

The final rule revised the more than twenty-five year old regulations that previously applied to CAFOs, retaining 

many of the basic features of the 1976 NPDES regulations, including the existing structure for determining which 

AFOs are large enough to be considered CAFOs. Three new features of the final rule bear mentioning. First, all 

CAFOs (i.e., all animal feeding operations exceeding a specified number of animals onsite, the number varying by 

type of animal) have a mandatory duty to apply for an NPDES permit, thus removing any ambiguity as to whether 

a facility needs a discharge permit, even if the facility only discharges in the event of a large storm. Second, the 

final rule includes large poultry operations, regardless of whether the litter is managed in wet or dry form or the 

type of waste disposal system employed by the facility. Third, all CAFOs covered by the NPDES permits must 

develop and implement nutrient management plans. Effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) will continue to apply 

 

125 Notice of Availability: Final Guidance: Coordinating CSO Long-Term Planning With Water Quality Standards Reviews. 66 Fed. 

Reg. 42,226 (Aug. 10, 2001). 

126 Id.

127 See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p). 

128 EPA stormwater regulations, as amended numerous times since 1990, are codified at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26. 

129 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for 

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). 68 Fed. Reg. 7175-7274 (Feb. 12, 2003), at p. 7180. The final rule was signed 

December 15, 2002 (codified at 40 C.F.R. Parts 9, 122, 123, and 412). The EPA CAFO Final Rule is available at

http://cfpub1.epa.gov/npdes/afo/cafofinalrule.cfm (accessed May 10, 2004). 

130 Id. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

90 Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 

only to CAFOs with 1,000 or more animal units, although the requirements for existing sources and new sources 

fluctuate depending on the type of animal being raised. ELGs prohibit the discharge of manure and/or 

wastewater pollutants, with an allowance for certain discharges due to excessive rainfall. ELGs also require the 

minimization of phosphorus and nitrogen transport from field to receiving waterbodies, and regulated facilities 

must use BMPs for the production and land application areas. 

Atmospheric Deposition 

Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen, mercury, and other pollutants is a problem of growing concern.131 Mercury 

and nitrogen are of particular concern to marine environments; mercury is the most frequently listed reason for 

issuance of fish advisories, while nitrogen is a direct contributor to eutrophication of waterways. Approximately 

two-thirds of the nation’s estuaries and bays are either moderately or severely degraded as a result of 

eutrophication.132 The atmosphere is a significant means of transportation of pollutants to marine waters, with 

roughly 10-40 percent of the nitrogen reaching East and Gulf Coast estuaries being transported and deposited 

through the atmosphere.133 

Although the statutory frameworks of the CAA and CWA are not specifically designed to address the problem of 

air pollution from land-based sources contaminating water resources, there have been significant efforts through 

the years under the CAA to control some pollutants that travel long distances—notably controls on nitrogen 

oxides to reduce ozone precursors and on sulfur dioxide to reduce acid rain. 

In January 2001, EPA’s Office of Water and Office of Air and Radiation developed an Air-Water Interface Work

Plan.

134 As the plan notes, many of the current CAA regulatory programs aimed at reducing toxic and nitrogen 

pollution, such as the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for toxic pollutants, the 

nitrogen oxides (NOx) reductions under the Acid Rain Program, the NOx SIP call (an EPA rule requiring large 

power plants across twenty-two states to substantially reduce their summertime NOx emissions), and mobile 

sources controls (NOx Budget Trading Program), have not been fully implemented.135 In its November 14, 2002 

annual report, however, EPA indicated that the Acid Rain Program had reduced emissions of both sulfur dioxide 

and nitrogen oxides in 2001.136

Because of the potential range of atmospheric dispersion—both international transboundary and 

intercontinental—international cooperation is needed.137 Recent studies have demonstrated that air pollution from 

human activities in Asia is carried to western North America by prevailing mid-latitude winds and has a significant 

 

131 For example, approximately 32 percent of the nitrogen introduced to the Chesapeake Bay comes from atmospheric deposition. 

Chesapeake Bay Program, The State Of The Chesapeake Bay (July 2002), available at

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/sob/index.cfm at p. 42 of the report (accessed May 10, 2004). For more information, see EPA, 

National Coastal Condition Report, available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/ (accessed June 1, 2004). 

132 S.B. Bricker et al., National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment: Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation’s Estuaries, Silver 

Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1999. 

133 Valigura, R.A., et al., eds. Nitrogen Loading in Coastal Water Bodies: An Atmospheric Perspective. Coastal and Estuarine 

Studies No. 57. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union, 2000. 

Valigura, R.A., et al. Atmospheric Nutrient Inputs to Coastal Areas: Reducing the Uncertainties. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program 

Decision Analysis Series No. 9. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1996. 

134 EPA Air-Water Interface Work Plan, available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/airdep/airwater_plan16.pdf (accessed April 29, 

2004). 

135 Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t3/reports/combined.pdf (accessed June 1, 2004). 

136 33 Env’t Rep. (BNA) 2503 (Nov. 22, 2002). 

137 See e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, International Issues & U.S. Air Quality, available at

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/international.html (accessed June 4, 2004). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 4: Coastal and Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources 91

impact on the concentration and number of air pollutants in North American coastal areas, impacting ecosystem 

health, including human health. This impact is likely to increase along with the growth of Asian economies. In the 

Caribbean, studies are underway to assess impacts in a number of areas, from human to coral reef health, caused 

by hundreds of millions of tons of dust carried from Africa each year.138 

The United States is a party to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP),139 under 

the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which establishes a broad framework for 

cooperative action on air pollution in North America and Europe. The Convention establishes a process for 

negotiating specific measures to control air pollution through legally binding protocols. LRTAP initially focused 

on reducing the effects of acid rain through the control of sulfur emissions. Later protocols have addressed the 

formation of ground-level ozone, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and heavy metals. These multilateral 

efforts have established a foundation of international cooperation and understanding that has significantly 

advanced the ability to understand and address transboundary air pollution. 

International action to control POPs and other toxic substances that persist in the environment and are readily 

transported via air pollution pathways across borders and oceans is carried out under the United Nations 

Environment Programme implementing the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.140 This 

treaty will help reduce the public health and environmental effects of pollutants such as DDT, chlordane, dioxins, 

and PCBs. In 2001, the United States joined 151 other countries in signing the Stockholm Convention, and in 

April 2002 the Convention was transmitted to the U.S. Senate for advice and consent to ratification.141 Although 

the United States is not a party, the Stockholm Convention entered into force on May 17, 2004.142

 

138 See e.g., Garrison, G. Caribbean Coral-Reef Ecologist Studies Dust from the African Sahel. USGS Coral Reef Studies, News 

Archive, March 2002, available at http://coralreefs.wr.usgs.gov/archive0302.html (accessed June 4, 2004). 

139 Done at Geneva, November 13, 1979, entered into force March 16, 1983, T.I.A.S. 10541. For further information on the LRTAP 

Convention, see http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/ (accessed June 4, 2004). 

140 Done at Stockholm, May 22-23, 2001. The text of the convention is available at 

http://www.pops.int/documents/convtext/convtext_en.pdf (accessed June 8, 2004). 

141 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. President Bush Sends the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants to 

Senate for Ratification; Submits Legislation to Congress to Implement Treaty. Press release. April 11, 2002, available at

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b1ab9f485b098972852562e7004dc686/cd4fa7597611989185256b980057b5cf?OpenDoc

ument (accessed June 4, 2004). 

142 See http://www.pops.int/documents/press/EIF/ (accessed June 4, 2004). 

Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 93

CHAPTER 5 

FUELS, MINERALS, AND ENERGY PRODUCTION FROM THE OCEAN

INTRODUCTION 

Historical Background 

Since the late nineteenth century, the United States has recognized that the submerged lands off its coasts contain 

valuable nonliving resources, and by the middle of the twentieth century, those resources began to play a 

significant role in U.S. national security and economic development. New technology and the discovery of rich 

petroleum deposits farther offshore made oil and gas production possible in areas beyond the 3-mile territorial 

sea. In September 1945, President Truman issued two proclamations regarding the oceans policy of the United 

States affecting areas beyond its three-mile territorial sea. The better known pronouncement asserted the nation’s 

“jurisdiction and control” over the seabed and “natural resources” of the “continental shelf.”1 Less known is the 

proclamation asserting the power of the United States to create coastal fisheries “conservation zones” in which 

fishing activities would be “subject to the regulation and control of the United States.”2 

The Truman Proclamation on the continental shelf carefully disavowed any effect on the rights of state 

governments within the federal system to assert jurisdiction for purposes of domestic law.3 Less than one month 

after President Truman issued his proclamation, however, the Solicitor General of the United States instituted 

proceedings in the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the issue of ownership of the seabed and its minerals.4

In a series of decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government, and not the individual states, owned 

and controlled the submerged lands and ocean waters immediately adjacent to individual states, even where states 

had been managing some areas for decades.5 The coastal states pursued a series of efforts in Congress to have the 

submerged lands transferred from federal to state ownership. The states partially succeeded in 1953 as Congress 

passed the Submerged Lands Act (SLA), which established state title in such lands, generally out to three miles.6 A 

 

1

In Proclamation No. 2667, dated September 28, 1945, President Truman stated: 

the Government of the United States regards the natural resources of the subsoil and sea bed of the continental 

shelf beneath the high seas but contiguous to the coasts of the United States as appertaining to the United 

States, subject to its jurisdiction and control. . . . The character as high seas of the waters above the continental 

shelf and the right to their free and unimpeded navigation are in no way thus affected. 

10 Fed. Reg. 12,303 (Oct. 2, 1945). Executive Order 9633 placed the continental shelf “under the jurisdiction and control of the Secretary 

of the Interior for administrative purposes, pending the enactment of legislation.” Exec. Order 9633, 10 Fed. Reg. 12,305 (Oct. 2, 1945). 

2

 Proclamation No. 2668, 10 Fed. Reg. 12,304 (Oct. 2, 1945). 

3

 10 Fed. Reg. at 12,303. 

4

 United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19, 22-23 (1947). 

5 See id.; United States v. Texas, 339 U.S. 707 (1950); United States v. Louisiana, 339 U.S. 699 (1950). 

6

 Submerged Lands Act, Pub. L. 83-31, 67 Stat. 29 (1953) (codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1315); see also Poe 

Leggette, The Framework of Law for the Outer Continental Shelf, Offshore Petroleum Installations Law and Financing 12 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

94 Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 

few months later that same year, Congress passed the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), vesting in the 

U.S. Secretary of the Interior the authority to manage the vast area of continental shelf submerged lands that 

extend beyond the relatively narrow belt of state submerged lands.7 For additional discussion of the jurisdiction of 

offshore areas, see Chapter 1, Setting the Stage. 

Overview of Mineral and Energy Resources 

A variety of mineral and non-mineral energy resources from the United States continental shelf have been 

considered by government and the private sector for exploitation. Best known, of course, are oil and natural gas, 

found or suspected to exist off many coastal states. Approximately 30 percent of the nation’s domestic oil and 25 

percent of its natural gas supply comes from the outer Continental Shelf (OCS). In 2002 and 2003, OCS lands 

managed by the Minerals Management Service (MMS), (noted in Chapter 1 as the bureau within the U.S. 

Department of the Interior (DOI) charged with the administration of offshore leasing), produced more than 600 

million barrels of oil annually and some 4.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.8

Less familiar are other marine minerals, including: manganese crusts offshore of Hawaii and Johnston Island; 

phosphorites offshore of North Carolina; heavy mineral placers and phosphorites offshore of Georgia; sand and 

gravel resources offshore of the Atlantic and Gulf coast states; heavy mineral placers and gold offshore of Alaska; 

black sand deposits offshore of Oregon; and salt and sulfur deposits in the Gulf of Mexico. Other energy 

resources include the prospect of ocean thermal energy conversion off Hawaii and other tropical areas, and 

harnessing the energy of offshore waves and currents and offshore winds to generate electricity. 

Methane is a potent energy source, and many believe the seabed’s vast methane hydrate deposits will play a vital 

role in the planet’s energy future—if the considerable technological, economic, and environmental risks of 

recovery can be overcome.9 These whitish, ice-like hydrates composed of water and methane have been found on 

the seabed at depths of greater than two kilometers and embedded in the seabed greater than 750 meters.10 While 

the exact concentration of methane hydrates is uncertain,11 MMS estimates that the deposits contained off the 

coast of South Carolina alone would supply enough natural gas to sustain the United States at 1996 consumption 

levels for 105 years.12 On May 2, 2000, Congress enacted a five-year, $47.5 million gas hydrate research and 

development program for the United States.13

In addition, seabed mineral prospecting, exploration, and exploitation activities will likely occur in the foreseeable 

 (International Bar Ass’n 1986) (noting that one of Eisenhower’s campaign pledges in 1952 was to return ownership of the 

submerged lands to the states). The state submerged lands off the gulf coasts of Florida and Texas extend approximately nine miles 

pursuant to their original sovereign charters. See United States v. Florida, 363 U.S. 121 (1960); United States v. Louisiana, et al., 

363 U.S. 1 (1960). 

7

 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Pub. L. 83-212, ch. 345, 67 Stat. 462 (1953) (codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1356). 

8

 Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Total OCS Gas Production, available at

http://www.mms.gov/stats/PDFs/OCSNaturalGasProduction_March2004.pdf (accessed March 11, 2004) and Federal Offshore 

Crude and Condensate Production:1992-2003, available at http://www.mms.gov.stats/PDFs/FederalOffshoreCrude 

CondensateProduction92-03_March2004.pdf (accessed March 11, 2004). 

9

 USGS Fact Sheet FS-021-01, Natural Gas Hydrates—Vast Resource, Uncertain Future (Mar. 2001), available at

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs021-01/fs021-01.pdf, (accessed May 13, 2004). 

10 Dr. Carolyn Ruppel, Gas Hydrates Offshore Southeastern United States, NOAA Ocean Explorer, available at

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/03windows/background/hydrates/hydrates.html. 

11 USGS Fact Sheet at 2. 

12 Minerals Management Service Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, United States Department of the Interior, OCS Report MMS 2000-

017: Oceanic Gas Hydrate Research and Activities Review (Feb. 2000). 

13 Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106-193, 114 Stat. 234 (2000). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 95

future at or near active or extinct hydrothermal vent fields. The principal deep-sea minerals of interest to mining 

companies include polymetallic (manganese) nodules, cobalt crusts, nickel, copper, and polymetallic sulfide (PMS) 

deposits. Sources of each have been located within and beyond areas of national jurisdiction. None of the minerals 

beyond national jurisdiction are currently mined, nor is mining activity expected in the immediate future.14 

Finally, the oceans contain valuable deposits of sand, gravel, and other minerals. OCS sand deposits are important 

sources for beach nourishment for many coastal communities.15 As land and near-shore supplies of sand and 

gravel become less available, industry is turning to the OCS as an alternate source of these important building 

materials.16 The OCS also contains deposits of strategic minerals such as gold, titanium, and other metals that will, 

at some indeterminate point in the future, become more important as an alternate source to land deposits.17

GOVERNING STATUTES 

The following is a summary of laws governing exploration and exploitation of offshore fuels, minerals, and energy 

resources, followed by a discussion of selected issues that have arisen over the years. Many of these laws are 

described in other chapters of this Appendix, but are also presented here because of their relevance to the 

management of fuels, minerals, and other energy production from ocean waters. 

Submerged Lands Act 

The Submerged Lands Act (SLA)18 established state “title to and ownership of” the offshore lands “beneath 

navigable waters” extending three miles from a state’s coastline (and established a mechanism allowing a claim of 

three marine leagues for Texas and the Gulf coast of Florida).19 The Act also reaffirmed the federal claim to the 

OCS, which consists of those submerged lands seaward of state jurisdiction, and limited states’ claims to inside 

the landward boundary of the OCS.20 The federal government also reserved authority over navigation and flood 

control.21 The vesting of title and ownership of the submerged lands landward of the OCS conferred on the 

receiving states “the right and power to manage, administer, lease, and develop, and use the . . . lands and natural 

resources [within the lands and navigable waters above them] . . . in accordance with state law.”22 The SLA 

defined the term “natural resources” to include “without limiting the generality thereof, oil, gas, and all other 

minerals, and fish, shrimp, oysters, clams, crabs, lobsters, sponges, kelp, and other marine animal and plant life but 

 

14 Nodules on the seabed may contain commercial amounts of nickel, copper, cobalt, and manganese, and other minerals with 

important industrial uses. However, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) advises that no commercial deep 

seabed mining is currently being conducted, and none is anticipated in the near future. NOAA has issued four licenses for 

exploration of seabed areas in the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone in the south Pacific Ocean, two of which have lapsed and two of 

which remain in effect. Deep Seabed Mining: Approval of Extension and Revision of Exploration License, 67 Fed. Reg. 50,631 (Aug. 

5, 2002) (Deep Seabed Mining Exploration License USA-1 extended through 2004); Deep Seabed Mining; Lapse of Exploration 

License, 64 Fed. Reg. 35,631 (July 1, 1999) (Deep Seabed Mining Exploration Licenses USA-2 & 3 lapsed in 1997 and 1999); Deep 

Seabed Mining; Issuance of Exploration License, 59 Fed. Reg. 66,942 (Dec. 28, 1994) (Deep Seabed Mining Exploration License 

USA-4 issued to Ocean Minerals Company). 

15 Offshore Minerals Management Sand and Gravel Program, at http://www.mms.gov/sandandgravel/ (accessed May 26, 2004). 

16 Minerals Management Service, 1998 Year of the Ocean (Introduction), available at 

http://www.yoto98.noaa.gov/yoto/meeting/energy_316.html (accessed May 26, 2003). 

17 Id.

18 Submerged Lands Act, Pub. L. 83-31, 67 Stat. 29 (1953) (codified at 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301 et seq.) 

19 Id. §§ 1301, 1311. 

20 Id. § 1302. 

21 Id. § 1311(d). 

22 Id. § 1311(a). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

96 Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 

. . . not . . . water power, or the use of water for the production of power.”23 Several states (Alabama, Alaska, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) have active mineral leasing or production programs on state submerged lands.24 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

The jurisdiction, management, and regulation of OCS mineral development (including oil and gas development) 

are governed by fifty years worth of statutes, amendments, executive orders, agency regulations, and cases. 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 

Originally enacted into law on August 7, 1953, the OCSLA established federal jurisdiction over submerged lands 

on the OCS for the purpose of mineral leasing.25, 26 It gave the Secretary of the Interior responsibility for 

administering exploration and development on the OCS of both energy and non-energy minerals.27 The OCSLA 

defined outer Continental Shelf to include all submerged lands “lying seaward and outside of” those granted to the 

states pursuant to the SLA and “of which the subsoil and seabed appertain to the United States and are subject to 

its jurisdiction and control.”28 It gave the federal government a mandate to develop OCS resources, stating that 

there was “an urgent need for further exploration and development of the oil and gas deposits of the submerged 

lands of the outer Continental Shelf.”29

The Act vested authority in the Secretary of the Interior “[to] administer the provisions of this Act relating to the 

leasing of the outer Continental Shelf, and . . . prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry 

out [OCS leasing].”30 The Act was primarily focused on the leasing of lands for the exploration and development 

of oil and gas deposits31 and sulfur deposits.32 However, it also included provisions for the leasing of lands for the 

development of “any mineral other than oil, gas, and sulfur.”33

The OCSLA required competitive bidding for oil, gas, sulfur, and other mineral leases. For oil and gas leases, 

OCSLA set out specific requirements, maintaining that “bidding . . . be (1) by sealed bids, and (2) . . . on the basis 

of a cash bonus with a royalty fixed by the Secretary at not less than 12 1/2 per centum in amount or value of the 

production saved, removed or sold, or on the basis of royalty, but at not less than the per centum above 

mentioned, with a cash bonus fixed by the Secretary.”34 Each oil and gas lease was not to cover an area in excess 

of five thousand seven hundred and sixty acres. They were to last for a primary term of not more than five years, 

unless production in paying quantities occurred, or drilling and well working activities approved by the Secretary 

 

23 Id. § 1301(e) (definition of “natural resources”). 

24 See Ala. Code §§ 9-17-1 et seq.; Alaska Stat. § 38.05.180; Alaska Admin. Code tit. 11 § 82; La. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 148.2; Miss. 

Code Ann. § 53-3-71, § 29-7-3; Tex. Nat. Res. Code Ann. § 52.011, § 33.001 et seq.

25 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Pub. L. 83-212, ch. 345, 67 Stat. 462 (1953) (codified at 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331 et seq.). 

26 See Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. The Unidentified Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 569 F.2d 330, 339 (5th Cir. 1978) (“‘[T]he 

Outer Continental Shelf Act was enacted for the purpose, primarily, of asserting ownership and control over the minerals in and

under the Continental Shelf.’”) (quoting Guess v. Read, 290 F.2d 622, 625 (5th Cir. 1961)). 

27 See definition of “minerals” at 33 U.S.C. § 1331(q). 

28Id. § 2 (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1331(a)). 

29Id. § 8 (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1337). 

30Id. § 5 (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1334). Within DOI, that authority has been delegated to the Minerals Management Service (MMS). 

31 Id. § 8(a). 

32 Id. §§ 8(c) and (d). 

33 Id. § 8(e). 

34 Id. § 8(a). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 97

continued beyond five years. In those cases the lease would continue in existence for as long as the production in 

paying quantities or the drilling and well working activities continued.35 Sulfur leases were to be sold in a similar 

bid process and to contain similar provisions, except that there was no acreage restriction, the maximum primary 

term was set at ten years, and the minimum royalty was set at “5 per centum of the gross production or value of 

the sulfur at the wellhead.”36

By contrast to the specificity applicable to oil and gas and sulfur lease sales and lease terms, for leases of other 

minerals the OCSLA gave the Secretary of the Interior broad discretion “to grant to the qualified persons offering 

the highest cash bonuses on a basis of competitive bidding leases of any mineral other than oil, gas, and sulfur . . . 

upon such royalty, rental, and other terms as the Secretary may prescribe at the time of offering the area for 

lease.”37 For minerals other than oil, gas, or sulfur, the OCSLA left the details of the sale process and lease 

primary terms and royalty entirely to the Secretary’s discretion.38

In addition to its provisions regarding the administration of leasing, the OCSLA provided that the Secretary could 

“at any time prescribe and amend such rules and regulations as he determines to be necessary and proper in order 

to provide for the prevention of waste and conservation of natural resources of the outer Continental Shelf, and 

the protection of correlative rights therein.”39 Regarding “[t]he enforcement of conservation laws, rules, and 

regulations the Secretary [was] authorized to cooperate with the conservation agencies of the adjacent states.”40

The Secretary was not obligated to conduct such a consultation, however, and in fact the Act did not constrain in 

any significant way the Secretary’s discretion regarding the administration of leasing activities by an obligation to 

consult with other agencies of the federal government or any state or local governments. 

A few agencies other than DOI, however, had authority to regulate certain specific activities that occurred 

incidentally to the mineral leasing of the OCS. The “head of the Department in which the Coast Guard is 

operating” received authority to “promulgate and enforce such reasonable regulations with respect to lights and 

other warning devices, safety equipment, and other matters relating to the promotion of safety of life and property 

on the [artificial] islands and structures [used in OCS leasing activities].”41 And the statute extended “[t]he 

authority of the Secretary of the Army to prevent obstruction to navigation in the navigable waters of the United 

States” to “artificial islands and fixed structures located on the outer Continental Shelf.”42

 

35 Id. § 8(b). 

36 Id. § 8(d). 

37 Id. § 8(e). 

38 The Minerals Management Service has established a three-tiered regulatory regime for offshore minerals other than oil, gas and

sulfur. MMS’ regulations govern prospecting activities, leasing activities, and operations on offshore mineral leases. See 30 C.F.R. 

Parts 280, 281, and 282 (2002). Together, the regulations outline the requirements for data and information gathering ventures 

associated with prospecting and scientific research. They also establish leasing procedures, basic mineral lease conditions, and 

general procedures to govern discovery, development, and production activities on a lease. 30 C.F.R. Parts 281 and 282. With the 

cooperation of adjacent coastal states, joint federal-state task forces assess leasing potential of an offshore area. 30 C.F.R. § 

281.13 (2002). If leasing is determined to be economically feasible, resource and environmental studies follow. The task forces

recommend appropriate action to the Secretary and the state governor(s). Federal decisions to proceed to lease sales are made by 

the Secretary of the Interior, with review and comment from the state governors and other interested parties. Id. § 281.14. 

39Pub. L. 83-212, ch. 345, § 5(a)(1) (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1334(a)(1)). 

40Id.

41 Id. § 4(e)(1) (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1333(d)(1)). 

42 Id. § 4(f) (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1333(e)). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

98 Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 

 1978 Amendments to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

Secretarial discretion in the administration of OCS leasing became more constrained, however, with the rise of 

environmental law. The 1978 amendments retained the OCSLA’s purpose of furthering expedited exploration and 

development but introduced a heightened duty of environmental protection and consultation with coastal states.43 

For example, the amendments directed the Secretary to develop a five-year OCS leasing program and stipulated a 

number of factors that needed to be considered in putting together a schedule of offshore sales.44 Close 

consultation with Governors and local officials from affected coastal states was one of the key requirements 

carried by the amendments, specifically calling for the consideration of laws, policies, and CZMA programs in 

such states in the development of the federal offshore schedule. From the first five-year program promulgated by 

Secretary of the Interior Andrus in the Carter Administration and the second by Secretary Watt in the Reagan 

Administration, a number of programs have been challenged in court, some successfully and some on the grounds 

that an inadequate environmental impact statement had been prepared.45 In part, because the litigation ultimately 

made clear what the courts were looking for in the development of the leasing program, MMS has now 

institutionalized its process to such an extent that it is generally no longer the subject of legal challenges.46 

Importantly, Congress’ passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA),47 in 1972, and, in particular, its 

major energy-related amendments to that Act enacted in 1976, provided an even clearer institutional mechanism 

by which coastal states would be brought into the OCSLA decision-making process. This particular mechanism is 

the federal consistency provision of the CZMA, discussed in Chapter 2, Coastal Management. The original 

consistency language required that the activities authorized in each federal license and permit affecting a state’s 

coastal zone be subject to a concurrence by such state that the activities are consistent with its coastal 

management program. If the state did not concur, the federal agency was prohibited from granting the 

authorization unless overridden by the Secretary of Commerce.48 

Because the state had six months to respond to each license and permit, the 1976 amendments to the CZMA 

added a new OCS-specific provision to the federal consistency section to consolidate a series of individual OCS 

permit decisions into offshore exploration and development and production plans submitted by private lessees to 

the Secretary of the Interior. With the new provision, the state would have a single concurrence decision to make 

on an entire offshore plan.49 The 1978 amendments cross referenced the applicable CZMA consistency process, as 

revised in 1976, and incorporated them into the appropriate sections (on exploration and development plans) of 

the OCSLA. Moreover, by contrast with the 1953 version of Section 5 of the OCSLA, which had merely 

“authorized” the Secretary to coordinate with states, 50 the 1978 amendments required the Secretary’s cooperation 

with federal agencies and states. The amendments stipulated that “[i]n the enforcement of safety, environmental, 

 

43 Pub. L. 95-372, § 102, 92 Stat. 629 (1978) (§ 102 is codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1802 (2000)). 

44 Id. § 208 (adding OCSLA § 18) (codified at 43 U.S.C. sec. 1344).

45 See, e.g., Village of False Pass v. Clark, 733 F.2d 605, 609 (9th Cir. 1984). 46 For a detailed discussion of the litigation on the five-year OCS leasing program, see Edward A. Fitzgerald, The Seaweed 

Rebellion: Federal-State Conflicts over Offshore Energy Development (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001), chapter 4. 

47 16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) defines the term coastal zone to mean “the coastal waters 

(including the lands therein and thereunder) and the adjacent shorelands (including the lands therein and thereunder), strongly

influenced by each other and in proximity to the shorelines of the several coastal states, and includes islands, transitional and 

intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and beaches.” The details of the CZMA are addressed in more depth in Chapter 2. 

48 See Pub. L. 92-583, (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1456).

49 Pub. L. 94-370, (codified at16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(B). 

50Pub. L. 83-212, ch. 345, § 5. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 99

and conservation laws and regulations, the Secretary shall cooperate with the relevant departments and agencies of 

the federal government and the affected states.”51

Also furthering the goal of environmental protection, the 1978 amendments placed information gathering and 

dissemination requirements on the Secretary. OCSLA Section 20(a) required the Secretary to conduct 

environmental studies of areas included in any oil and gas lease sales “in order to establish information needed for 

assessment and management of environmental impacts on the human, marine, and coastal environments of the 

outer Continental Shelf and the coastal areas which may be affected by oil and gas development in such region or 

area.” 52 Section 20(b) required additional studies subsequent to leasing or development of an area.53 Moreover, 

under Section 26(a), lessees were required to provide data regarding their exploration for, or development or 

production of, oil or gas to DOI.54 DOI is required to analyze and process this information and make so much of 

it as is not privileged or proprietary available to affected states and local governments for use in “planning for the 

onshore impacts of possible oil and gas development and production.”55

In addition to protecting the natural environment, the 1978 amendments were concerned with the safety of 

operations involving exploring for, developing, and producing OCS minerals. OCSLA Section 21 directed that, 

after consulting with the Secretary of the Interior regarding the existing regulatory and enforcement scheme, “[t]he 

Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall promulgate regulations or standards 

applying to unregulated hazardous working conditions related to activities on the outer Continental Shelf when he 

determines such regulations or standards are necessary.”56

Supporting the OCSLA’s original and amended provisions, the 1978 amendments included a new statutory 

scheme of remedies and penalties for enforcement of the Act. These included the power to institute a civil action 

for injunctive relief to correct a violation of the OCSLA and civil and criminal penalties for uncorrected or 

knowing violations of the statute.57 The amendments also included a “citizen suit” provision, which gave “any 

person having a valid legal interest which is or may be adversely affected” by a violation of the OCSLA the right 

to bring suit against an offending party, including the government or any of its agencies, to compel compliance.58

In keeping with the 1978 amendments’ recognition of state interests, a revised Section 8(g) of the OCSLA 

provided for the “fair and equitable division” of revenues from federal leases “within three miles of the seaward 

boundary of any coastal state” where the oil or gas pool to be exploited underlies both federal OCS and state 

submerged lands.59 The Secretary of the Interior and the governor of the affected state were to agree as to the 

appropriate division of the revenues, with the money placed in escrow until the division. In the event that the 

Secretary and the governor could not reach agreement, a district court was to determine the proper division.60

 

51Pub. L. 95-372, § 204, 92 Stat. 629 (1978) (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1334). 

52 Pub. L. 95-372, § 208, 92 Stat. 629 (1978), adding OCSLA § 20(a)(1) (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1)). To protect health, 

safety, property, and the environment, MMS regulations implementing OCSLA require use of “the best available and safest 

technology . . . whenever practical on all exploration, development, and production operations.” 30 C.F.R. § 206.107(c) (2002).

