AN OCEAN BLUEPRINT

FOR THE 21st CENTURY

FINAL REPORT
You may electronically download this document from:

http://www.oceancommission.gov

This document may be cited as follows: 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 

An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century. 

Final Report.

Washington, DC, 2004

ISBN#0–9759462–0–X
Hawaiian

Islands

Puerto Rico and the

U.S. Virgin Islands

Navassa Island

Johnston Atoll

Midway

Islands

Howland Island

Baker Island

American

Samoa

Wake

Island

Guam

Northern

Mariana

Islands

Jarvis Island

Palmyra Atoll

Kingman Reef

Alaska

United States

■ United States Exclusive Economic Zone ■ Great Lakes of the United States

THE UNITED STATES IS AN OCEAN NATION

The U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) extends 200 nautical miles offshore, encompassing diverse ecosystems and vast natural

resources, such as fisheries and energy and other mineral resources. The U.S. EEZ is the largest in the world, spanning over 13,000

miles of coastline and containing 3.4 million square nautical miles of ocean—larger than the combined land area of all fifty states.

(A square nautical mile is equal to 1.3 square miles.) 

U.S. states also have jurisdiction over a significant portion of the Great Lakes. This chain of freshwater lakes and its tributaries 

constitute the largest reservoir of fresh surface water on the planet, containing 6.5 quadrillion gallons of fresh water and covering

an area of about 72,000 square nautical miles. The Great Lakes’ U.S. coastline borders eight states and is roughly the same length

as the entire Atlantic Coast.

Robert Ballard, Ph.D.

Mr. Ted A. Beattie

Mrs. Lillian Borrone

Dr. James M. Coleman

Ms. Ann D’Amato

Mr. Lawrence Dickerson

Vice Admiral Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (Ret.)

Professor Marc J. Hershman

Mr. Paul L. Kelly

Mr. Christopher Koch

Dr. Frank Muller-Karger

Mr. Edward B. Rasmuson

Dr. Andrew A. Rosenberg

Mr. William D. Ruckelshaus

Dr. Paul A. Sandifer

July 22, 2004

The Members of the U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY, 

directed by the United States Congress and appointed by the President 

under the Oceans Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–256) to 

make recommendations for a coordinated and comprehensive 

national ocean policy, hereby approve

An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century,

the final report of the Commission’s findings and recommendations in 

fulfillment of our responsibilities and obligations under such Act.

Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.), Chairman

September 2004

The President

The White House

Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I am pleased to submit for your consideration An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, the

final report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. As mandated by the Oceans Act of

2000, this report contains balanced and practical proposals for the establishment of a 

comprehensive and coordinated ocean policy for our nation. The sixteen Commissioners 

you appointed, representing diverse interests and experience, unanimously support the

Commissions’ findings, recommendations and vision for the future.

The value of the oceans and coasts to the nation is immense and their full potential

remains unrealized. Over half the U.S. population lives in coastal watershed counties and

roughly one-half of the nation’s gross domestic product ($4.5 trillion in 2000) is generated 

in those counties and in adjacent ocean waters.

However, there is widespread agreement that our oceans and marine resources are in

serious trouble, increasingly affected by rapid growth along our coasts, land and air pollution,

unsustainable exploitation of too many of our fishery resources, and frequently ineffective

management. The consistent message we heard throughout the country is that we must act

now to halt continuing degradation.

We believe that a historic opportunity is at hand to make positive and lasting changes 

in the way we manage our oceans. The comments we received from Governors of states and

territories, tribal leaders, industry, nongovernmental organizations, and the public at large

were strongly supportive of our assessment of declining ocean and coastal conditions, the

need for a new management approach, and our call for immediate action. 

A comprehensive and coordinated national ocean policy requires moving away from the

current fragmented, single-issue way of doing business and toward ecosystem-based management. This new approach considers the relationships among all ecosystem components, and

will lead to better decisions that protect the environment while promoting the economy and

balancing multiple uses of our oceans and coasts.