53 Pub. L. 95-372, § 208, adding OCSLA § 20(b) (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1346(b)). In conducting these statutorily required studies, 

the Secretary was directed “to the maximum extent practicable . . . to utilize . . . the capabilities of the Department of Commerce.” Id.

§ 208, adding OCSLA § 20(d) (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1346(e)). 

54 Id. § 208 (adding OCSLA § 26(a)) (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1352(a)). 

55 Id. § 208 (adding OCSLA § 26(b)) (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1352(b)). 

56 Id. § 208 (adding OCSLA § 21(c)) (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1347(c)). 

57 Id. § 208 (adding OCSLA § 24) (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1350). 

58 Id. § 208 (adding OCSLA § 23) (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1349). 

59 Id. § 205(g) (revising OCSLA § 8(g)) (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1337(g)). 

60 Id. § 205(g)(4) (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(4) (2000)). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

100 Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 

Actually deciding what constituted a “fair and equitable division” of the revenues to which Section 8(g) applied 

proved controversial and led to significant litigation.61

The Four-Step OCS Process under the 1978 Amendments 

In summary, based on the 1978 amendments, MMS implementation regulations and other published directives to

lessees, and certain judicial interpretations, the OCSLA establishes a four-stage process for the development of oil 

and gas leases for exploration and production.62 The first stage is the development and publication of schedules of 

proposed lease sales.63 After a five-year program schedule has been established, the second stage is the individual 

lease sale consultative process, which provides adjacent states and the public an opportunity to review each 

proposed sale and that may lead to the cancellation, delay, or modification of a proposed sale. If the Secretary 

decides to proceed with the sale, the stage culminates in the competitive bidding process and sale of the leases.64

Each sale is considered individually and, as noted in Chapter 2, is subject to a CZM consistency review by affected 

coastal states (discussed in more detail in the Selected Issues section of this chapter, below). 

The third stage is the filing and review of the exploration plan (EP).65 At this stage, the lessee submits a proposed 

EP to the regional supervisor of MMS for approval. The EP must include descriptions of the exploration activities 

and the mobile drilling unit to be used, a map of the proposed wells, and a federal consistency certification, 

pursuant to CZMA Section 307(c)(3)(B). The regional supervisor must consult with the governor of any affected 

state, or designated representatives, and submit the EP and accompanying consistency certification and 

information to the state CZMA agency of the affected state(s), before approving (with state concurrence with 

such certification)or disapproving the licenses or permits described in detail in the proposed EP. The fourth stage 

is the filing and review of a development and production plan (DPP).66 As is the case for the EP, the DPP must 

be submitted along with the lessee’s certification that each activity is consistent with the enforceable policies of the 

state’s coastal management program. The Secretary may not approve a DPP that does not receive the affected 

coastal state’s concurrence with the lessee’s certification unless the Secretary of Commerce overrides the state’s 

consistency objection (see Chapter 2, Coastal Management, for a more detailed description of the Secretary of 

Commerce’s override authority). 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1986 

The 1986 amendments to the OCSLA resolved the dispute over the division of the 8(g) revenues. The 

amendments mandated that 27 percent of all revenues from production within three miles seaward of the federalstate boundary be given to the states.67 They also set a schedule for distribution on revenues placed in escrow 

pending settlement of any jurisdictional disputes between the federal and state governments.68

 

61 E.g., Texas v. Secretary of the Interior, 580 F. Supp. 1197 (E.D. Tex. 1984); see Roger J. Marzulla, Federalism Implications and 

OCSLA Section 8(g), 2 Nat. Resources & Env’t 26, 28-29, 70-71 (Spring, 1986) (summarizing litigation over 8(g) revenues by Texas, 

Louisiana, and Alaska and noting that (as of the article’s date) Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and California “lay claim to 8(g) 

revenues but have not yet sued”). 

62 Secretary of the Interior v. California, 464 U.S. 312, 313 (1984). 

63 43 U.S.C. § 1344. 

64 Id. § 1337. 

65 Id. § 1340(c). 

66 43 U.S.C. § 1351. 

67 Pub. L. 99-272, § 8003, 100 Stat. 148 (1986) (amending OCSLA § 8(g)) (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1337(g)). 

68 Id.
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 101

OCSLA and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990

Included within the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (discussed below and in Chapter 7) was an amendment adding 

Section 5(j) to the OCSLA to govern “cooperative development of common hydrocarbon-bearing areas.” 

Concerned about the adverse effects of “unrestrained competitive production of hydrocarbons from a common 

hydrocarbon-bearing geological area” underlying a state-federal offshore boundary,69 Congress directed the 

Secretary of the Interior to “prevent, through the cooperative development of an area, the harmful effects of 

unrestrained competitive production.”70

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1994 and 1999

The 1994 OCSLA amendments authorized the Secretary of the Interior to negotiate agreements (rather than 

conduct a competitive lease sale) for sand, gravel, and shell resources for use in projects undertaken by federal, 

state, or local governments for shore protection and beach or coastal wetlands restoration, or for use in other 

types of construction projects that are wholly or partly funded, or authorized, by the federal government.71 Access 

to OCS hard minerals for purposes other than those specified in the amendments continued to be addressed 

through the competitive bidding process by granting a lease to the highest bidder for the extraction and use of any 

mineral.72 The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 amended Public Law 103-426, dropping the 

requirement that a fee be paid by state and local governments for use of OCS sand, gravel, and shell resources.73

OCS Deep Water Royalty Relief Act 

In 1995, Congress passed the OCS Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (DWRRA),74 which amended Section 8 of the 

OCSLA, to stimulate exploration for and production of oil and natural gas in the deeper waters of the Gulf of 

Mexico by offering royalty relief incentives.75 Pursuant to the Act, federal lease tracts in the Western and Central 

Planning Areas of the Gulf of Mexico, and the portion of the Eastern Planning Area encompassing whole lease 

blocks lying west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes West longitude of the U.S. EEZ may be eligible for royalty relief. The 

grant of royalty relief by the Secretary of the Interior for leases issued in lease sales held before the November 28, 

1995, the date of enactment of the DWRRA depends on the Secretary’s determination that production would be 

uneconomic without the relief. 76 For leases issued in sales held more than five years after DWRRA’s enactment, 

the Secretary has full discretion to determine whether or not to provide royalty relief.77

The DWRRA mandated some form of royalty relief, however, for leases in deep water tracts issued pursuant to 

lease sales held in the five-year period following the law’s enactment (i.e., November 29, 1995 through November 

29, 2000). The volume of mandatory relief was tiered such that greater relief was afforded for greater water 

depths: “(1) 17.5 million barrels of oil equivalent for leases in water depths of 200 to 400 meters; (2) 52.5 million 

 

69 Id. § 1334(j)(1)(A). 

70 Id. § 1334(j)(2). 

71 Outer Continental Shelf: Sand, Gravel, and Shell Resources, Pub. L. 103-426, 108 Stat. 4371 (1994), amending OCSLA § 8 

(codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1337(k)). 

72 See 43 U.S.C. § 1337(k). 

73 Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Pub. L. 106-53, Title II, § 215(b)(1), 113 Stat. 269 (1999). 

74 Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act, Pub. L. 104-58, 109 Stat. 557 (1995) (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1337 

(2000)). 

75 See id.

76 Id. § 302 (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1337). 

77 43 U.S.C. § 1337. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

102 Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 

barrels of oil equivalent for leases in 400 to 800 meters of water; and (3) 87.5 million barrels of oil equivalent for 

leases in water depths greater than 800 meters.”78 

Clean Water Act 

Pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

program limits water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into the waters of the United 

States.79 Point source is broadly defined as “any discernable, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not 

limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated 

animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.”80

Under the CWA, discharges from point sources are unlawful without a NPDES permit authorizing the 

discharges.81

CWA Section 403 requires that NPDES permits for “discharge into the territorial sea, the waters of the 

contiguous zone, or the oceans” be issued in compliance with guidelines promulgated by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA),82 the agency that administers the CWA. In such guidelines, EPA has provided for a 

general permit subcategory83 for discharges from facilities engaged in offshore oil and gas extraction.84

As required by the CWA, the guidelines covering offshore oil and gas extraction point sources provide for 

technology-based effluent discharge limitations according to whether pollutants are produced by a “new source” 

or not and according to the type of pollutant. A new source is “any source [that is discharging or may discharge 

pollutants], the construction of which is commenced after the publication of proposed regulations prescribing a 

standard of performance under this Section [i.e., Section 306 of the CWA, codified at 33 U.S.C. § 1316] which will 

be applicable to such source, if such standard is thereafter promulgated in accordance with this section.”85 

Applicable guidelines must be established using “new source performance standards”86 and may be more stringent 

than those applicable to existing sources. For existing sources, the technology-based effluent discharge standard 

used to develop the guidelines depends upon whether “toxic pollutants” 87 or “conventional pollutants”88 are 

 

78 Pub. L. 104-58, § 304 (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1337). 

79 See id. § 1342. The goals of the CWA are to be met through the control of nonpoint sources of pollution as well as point sources, 

see id. § 1251(a)(7), and to this end the statute provides for the development by states and the federal government of “nonpoint 

source management programs.” See id. § 1329. Nonpoint sources can be expected to be found onshore rather than offshore, 

however, and include sources such as urban or rural runoff. 

80 Id. § 1362(14). 

81 See id. §§ 1311(a) and 1342. 

82 Id. § 1343. 

83 See 40 C.F.R. Part 435, Subpart.A (2002) (Part 435 – Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category, Subpart A, – Offshore 

Subcategory). More detail regarding the CWA and EPA permitting of point source discharges can be found in Chapter 4, Ocean and 

Coastal Pollution from Land-based Sources. 

84 The subcategory is defined as “facilities engaged in field exploration, drilling, well production, and well treatment in the oil and gas 

industry which are located in waters that are seaward of the inner boundaries of the territorial sea as defined in section 502(g) of the 

Clean Water Act.” 40 C.F.R. § 435.10 (2002). Section 502(g) of the CWA defines the inner boundary of the territorial sea as “the line 

of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward 

limit of inland waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(8). 

85 Id. § 1316; see 40 C.F.R. § 401.11(e) (2002). 

86 Id. § 1316(b)(1)(B). The discharge limitation guideline applicable to NPDES permits for new sources in the offshore oil and gas 

extraction subcategory is codified at 40 C.F.R. § 435.15 (2002). 

87 The term toxic pollutants is defined at 33 U.S.C. § 1362(13). EPA has listed toxic pollutants at 40 C.F.R. § 401.15 (2002). 

88 The term conventional pollutants is defined at 33 U.S.C. § 1314(a)(4) (2000). EPA has listed conventional pollutants at 40 C.F.R. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 103

involved. Guidelines applicable to toxic pollutants must be established using the “best available technology 

economically achievable” (BAT) standard.89 Guidelines applicable to conventional pollutants must be established 

using the “best conventional pollutant control technology” (BCT) standard.90 The factors that must be considered 

by EPA in establishing BAT and BCT are listed in Section 304 of the CWA.91

Oil Pollution Act 

Since 1972, CWA Section 311 has been the primary mechanism for enforcing oil pollution control standards and 

establishing responsibility and liability for oil spill and hazardous substance clean up and damages.92 While the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA)93 replaced most of the CWA legal regime for responsibility for cleanup costs and 

damages for oil spill contingency planning, Section 311 still provides the framework for civil and criminal 

enforcement by the federal government for oil spills and notification to the federal government concerning a spill 

of oil or a hazardous substance.94

OPA made responsible parties (including owners, operators, and charterers) strictly liable for cleanup costs and 

damages for discharges of oil.95 The statute contains limits on liability, which are greatly increased over those 

levels originally set by CWA Section 311 and were greater than limits proposed in international liability regimes at 

the time.96 Parties can be liable for removal costs and damages for injury to, destruction of, loss of, or loss of use 

of, natural resources.97 In addition, private parties may also bring claims for destruction of private property, loss of 

subsistence use, and the loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity due to the injury, destruction, or loss of 

property or natural resources.98 Additionally, OPA provided for the creation an Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund99 to 

cover claims where the parties responsible for a spill cannot be found or are unable to pay for cleanup costs and 

damages.100

Prior to the passage of OPA, MMS was responsible for oil spill prevention and response for oil and gas facilities 

on the OCS. Under the OPA, Executive Order 12,777, and subsequent delegations, MMS authority for oil spill 

prevention and response was expanded to include all offshore facilities in federal and state waters, except those 

covered by the Deepwater Port Act of 1974.101 MMS was also delegated authority to ensure that offshore 

 § 401.16 (2002). 

89 See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b)(2) and 1314(b)(2). The discharge limitation guideline applicable to NPDES permits for discharges of 

toxic pollutants in the offshore oil and gas extraction subcategory is codified at 40 C.F.R. § 435.13 (2002). 

90 See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b)(2)(E), 1314(a)(4), and 1314(b)(4). The discharge limitation guideline applicable to NPDES permits for 

discharges of conventional pollutants in the offshore oil and gas extraction subcategory is codified at 40 C.F.R. § 435.14 (2002). 

91 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(2)(B). 

92 Id. § 1321. 

93 33 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq. OPA is discussed further in Chapter 7 of this Appendix. 

94 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) creates a parallel legal regime to 

Section 311 and the Oil Pollution Act for hazardous substances to which it applies. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675. 

95 See id. § 2702. 

96 See id. § 2704. 

97 See id. § 2702(b). 

98 See id.

99 See 26 U.S.C. § 9509. 

100 See 33 U.S.C. § 2712; see also id. § 2701(11) (defining the term Fund used in 33 U.S.C. § 2712 to mean the Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund established pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 9509). 

101 Exec. Order No. 12,777, 56 Fed. Reg. 54,757, 54,760-62 (Oct. 18, 1991); J. Manuel Saenz, Implementation of the Oil Pollution 

Act of 1990: A Program Designed for Offshore California, available at http://www.mms.gov/omm/pacific/offshore/cz97-saenz.htm 

(accessed June 1, 2004). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

104 Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 

operators can meet their financial responsibility for oil spills from their facilities.102

MMS developed an MMS OPA implementation plan that incorporates components of several Memoranda of 

Agreement and Understanding (MOA/MOU) between MMS and other federal and state agencies to ensure a 

coordinated oil spill prevention and response program. Among other measures, this coordination provides for the 

sharing of technical expertise in drilling, production, pollution prevention, and other related areas of offshore 

operations and safety.103

Clean Air Act 

Through amendments adopted in 1978, Congress required the Secretary of the Interior to include in regulations 

issued under the OCSLA rules “for compliance with the national ambient air quality standards pursuant to the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), to the extent that activities authorized under this subchapter significantly affect the air 

quality of any State.”104 Initially, there was some uncertainty within the executive branch over whether this 

provision was meant to give the Secretary exclusive authority over emissions of air pollutants from OCS facilities 

or whether it simply supplemented authority that EPA believed it already possessed under the CAA. That 

confusion was addressed in California v. Kleppe, in which a federal court of appeals determined that “Congress gave 

the Secretary authority to promulgate air quality regulations for the OCS. The plain meaning provides no 

suggestion that such authority is to be shared.”105

Kleppe resolved the legal question, but not the controversy. Focusing on the statutory command to address 

emissions “to the extent” OCS activities “significantly affect” onshore air quality, DOI adopted rules that first 

assess whether OCS emissions will cause significant increases of the concentrations of regulated pollutants once 

the emissions reach shore. This approach was problematic for California. There, the narrow continental shelf kept 

OCS activities relatively near to shore. OCS platforms and drill ships emitted pollutants into a highly populated 

airshed confined on the east by coastal mountains. From California’s perspective, emissions of volatile organic 

compounds and oxides of nitrogen—precursors in the formation of ozone—contributed equally significantly 

whether they came from OCS facilities or the tailpipes of automobiles onshore. To the state, OCS emissions 

needed to be regulated under the same criteria employed by the state under its EPA-mandated “state 

implementation plan” under the CAA. 

From 1980 to 1990, OCS operations off California faced considerable uncertainty over what air quality standards 

would apply. The California Coastal Commission adopted the position that OCS exploration plans and 

productions plans were inconsistent with the California coastal management program unless operators agreed to 

abide by the requirements of the California Air Resources Board. OCS lessees and DOI asserted that the 

Commission’s position was contrary to law. 

After attempts to negotiate a new air quality rule governing operations offshore California failed, Congress 

resolved the controversy by enacting Section 328 of the CAA.106 Section 328 essentially supersedes Section 5(a)(8) 

of the OCSLA in all areas of the OCS except the central and western Gulf of Mexico.107 Outside the excepted 

areas, emissions of air pollutants from OCS facilities are to be governed by rules issued by EPA. If the facilities 

 

102 Saenz, Id.

103 Id.

104 43 U.S.C. § 1334(a)(8). 

105 California v. Kleppe, 604 F.2d 1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 1979). 

106 The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 are Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2464, see at 2685-87 (November 15, 1990). 

107 42 U.S.C. § 7627(a)(1). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 105

are located within 25 miles of the seaward boundary of a state, EPA’s rules are to be “the same as would be 

applicable if the source were located in the corresponding onshore area.”108 Section 328 invites states adjacent to 

the OCS to submit their own regulations to implement air pollution control, and EPA is to delegate its 

enforcement authority if it finds a state’s proposal “adequate.”109 

Statutes Protecting Living Marine Resources

The Endangered Species Act (ESA),110 the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act),111 and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)112 protect offshore marine life and 

affect the conduct of offshore mineral exploitation. In addition to prohibiting certain types of conduct having a 

direct negative impact on such resources, some of these statutes also place limitations on government action that 

may adversely affect species and habitat. Most importantly, as the agency charged with administering OCS mineral 

exploitation activities, DOI has responsibilities under various federal laws to consult with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding OCS activities and their 

effect on living marine resources. These laws are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, Living Marine Resources. 

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits takes within the United States, its territorial sea, or on the high seas, of any species 

protected under the Act by any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.113 Further, under Section 

7(a), federal agencies must consult with NMFS or USFWS as applicable to ensure that any action “authorized, 

funded, or carried out . . . 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.”114 Once this 

consultation is completed, NMFS or USFWS, as applicable, prepares a “biological opinion.” The biological 

opinion must be based on “the best scientific and commercial data available,” and must include three essential 

findings.115 The biological opinion must indicate: whether the action will jeopardize a species’ survival or 

adversely affect critical habitat; if jeopardy or adverse critical habitat modification will occur, what “reasonable and 

prudent alternatives . . . can be taken by the federal agency”; and, if takings are anticipated to occur, the number of 

animals that may be taken and “reasonable and prudent measures” to minimize the impact.116 This third finding is 

critical, because if a taking subsequently occurs but the “reasonable and prudent measures” described in a 

biological opinion have been implemented, the taking is deemed not to be unlawful under Section 9 of the ESA.117 

Similar to the ESA, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, when federal agencies such as MMS conduct activities that 

“may adversely affect any essential fish habitat” they must consult with NMFS to develop “measures that [they] 

can . . . take . . . to conserve such habitat.”118 Essential fish habitat (EFH) is defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Act to 

mean “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity.”119

 

108 Id.

109 42 U.S.C. § 7627(a)(3). 

110 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544. 

111 Id. §§ 1801-1883. 

112 Id. §§ 1361-1421h. 

113 Id. §§ 1538(a)(1)(B) and (C). A take is defined as all actions “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Id. § 1532(19). 

114 Id. § 1536(a)(2). 

115 Id. § 1536(a)(2). 

116 Id. § 1536(b). 

117 Id. § 1536(o)(2); cf. id. § 1539(a)(1)(B) (authorizing the provision of permits allowing for incidental takes by private entities). 

118 See id. § 1855(b)(4). 

119 Id. § 1802(10). Regulations promulgated by the NMFS direct that: 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

106 Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 

Further, the Act requires Regional Fishery Management Councils to “describe and identify essential fish habitat 

based on . . . guidelines established by the Secretary [of Commerce].”120 

Regarding the mandated interagency consultation, if the Secretary of Commerce receives information from a 

fishery management council or other agency, or determines from other sources that a proposed or undertaken 

action by a federal or state agency threatens an identified EFH, the Secretary is required to recommend measures 

to the responsible agency that can be taken to conserve that habitat. As the acting agency, DOI would not be 

required to follow the recommendations, but would be required to provide a detailed response in writing to 

explain the reasons for not following the recommendations and to describe measures to be taken to avoid, 

mitigate, or offset the impact of the activity on the habitat.121 

Although it does not contain provisions requiring consulting, like ESA Section 9, Sections 101 and 102 of the 

MMPA generally prohibit the taking of any marine mammals.122 OCS oil and gas operators and others engaged in 

offshore activities that may result in unintentional or accidental taking of marine mammals must obtain 

authorization for such takings. The MMPA and its implementing regulations allow United States citizens to 

petition the NMFS or USFWS for a letter of authorization to allow the conditional taking of marine mammals 

incidental to a specified activity occurring in a certain area for not more than five consecutive years.123 In the 

absence of a letter of authorization, operators are liable for any takes that may occur.124 Except for activities that 

have the potential to result in serious injury or mortality, NMFS or USFWS may also issue incidental harassment 

authorizations for activities that may result in only the incidental harassment of a small number of marine 

mammals. 

Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act 

Enacted in 1980, the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA)125 established an interim regime for 

deep seabed mining to govern persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction pending the adoption of an international treaty 

on the deep seabed. The Act applies to activities on the “deep seabed,” defined to mean the area seaward of “the 

Continental Shelf of any nation.”126 The Act defines Continental Shelf using not the definition later adopted by 

Article 76 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), but the definition employed 

by the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf: encompassing the “seabed and subsoil . . . to a depth of 200 

 For the purpose of interpreting the definition of essential fish habitat: Waters include aquatic areas and their 

associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include areas historically 

used by fish where appropriate; substrate includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and 

associated biological communities; necessary means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and 

the managed species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and “spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to 

maturity” covers a species’ full life cycle. 

50 C.F.R. § 600.10 (2002). 

120 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(7). 

121 Id. §§ 1855(b)(3)-(4). 

122 Id. § 1371(a). 

123 Id. § 1371 (a)(5)(A); 50 C.F.R. § 216.105 (2002). 

124 Violators of the MMPA’s prohibition on takes are subject to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation. Id. § 1375(a)(1). 

Violations that are found to be “knowing” are subject to a criminal penalty of up to $20,000 and one year imprisonment. Id. § 

1375(b). 

125 Pub. L. 96-283; 94 Stat. 553; June 28, 1980 (codified at 30 U.S.C. §§ 1401 et seq.). 

126Id. § 1403(4). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 107

meters [from the surface of the sea] or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of 

the exploitation of the natural resources of such . . . area.”127 

Congress intended that the Act “should be transitional pending” either of two events: the adoption of a treaty 

resulting from the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea (the conference resulting in the 1982 UNCLOS) 

or, barring the adoption of that treaty, some other multilateral treaty respecting the deep seabed.128 The premise of 

the Act at the time of enactment was that the development of technology needed to mine the “significant” supply 

of hard minerals on the floor of the deep seabed required long lead times, and therefore “must proceed at this 

time if deep seabed minerals are to be available when needed.”129 To accommodate the need to stimulate 

technological development and to permit mining to proceed, the Act authorizes the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to issue “licenses” for exploration 

and “permits” for commercial recovery of hard minerals.130 To assure that U.S. citizens do not behave 

inconsistently with the emerging law of deep seabed mining, the Act prohibits them from mining activities unless 

authorized under a license or permit issued under the Act, under a similar authority issued by another nation,131 or 

under an international treaty.132

Anticipating that DSHMRA might authorize commercial recovery of deep seabed minerals before an international 

treaty would enter into force as to the United States, the Act established within the U.S. Treasury a Deep Seabed 

Revenue Sharing Trust Fund. Into that Fund the Secretary of the Treasury is to deposit sums equal to taxes 

received by the Treasury on deep seabed mining operations under Section 4495 of the Internal Revenue Code.133

Further anticipating that the United States would become a party to an international treaty governing deep seabed 

mining, DSHMRA provides that the various provisions of the Act and its implementing regulations will continue 

in effect, upon the treaty’s entering into force as to the United States, provided they are “not inconsistent” with 

the terms of the treaty.134 

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act 

The Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) Act established a licensing program for facilities and plantships 

that would convert thermal gradients in the ocean into electricity.135 It directed the Administrator of NOAA to 

establish a stable legal regime to foster commercial development of OTEC,136 and required “the Secretary of the 

Department in which the Coast Guard is operating” to promulgate regulations and enforce procedures regarding 

the operational safety of ocean thermal conversion facilities and plantships and the protection of the marine 

environment from adverse effects caused by such facilities and plantships.137 It also directed that the Secretary in 

charge of the Coast Guard promulgate regulations and procedures “ensur[ing] that the thermal plume of an ocean 

thermal energy conversion plantship does not unreasonably impinge on so as to degrade the thermal gradient used 

 

127Id. § 1403(2)(A). 

128Id. § 1441(3). 

129Id. §§ 1401 (a)(4) and (11). 

130Id. § 1412. 

131Id. § 1411(a)(1)(B) (referring to authorization from a “reciprocating state”). 

132Id. § 1411(a). 

133Id. §§ 1472(a) and (b). 

134Id. § 1442. 

135 42 U.S.C. § 9111. 

136 Id. § 9112. 

137 Id. § 9118. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

108 Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 

by . . . any other ocean thermal energy conversion plantship or facility.”138 Coast Guard regulations were also to be 

promulgated to “ensure that the thermal plume of . . . an ocean thermal energy conversion plantship does not 

impinge on so as to adversely affect the territorial sea or area of national resource jurisdiction, as recognized by 

the United States, of any other nation unless the Secretary of State has approved such impingement after 

consultation with such nation.”139 

The OTEC Act directs the NOAA Administrator and the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard 

is operating to periodically review the regulations promulgated pursuant to OTEC “to determine the status and 

impact of such regulations on the continued development, evolution, and commercialization of ocean thermal 

energy conversion technology.”140 The Secretary of Energy is to be consulted in the review process.141 Revised 

regulations are to be promulgated as is found appropriate.142

According to NOAA: 

There has been a low level of activity under the OTEC Act since its passage in 1980. Following 

NOAA’s initial environmental studies and implementation of a licensing program, NOAA has 

not received any license applications for OTEC facilities or plantships. The availability and the 

relatively low prices of fossil fuels, coupled with the risks to potential investors, ha[ve] limited 

the interest in commercial development of OTEC projects. . . . Moreover, OTEC projects have 

offered an unclear return on a significant investment.143

NOAA rescinded its regulations implementing the OTEC Act in 1996, mainly because no application for 

a commercial OTEC license had been submitted to the agency in the approximately fifteen years since it 

issued the regulations.144

Rivers and Harbors Act 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) prohibits “[t]he creation of any obstruction not affirmatively 

authorized by Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States . . . except on plans 

recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the Army.”145 Section 4(f) of the 

OCSLA extended the authority of the Secretary of the Army under RHA Section 10 to the OCS.146

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has been delegated the authority to implement the RHA. Pursuant 

to its authority under the RHA, USACE may issue a “Section 10 permit” for activities on the OCS that will result 

in the creation of obstructions to navigation.147

 

138 Id. § 9119(c). 

139 Id.

140 Id. § 9127. 

141 Id.

142 Id.

143 NOAA Coastal Services Center, Legislative Summaries, Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 9101 et seq.), 

available at http://www.csc.noaa.gov/opis/html/summary/otec.htm (visited June 1, 2004). 

144 See 61 Fed. Reg. 21,073 et seq.; May 9, 1996, removing 15 CFR Part 981. 

145 33 U.S.C. § 403. 

146 See 43 U.S.C. § 1333(e); see United States v. Ray, 423 F.2d 16, at 19 (5th Cir. 1970). 

147 See generally 33 C.F.R. Parts. 320, 322, 325, 329, and 330 (2002). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 109

SELECTED ISSUES

Application of Mineral Leasing Authority to Seabed off the Territories and Possessions 

The continental shelf jurisdiction or exclusive economic zone (EEZ) jurisdiction of the United States has been 

extended by presidential proclamations to the seabed of U.S. territories and possessions, as well as to the seabed 

off the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.148 The outer 

Continental Shelf, which is subject to the leasing authorities of the OCSLA, however, is limited by definition to the 

continental shelf off the coasts of the states of the Union.149 This means that the statutory authority governing 

leasing under the OCSLA does not currently apply to the continental shelf (or EEZ) off the territories and 

possessions. It also means that there is arguably a gap in the federal government’s mineral leasing authority over 

the seabed areas off the territories and possessions of the United States and off the Commonwealths affiliated 

with the United States. 

The EEZ and the continental shelf over which the United States asserts jurisdiction with respect to the 

Commonwealths, territories, and possessions covers a considerable amount of seabed that likely contains large 

quantities of minerals.150

Development of Non-Mineral Sources of Energy within the Exclusive Economic Zone 

Under customary international law and the 1982 UNCLOS, a nation has sovereign rights within its EEZ to 

produce energy from the water, currents, and wind. Except for the limited case of ocean thermal energy 

conversion, Congress has not created a use-specific statutory framework within which the United States can enjoy 

these sovereign rights. Recent developments respecting wind energy have highlighted this omission.

A new and growing trend in alternative energy production is the offshore wind farm. Approximately 100 seabased wind turbines are currently operational in Europe and several European countries, including Germany, the 

Netherlands, and England, have begun issuing licenses.151 Several projects are currently proposed for the Eastern 

seaboard of the United States. In particular, a proposal to site a wind farm off Cape Cod in federal waters in 

Nantucket Sound has raised questions regarding the role of the federal government in regulating the use of the 

continental shelf as a location for such structures, and has generated both political and legal controversy. 

New uses that lack a specific legal or management regime like the OCSLA (for oil, natural gas, and mineral 

extraction), or the Magnuson-Stevens Act (for fisheries) highlight the potential complexity of federal jurisdiction 

over ocean-based activities. The recent proposals to install wind turbines on the OCS have accentuated the fact 

that no one federal agency has specific authority to comprehensively manage any new category of uses that may 

arise in federal offshore lands or waters, such as wind farms or offshore aquaculture facilities, and to assure that 

various new and existing uses are reasonably compatible with one another. For example, MMS leases federal 

 

148See, e.g., Proclamation No. 5030. 

14943 U.S.C. § 1331. 

150 In addition to the commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American 

Samoa, U.S. territories and possessions include Midway Island, Wake Island, Howland Island, Baker Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston 

Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, and Kingman Reef. All have EEZs, extending as far as 200 miles from each. The Department of State also lists 

Navassa Island in the Caribbean as being under U.S. sovereignty. See, U.S Department of State, Fact Sheet, Bureau of Intelligence 

and Research, Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty, dated March 26, 2004, available at

http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/10543.htm (accessed May 13, 2004). 