The Commission, therefore, considers the following actions essential. First, a new

national ocean policy framework must be established to improve federal coordination and

effectiveness. An important part of this new framework is strengthening support for state,

territorial, tribal, and local efforts to identify and resolve issues at the regional level. Second,

it is also critical that decisions about ocean and coastal resources be based on the most 

current, credible, and unbiased scientific data and information. Finally, formal and informal

COMMISSIONERS

ADM James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.), Chairman • Robert B. Ballard, Ph.D. • Ted A. Beattie • Lillian C. Borrone • James M. Coleman, Ph.D.

Ann D’Amato • Lawrence R. Dickerson • VADM Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (Ret.) • Marc J. Hershman • Paul L. Kelly • Christopher L. Koch

Frank E. Muller-Karger, Ph.D. • Edward B. Rasmuson • Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D. • William D. Ruckelhaus • Paul A. Sandifer, Ph.D.

Thomas R. Kitsos, Ph.D., Executive Director

1120 20TH STREET, NW • SUITE 200 NORTH • WASHINGTON, DC 20036

PHONE: 202-418-3442 • FAX: 202–418–3475 • WWW.OCEANCOMMISSION.GOV
ocean education should be strengthened to better engage the general public, cultivate a

broad stewardship ethic, and prepare a new generation of leaders to meet future ocean 

policy challenges. 

Implementation of the Commission’s recommendations, which will require a new and

modest investment over current funding levels, can create a system that sustains our resources

and generates significantly greater benefits for our nation. We have recommended creation of

an Ocean Policy Trust Fund that will dedicate funds generated from ocean activities to

implement our Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century.

The urgent need for action is clear. It is equally clear that, by rising to the challenge today

and addressing the many activities that are affecting our continent at its edges, our nation can

protect the ocean environment, create jobs, increase revenues, enhance security, expand trade,

and ensure ample supplies of energy, minerals, food, and life-saving drugs.

Our report is just the beginning of what must be a sustained effort. The Commission

encourages you to work with Congress, the Governors and other stakeholders, and, where

appropriate, to use existing Presidential authorities to commence implementation of our 

recommendations at an early date.

On behalf of all sixteen Commissioners, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to

serve our nation as members of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. It has been a privilege

to contribute to a new age of ocean awareness and stewardship. Although our work officially

ends ninety days after submission of this report, we stand ready now and in the future to

assist in the implementation of our recommendations and achievement of our vision—one 

in which our oceans and coasts are clean, safe, sustainably managed, and preserved for the

benefit and enjoyment of future generations.

Respectfully,

James D. Watkins

Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired)

Chairman

Page 2—The President
September 2004

The Honorable William H. Frist, M.D. 

Majority Leader

United States Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Leader:

I am pleased to submit for your consideration An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, the

final report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. As mandated by the Oceans Act of

2000, this report contains balanced and practical proposals for the establishment of a 

comprehensive and coordinated ocean policy for our nation. The sixteen Commissioners,

appointed by President Bush and representing diverse interests and experience, unanimously

support the Commissions’ findings, recommendations and vision for the future.

The value of the oceans and coasts to the nation is immense and their full potential

remains unrealized. Over half the U.S. population lives in coastal watershed counties and

roughly one-half of the nation’s gross domestic product ($4.5 trillion in 2000) is generated 

in those counties and in adjacent ocean waters.

However, there is widespread agreement that our oceans and marine resources are in

serious trouble, increasingly affected by rapid growth along our coasts, land and air pollution,

unsustainable exploitation of too many of our fishery resources, and frequently ineffective

management. The consistent message we heard throughout the country is that we must act

now to halt continuing degradation. 

We believe that a historic opportunity is at hand to make positive and lasting changes 

in the way we manage our oceans. The comments we received from Governors of states and

territories, tribal leaders, industry, nongovernmental organizations, and the public at large

were strongly supportive of our assessment of declining ocean and coastal conditions, the

need for a new management approach, and our call for immediate action. 

A comprehensive and coordinated national ocean policy requires moving away from the

current fragmented, single-issue way of doing business and toward ecosystem-based management. This new approach considers the relationships among all ecosystem components, and

will lead to better decisions that protect the environment while promoting the economy and

balancing multiple uses of our oceans and coasts.

The Commission, therefore, considers the following actions essential. First, a new

national ocean policy framework must be established to improve federal coordination and

effectiveness. An important part of this new framework is strengthening support for state,

territorial, tribal, and local efforts to identify and resolve issues at the regional level. Second,

it is also critical that decisions about ocean and coastal resources be based on the most 

1120 20TH STREET, NW • SUITE 200 NORTH • WASHINGTON, DC 20036

PHONE: 202-418-3442 • FAX: 202–418–3475 • WWW.OCEANCOMMISSION.GOV

COMMISSIONERS

ADM James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.), Chairman • Robert B. Ballard, Ph.D. • Ted A. Beattie • Lillian C. Borrone • James M. Coleman, Ph.D.

Ann D’Amato • Lawrence R. Dickerson • VADM Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (Ret.) • Marc J. Hershman • Paul L. Kelly • Christopher L. Koch

Frank E. Muller-Karger, Ph.D. • Edward B. Rasmuson • Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D. • William D. Ruckelhaus • Paul A. Sandifer, Ph.D.

Thomas R. Kitsos, Ph.D., Executive Director
current, credible, and unbiased scientific data and information. Finally, formal and informal

ocean education should be strengthened to better engage the general public, cultivate a

broad stewardship ethic, and prepare a new generation of leaders to meet future ocean 

policy challenges. 

Implementation of the Commission’s recommendations, which will require a new and

modest investment over current funding levels, can create a system that sustains our resources

and generates significantly greater benefits for our nation. We have recommended creation of

an Ocean Policy Trust Fund that will dedicate funds generated from ocean activities to

implement our Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century.

The urgent need for action is clear. It is equally clear that, by rising to the challenge today

and addressing the many activities that are affecting our continent at its edges, our nation can

protect the ocean environment, create jobs, increase revenues, enhance security, expand trade,

and ensure ample supplies of energy, minerals, food, and life-saving drugs.

Our report is just the beginning of what must be a sustained effort. The Commission

encourages Congress to work with the Administration, the Governors, and other stakeholders

to implement our recommendations.

On behalf of all sixteen Commissioners, I would like to express our appreciation for this

opportunity to serve our nation as members of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. It has

been a privilege to contribute to a new age of ocean awareness and stewardship. Although

our work officially ends ninety days after submission of this report, we stand ready now and

in the future to assist in the implementation of our recommendations and achievement of

our vision—one in which our oceans and coasts are clean, safe, sustainably managed, and

preserved for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations.

Sincerely,

James D. Watkins

Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired)

Chairman

cc: The Honorable Tom Daschle

Page 2—The Honorable William H. Frist, M.D.
September 2004

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker:

I am pleased to submit for your consideration An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, the

final report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. As mandated by the Oceans Act of

2000, this report contains balanced and practical proposals for the establishment of a 

comprehensive and coordinated ocean policy for our nation. The sixteen Commissioners,

appointed by President Bush and representing diverse interests and experience, unanimously

support the Commissions’ findings, recommendations and vision for the future.

The value of the oceans and coasts to the nation is immense and their full potential

remains unrealized. Over half the U.S. population lives in coastal watershed counties and

roughly one-half of the nation’s gross domestic product ($4.5 trillion in 2000) is generated 

in those counties and in adjacent ocean waters.

However, there is widespread agreement that our oceans and marine resources are in

serious trouble, increasingly affected by rapid growth along our coasts, land and air pollution,

unsustainable exploitation of too many of our fishery resources, and frequently ineffective

management. The consistent message we heard throughout the country is that we must act

now to halt continuing degradation. 

We believe that a historic opportunity is at hand to make positive and lasting changes 

in the way we manage our oceans. The comments we received from Governors of states and

territories, tribal leaders, industry, nongovernmental organizations, and the public at large

were strongly supportive of our assessment of declining ocean and coastal conditions, the

need for a new management approach, and our call for immediate action. 

A comprehensive and coordinated national ocean policy requires moving away from the

current fragmented, single-issue way of doing business and toward ecosystem-based management. This new approach considers the relationships among all ecosystem components, and

will lead to better decisions that protect the environment while promoting the economy and

balancing multiple uses of our oceans and coasts.