151 Marlise Simons, Wind Turbines are Sprouting off Europe’s Shores, N.Y. Times, Dec. 8, 2002. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

110 Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 

submerged lands for mineral extraction pursuant to the OCSLA, but that Act does not apply to non-extractive 

facilities such as wind turbines.152 

USACE, pursuant to Section 10 of the RHA, has jurisdiction to require a permit for a wind farm on the OCS as 

an obstruction to navigation and also coordinates the review of the proposed wind farm by all other federal and 

state agencies having jurisdiction over some aspect of the wind farm’s siting or operations. The interagency review 

under the Section 10 process includes numerous federal and state agencies with applicable legal authority. USACE 

also must conduct a public interest review pursuant to the Section 10 program regulations, which includes 

consideration of over twenty-five criteria that are listed in the regulations or augmented if additional 

considerations arise in the Environmental Impact Statement review mandated by the National Environmental 

Policy Act.153 

Offshore Oil and Gas Development 

Moratoria, Withdrawals, and Lessor-Lessee Contractual Issues 

Controversies over the leasing and development of OCS oil and natural gas have proven too intractable 

to be resolved under existing statutory processes of planning and consultation. The response has been to 

remove large areas of the OCS from consideration for oil and gas leasing. Both Congress and the 

President have the authority to impose moratoria. On the other hand, courts have recognized that OCS 

lessees may hold compensable rights with their lease contracts under certain circumstances. 

Congress can enact moratoria provisions by prohibiting the expenditure of funds for various OCS activities in 

DOI appropriations bills or through authorizing legislation. In 1982, Congress imposed the first moratoria on 

OCS activity in a DOI appropriations measure by removing 736,000 acres off northern and central California 

from leasing. Since that time, moratoria have been established in all or portions of every OCS region,154 an area 

now covering over 600 million acres that is off limits to leasing. 

With respect to the executive branch, the OCSLA states that the “President of the United States may from time to 

time withdraw from disposition any unleased lands of the OCS.”155 A presidential withdrawal of unleased lands is 

a standing directive until reversed by the President.156 In recent years, two Presidents have used this authority. On 

June 26, 1990, President George H.W. Bush withdrew from leasing, until after the year 2000, offshore areas of 

northern and central California, southern California (except for 87 tracts), southwest Florida, the North Atlantic 

Sale 96 Planning Area, and Washington/Oregon. On June 12, 1998, President Clinton exercised his authority 

under Section 12 of the OCSLA and withdrew certain submerged lands from possible leasing. Effective until June 

30, 2012, his withdrawal encompassed those areas identified by President Bush, but also was extended to include 

the following planning areas: the North Aleutian Basin off Alaska, most of the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the South 

 

152 Another example of the complexity of federal law is that the OCSLA applies to a natural gas pipeline on the OCS even if the 

pipeline is not associated with OCS extraction activities. For example, the MMS has jurisdiction over a proposed pipeline to Florida 

from a liquefied natural gas regasification facility located in the Bahamas, pursuant to the OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. § 1334(e) and OCSLA 

implementing regulations at 30 C.F.R. Part 250, Subpart J. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission also has jurisdiction over 

the same pipeline, pursuant to §§ 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act and authority to issue a Presidential Permit to site, construct, 

connect, operate, and maintain the offshore pipeline facilities at the exclusive economic zone boundary between the United States 

and the Bahamas, pursuant to Executive Orders 10,485 and 12,038, and the Secretary of Energy’s Delegation Order No. 0204-112. 

153 See 33 CFR § 320.4. 

154 Report of the Subcommittee on Environmental Information for Select OCS Areas Under Moratoria, available at

http://www.mms.gov/mmab/policy-committee/subcommittee%20Reports/moratori.pdf. 

155 OCSLA § 12; see 43 U.S.C. § 1341(a). 

156 One reviewer noted that this legal assertion may not be true. The OCSLA does not specifically authorize de-withdrawals; in other 

contexts, Congress and the President must reverse the withdrawal. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 111

Atlantic, and the Mid-Atlantic. Additionally, “without specific expiration,” President Clinton withdrew all areas of 

the OCS currently designated as national marine sanctuaries.157

In terms of existing leases, the Outer Banks Protection Act (OBPA), a provision carried in OPA in 1990, 

prohibited, among other activities, drilling on leases located offshore North Carolina, until the Secretary of the 

Interior had received a report from an environmental panel and had certified to Congress that he had enough 

information on which to make decisions with respect to such leases under the OCSLA. Although the Secretary so 

certified, he also called for additional studies recommended by that panel. Further delays ensued, and the lessees 

eventually brought a breach-of-contract lawsuit in the Court of Federal Claims.158 Although OBPA was repealed 

in 1996, the suit made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2000, the Court ruled that the provisions of OBPA, 

enacted after the North Carolina lease contracts were executed, had substantially breach such contracts and that 

the companies holding those leases had a right to recover their payments.159

CZMA Federal Consistency Issues and the OCS 

In Chapter 2, Coastal Management, and in this chapter, the relationship between the CZMA federal consistency 

provision and oil and gas operations under the OCSLA has been delineated in some detail. Although the 

consistency provision has fostered a high level of cooperation among most federal agencies and coastal states, 

controversy has revolved around the federal consistency provisions as they relate to OCS energy development. 

While over the years thousands of exploration and development plans have been submitted by oil and gas 

companies, approved by MMS, and concurred with by coastal states, there have been a small number of cases in 

which states have objected, and these have been the subject of high visibility. There have been fourteen OCS oil 

and gas appeal decisions issued by the Secretary of Commerce, half of which overrode the state’s objection and 

half of which did not.160 These numbers do not mean, however, that the CZMA process for OCS plans has been 

virtually free from controversy. Although exact statistics are not readily available, before concurring with lessees’ 

certifications, states often negotiate changes to their OCS plans. 

As also noted in Chapter 2, the 1990 amendments to the CZMA federal consistency provisions provided 

some clarity, including explicit acknowledgement by Congress in the conference report accompanying the 

legislation that OCS lease sales are subject to the federal consistency provisions under section 307(c)(1) of the 

CZMA. Since enactment of the amendments, there have been a number of sales held by the Department of 

the Interior but only one state objection has been filed. In that case, NOAA determined that it was not based 

on the enforceable policies of the state’s coastal management program, and the Department of the Interior 

determined that it was carrying out its lease sale responsibilities consistent to the maximum extent possible 

with the state’s program. The lease sale proceeded.161 

In 2003, after a series of negotiations between the Departments of Commerce and the Interior regarding certain 

issues between the CZMA and the OCSLA, the Commerce Department published a proposed rule that addressed 

the information needs of states, coordination of timing requirements between the two statutes, definitive time 

limits on the Secretary of Commerce’s appeals process, and additional procedural matters.162 

Finally, one additional CZMA-OCSLA issue emerged in the late 1990s with respect to whether a decision by 

 

157 34 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1111 (June 12, 1998). 

158 Conoco Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 309 (1996). 

159 Mobil Oil Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 604 (2000). 

160 68 Fed. Reg. at 34,853 (2003). 

161 68 Fed. Reg. at 34,853 (2003). 

162 68 Fed. Reg. 34,851-34,874 (June 11, 2003). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

112 Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 

MMS to “suspend” operations or production on OCS leases is a federal action requiring consistency review under 

Section 307(c)(1).163 Under the terms of the OCSLA, MMS has the authority to grant “suspensions” of either the 

primary term or the secondary term of an OCS lease upon request of the lessee for reasons such as facilitating the 

development of the lease plan or making arrangements for transportation facilities. MMS may also direct 

suspensions of the leases on its own initiative, (e.g., in the face of a threat of serious, irreparable, or immediate 

environmental harm).164

The question arose in the context of thirty-six leases off the coast of California that were issued prior to the 

moratoria and withdrawals beginning in 1990. The leases had not yet started producing paying quantities of oil or 

gas and would have expired but for previous suspensions.165 The suspensions at issue in the decision were “issued 

to prevent the leases from expiring in 1999.”166 

In determining that the lease suspensions were subject to review under the CZMA, the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals noted that the leases at issue had never been reviewed by California (because they were issued prior to the 

1990 amendments requiring consistency review for OCS lease sales) and that the suspensions represent “a 

significant decision to extend the life of oil exploration and production off of California’s coast, with all of the far 

reaching effects and perils that go along with offshore oil production.”167 

Bilateral/International Issues: the Western Gap 

With the focus of U.S. offshore oil and gas production on the Gulf of Mexico, uncertainties over boundaries with 

Mexico were addressed in the late 1970s. Because both the United States and Mexico claimed a 200-mile EEZ, a 

potential conflict arose because the extended jurisdictions overlapped in those areas of the Gulf of Mexico where 

the distance between the landward baselines was less than the 400 nautical miles necessary to accommodate each 

state’s full claim. The two nations agreed to provisional maritime boundaries on November 24, 1976 and later 

signed the 1978 Treaty on Maritime Boundaries168 that employs an equidistant method of calculating a boundary 

line to reach an equitable maritime delimitation between the nations. Due to the geography of the Gulf of Mexico 

and the two nations, there exists a gap roughly triangular in shape in the western Gulf of Mexico where the 

respective EEZs do not meet. Known as the “western gap,” the area became particularly important when 

exploration and leasing activity increased in the Gulf of Mexico and oil and gas producers were looking at 

prospective oil and gas fields which came close to or straddled the legally uncertain boundary line. This area 

covers portions of the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas delineated by MMS for leasing 

purposes. 

After the 1997 ratification by the United States of the Treaty on Maritime Boundaries, in 2000, the two nations 

signed the “Treaty Between The Government Of The United States Of America And The Government Of The 

United Mexican States On The Delimitation Of The Continental Shelf In The Western Gulf Of Mexico Beyond 

200 Nautical Miles.”169 On January 17, 2001, the treaty entered into force and, again using equidistance principles, 

 

163 California v. Norton, 311 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2002). 

164 See 43 U.S.C. § 1337(b)(5); see also 30 C.F.R. §§ 250.168-250.180 (2002). 

165 311 F.3d at 1168. 

166 Id.

167 Id. at 1173. 

168 Treaty on Maritime Boundaries Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States, May 4, 1978, 17 I.L.M. 

1073. Mexico ratified the treaty in 1979; the U.S. ratified the treaty in 1997. Entered into force November 13, 1997, available at, 

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/24227.pdf (accessed May 14, 2004). 

169 Treaty with Mexico on Delimitation of Continental Shelf, June 9, 2000, U.S.-Mexico, S. Treaty Doc. No. 106-39 (2000). Entered 

into force January 17, 2001, available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/24227.pdf (accessed May 14, 2004). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 5: Fuels, Minerals, and Energy Production from the Ocean 113

the parties agreed upon a boundary line to delimit the continental shelf within the western gap. Under the terms of 

the treaty, approximately 62 percent of the area falls within Mexican jurisdiction while the United States has 

jurisdiction over the northern portion representing 38 percent of the area. On February 15, 2002, MMS 

announced that it would accept bids for lease tracts within the United States’ portion of the western gap. 

Oil and gas deposits close to or straddling the boundary pose unique challenges regarding the manner in which 

those resources might be developed. As a result, the two nations agreed to a ten year moratorium on development 

in a 1.4 mile “off limits” buffer zone on either side of the boundary line to provide the countries an opportunity 

to consider the means by which deposits in this area might be developed.170

Given that the western gap lies beyond the 200 mile limit of the EEZ from either nation’s territorial coastline, 

questions arise as to the obligations, if any, of dedicating proceeds from oil and gas production in the area to an 

international fund. Nations that are parties to UNCLOS are obliged to make payments to the International Seabed 

Authority for exploitation of nonliving resources in areas on the continental shelf beyond 200 miles. Article 82(1) 

provides that coastal nations shall make payments or contributions in kind for exploitation of the nonliving 

resources of the continental shelf beyond 200 miles from the coastal baselines. The choice between “payments” 

and “contributions in kind” is left to the coastal nation. Article 82(3) exempts a category of developing nations 

from making payments or contributions in kind. 

The requisite payments are a percentage of the value of the resources extracted at the site. No payment is owed on 

production during the first five years after production commences. In the sixth year, however, the payment owed 

is one percent of the volume or value of the production “at the site.” “The rate shall increase by 1 per cent for 

each subsequent year until the twelfth year and shall remain at 7 per cent thereafter.”171 Exempted from the 

calculation of the payment is production “used in connection with exploitation.”172 Payments are distinct from the 

Authority’s revenues from deep mining operations under Part XI of UNCLOS. They may not be retained or used 

for purposes other than distribution under article 82, paragraph 4. 

Revenue sharing for exploitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 miles from the coast is part of a package that 

establishes with clarity and legal certainty the control of coastal nations over the full extent of their geological 

continental margins. At this time, the United States is engaged in limited exploration but no production from its 

continental shelf beyond 200 miles from the coast. At the same time, the United States enjoys a broad continental 

margin in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean, with significant resource potential in those areas and with 

commercial firms that operate on the continental shelves of other nations. 

With respect to oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico more than 200 miles from the coast, DOI has anticipated 

the obligations of the United States under Article 82. DOI intends to fund the payments to the International 

Seabed Authority (ISA) out of royalties collected from lessees. Because it has provided royalty relief to these ultradeepwater leases, it has imposed a lease stipulation requiring lessees to pay royalties (up to the amount of the 

nation’s obligation to the ISA) on production even when the lessee’s royalty obligation would otherwise be 

suspended.173 However, DOI has also provided that such lessees will receive credit against any royalty that they 

may owe after their royalty relief under the OCSLA has been exhausted in an amount equal to what they paid as a 

consequence of the UNCLOS revenue sharing provision under Article 82.174

 

170 S. Treaty Doc. No. 106-39 (2000). 

171 1982 UNCLOS art. 82.2. 

172 Id.

173 Final Notice of OCS Sale 182, Stipulation No. 5. 

174 Final Notice of OCS Sale 192, Stipulation 4, Provision 10 – Law of the Sea Convention Royalty Payment. (Western Gulf, August, 

2004). 

Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 6: Other Uses of the EEZ 115

CHAPTER 6 

OTHER USES OF OFFSHORE FEDERAL WATERS

 

INTRODUCTION

A number of activities are currently taking place or being proposed in offshore federal waters. This area, 

stretching from 3 (or in some instances 9) to 200 miles offshore, contains an enormous diversity of resources, 

many of which are used or affected by human activities. Federal management of activities in these waters varies. 

Some activities, such as fishing (discussed in Chapter 3) or offshore oil and gas development (discussed in Chapter 

5), are governed according to well-developed regulatory regimes that were established according to specific 

legislative mandates. Other new and emerging ocean uses, such as wind energy (also discussed in Chapter 5) or 

offshore aquaculture (discussed in Chapter 3), are subject to regulation by a number of authorities, but there is no 

comprehensive federal law governing their management. Still other uses, such as bioprospecting, are essentially 

unmanaged in federal waters. 

This chapter addresses some of the current uses of federal waters that are not covered elsewhere in this Appendix. 

A brief summary of governing statutes and related issues is provided for the following activities: protection of 

submerged cultural resources, national marine sanctuaries and other marine protected areas, deepwater ports, 

bioprospecting, and artificial reefs. 

SELECTED GOVERNING STATUTES AND RELATED ISSUES

Submerged Cultural Resources in the Oceans 

The cultural resources in the waters and submerged lands of the oceans include “historic shipwrecks, sunken 

aircraft, lighthouses, and prehistoric archaeological sites that have become inundated due to the 120-meter rise in 

global sea level since the height of the last ice age (ca. 19,000 years ago).”1 

The statutes that may serve to protect cultural resources in offshore federal waters are discussed below. Historic 

shipwrecks that are not subject to statutory protection are subject to the admiralty law of salvage or finds 

(although government-owned shipwrecks often are excepted). Under the law of salvage, when property is lost at 

sea, a salvor may have “the right to possess another’s property and to save it from destruction, danger, or loss, 

 

1

 Minerals Management Service, Environmental Program, National Historic Preservation Act, available at 

www.mms.gov/eppd/compliance/nhpa/ (accessed May 14, 2004). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

116 Chapter 6: Other Uses of the EEZ 

allowing a salvor to retain . . . [the property] until . . . compensated by the owner.”2 Under the adjunct law of finds, 

“title to abandoned property vests in the person who reduces that property to his or her possession.”3

Abandoned Shipwreck Act 

The Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987(ASA)4 was enacted with the purpose of codifying responsibility for the 

protection of a subset of shipwrecks that are abandoned, embedded in state submerged lands, and historic.5 The 

Act operates through the federal government’s assertion of “title to any abandoned shipwreck . . . (1) embedded in 

submerged lands of a State, (2) embedded in coralline formations protected by a State on submerged lands of a 

State; or (3) on submerged lands of a State and . . . included in or determined eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register [of Historic Places].”6 The asserted title is then transferred to the state that possesses the submerged 

lands on which the shipwreck rests,7 except when the wreck is located on public land of the United States or 

Indian lands.8 The public is to be notified “of the location of any shipwreck to which title is asserted under [the 

ASA,]”9 and the Secretary of the Interior is to make a determination as to whether the wreck should be included 

in the National Register of Historic Places.10

The ASA removes shipwrecks that meet its criteria from the jurisdiction of the admiralty law of salvage or finds,11

and imposes title to, and responsibility for, the wrecks on state governments. The U.S. Supreme Court has held 

that the meaning of the term abandoned used in the ASA “conforms with its meaning under admiralty law.”12 This 

means that title to abandoned wrecks that meet the ASA’s criteria belongs to the relevant states by operation of 

law, and that a person who finds one of those wrecks cannot take possession of it through the law of salvage or 

finds. 

States receiving title to wrecks are required to develop “appropriate and consistent policies so as to—(A) protect 

natural resources and habitat areas; (B) guarantee recreational exploration of shipwreck sites; and (C) allow for 

appropriate public and private sector recovery of shipwrecks consistent with the protection of historical values 

and environmental integrity of the shipwrecks and the sites.”13 Moreover, “States are encouraged to create 

underwater parks or areas to provide additional protection for such resources[,]” and may receive grants from the 

Historic 

 

2

 Lathrop v. Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, 817 F. Supp. 953, 961 (M.D. Fla. 1993). 

3

 Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 569 F.2d 330, 337 (5th Cir. 1978). 

4

 43 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2106. 

5 See id. § 2101. 

6 Id. § 2105(a). The term embedded is defined by the Act to mean “firmly affixed in the submerged lands or in coralline formations 

such that the use of tools of excavation is required in order to move the bottom sediments to gain access to the shipwreck, its cargo, 

and any part thereof.” Id. § 2102. 

7 Id. § 2105(c). 

8 See id. § 2105(d). 

9 Id. § 2105(b). 

10 See id.

11 See id. § 2106(a) (“The law of salvage and the law of finds shall not apply to abandoned shipwrecks to which section 2105 of this 

title applies.”). 

12 California v. Deep Sea Research, 523 U.S. 491, 508 (1998). 

13 43 U.S.C. § 2103(a). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 6: Other Uses of the EEZ 117

Preservation Fund “for the study, interpretation, protection, and preservation of historic shipwrecks and 

properties.”14 To assist states in meeting the ASA’s goals, the Secretary of the Interior, through the National Park 

Service, is to publish guidelines for: maximizing the enhancement of shipwrecks as cultural resources; fostering 

partnerships among sport divers, archaeologists, salvors, and other interests to manage shipwreck resources; 

facilitating access and use of the shipwrecks; and recognizing the interests of groups engaged in shipwreck 

discovery and salvage.15

Absent some special legal protection, the law of salvage and the law of finds continue to apply to abandoned 

shipwrecks within state waters that do not meet the criteria of the ASA, and to abandoned and certain other 

shipwrecks seaward of state waters. 

National Historic Preservation Act 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)16 has two components intended to assure that the federal 

government furthers the Act’s goal of preservation of “the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation.”17

First, the NHPA requires federal agencies, before expending public funds on any projects or issuing licenses to 

private individuals, “to take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or 

object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register [of Historic Places].”18 Second, the Act 

requires agencies to “assume responsibility for the preservation of historic properties which are owned or 

controlled by . . . [the] agenc[ies].”19

Regarding the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) obligations under the NHPA, the Department’s position 

is that “the OCS is not federally-owned land, and . . . [because] the Federal government has not claimed direct 

ownership of historic properties on the OCS, . . . [DOI] only has the authority under Section 106 of the NHPA to 

ensure that . . . [its] funded and permitted actions do not adversely affect significant historic properties. Beyond 

avoidance of adverse impacts, . . . [DOI] do[es] not have the legal authority to manage historic properties on the 

OCS.”20 To facilitate its duties under the NHPA and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) to protect 

cultural resources from adverse impact caused by offshore mineral exploration and development, DOI has 

promulgated regulations21 and issued notices to lessees, as well as providing other guidance.22 

 

14 Id. § 2103(b). 

15 Id. § 2104. 

16 16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq. 

17 Id. § 470(b)(2). 

18 Id. § 470(f). The National Register of Historic Places is a list maintained by DOI “of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and 

objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture.” Id. § 470a(a)(1)(A). 

19 Id. § 470h-2(a)(1). 

20 Minerals Management Service, Environmental Program, National Historic Preservation Act, available at 

www.mms.gov/eppd/compliance/nhpa/ (accessed May 14, 2004). 

21 See, e.g., 30 C.F.R. §§ 250.194, 250.203(b)(15), 250.203(o), 250.204(b)(8)(v)(A), 250.204(s) & 250.1007. By way of example, 30 

C.F.R. § 250.194(c) holds: “If you [OCS lessee or permittee] discover any archaeological resource while conducting operations in 

the lease area, you must immediately halt operations within the area of the discovery and report the discovery to the Regional 

Director. If investigations determine that the resource is significant, the Regional Director will tell you how to protect it.”

22 E.g. Notice to Lessees and Operators of Federal Oil, Gas, and Sulfur Leases and Pipeline Right-of-Way Holders in the Outer 

Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, NTL No. 2002-G01 (Mar. 15, 2002); United States Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Handbook for Archaeological Resource Protection 620.1-H (May 21, 1996). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

118 Chapter 6: Other Uses of the EEZ 

The NHPA also establishes the National Historic Preservation Fund to carry out the statute’s provisions.23 It is 

funded at a level of $150 million per year from revenue received from offshore mineral development under the 

OCSLA.24

National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act(NMSA)25 can be employed to designate and manage areas of the ocean 

for various purposes, including protection of marine life, ecology, and areas or objects of “historical, 

scientific, educational, cultural, [or] archaeological” significance.26 The statute authorizes the Secretary of 

Commerce to designate areas of the marine environment as marine sanctuaries and to promulgate regulations 

providing for their protection.27 The NMSA defines the term marine environment as “those areas of coastal and 

ocean waters, the Great Lakes and their connecting waters, and submerged lands over which the United States 

exercises jurisdiction, including the exclusive economic zone, consistent with international law.” 28 The first 

national marine sanctuary was actually designated to protect the wreckage of the Civil War ironclad ship, the 

U.S.S. Monitor.

29 In 2000, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary was designated to preserve a nationally 

significant collection of over 100 shipwrecks in northwest Lake Huron, off the northeast coast of Michigan’s 

Lower Peninsula.30

Other Law and Policy Supporting the Protection of Offshore Cultural Resources 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)31 requires that environmental analyses be conducted for all 

“major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”32 Pursuant to NEPA and 

regulations implementing it, these analyses must address the effects of proposed federal actions on historic and 

cultural resources.33

Further, certain executive orders address the duty of the federal government to protect cultural and historic 

resources. Executive Order 11,593 requires executive agencies to, among other things, assemble an inventory of 

cultural and historic resources of which they are trustee, nominate their eligible properties to the National Register 

 

23 16 U.S.C. § 470h. 

24 Id.

25 The NMSA is Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972; it is codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1431-1445b. 

The NMSA is discussed further below. 

26 Id. § 1431(a)(2). 

27 Id. § 1433. 

28 Id. § 1432(3). 

29 Monitor Marine Sanctuary, Interim Regulations, 40 Fed. Reg. 5349 (Feb. 5, 1975) (codified as amended at 15 C.F.R. pt. 922 

(2002)). 

30 Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve Regulations and Summary of Final Management Plan, 65 Fed. 

Reg. 39041-39060 (June 22, 2000) (codified at 15 C.F.R. pt 922). 

31 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. NEPA is described in more detail in Chapter 1, Setting the Stage. 

3242 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). 

33 See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (one of the purposes of NEPA is to “preserve important historic . . . [and] cultural . . . aspects of our 

national heritage”); 40 C.F.R. § 1508(8) (regulations implementing NEPA define the term effects to include “historic” or “cultural” 

effects). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 6: Other Uses of the EEZ 119

of Historic Places, and preserve and protect their cultural resources.34 Executive Order 13,158 (discussed below) 

directs the Departments of Commerce and the Interior to protect offshore cultural resources by strengthening and 

expanding the national system of marine protected areas.35 Executive Order 13,287 directs federal agencies to 

recognize and manage the historic properties (including sites and objects) in their ownership as assets that can 

support department and agency missions while contributing to the vitality and economic well-being of the nation’s 

communities, including as means to promote heritage tourism.36

Over the last two decades, there have been three presidential proclamations that significantly extended U.S. 

jurisdiction in the oceans: President Reagan’s 1983 proclamation establishing the 200 mile exclusive economic 

zone (EEZ);37 the Reagan 1988 proclamation extending the U.S. territorial sea out to 12 miles from the baseline, 

for purposes of international law; 38 and President Clinton’s 1999 proclamation extending the U.S. contiguous 

zone to 24 miles.39 None of these, however, assert any enhanced jurisdiction over cultural or historic resources in 

the ocean. Interestingly, the Clinton contiguous zone proclamation stated that “this extension is an important step 

in preventing the removal of cultural heritage found within 24 nautical miles of the baseline[.]”40 This language 

suggests an intent to follow the structure established in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the 

Sea (UNCLOS), which provides coastal nations with jurisdiction over archaeological and historic objects found at 

sea out to the outer boundary of the contiguous zone, 41 but the proclamation does not assert such jurisdiction. To 

the contrary, it provides that “Nothing in this proclamation: (a) amends existing Federal or State law; (b) amends 

or otherwise alters the rights and duties of the United States or other nations in [the U.S. EEZ . . . ].”42

Finally, a Presidential Statement on United States Policy for the Protection of Sunken State Warships addresses 

the law of salvage or finds as it applies to vessels belonging to the United States and other nations. In relevant 

part, this statement directs that: 

Pursuant to the property clause of Article IV of the Constitution, the United States retains title 

indefinitely to its sunken State craft unless title has been abandoned or transferred in the manner 

Congress authorized or directed. The United States recognizes the rule of international law that 

title to foreign State craft may be transferred or abandoned only in accordance with the law of 

the foreign flag State.43

 

34 Exec. Order 11593, 36 Fed. Reg. 8921 (May 15, 1971). 

35 Exec. Order 13158, 65 Fed. Reg. 34,909, 34,909 (May 31, 2000), reprinted as a note under 16 U.S.C. § 1431 (2000) (Historical 

and Statutory Notes). 

36 Exec. Order 13,287, 68 Fed. Reg. 10635, Mar. 5, 2003 (signed March 3, 2003). 

37 Proclamation No. 5030, 48 Fed. Reg. 10,605, 10,605 (Mar. 14, 1983) (signed March 10, 1983). 

38 Proclamation No. 5928, 54 Fed. Reg. 777 (Jan. 9, 1989) (signed December 27, 1988). 

39 Proclamation No. 7219, 64 Fed. Reg. 48,701 (Aug. 8, 1999) (signed August 2, 1999). 

40 Id.

41 1982 UNCLOS, done Dec. 10, 1982, U.N. doc. A/Conf.62/122, reprinted in 21 I.L.M. 1261, 1326 (Art. 303, ¶ 2). Article 303 

expressly says that nothing in the article affects “the law of salvage or other rules of admiralty”, see Art. 303, ¶3. 

42 Proclamation No. 7219, 64 Fed. Reg. 48,701 (Aug. 8, 1999) (signed August 2, 1999). 

43 Statement on United States Policy for the Protection of Sunken State Warships, 37 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 195 (Jan. 19, 2001).
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

120 Chapter 6: Other Uses of the EEZ 

International Law and Submerged Cultural Resources in the Ocean: UNCLOS 

Among other provisions, UNCLOS Article 303 says that “States [i.e., nations] have the duty to protect objects of 

an archaeological and historical nature found at sea and shall cooperate for this purpose.”44 Article 303 also 

provides that, “[i]n order to control traffic in [archaeological and historical objects found at sea], the coastal State 

may, in applying article 33 [on the contiguous zone], presume that their removal from the sea-bed in the 

[contiguous zone] without its approval would result in an infringement [of its laws].” 45 Thus, UNCLOS 

establishes a framework under which coastal nations’ jurisdiction over cultural and historical objects on the seabed 

is both authorized seaward to, and limited to, the outer limit of their contiguous zones, 24 miles from their 

baselines. Article 303 also says that it does not affect “the law of salvage or other rules of admiralty.” In addition, 

UNCLOS Article 149 provides that “All objects of an archaeological and historical nature found in the Area shall 

be preserved or disposed of for the benefit of mankind as a whole, particular regard being paid to the preferential 

rights of the State or country of origin, or the State of cultural origin, or the State of historical and archaeological 

origin.”46

International Law and Submerged Cultural Resources in the Ocean: UNESCO 

After years of negotiation, on November 2, 2001, the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, 

Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) adopted the Convention on the Protection of Underwater 

Cultural Heritage (CPUCH).47 CPUCH, which has not been adopted by the United States, is intended to 

supplement UNCLOS provisions regarding archaeological and cultural resources, but it is controversial. The 

CPUCH would place new parameters and consultation and notice requirements on state regulation of 

“underwater cultural heritage” in their internal waters, archipelagic waters, and territorial seas;48 their contiguous 

zones;49 and their EEZs and continental shelves.50 Moreover, the CPUCH expansively defines the “underwater 

cultural heritage” subject to its terms as “all traces of human existence having a cultural, historical or 

archaeological character that have been partially or totally under water, periodically or continuously, for at least 

100 years.”51

The broad objective of the CPUCH is “to ensure and strengthen the protection of underwater cultural heritage,”52

and to this end the convention would regulate both activities directed at such objects and activities that have 

incidental effects on them. One of the stated principles of the CPUCH is that “[u]nderwater cultural heritage shall 

 

44 1982 UNCLOS, Dec. 10, 1982, art. 303 ¶ 1, 21 I.L.M. 1261, 1326. 

45 Id. ¶ 2. This refers to authority to establish and enforce protective measures as against all persons and vessels. A nation has 

authority under international law to establish and enforce protective measures as against its own citizens and vessels flying its flag, 

anywhere in the world. 

46 Id. at art. 149. For a discussion of the “Area” see Chapter 1, Setting the Stage. 

47 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, Nov. 2, 2001, art. 1, 41 I.L.M. 40. 

48 41 I.L.M. at 43. 