The Commission, therefore, considers the following actions essential. First, a new

national ocean policy framework must be established to improve federal coordination and

effectiveness. An important part of this new framework is strengthening support for state,

territorial, tribal, and local efforts to identify and resolve issues at the regional level. Second,

it is also critical that decisions about ocean and coastal resources be based on the most 

current, credible, and unbiased scientific data and information. Finally, formal and informal

1120 20TH STREET, NW • SUITE 200 NORTH • WASHINGTON, DC 20036

PHONE: 202-418-3442 • FAX: 202–418–3475 • WWW.OCEANCOMMISSION.GOV

COMMISSIONERS

ADM James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.), Chairman • Robert B. Ballard, Ph.D. • Ted A. Beattie • Lillian C. Borrone • James M. Coleman, Ph.D.

Ann D’Amato • Lawrence R. Dickerson • VADM Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (Ret.) • Marc J. Hershman • Paul L. Kelly • Christopher L. Koch

Frank E. Muller-Karger, Ph.D. • Edward B. Rasmuson • Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D. • William D. Ruckelhaus • Paul A. Sandifer, Ph.D.

Thomas R. Kitsos, Ph.D., Executive Director
ocean education should be strengthened to better engage the general public, cultivate a

broad stewardship ethic, and prepare a new generation of leaders to meet future ocean 

policy challenges. 

Implementation of the Commission’s recommendations, which will require a new and

modest investment over current funding levels, can create a system that sustains our resources

and generates significantly greater benefits for our nation. We have recommended creation of

an Ocean Policy Trust Fund that will dedicate funds generated from ocean activities to

implement our Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century.

The urgent need for action is clear. It is equally clear that, by rising to the challenge today

and addressing the many activities that are affecting our continent at its edges, our nation can

protect the ocean environment, create jobs, increase revenues, enhance security, expand trade,

and ensure ample supplies of energy, minerals, food, and life-saving drugs.

Our report is just the beginning of what must be a sustained effort. The Commission

encourages Congress to work with the Administration, the Governors, and other stakeholders

to implement our recommendations.

On behalf of all sixteen Commissioners, I would like to express our appreciation for this

opportunity to serve our nation as members of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. It has

been a privilege to contribute to a new age of ocean awareness and stewardship. Although

our work officially ends ninety days after submission of this report, we stand ready now and

in the future to assist in the implementation of our recommendations and achievement of

our vision—one in which our oceans and coasts are clean, safe, sustainably managed, and

preserved for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations.

Sincerely,

James D. Watkins

Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired)

Chairman

cc: The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Page 2—The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY

xiii

Chairman

Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.) 

Chairman and President Emeritus, 

Consortium for Oceanographic Research

and Education, Washington, D.C.

Robert Ballard, Ph.D.

Professor of Oceanography,

Graduate School of Oceanography,

University of Rhode Island

Ted A. Beattie

President and Chief Executive Officer,

John G. Shedd Aquarium, Illinois

Lillian Borrone

Former Assistant Executive Director,

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

James M. Coleman, Ph.D.

Boyd Professor, Coastal Studies Institute,

Louisiana State University

Ann D’Amato

Chief of Staff, Office of the City Attorney, 

Los Angeles, California

Lawrence Dickerson

President and Chief Operating Officer,

Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., Texas

Vice Admiral Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (Ret.)

President, Monmouth University, 

New Jersey

Marc J. Hershman

Professor, School of Marine Affairs,

University of Washington

Paul L. Kelly

Senior Vice President, 

Rowan Companies, Inc., Texas

Christopher Koch

President and Chief Executive Officer,

World Shipping Council, Washington, D.C.

Frank Muller-Karger, Ph.D.

Professor, College of Marine Science,

University of South Florida

Edward B. Rasmuson

Chairman of the Board of Directors, 

Wells Fargo Bank, Alaska

Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.

Professor, Department of Natural

Resources and Institute for the Study 

of Earth, Oceans, and Space, 

University of New Hampshire

William D. Ruckelshaus

Strategic Director, Madrona Venture Group,

Seattle, Washington

Paul A. Sandifer, Ph.D.

Senior Scientist, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, 

South Carolina

Executive Director

Thomas Kitsos, Ph.D.

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy- (l-r) front row: Professor Marc J. Hershman;

Dr. Thomas R. Kitsos (Executive Director); Mr. Ted A. Beattie; and Dr. Paul A.