49 See id. at 44 (“Without prejudice to and in addition to Articles 9 and 10, and in accordance with Article 303, paragraph 2, of the 

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, States Parties may regulate and authorize activities directed at underwater 

cultural heritage within their contiguous zone. In so doing, they shall require that the Rules [established under CPUCH] be applied.”) 

(emphasis supplied). 

50 See id. at 44-45. 

51 Id. at 41. 

52 Id. at 42. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 6: Other Uses of the EEZ 121

not be commercially exploited.”53 In support of this principle, and in contrast to UNCLOS, the CPUCH would 

abrogate the admiralty doctrines of salvage or finds as to “[a]ny activity relating to underwater cultural heritage,” 

except where the activity is authorized under the convention and found to “ensure that any recovery of 

underwater cultural heritage achieves its maximum protection.”54 Further, state parties to the CPUCH also agree 

to “use the best practicable means at [their] disposal to prevent or mitigate any adverse effects that might arise 

from activities under [their] jurisdiction incidentally affecting underwater cultural heritage.”55

National Marine Sanctuaries and Other Marine Protected Areas 

The term marine protected area is a broad term, used to refer to areas that are given special protection for a number 

of different reasons, including: conserving living marine resources and habitat; protecting threatened and 

endangered species; maintaining biological diversity; and preserving historically or culturally important resources. 

Marine protected areas are management tools that can be created by all levels of government—local, state, tribal, 

or federal—and may be established in estuarine and nearshore areas as well as offshore. For the purposes of this 

chapter, marine protected areas established under two federal authorities are described below. 

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

While the National Marine Sanctuaries Act can play an important role with regard to the protection of cultural 

resources, its purpose is much broader, specifically, “to identify and designate as national marine sanctuaries areas 

of the marine environment which are of special national significance,”56 and “to provide authority for 

comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of these marine areas, and activities affecting 

them, in a manner which complements existing regulatory authorities.”57

The Secretary of Commerce is authorized to designate areas of the marine environment that “possess 

conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, educational, cultural, archaeological, or esthetic qualities 

which give them special national, and in some instances, international, significance.”58 

In making determinations and findings about areas that may be eligible for designation, the Secretary must consult 

with certain congressional committees and secretaries of executive departments, with the heads of state and local 

governments of areas that are likely to be affected by the designation, and with the appropriate officials of any 

Regional Fishery Management Council (RFMC) established by the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).59 Before actually designating an area, the Secretary must propose the 

designation to the public through publication in the Federal Register and other public media in affected 

communities, prepare a draft Environmental Impact Statement as required by NEPA, and hold at least one public 

hearing.60 The Secretary must also provide information regarding the proposed designation to the Committee on 

 

53 Id.

54 Id. at 43. 

55 Id.

56 Id. § 1431(b)(1). 

57 Id. § 1431(b)(2). 

58 Id. § 1431(a)(2); see also id. § 1433 (establishing standards for secretarial designation of marine sanctuaries). 

59 Id. § 1433(b)(2). 

60 Id. § 1434(a). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

122 Chapter 6: Other Uses of the EEZ 

Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 

Senate.61 

Once the Secretary has reviewed comments and reports from the various persons and entities given opportunity 

to comment, if the area is to be established as a national marine sanctuary, the Secretary must publish in the 

Federal Register a “notice of the designation together with final regulations to implement the designation.”62 The 

designation and regulations do not become final until “after the close of a review period of forty-five days of 

continuous session of Congress beginning on the day . . . [the final] notice is published.”63 

Further, if the area to be designated a national marine sanctuary is located partially or entirely within the seaward 

boundary of a state, the designation will not become final if the governor of that state certifies that the designation 

or any of its terms are unacceptable. In that event, the designation or the unacceptable terms “shall not take effect 

in the area of the sanctuary lying within the seaward boundary of the State.”64

To protect national marine sanctuaries, the NMSA prohibits the destruction or injury of sanctuary resources;65 the 

possession, transport, or sale of any such resources; and the violation of any regulations promulgated to protect a 

national marine sanctuary.66 Violations of the statute are punishable by civil penalties of up to $119,000 for each 

violation67 and those involving interfering with enforcement of the NMSA are subject to criminal penalties.68

Vessels engaged in violations of the statute are subject to forfeiture.69

Marine Protected Areas: Executive Order 13,158 

Executive Order 13,158 directs the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior, in consultation with various other 

departments and agencies, to “develop a national system of [marine protected areas].”70 The Executive Order’s 

purpose is to “protect the significant natural and cultural resources within the marine environment for the benefit 

of present and future generations by strengthening and expanding the Nation’s system of marine protected areas 

(MPAs).”71 Executive Order 13,158 defines marine protected areas as “any area[s] of the marine environment that 

ha[ve] been reserved by Federal, State, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection 

 

61 Id. § 1434(a)(1)(C). 

62 Id. § 1434(b). 

63 Id.

64 Id.

65 A sanctuary resource is defined as “any living or nonliving resource of a national marine sanctuary that contributes to the 

conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, educational, cultural, archaeological, scientific, or aesthetic value of the sanctuary . 

. . .” Id. § 1432(8). 

66 Id. § 1436. 

67 Civil Monetary Penalties; Adjustment for Inflation, 65 Fed. Reg. 65,260, 65,262 (Nov. 1, 2000) (setting inflation-adjusted civil 

penalties available under 16 U.S.C. § 1437(d)(1) at $119,000). 

68 16 U.S.C. § 1437(c). 

69 16 U.S.C. § 1437(e). 

70 Exec. Order No. 13,158, 65 Fed. Reg. 34,909, (May 31, 2000), reprinted as a note under 16 U.S.C. § 1431 (2000) (Historical and 

Statutory Notes). 

71 Id.
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 6: Other Uses of the EEZ 123

for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.”72 The Departments of Commerce and the Interior are 

to “coordinate and share information, tools, and strategies . . . to further enhance and expand protection of 

existing MPAs and establish new MPAs as appropriate . . . .”73 Both departments have published proposed criteria 

for developing an Inventory of Marine Managed Areas to “provide information that will lead to the fulfillment of 

requirements of [Executive Order 13158] . . . .74

Deepwater Ports 

As signed into law in 1975, the Deepwater Port Act (DPA) established a licensing system for ownership, 

construction, and operation of deepwater ports beyond the coastline and territorial sea (which extended seaward 

to 3 miles until 1988).75 Deepwater ports are non-vessel, fixed or floating structures used for the loading, 

unloading or handling of oil imported from abroad or produced on the outer Continental Shelf (OCS)—and 

under amendments enacted in 2002, all forms of natural gas76—for transportation to the U.S. mainland.

Deepwater ports include all associated components and equipment, including pipelines, pumping stations, service 

platforms, mooring buoys, and similar appurtenances seaward of the high water mark.77

Scope of Coverage 

As originally enacted, the DPA addressed only oil, and currently only a single deepwater port is in operation. 

Known as the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP), the facility has been in operation since 1981 and is located 

about 16 miles off of Louisiana’s coast. However, as noted, the DPA now addresses natural gas in its varied forms 

and several license applications to construct deepwater ports to receive imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) are 

already pending. In addition, while any qualified citizen is eligible for a deepwater port license,78 the DPA also 

authorizes the formation of agreements or compacts by two or more coastal states to apply for a license.79 The 

2002 amendments also modified the geographic scope of the DPA, from facilities located “beyond the territorial 

sea” (which was 3 miles in 1974 when the DPA was originally enacted) to facilities “located beyond State seaward 

boundaries.”80 The drafters of the 2002 amendments apparently sought to avoid ambiguity about the extent of the 

statute’s coverage in light of President Reagan’s extension of the U.S. territorial sea to 12 miles in 1988 for 

purposes of international law. 

 

72 Id. In addition to national marine sanctuaries discussed above, “MPAs may include . . . fishery management zones, national 

seashores, national parks, national monuments, critical habitats, national wildlife refuges, national estuarine research reserves, 

state conservation areas, [and] state reserves . . . .” What Is a Marine Protected Area?, available at

http://www.mpa.gov/mpadescriptive/whatis.html (accessed June 7, 2004). 

73 Id.

74 Marine Protected Areas and Inventory of Existing Marine Managed Areas, 68 Fed. Reg. 43,495 (July 23, 2003). 

75 Deepwater Port Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-627, 88 Stat. 2126, January 3, 1975 (codified at 33 U.S.C. §§ 1501 et seq.). 

76Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-295, § 106, 116 Stat. 2064, 2086-88, November 25, 2002. 

77 33 U.S.C. § 1502(9). However, the statute does not apply to facilities designed exclusively for production and development of 

adjacent OCS mineral leases, which constitute an incident of lease development and which are not intended to serve as a link in the 

nation’s transportation network. Get Oil Out! Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 586 F.2d 726 (9th Cir. 1978). 

7833 U.S.C. § 1503(g) . 

79Id. §§ 1502(4) and 1508(d). 

80 See, definition of “deepwater port,” 33 U.S.C. § 1502(9). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

124 Chapter 6: Other Uses of the EEZ 

Overall Implementation 

Authority for review of applications and issuance of licenses was vested with the Secretary of the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) operating through the U.S. Coast Guard. With the passage of the Homeland Security Act, 

the Coast Guard was movedd to the Department of Homeland Security, but will continue to coordinate licensing 

through DOT.81

The Secretary of Transportation has general rulemaking authority,82 but must also consult with the Secretary of the 

Interior and the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop 

regulations relating to site evaluation and pre-construction testing for activities deemed to adversely affect the 

environment, interfere with uses of the OCS, or pose a threat to human health and safety.83 In addition, the 

Secretary must, upon the recommendations of at least the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and the Administrator of NOAA, establish environmental review criteria consistent with NEPA.84

The Secretary is also directed to prescribe and enforce procedures, either by regulation or by a licensee’s 

operations manual, governing vessel operations to prevent marine pollution, clean up pollutants, and otherwise 

manage adverse impact from the deepwater port.85

Conditions Required for a License 

The Secretary may issue a license only if certain conditions have been met. These conditions involve 

determinations by the Secretary and consultation with the heads of certain federal agencies and the governors of 

certain states.86 The Secretary must determine that the applicant is financially responsible and will meet the 

responsibilities of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,87 and can and will comply with applicable laws, regulations, and 

license conditions.88 The Secretary is also directed to determine that the port will be in the national interest and 

consistent with national security and other national policy goals and objectives, including energy sufficiency and 

environmental quality.89 The Secretary must determine that the port will not interfere with international navigation 

or other reasonable uses of the high seas90 and is to employ best available technology to prevent or minimize 

adverse impact on the marine environment.91

The Secretary must not have been informed by the Administrator of EPA that the port will not conform with the 

Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, or the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act.92 The Secretary must 

 

81 Coast Guard regulations for DPA licensing, promulgated in 1975, appear at 33 C.F.R. Parts 148-150. 

8233 U.S.C. § 1504(a). 

83 Id. § 1504(b). 

84 Id. § 1505. 

85 Id. § 1509. 

86 Id. § 1503. 

87 Id. § 1503(c)(1). 

88 Id. § 1503(c)(2). 

89 Id. § 1503(c)(3); see also § 1504 (i)(3) (listing the factors to be considered making “national interest” determinations). 

90 Id. § 1503(c)(4). 

91 Id. § 1503(c)(5). 

92 Id. § 1503(c)(6). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 6: Other Uses of the EEZ 125

also consult with the Secretaries of the Army, State, and Defense to determine their views on the adequacy of the 

application and its effect on their programs.93

As discussed in Chapter 2, under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), certain federal activities must be 

consistent with the enforceable policies of a state’s federally approved coastal management programs, including 

issuance of federal licenses and permits.94 Unlike the OCSLA,95 the DPA makes no explicit reference to the 

CZMA federal consistency requirements, although it does require that any deepwater port pipeline be in a state 

that is at least making reasonable progress toward development of a CZMA coastal management program.96

Nevertheless, DPA licenses are not expressly excluded from CZMA consistency requirements and NOAA 

regulations specify that “federal license or permit” means “any required authorization, certification, approval, 

lease, or other form of permission which any Federal agency is empowered to issue to an applicant.”97 

The DPA gives the governors of any “adjacent coastal state” substantial influence over the DOT Secretary’s 

decision independent of the CZMA consistency process. As defined, adjacent coastal state means any coastal state 

which (A) would be directly connected by pipeline to a deepwater port, as proposed in an application; (B) would 

be located within 15 miles of any such proposed deepwater port; or (C) is designated by the Secretary upon the 

request of the governor, the supporting recommendation of the NOAA Administrator, and a determination that 

the state’s risk of damage is equal to or greater than a state connected by pipeline.98

Although any other state has the opportunity to participate in the DOT Secretary’s deliberative process,99

“adjacent coastal state” status can be very important. The DPA states that: 

The Secretary shall not issue a license without the approval of the Governor of each adjacent 

coastal State. If the Governor fails to transmit his approval or disapproval to the Secretary not 

later than 45 days after the last public hearing on applications for a particular application area, 

such approval shall be conclusively presumed. If the Governor notifies the Secretary that an 

application, which would otherwise be approved pursuant to this paragraph, is inconsistent with 

State programs relating to environmental protection, land and water use, and coastal zone 

management, the Secretary shall condition the license granted so as to make it consistent with 

such State programs.100

 

93Id. § 1503(c)(7). 

94 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c). 

95 See e.g., 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(B) (prohibiting the Secretary of the Interior from granting any license or permit for any activity in 

an exploration, development or production plan affecting any land use or water use in the coastal zone of a state with a coastal zone 

management program approved under the CZMA without satisfying CZMA federal consistency requirements); 43 U.S.C. § 1351(d) 

(same). 

96 33 U.S.C. §§ 1503(c)(9) and 1508(c). 

9715 C.F.R. § 930.51. In fact, several federally approved state CZM programs identify DPA licenses as falling within the purview of 

federal consistency. 

9833 U.S.C. §§ 1502(1) and 1508(a)(2). 

99Id. § 1508(b)(2). 

100 Id. § 1508(b)(1); see also id. § 1508(d) (authorizing coastal states by compact or agreement to apply for a deepwater port 

license). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

126 Chapter 6: Other Uses of the EEZ 

 License Procedures 

The DPA allows for competing applications and prescribes application content details.101 The DPA greatly 

expedites the licensing process by consolidating all federal authorizations needed for ownership, construction, and 

operation of a deepwater port into one application. Consistent with this consolidation, the DPA specifies that 

compliance with NEPA by the DOT Secretary shall fulfill the requirement of all federal agencies pursuant to 

NEPA for purposes of the DPA.102 

In addition, the DPA prescribes a firm, fast track timetable. The licensing timetable includes an initial 21-day 

period for the Coast Guard to evaluate the license application’s completeness and a 240-day evaluation period 

during which all public hearings must be completed. 103 Within 60 days of the start of that 240-day period, any 

application for a competing project within the designated application area must be filed. Within 45 days of the last 

public hearing, other federal agencies and departments and adjacent states must submit their recommendations, 

and within 90 days of the last public hearing the Secretary must deny or approve the license application. Taking 

into account the 21-day completeness review and a 5-day period for publication of a complete application in the 

Federal Register, the statutory period for a final determination is 356 days. 104

Judicial review of a final determination by the Secretary must be filed by an aggrieved person within 60 days in the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the nearest adjacent coastal state is located. If a license is issued, the 

licensee is subject to recordkeeping and inspection and state fees for use of land-based facilities.105 The licensee 

must also operate as a common carrier (for transportation of oil), is liable for criminal penalties for violation of 

any requirement, and is subject to citizen suits. 106

Bioprospecting 

Bioprospecting is the collection and evaluation of samples of biological material to identify biochemical and genetic 

resources for the creation of new medicine, as well as for agricultural, chemical, commercial and industrial 

applications. As a result of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity,107 to which the United States is not a 

party, many developing and industrialized countries have moved to develop policy frameworks governing access 

to and shared benefits from biological resources. In 1995, the parties to the convention issued the Jakarta 

Mandate, which initiated the development of a marine and coastal resource-focused work program, including 

attention to issues of bioprospecting. Because of the status of the United States with respect to the convention, 

U.S. researchers have either been denied access to waters of certain countries or have faced onerous negotiations 

to gain access. 

 

101 Id. § 1503(d)(3), § 1504(c)(2), (d)(2). 

102 The 2002 amendments to the Deepwater Port Act amended 33 U.S.C. § 1504(f), to no longer require preparation of a NEPA 

Environmental Impact Statement on each DWP application. The Secretary still must comply with NEPA, but that could mean, in 

appropriate cases, preparation of an Environmental Assessment or potentially making a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) 

pursuant to the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA. CEQ’s NEPA regulations are found at 40 C.F.R. Part 1500 et seq. 

103 Id. § 1504(c)(1), (g). 

104 Id. § 1504(c)(1). 

105 Id. § 1504(h). 

106 Id. §§ 1507, 1514, 1515. 

107 Convention on Biological Diversity, June 5, 1992, 1760 U.N.T.S. 79.
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 6: Other Uses of the EEZ 127

Regulation of bioprospecting in U.S. waters is limited. Some states require a state fishing license in state waters, 

and limit or prohibit removal of sensitive species such as corals. In protected areas, such as national marine 

sanctuaries, research permits are required. However, bioprospecting outside state waters and marine sanctuaries is 

virtually unregulated. Except for certain species subject to regulation under existing legislation, such as the 

Endangered Species Act, both U.S. and foreign interests have access to marine biological resources without 

regulatory impediments or the prospect of having to pay royalties or other fees associated with the harvest and 

commercialization of currently unregulated living marine organisms. 

Artificial Reefs

According to NOAA: 

Artificial Reefs have a long history of use for a variety of purposes. There are countless artificial 

structures that have been sunk intentionally in the world’s oceans, including materials such as 

aircrafts, ships, cars, tires, and household appliances. Since the 1970s, there has been a growing 

industry that manufactures customized artificial reefs for specific purposes ranging from diving 

attractions to fish propagation.108

The creation of artificial reefs in U.S. waters is encouraged and regulated by the National Fishing Enhancement 

Act of 1984 (NFEA).109 The NFEA was enacted to improve U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries based on 

Congress’ findings that “properly designed, constructed, and located artificial reefs . . . can enhance the habitat and 

diversity of fishery resources; enhance United States recreational and commercial fishing opportunities; increase 

the production of fishery products in the United States; increase the energy efficiency of recreational and 

commercial fisheries; and contribute to the United States and coastal economies.”110 Based on this finding, 

Congress adopted the NFEA “to promote and facilitate responsible and effective efforts to establish artificial 

reefs.”111

The Secretaries of the Army and Commerce are charged with implementing the NFEA. The Secretary of the 

Army, whose authority under NFEA is delegated to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is to implement a framework 

for the permitting and regulation of the development of artificial reefs.112 In issuing artificial reef permits, the 

Secretary of the Army is to: 

consult with and consider the views of appropriate local, state, and federal agencies and other 

interested parties; ensure that the provisions for citing, constructing, monitoring, and managing 

artificial reefs are consistent with established criteria and standards; and ensure that the title to 

the artificial reef construction material is unambiguous and that responsibility for maintenance 

and the financial ability to assume liability is clearly established.113

 

108 Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Policy Statement of the National Marine Sanctuary 

Program: Artificial Reef Permitting Guidelines 1, available at www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov/library/library.html (accessed June 7, 

2004) ((undated interim-final policy available for comment, see National Marine Sanctuary Program Policy on Permit Applications for 

Artificial Reef Development) (NMS Artificial Reef Permitting Guidelines). 

109 33 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2106. 

110 Id. § 2101(a)(5). 

111 Id. § 2101(b). 

112 Id. § 2104. 

113 Draft National Artificial Reef Plan (Feb. 1, 2002) (Draft NARP). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

128 Chapter 6: Other Uses of the EEZ 

The Secretary of Commerce is to prepare a long-term plan for the development of artificial reefs to serve NFEA’s 

purposes.114 NMFS developed the first National Artificial Reef Plan (NARP) in 1985,115 and is currently working 

with representatives of affected federal, state, and local government and the private sector to develop a revised 

plan.116 As mandated by the NFEA, the NARP serves to provide guidance to resource managers and policy 

makers on the siting, design, and maintenance of artificial reefs.117 It provides design standards and lists specific 

materials to be used; for example, oil and gas production structures are included among the recommended 

materials.118 The NARP also encourages state governments to participate in the development of artificial reefs, 

and many of them have done so.119 The NARP is “intended to serve as a dynamic, working document to be 

revised and updated periodically.”120

Additionally, “artificial reef development is generally prohibited in national marine sanctuaries,” but it may “be 

undertaken in these areas for educational, research, and resource management purposes.”121 The Department of 

Commerce evaluates requests for and issues permits to develop artificial reefs in national marine sanctuaries based 

on its Policy Statement of the National Marine Sanctuary Program: Artificial Reef Permitting Guidelines.122

The construction of artificial reefs is also regulated by USACE pursuant to Section 10 of the RHA. Under the 

RHA and regulations promulgated pursuant to it, an artificial reef in navigable waters constitutes an obstruction to 

navigation that must be permitted by USACE.123 In determining whether to issue such permits, USACE must 

consider, among other things, the degree to which the reef will “enhance[ ]. . . fishery resources to the maximum 

extent practicable,” the “minimization of conflicts among competing uses of the navigable waters,” and “the 

prevention of any unreasonable obstructions to navigation.”124

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) has developed a program called Rigs to Reefs, which supports and 

encourages the reuse of decommissioned offshore oil and gas structures for artificial reefs.125 MMS policy is to 

“encourage the appropriate conversion and use of rigs as reefs in whatever location it is decided that a reef would 

 

114 33 U.S.C. §§ 2102 and 2103. 

115 National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA National Artificial Reef Plan Technical Memorandum, OF-6 (1985). 

116 Draft NARP.

117 33 U.S.C. § 2103. 

118 Id.

119 Id.

120 Draft NARP.

121 NMS Artificial Reef Permitting Guidelines at i. 

122 Id.

123 See 33 U.S.C. § 403; 33 C.F.R. Part 322. 

124 33 C.F.R. § 322.5. 

125 Formerly, Minerals Management Service regulations and Outer Continental Shelf lease terms required that holders of offshore 

federal leases clear away offshore structures upon relinquishment of their leases. See Outer Continental Shelf; Interpretation 

Concerning Authority to Depart from OCS Requirements, 48 Fed. Reg. 31,397 (July 8, 1983). Beginning in July 1983, however, the 

agency began to interpret its regulations and lease terms “to permit platforms or other facilities or parts thereof to remain on the 

OCS lease for the protection of fish and other aquatic life and for the conservation of natural resources.” Id. Following 

implementation of this interpretation, the Minerals Management Service Director is “to permit, when appropriate, the conversion of 

platforms and other facilities on the OCS from their primary function to use as artificial reefs as habitats for fish and other aquatic 

life.” Id.
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 6: Other Uses of the EEZ 129

be beneficial.”126 Supported by the MMS, several states have been involved in promoting the conversion of 

decommissioned offshore oil and gas facilities to artificial reefs. Texas, for example, has been donated 49 offshore 

rigs by oil and gas companies for conversion to reefs. In some other states, however, the program is more 

controversial. 

 

126 Id. at 31,397. In carrying out the policy, “[t]he selection of ideal fish-habitat locations for artificial reefs . . . depend[s] upon the 

determination of the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State agencies, and other governmental 

entities.” Id. Further, “[a]ppropriate permissions from the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, State agencies, and other 

agencies . . . need to be obtained for navigation, safety, and related considerations.” Id. at 31,397-98. 

Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 131

CHAPTER 7 

MARINE OPERATIONS

INTRODUCTION

As the world’s leading maritime and trading nation, the United States requires an efficient and effective 

marine transportation system (MTS). The nation’s MTS consists of waterways, ports and their intermodal 

connections, vessels, rail, vehicles, and other system users. It is primarily an aggregation of state, local or 

privately owned facilities, and private companies. Each component of the MTS is a complex system in and of 

itself, and is also closely linked with all of the other components 

The regulation of marine operations in the United States protects a very broad range of national interests, 

including the effectiveness and efficiency of the MTS. Further, recognizing the critical role that foreign 

vessels play in maintaining the economic vitality of the country, the United States has played a significant role 

in developing an international regime through participation in the International Maritime Organization 

(IMO),1 the United Nations body that develops international environmental and safety regimes to ensure the 

safe and environmentally sound operation of ships worldwide. The United States has been a long-standing 

supporter of IMO attempts to set international standards and is a party to the majority of these conventions, 

which generally must be implemented through domestic legislation. While participating in the development of 

international conventions addressing pollution response, compensation, and liability, the United States has 

also developed its own requirements in these areas, such as those established under the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 and the Clean Water Act. 

In addition, the regulation of marine operations, particularly as it relates to local concerns, must take into 

account intergovernmental questions. Issues such as water and air quality, safety and security of marine 

terminals and structures, and marine casualties that impact public health and safety, have local as well as 

national impact. 

The Role of International Law and Standards in Marine Operations 

Seventy-eight percent (by weight) of all foreign trade is by vessel, and 95 percent of vessels that carry imports 

into U.S. ports are foreign-flagged, in other words, under the primary control of another nation referred to as the 

flag state. Under international maritime law, these foreign vessels are subject to administrative oversight and 

inspection by the maritime administrations of their flag states. Additionally, most of the world’s seamen are 

not U.S. citizens. 

 

1

 The International Maritime Organization (IMO), an organ of the United Nations, was created in 1948. The IMO Charter calls for the 

organization to facilitate development of the “highest practicable standards” for marine safety, environmental protection and other 

related areas applicable to the operation and navigation of vessels. Convention on the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative

Organization, 9 U.S.T. 621, T.I.A.S. No. 4044 (1948). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

132 Chapter 7: Marine Operations 

Vessels and their operation have traditionally been regulated through international conventions and treaties to 

promote uniformity. Regulation of marine operations under international law is based on consideration of the 

interests of multiple parties in the global community. The goal is to ensure freedom of navigation and trade 

for vessels throughout the world while protecting ocean resources, coasts, and ports from unsafe ships and 

marine pollution. Many of these interests are the subject of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law 

of the Sea (UNCLOS),2 which seeks to clarify jurisdictional issues among the interested parties in maritime 

operations and the oceans (see Chapter 1, Setting the Stage). UNCLOS identifies the duties of the various states 

that have an interest in the operation of vessels, and provides a framework for the regulation of vessel and 

maritime-related activities by these states to protect and preserve the marine environment. Importantly, 

UNCLOS establishes the jurisdictional and enforcement responsibilities and limits of various states, referred 

to as flag states, port states, and coastal states. 

Flag State 

The country under whose registry and authority the ship is operating, and whose flag a ship is flying, is known 

as the flag state. Under customary international law, the flag state determines the conditions under which it will 

grant its nationality to a ship, thereby accepting responsibility for it and acquiring authority over it.3

Historically, as a matter of international comity, the laws of the flag state were recognized as governing by the 

state in whose waters a ship was operating, as long as the ship’s activities did not affect the peace and good 

order of that state.4 The flag state must prescribe standards and regulations for operation of its vessels, and 

enforce these standards with respect to the ship and any conduct that takes place on it, no matter where the 

conduct occurs.5 

Under UNCLOS, the flag state has primary enforcement responsibility and is required to ensure that vessels 

flying its flag comply with all applicable international marine safety and environmental laws. Flag states are 

required to establish standards for the prevention of vessel-source pollution that are at least as stringent as 

international standards.6 They are required to verify compliance with international and domestic marine safety 

and pollution prevention standards before granting a vessel registry, and must periodically verify that vessels 

remain in compliance.7 Flag states must also ensure that their vessels have appropriate charts, publications, 

and navigational equipment, and that each vessel is under the command of a competent master, with officers 

and crew that are knowledgeable about applicable international standards regarding safety of life at sea, 

collision prevention, and pollution prevention and control.8 Thus, U.S. law applies to U.S. flag ships no 

matter where they operate in the world. Further, the United States has the responsibility to enforce applicable 

laws, particularly those giving effect to international standards and conventions relating to maritime safety, 

security, and environmental protection, for violations by U.S. flag vessels no matter where such violations 

occur. 

 

2

 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/122, 21 I.L.M. 1261 (done at Montego Bay, Dec. 10, 

1982) [hereinafter UNCLOS]. 

3

 Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, 584 (1953). 

4

 Cunard Steamship Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 123 (1923) (“[Flag state authority] is chiefly applicable to ships on the high seas, 

where there is no territorial sovereign; and as respects ships in foreign territorial waters it has little application beyond what is 

affirmatively or tacitly permitted by the local sovereign.”). See also In re Wildenhus, 120 U.S. 1,12 (1887) (“All matters of discipline 

and all things done on board which affected only the vessel or those belonging to her, and did not involve the peace or dignity of the 

country, or the tranquility of the port, should be left by the local government to be dealt with by the authorities of the nation to which 

the vessel belonged.”). 

5

 Art. 94(2)(b), UNCLOS. 

6 Id. Art. 211. 

7 Id. Arts. 94(4)(a), 213(3). 

8 Id. Art. 92(4)(b). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 133

Port State 

The United States has generally adhered to the principle of open ports9 through bilateral commerce, 

friendship, and navigation agreements between countries. Under international law, the port state is the nation 

that exercises sovereignty over the port that the ship has entered. It is recognized that the port state may 

condition the entry of foreign ships on compliance with specified laws and regulations. In light of concerns 

involving the threat of terrorism after the events of September 11, 2001, the United States is becoming 

increasingly strict regarding rules for access to its ports to ensure that entering passengers and cargo do not 

pose threats to the safety and health of U.S citizens.10

Once a commercial vessel voluntarily enters the port or harbor of another state, it becomes subject to the 

jurisdiction of that state.11 In most cases, this includes operation of the vessel in any internal waters of the 

port state because jurisdiction of a state over its internal waters under customary international law is 

considered equivalent to its jurisdiction over its land.12 The port state may choose to forgo the assertion of its 

jurisdiction or to limit it, but to do so is a matter that rests solely within its discretion.13 If a crime that 

disturbs the peace and tranquility of the port is committed on board, then international law has always 

recognized the ability of the port state to assert its authority.14 

Under UNCLOS, port states shall, as far as practicable, take measures to detain a vessel within their ports if 

the vessel is in violation of applicable international standards relating to seaworthiness and may threaten 

damage to the marine environment. The port state must take action to prevent such a vessel from sailing until 

the ship is safe and no longer presents a threat to the marine environment.15 Under UNCLOS, port states 

may board ships to verify compliance with international standards and domestic laws, although examinations 

are initially limited to the vessel’s certificates, records, and documents. UNCLOS authorizes further physical 

inspection of vessels that carry valid certificates only when there are clear grounds for believing that the 

condition of the vessel does not substantially correspond with the particulars of the certificates.16 

UNCLOS also authorizes port states to take limited enforcement action for discharges or violations of 

international environmental standards that occurred on the high seas and even in the waters of other states. 