Sandifer. Second row: Mr. Lawrence Dickerson; Mrs. Lillian Borrone; Ms. Ann

D'Amato; and Mr. Paul L. Kelly. Back row: Mr. Christopher Koch; Mr. Edward B.

Rasmuson; Dr. James M. Coleman; Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.)

(Chairman); Mr. William D. Ruckelshaus; Dr. Andrew A. Rosenberg; Vice Admiral

Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (Ret.); Dr. Robert Ballard; and Dr. Frank Muller-Karger.
xiv A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

SCIENCE ADVISORY PANEL

Donald F. Boesch, Ph.D. 

President, University of Maryland Center 

for Environmental Science

Kenneth Brink, Ph.D. 

Director, Coastal Ocean Institute and

Rinehart Coastal Research Center, 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 

Daniel W. Bromley, Ph.D. 

Anderson-Bascom Professor of Applied

Economics, University of WisconsinMadison 

Otis Brown Ph.D.

Dean, Rosenstiel School of Marine 

and Atmospheric Science, University 

of Miami 

Biliana Cicin-Sain, Ph.D.

Director, Gerard J. Mangone Center for

Marine Policy and Professor of Marine

Policy, University of Delaware

Robert A. Frosch, Ph.D.

Senior Research Associate, John F. Kennedy

School of Government, Harvard University

and former NASA Administrator

Robert B. Gagosian, Ph.D.

President and Director, Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution

J. Frederick Grassle, Ph.D.

Director, Institute of Marine and 

Coastal Sciences, Rutgers, The State

University of New Jersey

D. Jay Grimes, Ph.D.

Provost, Gulf Coast and Director, 

Gulf Coast Research Laboratory,

University of Southern Mississippi

Susan Hanna, Ph.D.

Professor, Marine Economics,

Oregon State University

Ray Hilborn, Ph.D.

Richard C. and Lois M. Worthington

Professor of Fisheries Management, School

of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences,

University of Washington

DeWitt John, Ph.D.

Director, Environmental Studies Program, 

Bowdoin College

Geraldine Knatz, Ph.D.

Managing Director of Development, 

Port of Long Beach, California

Marcia McNutt, Ph.D.

President and Chief Executive Officer, 

Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute

Jacqueline Michel, Ph.D.

President, Research Planning, Inc.

Edward L. Miles, Ph.D.

Virginia and Prentice M. Bloedel Professor

of Marine Studies and Public Affairs, School

of Marine Affairs, University of Washington

Michael K. Orbach, Ph.D.

Director, Marine Laboratory and Coastal

Environmental Management Program,

Nicholas School of the Environment and

Earth Sciences, Duke University

John A. Orcutt, Ph.D.

Deputy Director for Research, Scripps

Institution of Oceanography and Director,

Center for Earth Observations and

Applications, University of California, 

San Diego 
Shirley A. Pomponi, Ph.D.

President and CEO, Harbor Branch

Oceanographic Institution, Inc.

David B. Prior, Ph.D.

Provost and Executive Vice President, 

Texas A&M University

Andrew R. Solow, Ph.D.

Director, Marine Policy Center, 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Robert C. Spindel, Ph.D.

Director Emeritus, Applied Physics

Laboratory, University of Washington

Carolyn A. Thoroughgood, Ph.D.

Dean, College of Marine Studies and

Director, Sea Grant College Program, 

University of Delaware 

Sharon Walker, Ph.D.

Administrator, J.L. Scott Marine Education

Center and Aquarium and Professor,

Department of Coastal Sciences, College 

of Science and Technology, University of

Southern Mississippi

Warren M. Washington, Ph.D.

Senior Scientist, National Center for

Atmospheric Research and Chair, 

National Science Board

Robert M. White, Sc.D.