When a vessel is voluntarily in a port or offshore terminal of a state, that state may investigate discharges that 

occurred outside its internal waters, territorial sea, or exclusive economic zone (EEZ) that violate 

international rules and standards and, when the evidence warrants, begin enforcement proceedings. Further, 

the port state may investigate and take enforcement action when the discharge actually has caused or is likely 

to cause pollution to its internal waters, territorial sea, or EEZ. For discharges in the internal waters, 

 

9

 Saudi Arabia v. Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO), 27 I.L.M. 117, 212 (1963); Colombos, The International Law of the 

Sea (6th Ed. 1967) (stating “in time of peace, commercial ports must be left open to international traffic” and “liberty of access to 

ports granted to foreign vessels implies their right to load and unload their cargoes; embark and disembark their passengers.”). 

10 For example, in response to concerns regarding port security, vessels are now required to give notice of specific information to 

the Coast Guard at least 96 hours before arrival of a vessel in a U.S. port. This is a significant increase over the prior 24 hour 

advance notice requirement. This is to allow scrutiny to be given to the vessel, its management, its cargo, and its crew by 

appropriate agencies of the U.S. Government. As such, it functions more as a permissive regime for entry of vessels than an “open 

port” regime. 

11 Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100 (1923). 

12 United States v. Louisiana, 394 U.S. 11, 22-23 (1969). 

13 Cunard S.S. Co., 262 U.S. at 124. 

14 In re Wildenhus, 120 U.S. at 12. 

15 Art. 219, UNCLOS. 

16 Id. Art. 226. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

134 Chapter 7: Marine Operations 

territorial sea, or EEZ of another state, a port state may investigate and take enforcement action if such 

action is requested by the state exercising sovereignty over the waters where the discharge occurred, the flag 

state, or any other state damaged or threatened by the discharge violation. If a discharge has occurred on the 

high seas, the flag state and any coastal state exercising jurisdiction over waters in which damage was caused 

or threatened by a discharge may request investigation of that discharge by a port state. Records of the 

investigation by the port state must be available to the flag state or the coastal state that requested the 

investigation.17 

While the flag state retains primary responsibility for its vessels’ compliance with international marine safety 

and pollution standards, the United States and other nations remain concerned that certain flag states fail to 

live up to those responsibilities. This has resulted in too many substandard ships posing threats to the marine 

environment. Therefore, the United States and other countries rely on the enforcement regimes specifically 

established in many international vessel safety and pollution conventions. Further, as stated above, there is a 

recognized duty in UNCLOS for port states to detain vessels that do not meet international safety and 

pollution standards.18 Exercise of these enforcement regimes and compliance with port state duties and 

responsibilities is referred to as port state control.19

Within the UNCLOS framework, conventions such as the International Convention for the Safety of Life at 

Sea (SOLAS)20 and International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)21

provide more specific enforcement regimes that authorize port states to board and exercise varying degrees of 

control over vessels that enter their ports to ensure compliance with applicable international standards for 

safety, pollution prevention, and security. These conventions, as well as UNCLOS, require flag states to issue 

certificates to their vessels establishing that they meet these standards as established in the conventions. 

Further, the conventions require port states to accept these certificates as proof of compliance unless there 

are clear grounds for believing that the ships do not substantially correspond with the conditions of the 

certificates.22 The scope of port state authority under several of these conventions expressly allows their 

boarding officers to test and evaluate foreign vessel operational requirements, including testing of crew 

performance and competence. 

Differences do exist with regard to the type of enforcement action that port states are authorized to take. For 

instance, SOLAS confines port state enforcement to administrative interventions or detentions until such 

time as the vessel is safe to sail.23 On the other hand, MARPOL authorizes port states to take punitive 

enforcement action against vessels that are in violation of the convention.24 Further, UNCLOS and other 

international conventions impose some explicit safeguards against overly aggressive or unilateral port state 

enforcement actions. For instance, in no case may a port state unduly delay a vessel, and port states must 

 

17 Id. Art. 218. 

18 Id. Arts. 218, 219. 

19 The IMO has enacted a resolution that defines the criteria under which a vessel may be determined to be “substandard.” The 

resolution also provides guidance to port states on detention of vessels, qualifications and training requirements for port state 

control officers, and procedures for port state control boardings. IMO Resolution A.787(19). 

20 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 32 U.S.T. 47, T.I.A.S. No. 9700 (done at London, Nov. 1, 1974 and entered 

into force worldwide on May 25, 1980); Protocol of 1978 Relating to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 32 

U.S.T. 5577, T.I.A.S. 10009 (done at London, Feb. 17, 1978 and entered into force worldwide on May 1, 1981) (hereinafter SOLAS). 

21 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, 12 I.L.M. 1319 (done at London, Nov. 2, 1973); Protocol 

of 1978 Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, 17 I.L.M. 546 (done at London, 

Feb. 16, 1978) (hereinafter MARPOL). 

22 See SOLAS, Chap. 1, Regulation 19(b); MARPOL Art. 5. 

23 SOLAS, Chap. 1, Regulations 12, 19. 

24 MARPOL, Art. 5. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 135

release vessels upon posting of a bond or other surety that will protect port state interests. These conventions 

also usually call for compensation by the port state for any loss or damage to foreign vessels resulting from an 

undue delay or detention.25 Finally, international conventions may limit the type of enforcement action that a 

state may take.26

Coastal State 

A coastal state exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction over waters off its shores. International treaties establish 

conditions under which states may regulate the activities of foreign flag vessels operating in waters off their 

coasts relating to safety, the environment, and the exploitation of natural resources. 

The ability of the coastal state to enforce its laws and applicable international standards is often in 

competition with the right of vessels to exercise freedom of navigation. The best example of this tension is 

the long-standing international right of innocent passage. Innocent passage is the right held by a foreign vessel to 

pass through the territorial sea of a coastal state in the normal course of navigation without interference from 

that state. Passage is considered innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security 

of the coastal state.27 For instance, passage is not innocent if there is an act of willful and serious pollution.28

Under UNCLOS, coastal states are restricted in their ability to regulate vessels in innocent passage. The 

coastal state may generally not regulate the construction, design, equipment, and manning of foreign vessels 

in innocent passage.29 However, UNCLOS allows coastal states to establish stricter discharge and liability 

standards for vessels in innocent passage in their territorial seas as long as the standards are nondiscriminatory and do not otherwise hamper innocent passage.30

Various international conventions authorize coastal states to control vessel traffic off their shores to improve 

the safety of navigation in crowded and restricted areas and to protect environmentally sensitive areas. 

UNCLOS recognizes the right of a coastal state to control vessel traffic in its territorial sea through the 

establishment of traffic separation schemes and sea lanes. Vessels, such as tankers, that carry chemicals, oil, 

and other dangerous substances can be required to use such lanes or other restricted areas during transit for 

the protection of the coastal state.31 SOLAS authorizes states to implement mandatory ship routing, ship 

reporting systems, and vessel traffic services.32 Another IMO regime allows coastal states to adopt 

environmental measures to protect specific, defined sea areas by designating them Particularly Sensitive Sea 

Areas (PSSAs). A PSSA is defined as “an area that needs special protection through action by the [IMO] 

because of its significance for recognized ecological or socio-economic or scientific reasons and which may 

be vulnerable to damage from international maritime activities.”33

 

25 Id.; SOLAS, Chap. 1, Regulation 19(f); Art. 222, UNCLOS. 

26 For instance, UNCLOS restricts enforcement to imposition of monetary penalties only with respect to violations of national laws 

and regulations or applicable international rules and standards for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution committed by 

foreign vessels in a state's territorial sea, except in the case of a willful and serious act of pollution. Art. 230(2), UNCLOS. 

27 See id. Arts. 19, 21. 

28 Id. Art. 19. 

29 Id. Art. 21(2). 

30 Id. Art. 24(1). 

31 Id. Art. 22. 

32 SOLAS, Chap. V, Regs. 8, 8-1, 8-2. 

33 Guidelines for the Designation of Special Areas under MARPOL 73/78 and Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of 

Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, IMO Assembly Resolution A.927(22) (Nov. 2001). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

136 Chapter 7: Marine Operations 

The most complex jurisdictional regime in UNCLOS establishes the authority of a coastal state to enforce 

environmental laws in the various jurisdictional zones off its coast including the territorial sea, the contiguous 

zone, and the EEZ. 

In its territorial sea, a coastal state has the authority to regulate the preservation of its environment and the 

prevention, reduction, and control of pollution.34 The jurisdiction to enforce these laws matches the coastal 

state’s authority in its internal waters, save for the right of innocent passage. When there are clear grounds for 

believing that a vessel navigating in a nation’s territorial sea has violated environmental laws adopted by the 

coastal state and, consistent with UNCLOS and applicable international environmental standards, the coastal 

state may physically inspect the vessel. If evidence from the inspection warrants, the coastal state may then 

institute enforcement proceedings, subject to certain safeguards established in UNCLOS.35 

Coastal state powers in the contiguous zone are more limited than in the territorial sea. UNCLOS authorizes 

a coastal state to exercise control in its contiguous zone as necessary to prevent infringements of its customs, 

fiscal, immigration, and sanitary laws and regulations in its territory (e.g., ports or internal waters) or its 

territorial sea.36

Coastal state authority in its EEZ is even more constrained. If there are clear grounds for believing that a 

vessel navigating in a coastal state’s EEZ has violated applicable international rules and standards for the 

prevention, reduction, and control of pollution (or national laws that implement such international standards), 

the coastal state may require the vessel to provide certain information. Required information can include the 

vessel’s identity and port of registry, its last and next port of call, and any other information required to 

determine if a violation occurred. If the vessel refuses to provide the required information or the information 

varies with known facts, the coastal state may physically inspect the vessel. Finally, if there is clear objective 

evidence that the vessel committed a violation of applicable international rules for the prevention, reduction, 

or control of pollution while navigating in the EEZ, the coastal state may undertake enforcement proceedings 

in accordance with its laws, subject to safeguards established in UNCLOS.37 

Coast Guard Role in Regulating Marine Operations 

The missions and tasks of the U.S. Coast Guard include, but are not limited to, maritime environmental 

protection, national and coastal defense, marine safety and security, search and rescue, boating safety, aids to 

navigation, and icebreaking. In addition, it is primarily responsible for the enforcement of U.S. laws and 

treaties on the high seas and in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.38 The Coast Guard is 

also authorized to assist other federal and U.S. state authorities in performance of their activities, including 

 

34 Art. 2, UNCLOS. 

35 Id. Art. 220. 

36 Id. Art. 33. 

37 Id. Art. 220. 

38 The primary duties of the Coast Guard are established at 14 U.S.C. § 2. 

The Coast Guard shall enforce or assist in the enforcement of all applicable Federal laws on, under, and over 

the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; shall engage in maritime air 

surveillance or interdiction to enforce or assist in the enforcement of the laws of the United States; shall 

administer laws and promulgate and enforce regulations for the safety of life and property on and under the high 

seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States covering all matters not specifically delegated by 

law to some other executive department . . . . 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 137

law enforcement.39 Finally, the Coast Guard has authority, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of State, 

to interact with foreign governments on matters of international law.40 

To enforce the laws of the United States as mandated by Congress, the Coast Guard has very broad 

inspection, search, seizure, investigation, and arrest authority. Under this authority, the Coast Guard may 

make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and waters over 

which the United States has jurisdiction for the prevention, detection, and suppression of violations of laws 

of the United States. The Coast Guard is also the regulatory and enforcement agency for interests involving 

safety of life and property at sea and protection of the marine environment. 

The Coast Guard was transferred from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to the newly 

established U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002.41

The Act transfers the Coast Guard’s existing authorities, functions, personnel, and assets from DOT, 

including the related authorities and functions of the Secretary of Transportation, to DHS. There were 

significant concerns that this move would adversely affect other long-standing programs of the Coast Guard, 

such as search and rescue, fishery enforcement, and protection of the marine environment. To address these 

concerns, the Act states that the “Secretary may not substantially or significantly reduce the missions of the 

Coast Guard or the Coast Guard’s capability to perform those missions” except as may be specified by 

Congress in the future.42

GOVERNING STATUTES AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

Congress has recognized that to the extent the United States is party to international conventions, these 

requirements are part of U.S. maritime law. Any international convention that is “self executing” to which the 

United States is a party becomes federal law without the need for specific implementing legislation. Further, 

under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, international conventions, treaties, and executive agreements that 

have been signed and ratified by the United States become the “law of the land.” 

Marine Safety and Security: International Treaties to which the United States is Signatory 

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 

The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974 and its 1978 Protocol (SOLAS),43 specifies 

minimum international standards for construction,44 various types of equipment,45 and stability, for passenger 

vessels and other vessels of 500 gross tons or more on international voyages.46 In addition, it specifies 

operational requirements for all vessels for safety of navigation47 and for mandatory ship reporting systems.48

 

39 Id. § 141. 

40 Id. §142. 

41 Pub. L. 107-296, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2135. 

42 6 U.S.C. §468(e)(1) 

43 32 U.S.T. 47, T.I.A.S. No. 9700 (done at London, Nov. 1, 1974). It entered into force worldwide on May 25, 1980. Protocol of 1978 

Relating to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 32 U.S.T. 5577, T.I.A.S. 10009 (done at London, February 17, 

1978). The Protocol entered into force worldwide on May 1, 1981 (SOLAS). 

44 Id. Chap. II. 

45 Id. Chaps. II, IV & V/12. 

46 Id. Chap. I, Regulations 1, 3 & 4. 

47 Id. Chap. V, Regulation 12. 

48 Id. Chap. V, Regulation 15-1. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

138 Chapter 7: Marine Operations 

Also, SOLAS addresses requirements for specific types of vessels. For instance, in response to several tanker 

disasters, the 1978 Protocol to SOLAS added requirements for inert gas systems, crude oil tank washing 

systems, and redundant radar and steering equipment. Later amendments to SOLAS address hazards 

associated with ferries and bulk cargo vessels, and implement an enhanced inspection regime for older 

vessels.49

SOLAS establishes procedures and requirements for the effective management of vessels by vessel owners 

and operators to ensure safety of life at sea and protection of the marine environment. SOLAS now requires 

vessel owners and operators to establish a Safety Management System (SMS) under the International Safety 

Management Code (ISM Code). A company’s SMS must include, among other things, a safety and 

environmental protection policy with instructions and procedures to ensure that vessels operate in accordance 

with relevant flag state and international regulations. In addition, the ISM Code requires that companies and 

vessels undergo periodic external audits by flag state administrations or organizations acting on their behalf.50 

Most recently, SOLAS was amended to address the issue of vessel and port security and now requires ships 

and companies to comply with the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code,51 which applies 

to passenger ships, including high-speed craft, cargo ships of 500 gross tons and up, and mobile offshore 

drilling units. The ISPS Code contains two parts. Part A contains mandatory provisions covering the 

appointment of security officers for shipping companies, individual ships, and port facilities. Part B contains 

recommendations on preparing ship and port facility security plans. The Coast Guard has decreed that Part B 

will also be mandatory for all U.S.-flagged ships and ships of other flags that trade with the United States. 

In most instances, SOLAS provisions have been made applicable to U.S. vessels through implementing 

legislation. However, even in the absence of such legislation, courts for the most part have treated SOLAS as 

self-executing, or a component of general maritime law. Similarly, it is self-executing with regard to foreign 

vessels in U.S. waters.52 The President has assigned enforcement authority for SOLAS to the Coast Guard, 

and the Coast Guard primarily enforces its provisions under its Port State Control Initiative.

International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 

In 1978, the IMO adopted the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and 

Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW).53 Prior to adoption, regulation of competence and training of vessel 

officers and crew was left to flag states, with very little international guidance.54 However, some commenters 

have attributed 60-80 percent of all maritime accidents at least in part to human error,55 and a 1995 Coast 

Guard study identified human error as the cause of approximately 80 percent of all maritime casualties.56 The 

purpose of the STCW is to promote safety of life and property at sea and protection of the marine 

 

49 Id. Chap. XI. 

50 Id. Chap. IX. Coast Guard regulations implementing the ISM Code are at 33 C.F.R. Part 98. 

51 SOLAS, Chap. XI-2. 

52 See Craig Allen, Federalism in the Era of International Standards: Federal and State Government Regulation of Merchant 

Vessels in the United States (Part II), J. Mar. L. & Com. 582 (1998). 

53 S. Treaty Doc. No. 96-1, C.T.I.A. No. 7624 (done at London, July 7, 1978). The Convention entered into force worldwide on April 

28, 1984 and for the United States on Oct. 1, 1991 (STCW). 

54 Studies of recent vessel and marine casualties show that human factors cause 75-95 percent of all marine accidents. 1998 Year 

of the Ocean, The U.S. Marine Transportation System, available at www.yoto98.noaa.gov/yoto/meeting/mar_trans_316.html 

(accessed November 12, 2004). 

55 Lynda M. Warren & Mark W. Wallace, The Donaldson Inquiry and Its Relevance to Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, 9 Int’l Journ.

of Marine & Coastal Law 523, 526 n.14 (1994). 

56 U.S. Coast Guard. Prevention Through People Quality Action Report. Washington, D.C. 1995. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 139

environment by establishing common international standards for training, certification, and watchkeeping for 

professional mariners. The Convention codifies the highest practicable standards that could be globally 

agreed to at the time it was adopted.57 The STCW was amended in 1995 to virtually rewrite the entire 

Convention and to add a new STCW Code.58 Under the STCW, flag states are required to issue certificates to 

seafarers sailing on their vessels attesting to their compliance with qualification, training, and fitness 

standards.59 

The STCW provides that ships, including ships of non-party flag states, are subject to control by duly 

authorized officers of the port state when ships are in the port of a party to the Convention. Control officers 

are authorized to verify that all mariners onboard possess required certificates. Flag state certificates are 

required under the STCW to be accepted unless there are clear grounds for believing that the certificate was 

obtained fraudulently, the holder is not the person named on the certificate, or the issuing state failed to 

follow the STCW standards in issuing the certificate.60 Under amendments to the STCW enacted in 1995, the 

port state control officers also have authority to require mariners to demonstrate operational competency at 

their place of duty on the vessel.61 

Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 

The 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS)62

provides binding, comprehensive regulations for the prevention of collisions on the water. The COLREGS 

apply beyond established demarcation lines. In the United States, the COLREGS govern ship navigation on 

non-internal waters. One of the most important innovations in the COLREGS was recognition of traffic 

separation schemes and new guidance for determining safe speed, the risk of collision, and the conduct of 

vessels operating in or near traffic separation schemes. 

International Convention on Load Lines 

In 1966, the IMO adopted the International Convention on Load Lines.63 It had long been recognized that 

limitations on the draught to which a ship may be loaded made a significant contribution to its safety. These 

limits are established in the form of freeboards. The many provisions of the Convention also are designed to 

ensure the watertight integrity of ships’ hulls below the freeboard deck. In 1988, the IMO adopted a protocol 

to the Convention to harmonize the Convention’s vessel survey and certification requirements with those 

contained in SOLAS and MARPOL.64 All three international conventions require the issuing of certificates to 

show that requirements have been met and this has to be done by means of a survey. 

 

57 STCW, preamble at 2. 

58 The 1995 Amendments to the STCW Convention entered into force worldwide on Feb. 1, 1997. 

59 Id., Art. I, Regulations 6-9. 

60 STCW Art. X (1),(2). 

61 STCW Code § A-I/4(4). 

62 28 U.S.T. 3459, T.I.A.S. No. 8587 (done at London, Oct. 20, 1972). The COLREGS entered into force worldwide on July 15, 

1977. 

63 18 U.S.T. 1857; T.I.A.S. No. 6331, 640 U.N.T.S. (done at London, April 5, 1966). The Convention entered into force worldwide on 

July 21, 1968. 

64 Protocol of 1988 Relating to the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966 (done at London, November 11, 1988). The 

Protocol entered into force worldwide on February 3, 2000. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

140 Chapter 7: Marine Operations 

International Convention for Safe Containers 

The International Convention for Safe Containers65 was adopted in 1972. The Convention has two goals. 

One is to maintain a high level of safety of human life in the transport and handling of containers by 

providing generally acceptable test procedures and related strength requirements. The other is to facilitate the 

international transport of containers by providing uniform international safety regulations, equally applicable 

to all modes of surface transport. In this way, proliferation of divergent national safety regulations can be 

avoided. 

The Convention includes two annexes. Annex I establishes standards for the testing, inspection, approval, 

and maintenance of containers and sets out procedures whereby containers used in international transport 

must be safety-approved by an Administration of a Contracting State or by an organization acting on its 

behalf. The principle of reciprocal acceptance of safety-approved containers is the cornerstone of the 

Convention. This means that, once approved and marked, it is expected that containers will move in 

international transport with the minimum of safety control formalities. Annex II covers structural safety 

requirements and tests, including details of test procedures. 

International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue 

The International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR Convention)66 was adopted in 1979. It 

was aimed at developing an international search and rescue (SAR) plan, so that, no matter where an accident 

occurs, the rescue of persons in distress at sea will be coordinated by an established SAR organization and, 

when necessary, by cooperation between neighboring SAR organizations. Although the obligation of ships to 

assist vessels in distress was enshrined both in tradition and in international treaties, such as SOLAS, there 

was no international system covering search and rescue operations until the adoption of the SAR Convention. 

The technical requirements of the SAR Convention are contained in an Annex, which was significantly 

revised in 1998. 

Parties to the SAR Convention are required to ensure that arrangements are made for the provision of 

adequate SAR services in their coastal waters. Parties are encouraged to enter into SAR agreements with 

neighboring states involving the establishment of SAR regions, the pooling of facilities, establishment of 

common procedures, training, and liaison visits. The Convention states that a party should take measures to 

expedite entry into its territorial waters of rescue units from other parties. 

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation 

The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA 

Convention)67 entered into force on March 1, 1992. The SUA Convention applies to offenses of direct 

involvement or complicity in the intentional and unlawful endangerment, whether threatened, attempted or 

actual, of the safe navigation of a ship by commission of certain prescribed acts.68 The SUA Convention 

 

65 29 U.S.T. 3707; T.I.A.S. No. 9037, T.I.A.S. 10220, 10914 (done at Geneva, Dec. 2, 1972). It entered into force worldwide on Sept. 

6, 1977, and for the United States on Jan. 3, 1979. Amendments to Annexes I and II of the Convention were done at London on 

May 17, 1991, and entered into force worldwide on Jan. 1, 1993. 

66 T.I.A.S. No. 11093 (done at Hamburg, April 27, 1979). It entered into force worldwide on June 22, 1985. 

67 U.N.T.S. No. 29004 (Done at Rome, March 10, 1988). It entered into force worldwide on March 1, 1992. 

68 These include seizure of or exercise of control over a ship by any form of intimidation; violence against a person on board a ship; 

destruction of a ship or the causing of damage to a ship or to its cargo; placement on a ship of a device or substance which is likely 

to destroy or cause damage to that ship or its cargo; destruction of, serious damaging of, or interference with maritime navigational 

facilities; knowing communication of false information; or injury to or murder of any person in connection with any of the preceding 

acts. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 141

applies to ships navigating or scheduled to navigate into, through, or from waters beyond the outer limit of 

the territorial sea of a single state, or the lateral limits of its territorial sea with adjacent states. It also applies 

when the alleged offender is found in the territory of a state that is a party to the SUA Convention. Such 

states-parties have obligations to establish their jurisdiction over the offenses described, make the offenses 

punishable by appropriate penalties, take alleged offenders into custody, prosecute or extradite alleged 

offenders, cooperate in preventative measures, and exchange information and evidence needed in related 

criminal proceedings. 

The United States is leading an international effort to update the SUA Convention to include new offenses in 

response to terrorist threats, including bio-terrorism and use of a ship or its cargo as a weapon. The effort 

also includes incorporation of a new legal regime to allow the boarding of vessels on the high seas that is 

modeled on the Coast Guard’s drug and alien migrant interdiction programs. 

While awaiting movement on a multilateral international instrument regarding boarding of foreign flag ships 

at sea for security purposes, such as the SUA Convention, the United States is engaged in an effort to use 

bilateral agreements to address threats involving transportation of weapons of mass destruction or related 

materials (WMD), including by ships. The effort is called the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).69 PSI 

participants seek to impede and stop shipments of WMD through a series of measures including enhanced 

exchange of information and expedited procedures for the boarding and inspection of vessels flying their flag 

and suspected of carrying such cargoes. The ship boarding agreement is modeled after similar arrangements 

that exist between the United States and flag states that allow boarding of ships for purposes of drug 

interdiction. 

 

Marine Safety and Security: Federal Governing Statutes 

Codification of Laws Related to Vessels and Seamen – Subtitle II of Title 46, U.S. Code 

Federal regulation of merchant vessel safety began in 1838 with the Steamboat Act. This Act required that 

steamboats be inspected every six months and carry a federal certificate of inspection. In 1852, the Boiler 

Inspection Act required that pilots and engineers on steamboats hold a federal license. In 1871, Congress 

repealed the previous acts and enacted a comprehensive navigation and inspection regime for U.S. flag 

merchant vessels. In 1885, these laws were extended to cover foreign vessels carrying passengers for hire 

from the United States.70 The current versions of these navigation and inspection laws are in Title 46, U.S. 

Code.71 

Title 46 requires the Coast Guard to promulgate regulations for the design, construction, alteration, repair, 

maintenance, operation, equipping, and manning of so-called inspected vessels.

72 It also provides authority for 

the licensing of merchant mariners,73 investigation of marine casualties,74 admeasurement of vessels,75 registry 

 

69 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. Fact Sheet: Proliferation Security Initiative: Statement of Interdiction Principles. 

September 4, 2003. 

70 See Allen Part II at 593 (summarizing history of federal regulation of merchant vessel safety). 

71 Pub. L. 98-89 (Aug. 1983) codified the shipping laws that had developed over nearly two centuries in piecemeal fashion. Pub. L. 

98-89 revised, reorganized, and consolidated nearly all Coast Guard enforced marine safety provisions into Title 46, United States 

Code and repealed outdated source laws, most notably Titles 52 and 53 of the Revised Statutes. This was accomplished without 

controversial change to the substance of the existing laws. Existing Coast Guard regulations were carried forward under the 

corresponding provisions of the “new” Title 46. 

72 See 46 U.S.C. § 3306 (regulation of inspected vessels), § 3703 (regulation of tank vessels) and § 8101 (manning of vessels). The 

list of “inspected vessels” is codified at 46 U.S.C. § 3301. 

73 Id. Chap. 71. 

74 Id. Chap. 63. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

142 Chapter 7: Marine Operations 

and documentation of vessels,76 and other such authority necessary for the comprehensive administration and 

oversight of the U.S. flag merchant fleet and its personnel. In essence, Title 46 provides the authority for the 

Coast Guard to act as the administrator of the U.S. flag fleet. Title 46 also provides regulatory authority, to a 

more limited extent, for so-called uninspected vessels77 and for recreational vessels.78 Following the adoption of 

Annex IX of SOLAS and the ISM Code for ships, Title 46 was amended to direct the Coast Guard to 

implement regulations consistent with the ISM Code.79

U.S. and foreign flag vessels are subject to inspection for compliance with applicable provisions of Title 46. 

However, Congress has established the principle of reciprocity for foreign vessels from flag states that have 

standards similar to those of the United States and that have a valid certificate of inspection from those flag 

states. Under this reciprocity principle, the inspection of these foreign flag vessels will be limited to ensuring 

that the condition of the vessel is as stated in the certificate of inspection. Title 46 deems a flag state’s 

inspection laws similar to those of the United States if the flag state is a party to SOLAS. However, 

reciprocity is extended only to those states that accord similar privileges to vessels flying the U.S. flag.80 

Chapter 37 of Title 46 establishes standards for tank vessels carrying liquid bulk dangerous cargoes, including 

oil. The double hull phase-in requirements established by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 are also included in 

this chapter.81 Foreign tank vessels that operate in navigable waters of the United States must, in addition to 

meeting applicable international standards, obtain a certificate of compliance from the Coast Guard attesting 

to the vessel’s compliance with Chapter 37.82 However, there are two important accommodations for foreign 

tank vessels. First, the requirements do not apply to tank vessels in innocent passage in the navigable waters 

of the United States.83 Second, in determining their compliance with Chapter 37, the Coast Guard may accept 

any certificate, endorsement, or document issued by a foreign flag state under any international treaty, 

agreement, or convention to which the United States is a party.84 Congress has amended Subtitle II of Title 

46, U.S. Code to establish that the term navigable waters of the United States as used in these laws includes the 12 

mile territorial sea as proclaimed by President Reagan.85

Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (as amended by the Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978) 

Title I of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (PWSA)86 focuses on port and waterfront safety, vessel 

navigation safety, operating requirements, and traffic control. Title II contains provisions on tank vessel 

design and construction. The Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978 (PTSA)87 amended the PWSA after a series 

 75 Id. Part J. 

76 Id. Part H. 

77 Id. Chap. 41. 

78 Id. Chap. 131. 

79 Id. Chap. 32. 

80 Id. § 3303. 

81 Id. § 3703a. 

82 Id. § 3711. 

83 Id. § 3702(e). 

84 Id. § 3711(a). This principle does not apply in the case of the double-hull requirements of Regulations 13F and 13G of MARPOL 

Annex I involving double hulls for tank vessels and their phase-in. These provisions conflict with U.S. domestic law under OPA and 

the U.S. has expressed its intent not to be bound by the international provisions. 

85 Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-383, Title III, §3 01(b), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3417 (codified at 46 U.S.C. § 

2101(7)(a). 

86 Pub. L. 92-340, July 10, 1972, 86 Stat. 424 (codified at 33 U.S.C. §§ 1221-1232). 

87 Pub. L. 95-474, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1471. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 143

of tank vessel accidents and pollution incidents in the latter half of the 1970s led to a call to impose more 

stringent vessel safety and pollution prevention measures. 

The PWSA provides statutory authority to protect vessels, bridges, and waterfront structures on or 

immediately adjacent to the navigable waters of the United States from damage or destruction, and to protect 

the waters and natural marine resources from environmental harm that could result from accidents or 

incidents involving vessels and waterfront facilities.88 In 1998, the provisions of the PWSA applicable to 

navigable waters of the United States were extended to include a territorial sea of 12 miles.89 The PWSA 

authorizes the Coast Guard to promulgate minimum safety equipment standards for structures in or 

immediately adjacent to the navigable waters of the United States.90 It also authorizes the Coast Guard to 

investigate “any incident, accident, or act involving the loss or destruction of, or damage to, any structure 

subject to [the PWSA], or which affects or may affect the safety or environmental quality of the ports, 

harbors, or navigable waters of the United States.”91 

Under the PWSA, the Coast Guard may control vessel traffic and establish vessel navigation and operating 

conditions. It authorizes the establishment of vessel traffic services (VTS) for monitoring and active control 

of vessel traffic in U.S. ports and waterways. The Coast Guard may require vessels operating in a VTS area to 

comply with VTS orders and directions and to carry equipment, typically communications equipment, 

necessary to participate in the VTS program. In addition, the Coast Guard may control vessel traffic in U.S. 

ports and waterways whenever such control is warranted by hazardous conditions. Further, the Coast Guard 

is authorized to establish safety zones, regulated navigation areas, and limited access areas.92 The Coast Guard 

may require vessels to provide pre-arrival messages prior to entry into a port or place subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States.93 The PWSA also authorizes the establishment of fairways and traffic 

separation schemes for vessels operating in the territorial sea and in high seas approaches to ports and places 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.94 Additionally, the Coast Guard may issue orders to any vessel 

in the navigable waters of the United States or other port or place subject to U.S. jurisdiction to operate or 

anchor. Such orders may be issued if there is reasonable cause to believe that the vessel does not comply with 

any regulation issued under the PWSA or other applicable law or treaty, or if direction is justified in the 

interest of safety due to weather, sea conditions, or other hazardous circumstances.95 

Under the authority of the PWSA, the Coast Guard has issued navigation safety regulations and vessel 

operating and equipment requirements.96 The regulations apply to all non-public vessels over 1,600 gross tons 

while operating on the navigable waters of the United States, but do not apply to vessels in innocent passage 

in the territorial sea of the United States. The regulations require that vessels carry specified equipment, 

 

88 The Maritime Transportation Security Act recently amended the PWSA to include “safety and security of United States ports and 

waterways” among the factors to be considered by the Coast Guard in carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the PWSA. 

Pub. L. 107-295, § 443, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2085. Navigable waters for purposes of the PWSA include the 12 mile territorial 

sea as proclaimed by President Reagan. 33 U.S.C. § 1222(5). 

89 Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-383, Title III, § 301(a), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3417. 

90 Id. § 1225(a). However, in this regard, the Act preserves the right of state governments to establish more stringent safety 

equipment requirements or safety standards than those promulgated by the Coast Guard, but this is limited to structures only. Id. § 

1225(b). 

91 Id. § 1227(a). 

92 Vessel entry into these zones can be prohibited, confined to vessels with particular characteristics or capabilities, or based on 

compliance with certain operating conditions. 

93 33 U.S.C. § 1223(a). 

94 Id. § 1223(c). 

95 Id. § 1223(b). Conditions for entry of vessels are established at id. §1228. 

96 Id. § 1223(a)(3). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

144 Chapter 7: Marine Operations 

charts, and publications to ensure safe navigation and that navigational equipment such as radar and steering 

gear be tested prior to entry into port or getting underway. They also establish operational requirements for 

vessels underway or at anchor.97

The PWSA also requires the Coast Guard to promulgate regulations for the construction, design, equipment, 

manning, and operation of both U.S. and foreign tank vessels. However, the Act states that the regulations 

are not to be applied to foreign vessels that have on board valid inspection certificates issued under laws or 

treaties of the United States, and provides for reciprocal recognition of certificates issued under treaties to 

which the United States is a party. In this regard, the Act directs that any proposed rules be transmitted to the 

IMO and other appropriate international forums for consideration as international standards.98 

The PTSA amended the PWSA in several important ways. It prohibits tank vessels from operating in U.S. 

navigable waters if they have a history of accidents or pollution incidents, fail to comply with applicable laws 

or regulations, discharge oil or hazardous substances in violation of law or treaty, fail to comply with VTS 

requirements, or fail to comply with the Act’s manning requirements.99 The Coast Guard was directed to 

create a marine safety information system to record vessel safety and pollution histories to aid in this effort.100

The PTSA also authorized the establishment of compatible vessel standards and vessel traffic services with 

adjacent nations and the waiver of U.S. design, construction, equipment, operation, personnel qualification, 

and manning for vessels transiting United States waters en route to ports in those countries.101 Finally, the 

PTSA specifies minimum standards for certain crude oil and product tankers,102 and provides authority to 

exceed the minimum standards as well as international standards.103 

Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Act 

In 1988, Congress enacted the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Act104 in response to a series of 

tragic fishing vessel accidents off the Alaskan coast to address and correct the unacceptable safety record of 

the commercial fishing industry. Coast Guard regulations implementing the Act require vessels to carry safety 

equipment, including lifesaving equipment, survival craft, communications equipment, distress signals, 

Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBs), fire extinguishers, emergency alarms, and bilge 

pumps. The regulations also established watertight integrity and stability requirements. Finally, the Act 

established a Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Advisory Committee to provide the Coast Guard with 

recommendations on safety and other equipment items. 

The Espionage Act of 1917, as amended by the Magnuson Act of 1950 

The Espionage Act of 1917,105 as amended by the Magnuson Act of 1950,106 authorizes the President to 

institute measures and promulgate rules and regulations necessary to govern the movement and anchorage of 

 

97 33 C.F.R. Part 164. 

98 See Allen Part II at 596-97. 

99 33 U.S.C. § 1228. 

100 46 U.S.C. § 3717. 

101 33 U.S.C. § 1230. 

102 46 U.S.C. §§ 3705-08. 

103 Id. § 3703. 

104 Pub. L. 100-424, Sept. 9, 1988, 102 Stat. 1588. 

105 Act of June 15, 1917, Chap. 30, Title II, 40 Stat. 220. 

106 Act of Aug. 9, 1950, Chap. 656, 64 Stat. 427. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 145

foreign flag vessels in the territorial waters of the United States and to inspect such vessels at any time.107 In 

addition, it authorized measures and regulations to safeguard against the destruction, loss, or injury of vessels, 

harbors, ports, and waterfront facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the United States due to sabotage or 

subversive acts, accidents, or other similar causes. These measures and regulations are authorized whenever 

the President finds that war, invasion, potential subversive acts or disturbances of international relations 

endangers the security of the United States.108 In 1950, President Truman found that the security of the 

United States was endangered and directed that the provisions of the Espionage Act and the Magnuson Act 

be implemented. He also prescribed certain port security regulations to be enforced by the Coast Guard.109

The finding of endangerment to the security of the United States has remained in effect continuously since its 

issuance and has taken on new relevance in light of the focus on port and vessel security after September 11, 

2001.110 

Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 

The Maritime Transportation Security Act111 was enacted in late 2002 in response to terrorism and other 

threats to vessels, waterfront facilities, and ports. Congress noted that U.S. ports are a major locus of crimes, 

including drug trafficking, cargo theft, and smuggling of contraband and aliens. They are also open and 

susceptible to large-scale acts of terrorism. Further, inspection of containerized cargo was insufficient to 

counter potential security risks, and technology available was not adequately deployed to allow for nonintrusive inspection of containerized cargo. Finally, the cruise ship industry poses a special risk from a 

security perspective. Because U.S. ports are international boundaries that are particularly vulnerable to 

breaches in security, they present weaknesses in the nation’s ability to realize its national security objectives, 

and may serve as a vector or target for terrorist attacks aimed at the United States.112

The Act contains several major provisions that impact current maritime and customs laws primarily enforced 

by the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. The Act requires the Coast Guard to 

develop standards and procedures for conducting port security evaluations and vulnerability assessments. It 

establishes local port security committees to coordinate efforts of federal, state, local and private law 

enforcement and port agencies, and area maritime security committees to oversee regional security concerns. 

Additionally, the Act requires screening and background checks for persons in security-sensitive areas on 

waterfront facilities and in ports. Other provisions require assessments of effectiveness of security at foreign 

ports, which could result in denial of entry to U.S. ports of vessels from foreign ports with ineffective 

security. Finally, it requires designated vessels built after December 31, 2002, to be equipped with a position 

indicating transponder and appropriate situation display to access information from the transponder system. 

 

107 The Maritime Transportation Security Act amended the definition of territorial waters for purposes of these provisions to include 

“all waters of the territorial sea of the United States as described in Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988.” This had 

the effect of extending the territorial sea for purposes of the jurisdiction of this Act to 12 miles. Title I, §104(a), Pub. L. 107-295, Nov. 

25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2085. 

108 These provisions are codified at 50 U.S.C. § 191. 

109 Exec. Ord. No. 10173, 15 Fed. Reg. 7005 (Oct. 18, 1950). For the most part, until the enactment of the Ports and Waterways 

Safety Act, these regulations formed the basis of the Coast Guard’s waterfront facility safety program. These regulations authorize 

the Coast Guard to prevent access of persons, articles or things to vessels and waterfront facilities; to establish security zones that 

prevent access to vessels or facilities without permission of the Coast Guard; to inspect and search any vessel, waterfront facility or 

persons or articles thereon; to take possession and control of vessels; to issue identification credentials or documents and limit 

access to vessels and facilities to persons that hold such credentials or documents; and to exercise control over the transportation, 

handling, loading, storage, stowage or discharge of hazardous materials on vessels and approve facilities for the handling and 

storage of such materials. 33 C.F.R. Part 6. 

110 Notice of President, 67 Fed. Reg. 9387 (Feb. 26, 2002) (notice issued by President George W. Bush continuing emergency 

authority). 

111 Pub. L. 107-295, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2085. 

112 Id. § 101. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

146 Chapter 7: Marine Operations 

These vessels, including those built prior to December 31, 2002, must have such systems in place by 

December 31, 2004.113

Other provisions of the Act mandate that ships submit advanced electronic information for passengers and 

cargo, and prohibit the unloading of improperly documented cargo.114 The Act codifies the Coast Guard's 

“Sea Marshal” program to allow their dispatch to facilities and vessels to deter or respond to acts of 

terrorism.115

The Coast Guard has issued regulations that implement provisions of the MTSA and align domestic 

standards with the new international security requirements contained in the SOLAS amendments and the 

ISPS Code. The regulations address maritime transportation security at the national and individual port levels, 

and apply to ports, port facilities, vessels, and outer continental shelf facilities. The regulations contain 

specific requirements for security assessments, security plans, designation of security personnel, measures to 

address access control, security monitoring, and physical, passenger, personal baggage, and cargo security, and 

installation of Automatic Identification Systems on designated vessels.116

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as amended 

The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), as amended117 authorizes the Department of 

Transportation to regulate the transportation of hazardous materials by rail, aircraft, vessel, and public 

highway. Hazardous materials are defined as those materials that, when shipped in a particular amount or 

form, have been determined to pose unreasonable risks to health, safety, and property during transport 

activities.118 The statute and its regulations address issues such as shipping papers to identify and track 

hazardous materials, packaging and container design, marking, labeling, and performance standards, and 

employee and public training programs. The regulations also contain specific requirements relating to the type 

of shipment being used (i.e., rail, aircraft, vessel, and public highway).119 The Coast Guard may inspect 

containers and facilities used in the transportation of hazardous materials on water. Annex III of MARPOL 

(packaged marine pollutants) is implemented through regulations promulgated under the HMTA.120 In 

addition, some states have memoranda of understanding with cruise ships regarding handling of hazardous 

wastes generated on such vessels. 

International Safe Container Act

The International Safe Container Act121 implements the International Convention for Safe Containers. This 

law authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish procedures for the testing, inspection, and initial 

approval of existing and new containers and of designs for new containers. It also authorizes the Secretary to 

establish procedures to be followed by owners of containers relating to their periodic examination, as 

provided in the convention, and to provide a method for developing, collecting, and disseminating data 

concerning container safety and the international transport of containers. The Coast Guard has been 

 

113 Id. § 102 (establishing new Subtitle VI, Chap. 701 of Title 46, U.S. Code). 

114 Id. § 108. 

115 Id. § 107. 

116 33 CFR, Subchapter H. 

117 Pub. L. 93-633, Jan. 3, 1975, Sec. 102, 88 Stat. 2156, as amended (codified at 49 U.S.C. §§ 5101-5127). 

118 Id. § 5103(a). 

119 Implementing regulations are at 49 C.F.R. Parts 100-185. 

120 49 C.F.R. § 171.4(b). 

121 Pub. L. 95-208, Dec. 13, 1977, 91 Stat. 1475 (codified at 46 U.S.C. §§ 1501-07). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 147

delegated authority under the Act to detain containers that do not meet the requirements of the convention 

and the Act. 

International Navigational Rules Act of 1977 

The International Navigational Rules Act of 1977122 authorized the President to implement the International 

Convention for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) by proclamation,123 and to proclaim any future 

amendments to the COLREGS adopted in accordance with the Convention to which the United States does 

not object. It also states that the COLREGS shall apply to all vessels, public and private, subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States, while upon the high seas or in connected waters that are navigable by 

seagoing vessels. The COLREGS apply to all other vessels when on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States. Further, it states that the COLREGS do not apply to vessels while in the waters of the United 

States shoreward of the navigational demarcation lines dividing the high seas from harbors, rivers, and other 

inland waters of the United States. Finally, it provides authority to the Coast Guard to promulgate necessary 

rules and regulations to implement the COLREGS. 

Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980 

The Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980,124 formerly referred to as the “Rules of the Road,” establishes 

navigational rules that apply shoreward of the demarcation lines dividing the high seas from harbors, rivers, 

and other inland waters. The Act combined navigational rules that used to exist separately for inland waters, 

western rivers, and Great Lakes. The Coast Guard enforces these rules. 

International Maritime and Port Security Act 

The International Maritime and Port Security Act125 amended the PWSA to authorize the promulgation of 

measures to prevent or respond to an act of terrorism against an individual, vessel, or public or commercial 

structure that is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and located within or adjacent to the marine 

environment, or a vessel of the United States or an individual on board that vessel. The Act authorizes the 

Coast Guard to carry out or require measures, including inspections, port, and harbor patrols, and the 

development of contingency plans and procedures, to prevent or respond to acts of terrorism. It also 

authorizes the Coast Guard to recruit and train active duty and Reserve Coast Guard members in techniques 

to prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. Further, the Act requires the Secretary of the department in 

which the Coast Guard is operating to develop and implement a plan to assess the effectiveness of security 

measures at foreign ports that pose a high risk of terrorism directed at passenger vessels. 

Marine Environmental Protection: International Treaties to which the United States is 

Signatory 

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), as amended by the 

Protocol of 1978, was adopted by the IMO in 1973 to address the intentional pollution from vessels of oil 

 

122 Pub. L. 95-75, July 27, 1977, 91 Stat. 311 (codified at 33 U.S.C. §§ 1601-08). 

123 The Convention was proclaimed by the President of the United States on January 19, 1977, and entered into force for the United

States on July 15, 1977. Exec. Ord. No. 11964, Jan. 19, 1977, 42 Fed. Reg. 4327. 

124 Pub. L. 96-591, Sec. 2, Dec. 24, 1980, 94 Stat. 3415 (codified at 33 U.S.C. §§ 2001-2071). 

125 Pub. L. 99-399, Title IX (codified at 33 U.S.C. § 1226). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

148 Chapter 7: Marine Operations 

and other harmful substances and to minimize the accidental discharges of such substances.126 While 

MARPOL initially focused on oil pollution, it has been expanded to include other ship-generated pollutants 

as well. These pollutants are addressed in six annexes to the Convention. Annex I addresses oil127 and Annex 

II addresses noxious liquid substances carried in bulk.128 The provisions of these two annexes are mandatory 

for all signatories. The other four annexes are optional. Annex III addresses harmful substances carried in 

packaged form, such as in containers and portable tanks.129 Annex IV addresses vessel sewage.130 The United 

States is not a signatory to Annex IV. Annex V addresses garbage and other ship-generated wastes, including 

plastics.131 Finally, Annex VI addresses air pollutants. Annex VI is scheduled to enter into force on May 19, 

2005,132 has been signed by the United States, and has been transmitted to the U.S. Senate for advice and 

consent to ratification.133

MARPOL Annex I establishes vessel design, construction, equipment, and operating standards for the 

purpose of reducing pollution from discharges of oil. The standards include requirements for vessel 

subdivision and damage stability, segregated ballast tanks, double bottom tanks, crude oil and water tank 

washing equipment, inert gas systems, oily water separators, oil discharge and cargo discharge monitoring 

equipment, operational discharge procedures, and recordkeeping.134 Under MARPOL Annex I, all tank 

vessels over 150 gross tons and all cargo vessels over 400 gross tons must implement a Shipboard Oil 

Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP) for responding to oil spill and other oil discharge emergencies.135

MARPOL Annex II contains similar provisions for vessels that carry noxious liquid substances. 

MARPOL Annex V applies to the operational discharge of ship-generated garbage. The definition of garbage 

under MARPOL Annex V is very broad, and encompasses essentially the discharge of any vessel-generated 

wastes that are not specifically covered by other MARPOL Annexes. Garbage includes not only the 

traditional galley and habitation space waste, but also maintenance wastes, such as rags and deck sweepings, 

and operational wastes, such as cargo residues or cargo-loading materials.136 The discharge of plastics of any 

kind is prohibited. All other discharges must be carried out and recorded in compliance with specific 

operational requirements, primarily based on distance from the nearest land. 137 

 

126 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 12 I.L.M. 1319 (done at London, Nov. 2, 1973); Protocol of 

1978 Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, 17 I.L.M. 546 (done at London, Feb. 

16, 1978) (MARPOL). The 1973 Convention was never ratified by the United States or by a sufficient number of other states to allow 

it to come into force. It was, however, modified and incorporated into the 1978 Protocol. 

127 Annex I of MARPOL entered into force worldwide on Oct. 2, 1983, when the 1978 Protocol entered into force. 

128 Annex II of MARPOL entered into force worldwide on April 6, 1987. 

129 Annex III of MARPOL entered into force worldwide on July 1, 1992. 

130 Annex 1V entered into force worldwide on 27 September 2003. 

131 Annex V entered into force worldwide on December 31, 1988. The U.S. Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification of 

Annex V on Nov. 5, 1987 and the provisions of Annex V were implemented by Title II, Pub. L. 100-220, the “Marine Plastic Pollution 

Research and Control Act of 1987.” 

132 IMO Summary of Status of Conventions available at www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id247 (accessed November 

12, 2004). 

133 Message to the Senate of the United States from President George W. Bush dated May 15, 2003, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030515-12.html (accessed November 12, 2004). 

134 Implementing regulations for MARPOL Annex I are primarily at 33 C.F.R. §§151.09-.29 and 33 C.F.R. Part 157, Subparts B and 

C. 

135 Id. Regulation 26. 

136 MARPOL Annex V, Regulation 1(1). See also Coast Guard implementing regulations at 33 C.F.R. §151.05. 

137 MARPOL Annex V, Regulations 3(1), 9. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 149

MARPOL Annex VI addresses emissions of certain air pollutants from ships. These include emissions of 

ozone-depleting substances, nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SOx), and volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) from tankers. Annex VI also addresses shipboard incineration operations. Annex VI provides for 

certification and compliance inspections for the emission control provisions.138

The NOx requirements apply to any marine diesel engine above 130 kilowatts installed on a vessel 

constructed on or after January 1, 2000, or a vessel that undergoes a major conversion on or after that date.139

The requirements are intended to reduce NOx emissions from these engines by 30 percent from uncontrolled 

levels. Certification provisions for the reduced limits are contained in the NOx Technical Code. 

The SOx requirements apply to fuel (bunkers) used by engines on vessels. Once the Annex goes into force 

internationally, any fuel used on ships cannot exceed 45,000 parts per million (ppm) of sulfur. The Annex also 

provides for the creation of SOx Emission Control Areas where ships are required to use fuel that does not 

exceed 15,000 ppm of sulfur. The lower sulfur fuel requirements are intended to reduce acid rain and 

particulate emissions in these areas.140 

International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution 

Casualties 

The International Convention Relating to the Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution 

Casualties141 was adopted in 1969. It affirms the right of a coastal state to take such measures on the high seas 

necessary to prevent, mitigate, or eliminate danger to its coastline or related interests from pollution by oil 

following a marine casualty. The coastal state is authorized to take such action only after due consultations 

with appropriate interests including the flag state or states of the ship or ships involved, the owners of the 

ships or cargoes in question and, where circumstances permit, independent experts appointed for this 

purpose. A coastal state that takes measures beyond those permitted is liable to pay compensation for any 

damage caused by such measures. Provision is made for the settlement of disputes arising in connection with 

the application of the Convention. The Convention applies to all seagoing vessels except warships or other 

vessels owned or operated by a state and used in government noncommercial service. In view of the 

increasing quantity of other substances, mainly chemicals, carried by ships, the need to extend the 

Convention to cover substances other than oil was recognized. Therefore, the Protocol Relating to 

Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Marine Pollution by Substances other than Oil142 was promulgated 

in 1973. This extended the regime of the 1969 Intervention Convention to substances that are either listed in 

the Annex to the Protocol or which have characteristics substantially similar to those substances. 

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 

The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (the 

London Convention)143 prohibits the dumping144 of certain hazardous materials, requires a special permit for 

 

138 MARPOL Annex VI, Regulations 6-9. 

139 Id. Regulation 13. 

140 Id. Regulation 14. 

141 26 U.S.T. 765; T.I.A.S. No. 8068 (done at Brussels, Nov. 29, 1969). The Convention entered into force worldwide on May 6, 

1975. 

142 34 U.S.T. 3407; T.I.A.S. No. 10561 (done at London, Nov. 2, 1973). The Protocol entered into force worldwide on Mar. 30, 1983. 

143 26 U.S.T. 2403, T.I.A.S. No. 8165 (done at London, Dec. 29, 1972). The Convention entered into force worldwide on Aug. 30, 

1975. 

144 Dumping is defined as the deliberate disposal at sea of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other manmade structures, as well as the deliberate disposal of these vessels or platforms themselves. Id. Art. III(1)(a). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

150 Chapter 7: Marine Operations 

the dumping of a number of other identified materials, and a general permit for dumping other wastes or 

matter.145 Dumping specifically does not include the disposal at sea of wastes and other matter incidental to, 

or derived from, the normal operation of vessels, aircraft, platforms, or other manmade structures at sea and 

their equipment, unless the waste or other matter is transported for the purpose of disposal or derived from 

treatment of such wastes.146 Wastes from the exploration, exploitation, and associated offshore processing of 

seabed mineral resources are not covered by the Convention.147 The permitting provisions of the Convention 

do not apply when dumping is necessary to secure the safety of human life or of vessels, aircraft, platforms, 

or other manmade structures at sea in cases of force majeure caused by stress of weather, or in any case that 

constitutes a danger to human life or a real threat to vessels, aircraft, platforms, or other structures at sea if 

dumping is the only way to avert the threat and it is likely that the damage from dumping would be less than 

the damage that would otherwise occur.148

Among other requirements, parties to the Convention must designate an authority to issue permits, keep 

records, and monitor sea conditions.149 Other articles promote regional cooperation, particularly in the fields 

of monitoring and scientific research.150 Annexes list wastes that cannot be dumped and wastes for which a 

special (i.e., individual) dumping permit is required. Provisions to be considered in establishing criteria for the 

issuance of ocean dumping permits are included in a third Annex, which addresses the nature of the waste 

material, the characteristics of the dumping site, and the method of disposal. 

In 1992, the parties to the London Convention began a comprehensive review of the Convention. This 

resulted in the 1996 Protocol, a new treaty that was meant to replace the London Convention.151 The United 

States was at the forefront of those countries negotiating the new Protocol. One of the major differences 

between the two treaties is that the London Convention allows ocean dumping except for a “blacklist” of 

prohibited materials (which nevertheless may be dumped as “trace contaminants”), whereas the Protocol 

establishes a limited “reverse list” of materials that may be dumped. The Protocol was signed by the United 

States in 1998, but has not yet been ratified nor entered into force worldwide. However, current U.S. practice 

is consistent with the Protocol.152 

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 

In September 1987, the United States and twenty-two other countries signed the Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.153 The 1987 Protocol froze the production and consumption of 

chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) at 1986 levels beginning in 1989. It also included a phased reduction of the CFCs 

to 50 percent of 1986 levels by 1998. These requirements were superseded in 1990154 and 1992155 by 

 

145 Id. Art. IV. 

146 Id. Art. III(1)(b)(i). 

147 Id. Art. III(1)(c). 

148 Id. Art. V. 

149 Id. Art. VI. 

150 Id. Art. IX. 

151 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (done at 

London, Nov. 7, 1996). 

152 The Protocol will enter into force after 26 countries ratify it. Fifteen of the 26 must be party to the London Convention. Currently, 

20 countries have ratified the Protocol, 18 of which are party to the London Convention. The Parties to the London Convention 

estimate that the Protocol will enter into force within the next year or two. 

153 26 ILM 1550 (done in Montreal, Sept. 16, 1987) and entered into force worldwide on Jan. 1, 1989. It was ratified by the United

States on April 21, 1988. 

154 UNEP/Oz.L.Pro2/3 (Annex II)(done in Montreal, June 29, 1990) and entered into force worldwide on Aug. 10, 1992. 

155 32 ILM 874 (done in London, Nov. 23, 1992) and entered into force worldwide on June 14, 1994. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 151

amendments to the Protocol. Under these amendments and provisions of the Clean Air Act, which provide 

the current framework for regulation of ozone-depleting substances in the United States, production and 

import of CFCs and halons in the United States have been phased out, with very limited exceptions. 

International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation 

In 1990, the IMO adopted the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and 

Cooperation (OPRC Convention)156 to provide a global framework for international cooperation in 

combating major incidents or threats of marine pollution. Parties to the OPRC Convention are required to 

establish measures for dealing with pollution incidents, either nationally or in cooperation with other 

countries. 

Under the OPRC, ships are required to carry a shipboard oil pollution emergency plan. Operators of offshore 

units under the jurisdiction of parties are also required to have oil pollution emergency plans or similar 

arrangements which must be coordinated with national systems for responding promptly and effectively to oil 

pollution incidents. Further, ships are required to report incidents of pollution to appropriate coastal state 

authorities. The OPRC details the actions that are then to be taken by the coastal states. The Convention calls 

for the establishment of stockpiles of oil spill combating equipment, the holding of oil spill combating 

exercises, and the development of detailed plans for dealing with pollution incidents. Lastly, parties to the 

Convention are required to provide assistance to others in the event of a pollution emergency and provision 

is made for the reimbursement of any assistance provided. 

International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships 

The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships157 was adopted by 

the IMO in 2001. Antifouling paints are used to coat the bottoms of ships to prevent sea life such as algae 

and mollusks from attaching themselves to the hull, a condition that slows down the ship and increases fuel 

consumption. In the early days of sailing ships, lime and later arsenic were used to coat ships' hulls, until the 

modern chemical industry developed effective antifouling paints using metallic compounds. These 

compounds slowly "leach" into the seawater, killing barnacles and other marine life that have attached to the 

ship. But studies have shown that these compounds persist in the water, killing sea life, harming the 

environment, and possibly entering the food chain. One of the most effective anti-fouling paints, developed 

in the 1960s, contains the organotin tributyltin (TBT), which has been proven to cause deformations in 

oysters and sex changes in whelks. 

The Convention prohibits the use of harmful organotins in antifouling paints used on ships and establishes a 

mechanism to prevent the potential future use of other harmful substances in antifouling systems. Parties to 

the convention are required to prohibit or restrict the use of harmful antifouling systems on ships flying their 

flag, ships not entitled to fly their flag but which operate under their authority, and all ships that enter their 

ports, shipyards, or offshore terminals. Designated vessels must be surveyed, and appropriate certificates 

issued or declarations provided, to ensure compliance. Antifouling systems to be prohibited or controlled are 

to be listed in an annex (Annex 1) to the Convention, which will be updated when necessary. The Convention 

has not been ratified by the United States and has not entered into force. 

 

156 30 ILM 735 (done in London, Nov. 30, 1990) and entered into force worldwide on May 13, 1995. See also U.S. Sen. Treaty Doc. 

102-11. 

157 IMO Doc. AFS/Conf/26 (done at London, Oct. 18, 2001). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

152 Chapter 7: Marine Operations 

Marine Environmental Protection: Federal Governing Statutes 

Many marine environmental protection statutes contain provisions that affect vessels or vessel operations, but 

which have broader applications than to vessels alone. These statutory regimes are addressed elsewhere in 

this Appendix (see Chapter 4, Ocean and Coastal Pollution from Land-based Sources, for a more detailed discussion 

of many of these statutes). The discussion of federal law in this chapter is restricted to those statutes, or 

portions thereof, having specific application to vessels. 

Clean Water Act 

The Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits the discharge of a pollutant from a point source into the navigable 

waters of the United States without a permit.158 A point source is specifically defined by the Act to include a 

vessel or other floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged.159 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations implementing the pollutant discharge provisions 

exclude “any discharge [of a pollutant] incidental to the normal operation of a vessel.” However, the 

regulations do not define what constitutes a discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, except to 

indicate that it does not include rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged overboard.160 

Section 311 of the CWA,161 which was extensively amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, prohibits the 

discharge of oil or hazardous substances from vessels or facilities into or upon the navigable waters of the 

United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, in such quantities as 

may be harmful.162 The contiguous zone is defined for purposes of the CWA as extending 12 miles from the 

baseline.163 The prohibition also applies to such discharges in connection with activities that may affect 

natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the United 

States.164 Discharges into the contiguous zone or the EEZ that comply with operational discharge 

requirements of MARPOL are excluded from the general prohibition.165 Section 311 also establishes the 

National Contingency Plan (NCP) for response to spills and discharges of oil and hazardous substances. The 

Coast Guard and EPA investigate and respond to discharges of oil and hazardous substances into coastal or 

ocean waters in accordance with the NCP. The Coast Guard, with the cooperation of EPA, generally 

administers the NCP when oil or a hazardous substance is discharged into coastal or ocean waters. EPA is the 

lead response agency for inland spills of oil and hazardous substances, and has jurisdiction over some marine 

facilities. The Coast Guard and EPA both regulate complexes, such as oil refineries and chemical plants, 

 

158 Pub. L. 92-240, Mar. 1, 1972, 86 Stat. 47 (codified at 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387). The prohibition against discharge of a pollutant without a 

permit is at 33 U.S.C. §1311. The geographical jurisdiction of the Act as relates to the discharge of pollutants is the navigable waters of the 

United States. As stated above, the navigable waters of the United States include the territorial sea. Id. § 1362(7). For purposes of the CWA, 

the territorial sea is defined as including the waters seaward of the ordinary low water line along the coast for a distance of 3 miles. Id. § 

1362(8). 

159 Id. § 1362(14). The term discharge of pollutant does not include the addition of pollutants into the contiguous zone or the ocean 

from a vessel or other floating craft. However, EPA has interpreted the term vessel or floating craft to exclude vessels operating in a 

capacity other than as a means of transportation, such as when used as an energy or mining facility, as a storage facility or seafood 

processing facility, or when secured to a storage or seafood processing facility, or to the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone or 

waters of the United States for purposes of mineral or oil exploration or development. 

160 40 C.F.R. § 122.3(a). 