President Emeritus, National Academy 

of Engineering and former NOAA

Administrator 

xv

USCOP File Photo
xvi A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

COMMISSION STAFF

Thomas Kitsos

Executive Director 

Colleen (Lee) Benner

Associate Director, Administration

Christine Blackburn

Policy Associate, Research, Education 

and Marine Operations 

Sylvia Boone

Administrative Officer

Brooks Bowen

Policy Associate, Stewardship

Laura Cantral

Associate Director, Governance

Polin Cohanne

Executive Assistant to the 

Executive Director

Angela Corridore

Policy Associate, Stewardship

Aimee David

Policy Associate, Governance

Morgan Gopnik

Senior Advisor

Peter Hill

Special Assistant to the Executive Director

for Government Relations

Michael Kearns

Special Assistant to the Executive Director

and Assistant Project Manager

Gerhard Kuska

Policy Associate, Governance

Frank Lockhart

Policy Associate, Stewardship

Macy Moy

Special Assistant to the Chairman

Kate Naughten

Public Affairs Officer and Project Manager

Roxanne Nikolaus

Policy Associate, Research, Education 

and Marine Operations

Stacy Pickstock

Administrative Assistant

Robyn Scrafford

Administrative Assistant

Ken Turgeon

Associate Director, Research, 

Education and Marine Operations

CAPT Malcolm Williams, USCG (Ret.)

Associate Director, Stewardship

Former Staff

Amie Chou

CMDR Peyton Coleman, USCG

Katherine Gallagher

CDR James Jarvis, USN

Margretta Kennedy

RADM Timothy McGee, USN

Patrick Newman 

LCDR Justin Reeves, USN

Terry Schaff

CAPT David W. Titley, USN

Deborah Trefts

Jennifer Welch

CAPT George White, NOAA Corps
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

An effort of this magnitude could not have been completed without the help of many 

dedicated people. The Commission is deeply grateful to the scores of individuals who 

provided testimony, technical input, insightful comments, figures and photographs, 

production help, and many other forms of assistance in completing this momentous task. 

A complete record of testimony presented to the Commission can be found in

Appendices 1 and 2, and on the Commission’s Web site at www.oceancommission.gov.

These presentations were invaluable in communicating the problems facing our oceans

and coasts—and suggesting positive solutions.

A number of consultants were instrumental in helping the Commission conduct its

meetings and complete its report, particularly in the following areas: 

Meeting facilitation, strategy, and advice—John Ehrmann and Jay West of

the Meridian Institute, and Philip Angell. 

Research, writing, and editing—Charles Colgan, M. Richard DeVoe, Peter

Fippinger, Jeremy Firestone, Gabriela Goldfarb, Montserrat Gorina-Ysern,

Ray Kammer, Fredrika Moser, Joan O’Callaghan, Julie Phillips, Ellen Prager,

Robert Wayland III, and Bill Woodward.

Public relations—Scott Treibitz, David Roscow, Victoria Sackett, and Dean

Tinnin of Tricom Associates, and Herbert Rosen. 

Report design and production—Cynthia Cliff, James Durham, and Lisa

Wells of Janin/Cliff Design, Inc. 

Web site development and maintenance—Tom LaPoint, Jerry Lau, and

Davida Remer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s

National Ocean Service.

The members of the Commission’s Science Advisory Panel (listed in the preceding

pages) were at our side from start to finish, answering questions, clarifying technical

points, preparing and reviewing written materials, and generally sharing their decades of

collective wisdom. In addition, we extend our thanks to the following individuals who

served as researchers, reviewers, and wise advisors, or helped in dozens of other ways:

Craig Allen, Donald Anderson, Anthony Andrady, Lori Arguellas, Stefano Belfiore, Joan

Myers Bondareff, Nicole Breznock, Richard Brill, David Brower, R. Steven Brown, Joedy

Cambridge, James Carlton, Thomas Chase, David Colson, James Corbett, Barry CostaPierce, Penelope Dalton, Shelley Dawicki, Richard Delaney, Jessica Demian, Alex Echols,

Carolyn Elefant, Amanda Enser, Karen Foerstel, Kim Fulton-Bennett, Marc Gaden, Joseph

Geraci, Roger Germann, W. Rockwell Geyer, Suzanne Giles, David Godschalk, James

Good, Shannon Gordon, Dale Green, Karl Gustavson, Kathryn Hayes, Amy Heywood,

Barbara Hinthorn, Robert Hofman, Edward Houde, John Justus, Geri Kantor, Jill Karsten,

David Keeley, Jim Kent, Joanna Knight, Robert Knox, Kei Koizumi, Jennie Kopelson,