161 Id. § 1321. 

162 Id. § 1321(b)(3). 

163 Id. § 1362(9). 

164 Id. § 1321(b)(3). 

165 Id. § 1321(b)(3)(A). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 153

which have a combination of transportation and non-transportation-related components.166 Regional and area 

contingency plans implement the NCP.167 The Coast Guard and EPA head the Area Committees that 

develop the area contingency plans within their respective areas of responsibility.168

Section 312 of the CWA169 requires vessels with installed toilet facilities and operating on the navigable waters 

of the United States to contain certified marine sanitation devices (MSDs). The Coast Guard certifies that the 

MSDs meet EPA standards for installation on vessels. Under Section 312, U.S. states are allowed to establish 

no-discharge zones (NDZs) where discharges of sewage from vessels are prohibited. States have often 

designated NDZs to address water quality issues, such as nutrient loading, which are impacted by discharges 

of sewage. EPA is responsible for assessing the adequacy of NDZ-related pump out facilities in conjunction 

with the states. The states and the Coast Guard enforce the discharge prohibitions in the NDZs and the MSD 

requirements. 

Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (as amended by the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and 

Control Act) 

The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS)170 codifies as domestic law Protocols I and II and Annexes I 

and II of MARPOL. APPS applies to all U.S. flag ships anywhere in the world, and to all foreign flag vessels 

operating in the navigable waters of the United States or at a port or terminal under the jurisdiction of the 

United States.171 The oil and noxious liquid substances (NLS) provisions apply only to seagoing ships.172 The 

Coast Guard promulgated regulations to implement APPS173 that limit discharges of oil and NLS by imposing 

operational requirements on vessels, establishing reporting requirements for noncompliant discharges, and 

establishing specific requirements for monitoring equipment and recordkeeping applicable to discharges from 

vessels. Of particular note, MARPOL and the regulations require that vessels maintain oil record books in 

which discharges, disposal, and transfer of oil and oily mixtures from vessels are to be documented,174 and 

has similar requirements for ships that carry NLS as cargo. APPS provides that a ship to which the provisions 

of Annexes I or II of MARPOL apply may be inspected while at a port or terminal subject to the jurisdiction 

of the United States (1) to verify whether a harmful substance has been discharged in violation of MARPOL 

or APPS, or (2) to comply with a request from another party to MARPOL for an investigation to determine 

whether the ship may have discharged a harmful substance anywhere in violation of MARPOL.175

The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act176 amended APPS in 1987 and implemented the 

provisions of Annex V of MARPOL, which regulates discharges of garbage from vessels. APPS provides that 

 

166 Memorandum of Understanding Among the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Transportation, and Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency, Appendix B to 40 C.F.R. Part 112. 

167 33 U.S.C. § 1321(d). Regulations establishing the National Contingency Plan, which also apply to responses under CERCLA, are 

at 40 C.F.R. Part 300. 

168 For a comprehensive discussion of Section 311 of the CWA, see David G. Dickman, Oil and Hazardous Substances Spills: 

Section 311, in The Clean Water Act Handbook (2d Ed.) at 133 (Mark A. Ryan ed., ABA Sect. of Env’t., Energy & Resources 2003). 

169 33 U.S.C. § 1322. 

170 Pub. L. 96-478, 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. (96 Stat.) 2297 (codified at 33 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1915). 

171 33 U.S.C. § 1902(a). 

172 Id. § 1903(a). 

173 33 C.F.R. Parts 151, 157. 

174 Id. § 151.25. 

175 Id. § 1907(c). A harmful substance is any substance subject to control under any of the Annexes of MARPOL. 33 C.F.R. § 

151.05. 

176 Pub. L. 100-220, Title II, 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N. (101 Stat.) 1460. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

154 Chapter 7: Marine Operations 

the requirements of MARPOL Annex V apply to all foreign flag vessels, whether they are seagoing vessels or 

not, on the navigable waters and in the EEZ of the United States.177 MARPOL Annex V provisions apply to 

U.S. flag vessels wherever they are located.178 The discharge of garbage from vessels into the navigable waters 

of the United States is also prohibited.179 For purposes of enforcing the provisions of Annex V of MARPOL 

related to garbage, APPS provides that any ship in the navigable waters or the EEZ of the United States may 

be inspected to determine whether the ship has disposed of garbage in violation of Annex V of MARPOL.180

In addition to implementing operational discharge requirements for vessels, APPS also requires the Coast 

Guard, in consultation with EPA, to set criteria for the adequacy of port or terminal reception facilities for 

mixtures containing oil, NLS, and garbage. If the reception facilities meet the adequacy requirements, the port 

or terminal is issued a certificate valid for five years. The Coast Guard may deny entry to seagoing vessels 

required to maintain oily mixtures or NLS aboard if the port or terminal does not have adequate reception 

facilities. Similarly, entry may be denied if the port or terminal does not have adequate garbage reception 

facilities. 

APPS states that the Coast Guard “shall use all appropriate and practical measures of detection and 

environmental monitoring, and shall establish adequate procedures for reporting violations and accumulating 

evidence.”181 APPS requires the master, person in charge, owner, charterer, manager, or operator of a ship 

involved in a discharge, probable discharge, or other incident involving oil, NLS, or other harmful substance 

covered by MARPOL to report the incident in accordance with MARPOL or Coast Guard regulations.182

Further, if there is evidence that a violation of MARPOL, APPS, or Coast Guard implementing regulations 

has occurred, APPS requires that the matter be investigated and authorizes subpoenas to be issued to require 

attendance of witnesses or production of documents.183 Importantly, APPS states that any action taken under 

the authority of the statute, including enforcement, “shall be taken in accordance with international law.”184

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA)185 was enacted primarily in response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill, 

although other major oil spills in 1989 and 1990 also encouraged Congress to address the issue. Major 

onshore facility spills further contributed to the need to address oil spills. OPA is a comprehensive effort to 

address significant marine pollution incidents from all sources, including offshore facilities. 

OPA is comprised of nine titles that address spill prevention, response, and compensation. It establishes a 

comprehensive federal liability scheme, addressing all discharges of oil into navigable waters of the United 

States, shorelines, and the EEZ. It also establishes the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to pay for cleanup and 

other costs of federal responses to oil spills, and enacts financial responsibility requirements for vessels and 

facilities.186 OPA amends the CWA response provisions to provide stronger federal authority to order the 

 

177 33 U.S.C. § 1902(a)(3). 

178 Id. § 1902(a)(1). 

179 33 C.F.R. § 151.66. 

180 33 U.S.C. § 1907(d). 

181 Id. § 1907(a). 

182 Id. § 1906. 

183 Id. § 1907(b). 

184 Id. § 1912. 

185 Pub. L. 101-380, Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 486. 

186 Id. Title I (codified at 33 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2718). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 155

cleanup of oil spills and to conduct removal actions. It revises significantly the spill control and 

countermeasure requirements for onshore and offshore facilities and the oil spill response plan requirements 

for vessels.187 OPA significantly increases the civil penalties in the CWA,188 and makes criminal penalties 

applicable to the statute’s oil and hazardous substance discharge requirements.189 

Specific provisions of OPA address the carriage of oil by tankers and other types of vessels. OPA sets limits 

on tanker crew working hours,190 and establishes new drug and alcohol testing requirements for licensed or 

documented mariners.191 OPA requires denial of entry to foreign flag tank vessels the manning of which does 

not comply with standards equivalent to U.S. law or to international standards accepted by the United 

States.192 It also extends the marine casualty reporting requirements to foreign flag tank vessels in the U.S. 

EEZ.193 Further, OPA establishes higher standards for equipment and operation of tank vessels. Finally, 

OPA mandates that all new tank vessels have double hulls, and establishes a phase-out schedule for existing 

tank vessels with single hulls that will prevent their operation for carriage of oil after the established phaseout dates.194 

Intervention on the High Seas Act 

The Intervention on the High Seas Act195 authorizes measures to prevent and mitigate oil pollution and other 

noxious damage on the high seas, including the EEZ, which affects U.S. coastlines and related interests. The 

Act implements the International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil 

Pollution Casualties and the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Marine Pollution 

by Substances Other Than Oil. 

The Act authorizes the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to take measures 

on the high seas to protect the coastline or related interests of the United States from pollution incidents 

expected to result in major harmful consequences. When a collision, stranding, navigation incident, or other 

occurrence damages or threatens to damage a ship or its cargo, the Secretary may determine that the pollution 

or threat of pollution caused by the occurrence creates a grave and imminent danger to the coastline or 

related interests. In this event, the Secretary may take measures on the high seas to prevent, mitigate, or 

eliminate the danger in accordance with the Convention, the Protocol, and the Act. The Act also provides 

that the Secretary acts without liability for any damage to the owners or operators of the ship, the cargo and 

crew, underwriters, and other interested parties. The pollution addressed in this provision is pollution of the 

sea caused by convention oil196 and pollution of the sea or the atmosphere caused by substances other than 

convention oil.197 

 

187 Id. Title IV (codified at 33 U.S.C. § 1321). 

188 Id. § 4301(b) (codified at 33 U.S.C. §§ 1321(b)(6)-(11)). 

189 Id. § 4301(c). 

190 Id. § 4114. 

191 Id. § 4101. 

192 Id. § 4106(a)(3). 

193 Id. § 4106(b)(2). Under these provisions, foreign tank vessels must report casualties that occur in the U.S. EEZ if the casualties

involve either material damage affecting the seaworthiness or efficiency of the vessel or result in significant harm to the 

environment. The reporting provisions apply to the extent they are consistent with generally recognized principles of international 

law. The Coast Guard has not yet promulgated regulations implementing this provision. 

194 Id. § 4115. 

195 Pub. L. 93-248, Feb. 5, 1974, 88 Stat. 8 (codified at 33 U.S.C. §§ 1471-1487). 

196 Those oils, noxious substances, liquefied gases and radioactive substances enumerated in the Protocol or otherwise determined 

to be hazardous under § 1473 of this Act. 

197 Id. § 1472. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

156 Chapter 7: Marine Operations 

Upon a determination of a grave and imminent danger to the coastline or related U.S. interests, the Secretary 

may: coordinate and direct all public and private efforts pertaining to the removal or elimination of the 

threatened pollution damage; directly or indirectly undertake all or any part of these efforts; and remove, and, 

if necessary, destroy the ship and cargo which is the source of the danger.198 The actions taken are subject to 

consultation requirements and considerations established in the Act. 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (as amended by the National 

Invasive Species Act of 1996)

Ballast water is water used by ships to manipulate the stability of vessels.199 It is considered to be a major 

source by which alien species are introduced to coastal ecosystems. Ballast water is taken up in ports, usually 

after cargo or passengers are offloaded. When the water is taken up, it includes various organisms. These 

organisms live in the ballast water and sediment, and are discharged along with the ballast water when the 

ship reaches a load port to take on cargo. Many times these organisms are incompatible with native organisms 

in the marine ecosystems into which the ballast water is discharged, and potentially can cause harm to the 

ecosystem. 

The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA)200 authorizes the 

Coast Guard to issue regulations to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species into the 

Great Lakes and much of the Hudson River through ballast water by requiring ballast water exchange.201 It 

also required the issuance of voluntary national guidelines. Further, it stated that the Coast Guard should 

promulgate mandatory regulations if it determined that compliance with the voluntary guidelines was 

inadequate.202 In a report to Congress issued in November 2001, the Coast Guard stated that, due to low 

reporting under the voluntary guidelines, it was impossible to make a valid determination as to compliance 

with those guidelines. The Coast Guard noted that there was broad support for the issuance of mandatory 

ballast water management practices based on the voluntary guidelines.203 In 2004, the Coast Guard established 

a mandatory ballast water exchange program for U.S. waters.204

NANPCA also established the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force to consult on the issue and the 

regulations,205 and requires the Task Force to implement prevention, monitoring, and control programs for 

aquatic nuisance species in U.S. waters. States may develop comprehensive management plans for aquatic 

nuisance species, which can be implemented with federal grants and financial assistance.206 Civil and criminal 

penalties are provided for violations of the regulations. 

 

198 Id. § 1474. 

199 16 U.S.C. § 4702. 

200 Pub. L. 101-646, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4761 (codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 4701-4751). 

201 16 U.S.C. § 4711(a). The regulations are at 33 C.F.R. Part 151, Subpart C. 

202 16 U.S.C. § 4711(f). 

203 U.S. Coast Guard, Report to Congress on the Voluntary National Guidelines for Ballast Water Management (Nov. 2001) at 1-2 

(hereinafter “Coast Guard Report to Congress”). 

204 Mandatory Ballast Water Management Program for U.S. Waters, 69 Fed. Reg. 44,952-44,961 (July 28, 2004). 

205 16 U.S.C. § 4721. The Task Force includes the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, the Director of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commandant of the USCG and the 

Assistant Secretary of Army (Civil Works). 

206 The plans must be approved by the task force or the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 157

The National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA) 207 reauthorized and amended NANPCA. NISA includes a 

number of additional findings, including an assertion that aquatic nuisance species are frequently and 

unintentionally transported and introduced into inland lakes and rivers by recreational boaters, commercial 

barge traffic and other pathways.208 As a result, preventative management measures are needed nationwide to 

address the further introduction and infestation of invasive species. NISA gave the Coast Guard the 

responsibility to determine whether any proposed ballast water treatment technology is as effective as ballast 

water mid-ocean exchange in preventing the introduction of aquatic nuisance species.209 Mid-ocean exchange 

relies on the physical flushing of organisms in exchanged ballast water with mid-ocean organisms,210 which 

are assumed to be less suited to establishing populations in coastal environments, and on immersion of any 

organisms not flushed out at sea during the exchange in the high salinity of ocean water,211 which would 

reduce the chances of their survival. 

The Act also directs the establishment of recordkeeping and reporting procedures, sampling techniques, and 

monitoring for compliance with guidelines. NISA directs the development and maintenance of a 

clearinghouse of national data on ballasting practices, compliance with the national ballast management 

guidelines, and other information. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements are part of the mandatory 

ballast water exchange program established by Coast Guard regulations for all ships equipped with ballast 

water tanks that are bound for ports or places in the United States or enter U.S. waters after operating beyond 

the U.S. EEZ.212 

NISA also calls for the United States to engage in international negotiations to address aquatic nuisance 

species and ballast water issues.213 In February 2004, a diplomatic conference held at IMO adopted the 

International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments. The 

Convention, upon entry into force, would establish an international treatment performance standard and 

require ships to implement a ballast water and sediments management plan and carry a ballast water record 

book. Nations that are party to the Convention are allowed to impose more stringent measures, including 

stricter treatment standards, and port states are allowed to conduct ballast water sampling to ensure 

compliance.214

Clean Air Act 

The Clean Air Act (CAA),215 administered by the EPA, was originally enacted in 1970 and most recently 

revised by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The Coast Guard has a role in some aspects of EPA’s air 

pollution control programs related to vessels. For example, the CAA authorizes EPA, in consultation with the 

 

207 Pub. L. 104-332, Oct. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 4073. 

208 See 16 U.S.C. § 4701(a)(14). 

209 Id. § 4712. 

210 Mid-ocean exchanges are typically done at distances greater than 200 miles from the nearest shore and in areas with depths 

greater than 500 meters. 

211 The Coast Guard has stated that ballast water exchange is not 100 percent effective as not all of the organisms are removed in

the exchange. But until a more effective ballast water treatment technology can be developed, the current process will result in 

fewer invasions overall. Coast Guard Report to Congress at 10. 

212 33 C.F.R Part 151, Subpart D. 

213 16 U.S.C. § 4726(b). 

214 International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments. Adopted 13 February 2004. 

www.imo.org/home.asp (accessed November 12, 2004). 

215 Pub. L. 95-95, Aug. 7, 1977, 91 Stat. 685 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq.) 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

158 Chapter 7: Marine Operations 

Coast Guard, to issue standards applicable to emissions of volatile organic compounds and other air 

pollutants from the offloading of tank vessels.216

The CAA also authorizes EPA to set emission standards for mobile sources, including for nonroad engines 

such as marine engines.217 The purpose of the standards is to reduce ozone and pollutants such as NOx and 

particulate matter, and to “achieve the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through application 

of technology which ... will be available ... giving appropriate consideration to the costs of applying such 

technology ... and to noise, energy and safety factors ... .”218 EPA has also established standards for various 

categories of marine diesel engines.219 

EPA promulgated two tiers of standards for different categories and sizes of marine diesel engines installed 

on U.S.-flagged vessels. The Tier 1 standards are equivalent to the NOx standard limits in MARPOL Annex 

VI. The Tier 2 standards are more stringent than Tier 1 and apply to hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and 

particulate matter emissions as well as NOx.220

In 2004, EPA announced two new initiatives as part of its ongoing Clean Diesel Program designed to 

improve air quality through a combination of emission controls and cleaner fuels. EPA published the Clean 

Air Nonroad Diesel final rule, which will reduce the sulfur content of diesel fuel from its currently 

uncontrolled level of approximately 3000 parts per million to 500 parts per million in 2007, and to 15 parts 

per million by 2012 for fuel used in marine engines.221 EPA also published an Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking proposing stricter emission standards for all new commercial, recreational, and auxiliary marine 

diesel engines except the very large engines used for propulsion on sea-going vessels, which are subject to 

separate regulations. The new standards rely on the availability of cleaner fuel and new emission-control 

technology developed for buses and trucks, and could apply to designated marine engines as early as 2011.222 

EPA also promulgated standards for new large marine diesel engines installed on U.S. flag vessels. The 

standards apply beginning with the 2004 model year engines and are equivalent to the NOx limit standards in 

MARPOL Annex VI. EPA intends to address second tier standards for these large engines in a future 

rulemaking, which is expected to be completed no later than April 2007. In that rulemaking, EPA has stated it 

will consider the state of technology that may permit deeper emission reductions than those in MARPOL 

Annex VI and will also assess the status of international actions to promulgate more stringent standards. EPA 

also intends to consider application of any second tier standards to engines on foreign flag vessels that enter 

U.S. ports. 

EPA’s engine certification and compliance program is similar to that in MARPOL Annex VI and its NOx 

Technical Code. However, the CAA specifies certain requirements concerning durability and testing that are 

different from those in MARPOL Annex VI. EPA has stated that it believes that its regulations are 

 

216 Id. § 7511b(f). The regulations are at 40 C.F.R. § 63.650. 

217 42 U.S.C. § 7547. 

218 Id. § 7547(a)(3). 

219 40 C.F.R. Part 94. 

220 Final Rule, Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 37 kW, 64 Fed. 

Reg. 73,300-73,373 (Dec. 29, 1999). 

221 Final Rule, Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel, 69 Fed. Reg. 38,957-39,273 (June 29, 

2004). 

222 Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from New Locomotive Engines and New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 

30 Liters per Cylinder, 69 Fed. Reg. 39,275-39289 (June 29, 2004). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 159

sufficiently consistent with those in MARPOL Annex VI and that manufacturers would be able to use a 

single harmonized compliance strategy to certify under both systems.223 

The CAA also requires EPA to publish two lists of ozone-depleting substances based on their ozonedepleting potentials.224 These lists affect the use of refrigerants and fire-fighting systems on vessels. The Act 

categorized CFCs and halon, among others, as Class I substances, which are substances that possess a high 

potential for destroying stratospheric ozone molecules. It also designated hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) 

as Class II substances, which are substances with a lesser, but still significant ozone depletion potential. The 

CAA includes phase-out controls similar to those in the Montreal Protocol. Unlike the Montreal Protocol, 

however, the CAA also restricts the use of controlled ozone-depleting substances, including provisions to 

reduce emissions of controlled substances to the “lowest achievable level” in all use sectors, bans nonessential 

products, mandates warning labels, and establishes a safe alternatives program. EPA has published regulations 

under the CAA that govern the recapture, recycling, reuse, and disposal of refrigerants225 and halons.226 These 

regulations apply to vessels. 

Title XIV of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001—Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations

Title XIV of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001227 was enacted to address the issue of discharges of 

sewage and gray water from cruise vessels operating in and around Alaskan navigable waters and Alaskan 

ports. It applies to cruise vessels that are certificated to carry 500 or more passengers and prohibits the 

discharge of any untreated sewage into waters of the Alexander Archipelago or the navigable waters of the 

United States within the State of Alaska or within the Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Reserve.228 The law 

provides for administrative, civil, and criminal penalties for violations of its provisions.229 

The law prohibits the discharge of treated sewage or gray water from a cruise ship into these waters unless the 

vessel complies with specific operational discharge criteria. It authorizes EPA to promulgate regulations to 

allow discharges of treated sewage and gray water otherwise prohibited when the discharge meets effluent 

standards deemed appropriate under the authority of the Act, supplemented by the information-gathering 

authority of the CWA. The determination of appropriateness is based on best available scientific information 

and, at a minimum, must meet relevant state water quality standards.230 Interim requirements are established 

to allow otherwise prohibited discharges to occur until EPA develops the regulations. Alaska may also 

petition EPA to establish cruise vessel no-discharge zones if the state determines that protection or 

enhancement of the quality of the waters covered under the Act require greater environmental protection 

than that provided under the requirements established under the Act.231 

The law also directs the Coast Guard to incorporate an inspection and sampling regime into its commercial 

vessel examination program, which must include a review of environmental compliance records and 

inspection of the functionality and proper operation of installed equipment for the abatement and control of 

any discharge. The inspection regime must also incorporate a plan for sampling and testing of discharges to 

 

223 64 Fed. Reg. 9769. 

224 42 U.S.C. §§ 7671-7671q. 

225 40 C.F.R. Part 82, Subpart F. 

226 Id. at Subpart H. 

227 Pub. L. 106-554, Title XIV, Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763A-315. 

228 Id. §§ 1401,1402. 

229 Id. § 1409. 

230 Id. § 1407. 

231 Id. § 1410. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

160 Chapter 7: Marine Operations 

ensure that the discharges of sewage and gray water are in compliance with this law and other federal and 

state laws that may be applicable. Additionally, the inspection regime may include unannounced inspections 

of any cruise vessel operations, equipment, and discharges, and may require the vessel to maintain a logbook 

detailing the times, types, volumes, or flow rates and locations of any discharges of sewage or gray water.232 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) establishes limits 

of liability for owners and operators of vessels and facilities involved in the release or threatened release of 

hazardous substances for all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the federal or state government 

for actions taken under the National Contingency Plan, and for damages or injury to, or destruction of, 

natural resources from such release.233

CERCLA may overlap with, and provide different authority for, responses to certain oil or hazardous 

substance spills that may also be covered by Section 311 of the CWA and by OPA. CERCLA does not apply 

to spills that contain only oil.234 OPA applies to oil spills that do not contain any other materials that are 

considered a hazardous substance under CERCLA.235 In some situations, oil spills under OPA or the CWA 

have been responded to under CERCLA when one of the constituent parts of the oil was also a hazardous 

substance.236

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)237 defines and regulates the management of solid 

wastes (including municipal trash), hazardous wastes, medical wastes, and other hazardous and polluting 

substances. It establishes a “cradle-to-grave” system that addresses the generation, transport, storage, 

treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes through a recordkeeping system that tracks shipments of 

hazardous wastes from the point of generation to the ultimate disposal. Hazardous waste treatment, storage, 

and disposal facilities are regulated through operating permits. To the extent that vessels generate wastes, 

transport wastes, or offer wastes for disposal, the vessels are required to comply with RCRA. EPA has noted 

that issues related to RCRA and its application to vessels include: the point at which a hazardous waste is 

generated by a vessel; the parties that are generators, storers, treaters, or disposers of the waste; and the 

applicability of RCRA requirements to these parties in the ship operations context.238 In most instances, EPA 

has delegated the administration and enforcement of RCRA to the states. 

Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act 

The Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act of 1988,239 among other provisions, prohibits the application of 

antifouling paints containing organotin (tributyltin or TBT) on vessels that are 25 meters or less in length, 

 

232 Id. § 1406. 

233 Id. § 9607. 

234 Id. § 9601(14) (stating that the term hazardous substance “does not include petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof 

which is not otherwise specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance” in accordance with CERCLA). 

235 33 U.S.C. § 2701(23) (defining oil as not including “any substance which is specifically listed or designated as a hazardous 

substance” under CERCLA). 

236 See generally L. Bacher, Jr., When Oil is Not Oil: An Analysis of CERCLA’s Petroleum Exclusion in the Context of a Mixed Oil 

Spill, 45 Baylor L. Rev. 233 (1993). 

237 Pub. L. 94-580, § 2, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2795, as amended (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seq.). 

238 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Cruise Ship White Paper (Aug. 22, 2000) at 10. 

239 Pub. L. 100-333, June 16, 1988, 105 Stat. 605 (codified at 33 U.S.C. § 2401). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 161

unless the vessel has an aluminum hull. The Act also prohibits any person from selling or delivering to, or 

purchasing or receiving from, another person any substance containing organotin for the purpose of adding 

such substance to paint to create an antifouling paint. Finally, the Act prohibits any person from applying to 

any vessel any antifouling paint containing organotin unless authorized by the EPA Administrator as meeting 

the specified release rate. 

The Act requires that EPA certify that each antifouling paint containing organotin authorized does not 

release more than 4.0 micrograms per square centimeter per day. Additionally, EPA was required to issue 

final water quality criteria for organotin compounds by March 30, 1989. Over a 10-year period, and in 

cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, EPA was required to monitor 

organotin concentrations in aquatic organisms and water column sediments of representative estuaries. 

Additionally, the U.S. Navy is required to periodically test waters serving as the homeport for any Navy 

vessels to determine the level of organotin contamination. In 1996, other legislation required that the Navy, in 

consultation with EPA, develop and implement a program to monitor the concentrations of organotin in the 

water column, sediments, and aquatic organisms of representative estuaries and near-coastal waters of the 

United States.240

Clean Vessel Act of 1992 

The Clean Vessel Act of 1992241 was enacted to address the shortage of pump out facilities and dump stations 

for MSDs on recreational boats. MSDs are required under section 312 of the CWA. Congress determined 

that the inadequate number of shore pump out stations was causing recreational boats to discharge sewage 

into U.S. waters, adding to a substantial degradation of water quality. The Clean Vessel Act provides grants to 

states for the purposes of constructing, renovating, operating, and maintaining sewage pump out and dump 

stations, as well as for educational efforts associated with these activities. The Act requires each coastal state 

to determine the number of pump out stations at marinas and other locations in coastal waters and the 

number of recreational boats with MSDs using those waters. It also requires each coastal state to submit a 

plan to the Secretary of the Interior outlining the need for funding to address construction, maintenance, and 

education associated with the pump out facilities. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers the grant 

program.242

 

240 Pub. L. 104-106, Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 445. 

241 Pub. L. 102-587, Subtitle F, §5601, Nov. 4, 1992, 106 Stat. 5081 (codified at 33 U.S.C. § 1322 note). 

242 Implementing regulations are at 50 C.F.R. Part 85. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

162 Chapter 7: Marine Operations 

SELECTED ISSUES

Federal versus State Regulation of Marine Operations 

Federal preemption of state powers involving the regulation of vessels operating in state waters and calling in 

state ports has been an issue of contention since the formation of the Republic. State police power historically 

extends to any matter affecting the health, peace, education, safety, or morals of those within the state.243 The 

states obviously have an interest in public health and safety and protection of the environment, and have 

periodically sought to impose standards on foreign and U.S. vessels, particularly tank vessels. Courts have for 

the most part held that states can impose rules that have an incidental effect on maritime affairs.244 

The approach to environmental regulation in the United States has historically been one of cooperative 

federalism. Under this approach, the federal government establishes national standards for water and air 

quality, with states authorized to enact more stringent requirements. For the most part, the states then 

become the primary enforcement authorities for the standards, although the federal government also 

maintains enforcement authority. Under this arrangement, the issue of preemption of state laws rarely arises 

because the courts are unlikely to determine that the state laws frustrate or impede the federal scheme.245 

On the other hand, shipping is an international enterprise that is heavily regulated under international 

standards, many of which have been ratified by the federal government. In most cases, regulation of maritime 

safety and transportation falls under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress 

express power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. Likewise, under Article VI of the Constitution 

(the Supremacy Clause), as long as the federal government has acted in an area delegated to it by the 

Constitution, any state or local government law that conflicts with it is preempted. As such, federal maritime 

legislation may preempt states from exercising their own power in this area. Further, even in the absence of 

preemptive federal legislation, states may not constitutionally exercise power over a subject that is national in 

scope or that admits of only one uniform system or plan of regulation.246 

Congress, in creating federal legislation addressing commercial vessel safety and protection of the marine 

environment from vessel-source pollution, has sought to avoid conflicts with international laws and to 

provide national consistency in design, construction, manning, equipment, and operation requirements for 

vessels.247 It also has determined that controlling vessel traffic and providing for the safe navigation of these 

ships will enhance environmental protection. This has led to the enactment of three important pieces of 

legislation: the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA); the Port and Tanker Safety Act (PTSA); and the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). In these statutes, Congress requires the Coast Guard to issue regulations 

addressing the safe design, construction, maintenance, operation, equipment, personnel qualification, and 

manning of vessels. The Coast Guard is also given the authority to regulate navigation and the control of 

 

243 Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31 (1885). 

244 Askew v. American Waterways Operators, Inc., 411 U.S. 325, 339 (1973). In Kelly v. Washington ex rel Foss Co., 302 U.S. 1, 14 

(1937), the Supreme Court upheld a Washington state statute regulating motor tugs engaged in interstate and foreign commerce by

holding that the state’s protective power seeking to prevent operation of unsafe and unseaworthy vessels in state waters was akin to 

that which allows the state to exclude diseased persons, animals, and plants. It noted that none of these were instrumentalities of 

commerce and thus not subject to preemption under the Federal Commerce Clause. Similarly, in Huron Portland Cement Co. v. City 

of Detroit, 362 U.S. 440, 442 (1960), the Supreme Court upheld a city ordinance regulating air emissions from federally inspected 

vessels on the basis that the ordinance was designed to free from pollution the air that people in the city breathe, and that this was a 

valid exercise of the city’s police power. 

245 Id. at 86-88. 

246 See Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. 299, 319 (1851). 

247 See generally C. Allen, Federalism in the Era of International Standards: Federal and State Government Regulation of Merchant 

Vessels in the United States (Part III), 30 J. of Maritime L. & Commerce 85, 96-100 (1999). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 163

vessel traffic, although the Coast Guard has not required such regulation to date. In doing so, Congress has 

recognized the need for uniformity in the regulation of vessels in these areas, and has focused on the 

international standards established by conventions such as SOLAS and MARPOL as the basis for this 

uniformity. 

Some states have also attempted to regulate tankers, raising the issue of preemption by federal regulations 

when these regulations are challenged. For instance, in Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., the U.S. Supreme Court 

examined an attempt by the State of Washington to regulate tank ships in state waters.248 The state had 

imposed escort tug requirements, pilotage requirements, size limits, and equipment and operating 

requirements on tank ships. The Court upheld state requirements for escort tugs for tank vessels because they 

arose from the peculiarities of local waters that call for special precautionary measures and did not demand a 

uniform national rule.249 However, with regard to tanker design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, 

operation, equipment, personnel qualification, and manning, covered in Title II of the PWSA, the Court 

found that Congress had demanded uniformity and, therefore, the federal regulations preempted states in 

these areas. As a result, the Court invalidated the state’s pilotage requirement, its limitation on tanker size, and 

its tanker design and construction rules. 

The most recent case to examine the issue of federal preemption of state law in the maritime area is United 

States v. Locke (also titled INTERTANKO v. Locke).250 In INTERTANKO, the issue was the enactment by the 

State of Washington of a law that required tank vessels in state waters to implement measures required by 

“Best Achievable Protection” (BAP) regulations for the prevention of oil spills. These BAP regulations were 

enacted based on a reading of savings clauses in the OPA, which the State of Washington argued narrowed 

the preemptive effect of the PWSA that had been addressed in Ray. The BAP regulations, among other 

things, included requirements that tanker operators report certain enumerated marine casualties, a tanker's 

master and crew complete state-approved comprehensive training programs, a tanker’s crew meet English 

language proficiency requirements, a tanker have a navigation watch consisting of crewmembers with 

specifically enumerated positions, and a tanker comply with specific navigation watch requirements during 

periods of restricted visibility.251 

Initially, the Supreme Court held that the savings clauses of OPA were not broad enough to narrow the effect 

of the Ray decision, and held that the holding in Ray survives the enactment of OPA undiminished.252 The 

Court stated that the BAP regulations involved national and international maritime commerce, an area in 

which Congress had regulated from the earliest days of the Republic, and as such, there was no beginning 

assumption that concurrent regulation by a state was a valid exercise of its police powers.253 The 

determination of the validity of the state laws depended upon whether they were consistent with the federal 

statutory structure, and the analysis to be performed remained that established under the PWSA and Ray. The 

issue was whether a conflict preemption analysis applied because the BAP regulation was one based on the 

peculiarities of local waters that call for special precautionary measures (Title I of the PWSA), or whether a 

field preemption analysis applied because the regulation fell within those related to design, construction, 

alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning, for which 

Congress had demanded uniformity (Title II of the PWSA).254 

 

248 435 U.S. 151 (1978). 

249 Id. at 171-72, 179. 

250 120 S.Ct. 1135 (2000). 

251 Id. at 1150-52. 

252 Id. at 1146-48. 

253 Id. at 1148. 

254 Id. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

164 Chapter 7: Marine Operations 

In applying this analysis to the BAP regulations, the Court found that state regulations requiring reporting of 

marine casualties, training certification, English proficiency, and bridge watch requirements were preempted. 

Among the reasons given for preemption of these regulations were the extraterritorial effect of these rules 

beyond state jurisdiction or local concerns, duplication of federal requirements, potential cumulative 

requirements among many states, and the compromise of the uniformity Congress had intended.255 The 

Court remanded all other regulations, including the requirement for watchstanding in restricted visibility, for 

determination of preemption based on the analysis established by the Court after building of an adequate 

record.256 

While the Ray and INTERTANKO cases both involved the regulation of tankers by states, the issues and 

analysis presented in these cases regarding uniformity of regulation in the context of international and 

national commerce can also apply to other types of vessels, particularly oceangoing vessels. 

In addition to regulation of vessel safety and environmental protection, there are likely to be issues regarding 

preemption of state and local laws that address vessel security. Resolution of these issues will again involve 

balancing the need for uniformity with the recognized right of state and local governments to protect the 

public safety, health, and welfare in the event of criminal or terrorist attacks focusing on vessels or ports. The 

IMO has amended the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea to establish the International 

Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code. The ISPS Code, among other features, establishes requirements 

for owners and operators of vessels to assess security vulnerabilities and risks to vessels, establish security 

plans and procedures, and implement self-auditing systems. To the extent that homeland security is deemed 

part of national defense, which has historically been the function of the federal government, states may be 

precluded from establishing any security standards for vessels. However, security may arguably be viewed as 

even more an issue of local police powers than environmental protection. Under this view, state and local 

governments could develop security requirements more stringent than federal requirements. The Maritime 

Transportation Security Act (MTSA), which establishes security requirements for vessels and ports, and on 

which authority the Coast Guard is basing its implementation of the ISPS Code provisions, contains no 

federal preemption language to address this issue. 

 

Uniform National Standards versus Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Permitting for Vessel Discharges 

The degree of federal and state involvement in regulating vessels also arises in the context of vessel 

discharges. Should uniform, national standards be developed for such discharges or should vessels be treated 

as point sources subject to CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits issued by EPA or 

an authorized state? (The NPDES permit program is discussed in Chapter 4, Ocean and Coastal Pollution from 

Land-based Sources.) 

As noted above, the Coast Guard generally regulates ballast water discharges to control the introduction of 

invasive species under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA), as 

amended by the National Invasive Species Act (NISA). However, in 1999, EPA received a petition that 

requested that ballast water discharges be regulated through the NPDES permit program under the CWA.257

If granted, this would have required that EPA eliminate the current exclusion in the NPDES implementing 

regulations for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. 

 

255 Id. at 1150-1152. 

256 Id. at 1152. 

257 Petition available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/invasive_species/petition1.html (accessed November 12, 2004). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 165

Relatively soon after EPA received the petition, eighteen members of Congress requested that EPA examine 

whether CWA can be used to effectively regulate invasive species in ships’ ballast water. In response, EPA 

drafted a report entitled Aquatic Nuisance Species in Ballast Water Discharges: Issues and Options.

258

EPA has stated that the “use of NPDES permits to regulate ballast water discharges would present significant 

challenges to EPA and authorized states” because “NPDES permits may have significant shortcomings with 

respect to regulation of vessels.”259 These shortcomings include the fact that the states have primary 

responsibility for the NPDES program, thereby hampering the program’s utility in providing uniform 

regulation of point sources such as vessels that move between states. Another concern is that regulation of 

ballast water discharges could subject the dischargers to overlapping regulatory regimes, such as NANPCA, 

which may detract from efforts under the other, more specific legislation. Finally, using NPDES permits to 

cover ballast water discharges may impose requirements that cannot be met with currently available 

technology.260 EPA has noted that the greatest impediment to effectively controlling the introduction of 

aquatic nuisance species from discharges of ballast water is the current lack of effective and affordable 

technical solutions to remove aquatic nuisance species from ballast water.261 

In 2003, EPA denied the petition that had requested regulation of ballast water under the NPDES program. 

In denying the petition, EPA cited the wide variety of regulatory and non-regulatory actions currently being 

undertaken by other federal agencies to address the ballast water problem. EPA believes these efforts are 

likely to be more effective and efficient than reliance on NPDES permits. EPA also noted that regulation of 

all discharges incident to normal operations of a vessel, including discharges of ballast water, would be a 

massive undertaking, particularly if a NPDES permit were required for all types of discharges from each 

vessel. EPA also noted that states are not preempted by the CWA from acting to regulate discharges incident 

to normal vessel operations.262 

The EPA decision denying the petition remains subject to legal challenge and, under the current statutory 

regime, individual states may enact requirements that differ from state to state. This leaves vessel owners and 

operators facing potentially inconsistent and non-uniform regulation of ballast water discharges because of 

overlapping laws. However, the desire for uniformity of regulation regarding marine operations must be 

balanced against the significant adverse environmental and economic impacts posed by the introduction of 

invasive species. 

EPA has also received petitions to consider the use of the CWA NPDES permitting process in other 

contexts, such as for regulation of cruise ship discharges, and issues are likely to continue to arise that will 

require policy determinations regarding the most effective and practical means of regulating vessel discharges. 

Problems in National Implementation of International Vessel Pollution Requirements 

Marine pollution control in the context of vessel operations often involves the application of both 

international treaty and domestic law provisions. In some instances, the application of international 

requirements through different federal statutory regimes has resulted in apparently conflicting legal 

requirements and introduced significant uncertainty for vessel operators regarding appropriate compliance 

 

258 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Report for Public Comment, Aquatic Nuisance Species in Ballast Water Discharges: 

Issues and Options (Sept. 10, 2001) [hereinafter EPA Ballast Water Report], available at

http://www.socp.org//ballast/papers/EPA2026Sept01.pdf. 

259 Id. at 33. 

260 Id. at 33-34. 

261 Id. at 1, 39. 

262 EPA. Decision on Petition for Rulemaking to Repeal 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a). September 2, 2003. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

166 Chapter 7: Marine Operations 

measures. Examples of these statutory implementation issues arise in the context of regulating the disposal of 

vessel garbage and waste, and vessel air emissions. 

Ship-Generated Garbage and Waste 

Vessel operators have historically operated under the presumption that discharges of ship-generated wastes 

are regulated under MARPOL and the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships. The Coast Guard and EPA have 

stated that such discharges are also subject to the provisions of the Ocean Dumping Act (ODA), the 

domestic law implementing the London Convention. This is based on the apparent determination by these 

agencies that, if a ship generates waste in port in the course of normal operations, transporting that waste or 

“material” to sea for disposal is transportation of a material for purposes of dumping, which requires a permit 

under the ODA.263

Internationally, the provisions of MARPOL regulate discharges at sea of waste and other materials, such as 

garbage, that are generated by ships. Under MARPOL Annex V, discharges at sea of garbage and other 

waste-like materials generated by ships, no matter where these materials are generated, are allowed if the ships 

comply with specified operational discharge criteria. The London Convention excludes the disposal at sea of 

wastes or other matter incidental to, or derived from, the normal operations of vessels from its definition of 

dumping. Thus, it appears that MARPOL and the London Convention are reconciled under the international 

regime. However, the ODA has a more limited exclusion, only removing from the definition of dumping 

regulated under the Act the discharge of effluent from the operation of propulsion and other motor-driven 

equipment on vessels.264 

The Coast Guard and EPA sought to address perceived problems associated with the discharge at sea of 

materials, such as garbage, generated by ships when they are in port, through the issuance of a joint policy 

statement. The policy being considered by the Coast Guard and EPA to address disposal of certain shipgenerated material raises some significant issues. MARPOL Annex V, and related Coast Guard implementing 

regulations, apparently authorize the disposal at sea of material that is generated in the course of normal 

operations while a vessel is in port. However, if disposal of such material is deemed to be subject to the 

provisions of the ODA, it would appear that disposal at sea of such material would require a dumping permit. 

This would have a significant impact on traditional ship operations. 

The issue of the overlap between APPS and the ODA regarding disposal of cargo residues at sea was partially 

addressed by Congress in the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. The Act states that 

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the discharge from a vessel of any agricultural cargo residue 

material in the form of hold washings shall be governed exclusively by the provisions of the Act to Prevent 

Pollution from Ships ... that implement Annex V to [MARPOL].” 265 This section was enacted specifically to 

 

263 In promulgating its regulations to implement Annex V, the Coast Guard responded to requests it require the offloading of all 

garbage on board a ship after it arrives in port because the subsequent discharge of garbage might conflict with the ODA. The 

Coast Guard stated: 

House Report 100-360 discusses the relationship of the MPRSA [ODA] and the Act to Prevent Pollution from 

Ships (APPS), as amended. The Report states ... that the MPRSA [ODA] also "prohibits the transport of any 

material from the United States for the Purpose of dumping it into ocean waters" and noted that this provision 

does not conflict with the provisions of MARPOL, since MARPOL addresses garbage that is generated during 

dumping. ... The Coast Guard agrees that if garbage, as defined in the [APPS], is transported for the exclusive 

purpose of dumping at sea, the prohibitions of the MPRSA [ODA] would apply. This would include transfers of 

garbage from ship to ship, if the intent was to dump at sea. However, the Coast Guard does not have the 

authority under the [APPS] to require the offloading of ship-generated garbage while in port. 

54 Fed. Reg. 18,384, 18,391 (Apr. 28, 1989) (emphasis supplied). 

264 33 U.S.C. § 1402(f). 

265 Pub. L. 107-295, Title II, § 204, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2085. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 167

address issues presented by the Coast Guard and EPA in their consideration of the use of the ODA to 

regulate discharges at sea of a ship-generated material, in this case agricultural cargo residue. However, this 

section only clarifies the proper legal regime for a small portion of ship-generated wastes that are arguably 

regulated under both the ODA and the APPS. 

Great Lakes shipping consists primarily of the carriage of dry-bulk cargoes. Iron ore, stone, and coal typically 

account for 75 percent of all cargo moving in a typical year. Although every effort is made to properly unload 

all of the cargo, there often remains some residue on the deck or in the cargo holds. The practice on the 

Lakes has been to hose cargo residue overboard while the vessel is underway to its next port of call.266

When the United States implemented MARPOL Annex V to reduce pollution of the seas, the practice of 

washing down cargo residues from ships on the Great Lakes became problematic. This is because Coast 

Guard regulations follow MARPOL Annex V guidelines that include cargo residues in the definition of 

garbage. Furthermore, the Coast Guard regulations, recognizing the prohibition of discharges of refuse and 

garbage without a permit under both the Refuse Act and the CWA, specifically prohibit the discharge of 

garbage in the navigable waters of the United States, 267 which include the Great Lakes. 

Recognizing the significant economic and operational burden that this prohibition imposed on the bulk 

carriers, particularly those that never leave the Great Lakes, the Coast Guard implemented an enforcement 

policy that allowed lake carriers to discharge dry cargo residues in specific areas of the Great Lakes. The 

Coast Guard envisioned the policy being in effect for only a short period of time while a change to the APPS 

was sought. However, the interim policy remained in place and was ultimately published by the Coast 

Guard.268 

In 1997, under pressure from those who saw the interim enforcement policy as a direct contravention of 

APPS, the Refuse Act, and the CWA, the local Coast Guard district did not publish the interim policy. This 

raised significant concerns for ship owners and operators, who sought congressional assistance to keep the 

policy in place. The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998 included a provision that required the Coast 

Guard to continue its 1997 enforcement policy until September 30, 2002.269 Coast Guard interim authority 

over Great Lakes dry bulk cargo residue was subsequently extended through 2004. The Coast Guard notes 

that it is improbable that the regulations will be in place by September 30, 2004, and that upon the expiration 

of the extension “...the current statute, which prohibits such discharges, will become effective.”270 

Vessel Air Emissions 

IMO has recognized the need to address air emissions from vessels on an international basis. MARPOL 

Annex VI establishes standards addressing NOx and SOx emissions from marine engines (through engine 

design parameters and fuel quality requirements), ozone-depleting substances, and shipboard incineration. 

While Annex VI has not yet entered into force, it is expected that it will soon. The United States is signatory 

to Annex VI, which was recently transmitted to the U.S. Senate for advice and consent to ratification. 

 

266 Hearing on Oversight of U.S. Coast Guard Marine Environmental Protection and Compliance Programs; House Subcommittee on 

Coast Guard and Marine Transportation (1998) (statement of George J. Ryan, President, Lake Carriers’ Association). 

267 33 C.F.R. § 151.66. 

268 International Joint Commission, 1998-1999 Binational Report on Protection of Great Lakes Water Quality (U.S. Coast 

Guard/Department of Fisheries & Oceans Canada/Transport Canada Marine Safety) 1999, at 15. 

269 Pub. L. 105-383, Sec. 415, 112 Stat. 3411, 3434 (Nov. 13, 1998). 

270 U.S. Coast Guard. Notice, Discharge of Dry Cargo Residue in the Great Lakes. 69 Fed. Reg. 1994 (Jan 13, 2004). 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

168 Chapter 7: Marine Operations 

EPA has stated that emissions from marine diesel engines significantly contribute to air quality problems in 

coastal and port areas.271 EPA had already adopted standards in 2003 for the new, larger marine diesel engines 

that are being installed on U.S. flag ships.272 These standards are equivalent to the NOx emission limits in 

MARPOL Annex VI. Because engine manufacturers continue to develop more advanced emission control 

systems for these larger engines, the United States intends to seek more stringent revisions to Annex VI 

standards for these engines. In addition, EPA intends to address a second tier of more stringent standards in 

a rulemaking to be finalized no later than 2007. In developing such standards, EPA will consider continued 

development of new technologies like those to be considered for smaller engines, and will also consider IMO 

and the activity of other groups to set more stringent international standards.273

EPA has stated that as part of the 2007 rulemaking, it will also consider applying CAA standards to foreign 

ships that enter U.S. ports.274 Should the United States choose to regulate foreign flagged ships, compliance 

with CAA standards would be a condition of entry into U.S. ports, likely causing significant impacts on the 

marine transportation system. If U.S. standards are not harmonized with the standards of MARPOL Annex 

VI, many vessels built to international standards may be precluded from operating in the United States. 

Jurisdiction over Enforcement of Marine Operations in Coastal Zones 

As noted in Chapter 1, in 1988 President Reagan declared a 12 mile territorial sea for international purposes, 

consistent with the limits for the territorial sea established in UNCLOS. However, the proclamation 

specifically stated that the territorial sea remained unchanged for application of then-existing domestic laws.275

This led to some confusion regarding the effect of the proclamation on domestic laws as they applied to 

foreign vessels. 

This has been compounded by the fact that Congress has enacted legislation that uses different terms to 

establish authority over waterways and coastal areas. These terms include internal waters, inland waters, navigable

waters, waters of the United States, territorial sea, territorial waters, and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, 

among others. These terms may overlap in certain areas, or may in fact mean the same thing, depending upon 

the particular legislation involved.276 Also, Congress has taken a piecemeal approach to expansion of the 

various jurisdictional zones offshore by sometimes defining the phrase territorial sea or navigable waters as used in

individual acts, to include the expanded 12 mile territorial sea as proclaimed by President Reagan.277 

An example of the confusion that can result from this process concerns interpretation of the provision in the 

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) that declared a 12 mile territorial sea for 

purposes of federal criminal jurisdiction and further stated this area was within the special maritime and 

territorial jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of Title 18 of the United States Code.278

 

271 Final Rule, Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters Per Cylinder, 68 Fed. 

Reg. 9745, 9754 (Feb. 28, 2003). 

272 68 Fed. Reg. 9745-9789 (Feb. 28, 2003). 

273 Id. at 9745. 

274 Id. 

275 Presidential Proclamation 5928 (Dec. 27, 1988), 54 Fed. Reg. 777 (1989). 

276 On July 18, 2003, the Coast Guard issued a final rule that updates regulatory definitions it uses to interpret its jurisdiction to 

enforce treaties, laws and regulations of the United States. This rule establishes the Coast Guard's view of how jurisdictional terms 

in various domestic laws, including treaties to which the U.S. is a party, are to be interpreted. Final Rule, “Territorial Seas, Navigable 

Waters, and Jurisdiction,” 68 Fed. Reg. 42,595-42,602 (2003). 

277 The first such legislation in which Congress deviated from the historical 3 nautical mile territorial sea was the Nonindigenous 

Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. 

278 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-132, § 901, Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1214, 1317 [hereinafter 

AEDPA]. In addition to the provisions of Section 901 of the AEDPA, Section 702 of the Act contains provisions for acts of terrorism 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 7: Marine Operations 169

purposes of federal criminal jurisdiction and further stated this area was within the special maritime and 

territorial jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of Title 18 of the United States Code.278

In United States v. One Big Six Wheel,

279 the court addressed what this extension of the territorial sea meant in a 

criminal law context. The issue in the case was whether the expansion of the territorial sea to 12 miles for 

purposes of criminal jurisdiction in AEDPA made criminal what was previously legal conduct under the 

Gambling Ship Act,280 in this case the operation of gaming vessels in the band between 3 and 12 miles 

offshore. 

The court stated that while AEDPA altered the boundaries of the United States, it did not do so for all 

purposes. The court held that the extension of the territorial sea in AEDPA occurred only for purposes of 

criminal jurisdiction, and that the extension of the territorial sea for substantive criminal provisions of Title 

18 in AEDPA was limited to the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.281 The 

impact of this decision on the ability of the government to prosecute environmental and other crimes under 

existing legislation in the 3 to 12 mile territorial sea band is therefore open to question. 

 

278 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-132, § 901, Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1214, 1317 [hereinafter 

AEDPA]. In addition to the provisions of Section 901 of the AEDPA, Section 702 of the Act contains provisions for acts of terrorism 

involving foreign commerce that occurred outside of national boundaries. This section also defined the U.S. territorial sea to include 

“all waters extending seaward to 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States, determined in accordance with 

international law.” 

279 166 F.3d 498 (2d Cir. 1999). 

280 18 U.S.C. §§ 1081-1084. 

281 Id. at 501. The special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States is defined at 18 U.S.C. § 7. It is a statutorily 

created jurisdictional base that allows the federal prosecution of specific crimes that occur in federal enclaves or areas over which 

the United States exercises sovereignty outside the jurisdiction of the 50 states or of foreign countries, such as on U.S. flag vessels 

operating outside U.S. waters. 

Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 8: Conclusion 171

CHAPTER 8 

CONCLUSION

The vastness of the ocean offers a metaphor for the management complexity facing every coastal nation, as 

well as the global community. The United States — from its coastal watershed counties to the outer reaches 

of the world’s largest Exclusive Economic Zone — faces some of today’s most difficult and intractable ocean 

and coastal policy problems. Since the release of the Stratton Commission report, the management of the 

nation’s ocean has been influenced by some three and a half decades of emerging interests in a broad array of 

ocean resource issues, varying levels of attention by a succession of administrations, and a legislative branch 

challenged by multiple committee jurisdictions. With this history, it should not be surprising that one of the 

key underlying findings of this Commission is that the ocean governance system lacks coordination, 

coherence, and focus. 

The review of the evolution of U.S. ocean and coastal law presented in this Appendix illustrates not only the 

complexity of the issues that led to enactment of certain ocean programs, but also that law and policy are 

inevitably the products of their time. The political and policy landscape of the late forties and early fifties, 

within which the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations considered jurisdictional claims over the outer 

Continental Shelf and potential sources of oil and gas in offshore waters, was far different than that which 

faced the members of the Stratton Commission in the mid-1960’s as they focused on the discovery of new 

ocean resources, the development of marine technology, the need for better organization of federal ocean 

efforts, and the initial stages of public concern about the marine environment. No one could have anticipated 

that within some two weeks after the release of the Stratton report, a production platform off the coast of 

Santa Barbara would blow out, spilling some 3 million gallons of oil along the beaches of California and, in 

some respects, forever changing the national debate about ocean policy. 

The evolution of law in any policy arena needs to be reviewed and analyzed in historical context. Only by 

achieving a clear understanding of what has occurred before—and why—can a political system hope to 

improve its institutions of governance. This Appendix represents an effort to objectively describe the primary 

governing statutes in U.S. ocean and coastal law and identify some key legal issues that have emerged from 

implementation of those statutes, while acknowledging the historical context within which these 

developments took place. 

As noted in the Preface to this volume, the mandate for this Commission to identify inconsistencies and 

contradictions in federal laws and regulations as they adversely affect ocean and coastal activities has been 

addressed in the Commission’s main report, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century. This review of U.S. ocean 

and coastal law, along with innumerable other sources of data, provided the Commission with the historical, 

legal, regulatory, and juridical information necessary to craft the recommendations in the main report that call 

for needed statutory or regulatory modifications. 

This review has been divided into chapters devoted to discrete ocean policy issues, including descriptions of 

the evolution of laws related to coastal management, living marine resources, ocean and coastal pollution, 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

172 Chapter 8: Conclusion 

offshore uses, and marine operations. Not only was this the most manageable way to organize such a review, 

it also represents the way in which ocean law has, in fact, been viewed by stakeholders and enacted by 

Congress—as individual pieces of legislation dealing with fisheries, coastal management, clean water, oil 

pollution, offshore oil drilling, marine safety and security, and a host of other so-called single purpose laws. 

Collectively, these laws should largely define the nation’s ocean policy. However, after three years of analysis, 

the Commission agrees with the characterization made by two close observers: “U.S. ocean policy today is 

less than the sum of its parts.”1

Nevertheless, the inconsistencies and contradictions in federal laws and regulations do not account for the 

lack of coordination, coherence, and focus in the nation’s ocean policy. Rather, in large measure, such 

inconsistencies and contradictions are themselves manifestations of a more fundamental structural problem in 

the U.S. ocean governance regime: oceans have never been an organizing principle of government nor have 

they been comprehensively managed according to ecosystem-based, science-based, and adaptive approaches. 

It is this lack of an overall vision of the oceans within the institutions of government that is at the heart of the 

Commission’s recommendations for a comprehensive and coordinated national ocean policy, as spelled out in 

its main report. 

Ocean resources should be managed to reflect the relationships among all ecosystem components and should 

also be seen as part of an even larger earth system. At the very least, the new ocean-related institutions 

recommended in the Commission’s National Ocean Policy Framework (Part II of the main report) need to 

demonstrate this broader perspective. If they are structured to undertake the functions suggested, they will be 

in a position to bring about a far greater harmonization of federal ocean laws and regulations. 

Additionally, the adoption of common guiding principles at all levels of government (Chapter 3 of the main 

report) will also help minimize legal inconsistencies, contradictions and conflicts. The development of legal 

regimes to support an ecosystem-based management approach should discourage the consideration of policy 

problems on a single-issue basis and move toward a process that considers the impacts of ocean and coastal 

laws throughout an ecosystem. 

It should be recognized that inconsistencies, gaps, or lack of statutory clarity may in part reflect the level of 

agreement that can be reached on a particular issue during the legislative process. Congress, aware that 

passage of a new law or an amendment to an existing law will likely affect related statutes and programs, may 

decide that the precise relationship between those laws or programs needs to be worked out by the 

appropriate executive agencies through administrative and regulatory processes. In some instances, ultimate 

resolution may have to come through the courts. 

Additionally, what some may see as legal inconsistencies or contradictions are frequently deliberate policy 

decisions made by Congress. Apparent conflicts between federal and state laws can reflect underlying 

differences in goals or priorities. For example, at the federal level, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) 

reflects the desire to limit unwise development and damage to natural resources in coastal barrier areas, such 

as barrier islands. While some states have taken action consistent with these goals, others have laws in place 

that subsidize or otherwise encourage coastal development and produce outcomes directly at odds with those 

sought under the CBRA (see Chapter 2). Congress determined that it could limit certain federal programs that 

encouraged development on coastal barriers but did not preempt the states from exercising their own land 

and water use authorities. 

 

1

 Cicin-Sain, B. and R. Knecht, The Future of U.S. Ocean Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2000. 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

Chapter 8: Conclusion 173

The tension that arises with respect to federal activities that affect the coastal resources of a state has been 

recognized by Congress as a serious matter in the division of authorities between the levels of government. 

To a large extent, the federal consistency provision of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (see 

Chapter 2) was Congress’ response to this tension. Rather than a clear and unambiguous federal preemption 

of state authorities or, conversely, an absolute veto over federal ocean-related activities for coastal states, 

Congress set up the consistency process in the CZMA to promote strong intergovernmental communication 

and procedures with respect to such activities. 

In general, the consistency provision has worked well but some high profile cases, particularly in the area of 

offshore energy development, have led to appeals to the Secretary of Commerce and considerable litigation, 

including a Supreme Court case. Some may conclude that problems between the CZMA and the OCSLA are 

contradictions or inconsistencies in law. However, Congress deliberately enacted and subsequently amended 

the federal consistency provision to adapt its process to the offshore energy program. The result has been 

mixed: mostly positive in states that support offshore development and sometimes problematic in those that 

oppose such activity. The existing situation, in any regard, is the result of a policy decision made by Congress, 

not an inadvertent action that led to an unintended conflict between laws. 

Nevertheless, this review of ocean and coastal law indicates that some legal inconsistencies and contradictions 

appear to have developed unintentionally. For example, a number of statutes addressing ocean law use the 

same offshore jurisdictional terms, such as territorial sea or contiguous zone, but define them differently or not at 

all (see Chapter 1). This inconsistency has, in limited instances, caused some confusion in the application and 

enforcement of these laws (see Chapter 7). 

In other cases, there appear to be conflicts between statutory requirements. Chapter 7 notes some uncertainty 

in maritime commercial operations because of provisions regarding discharges of ship-generated wastes in 

both the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships and the Ocean Dumping Act. That chapter also notes the 

occasional unanticipated consequence when international agreements are implemented through federal 

statutes or when federal preemption of state law is unclear. Some of these may arise due to congressional 

oversights or unintentional statutory inconsistencies while others may be deliberate policy decisions or may 

simply indicate an inability to craft a legislative solution to a known contradiction. 

There are also gaps in statutory authority that need to be addressed as part of a new approach to ocean 

management and stewardship. This is particularly true with respect to offshore activities. While the OCSLA 

provides a specific legal and management structure for offshore oil, natural gas, and mineral extraction, there 

is no similar comprehensive regime for new and emerging uses, or for non-extractive facilities, such as energy 

generating wind farms (see Chapter 5). Similarly, there is no authority to enter into leasing agreements for 

offshore aquaculture or marine bioprospecting activities (see Chapters 22 and 23 of the main report). 

Thus, the picture of U.S. ocean and coastal law as it has evolved over the last three decades is, at best, mixed. 

Federal laws and regulations are not the cause of a disjointed and uncoordinated national ocean policy. Rather, 

they reflect existing government institutions and processes that focus largely on single issues, or respond to 

specific new and urgent problems as they arise, rather than within an ecosystem-based approach. 

The National Ocean Council (NOC) recommended by the Commission (see Chapter 4 of the main report) is 

ideally suited to provide the input that could lead to a more comprehensive and coordinated federal legal 

regime for ocean and coastal management. Specifically, among its many functions, the NOC is directed to 

“identify statutory and regulatory redundancies or omissions and develop strategies to resolve conflicts, fill 

gaps, and address new and emerging ocean issues for national and regional benefits.” 

In addition to the NOC, the recommended framework includes regional councils (see Chapter 5 of the main 

report) under state leadership. Core functions of these councils include facilitating coordinated and 
Appendix 6

Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law 

174 Chapter 8: Conclusion 

collaborative responses to regional issues, developing regional goals and priorities, and communicating such 

responses and goals to the national level through the NOC. As a first step in this process, it is recommended 

that all federal agencies be required to improve regional coordination and outreach, and identify 

inconsistencies in agency mandates, policies, regulations, practices or funding that prevent regional issues 

from being effectively addressed. Implementation of these recommendations should also help make federal 

ocean law more cohesive and address some of the federal-state legal conflicts identified throughout this 

Appendix. 

The law and policy governing ocean and coastal resources is necessarily complex because of the vast and 

interconnected nature of the resources themselves. This will always be the case, and decision makers at all 

levels of government will continually need to improve the laws that enable the nation to manage these critical 

resources. Guided by a growing understanding of the connectivity of ecosystems and the need to manage in a 

way that acknowledges and respects those connections, and led by institutions established under the 

Commission’s New Ocean Policy Framework that have the capacity and mandate to examine the nation’s 

statutory regime, anticipate problems before they arise, and address them when they do, enormous 

improvements can be made. 

Adopting this new approach to ocean policy will provide greatly improved legal support for the balanced use, 

protection, and stewardship of our ocean and coastal resources, consistent with the Commission’s Ocean 

Blueprint for the 21st Century.