Judith Krauthamer, Stephen Leatherman, James R. Lyons, Tony MacDonald, Elizabeth

Martin, Emily McBride, Tom McCann, Shannon McCoy, David McGrath, James Murley,

Savithri Narayanan, Scott Newsham, John Ogden, Rafael Olivieri, Joan Oltman-Shay, John

O’Shea, Edward Page, Richard Pittenger, Eugene Proulx, Timothy Ragen, Andrew Read,

xvii
xviii A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Robert Richmond, Robert Ross, Amy Schick, Sarah Schoedinger, Gerry Schubel, Richard

Seymour, Seba Sheavly, Rexford Sherman, Andrea Sanico, Judson Starr, Denise StephensonHawk, Robert Stickney, Maurice Tarares, Joanne Tromp, Nicole Vickey, Daniel Walker,

Ferris Webster, Robert Weller, and Art Wong. 

The members and staff of the Pew Oceans Commission, led by the Honorable Leon

Panetta, also deserve our recognition and thanks for their contributions to the development

of a new national ocean policy and their steadfast support for the work of this Commission.

Input from Governors and other state-level representatives and groups were invaluable

to the development of this report. The official comments from thirty-seven state and territorial Governors and five tribal leaders can be found in the Special Addendum to this report,

and on the Commission’s Web site at www.oceancommission.gov. Special thanks go to the

members and staff of the Coastal States Organization and the National Governors Association

for their critical roles in conveying state level interests and perspectives. 

Although too numerous to list by name, the Commission extends its heartfelt 

appreciation to the many knowledgeable and dedicated federal agency employees who

supplied detailed information, answered a barrage of questions, and offered excellent

advice. Particular thanks go to the Council on Environmental Quality for its role as the

Administration’s chief liaison to the Commission.

We also appreciate the support provided to the Commission by the Members of Congress

and their staffs, in particular those who serve on committees with key jurisdiction over

ocean and coastal issues and who have closely followed the progress of the Commission’s

work. This includes the Members and staff of the Senate Committee on Commerce,

Science and Transportation, and the Committee on Appropriations, as well as the House

Committees on Science, Resources, and Transportation and Infrastructure. Additional

thanks are extended to the Members of the House Oceans Caucus and their staff. 

Finally, the work reflected in this report would simply not have been possible without

the support and dedication of a talented group of professionals, the members of the

Commission staff, to whom we extend our deepest gratitude for their tireless effort on

behalf of a new national ocean policy.
xix

CONTENTS

Letter to the President ...............................................................................................................vii

Letter to the Senate Majority Leader.........................................................................................ix

Letter to the Speaker of the House ............................................................................................xi

Members of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy ..............................................................xii

Members of the Science Advisory Panel.................................................................................xiv

Commission Staff ......................................................................................................................xvi

Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................xvii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................1

PART I

OUR OCEANS: A NATIONAL ASSET

CHAPTER 1

RECOGNIZING OCEAN ASSETS AND CHALLENGES ........................................30

Evaluating the Vast Wealth of U.S. Oceans and Coasts.........................................................30

Economic and Employment Value ....................................................................................30

Marine Transportation and Ports.......................................................................................32

Marine Fisheries..................................................................................................................32

Offshore Energy, Minerals, and Emerging Uses...............................................................33

Human Health and Biodiversity ........................................................................................33

Tourism and Recreation......................................................................................................35

Coastal Real Estate ..............................................................................................................36

Nonmarket Values...............................................................................................................36

Undermining America’s Ocean and Coastal Assets................................................................38

Degraded Waters..................................................................................................................38

Compromised Resources....................................................................................................40

Conflicts Between Man and Nature ..................................................................................41

Acting Today for Tomorrow’s Generations..............................................................................44

CHAPTER 2

UNDERSTANDING THE PAST TO SHAPE

A NEW NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY..........................................................................48

Ocean Policy from World War II to the Oceans Act of 2000................................................48

Formative Years....................................................................................................................48

From Sputnik to Stratton ...................................................................................................49

Years of Activism .................................................................................................................51

Contention and Stalemate ..................................................................................................53

Search for Coherence ..........................................................................................................54

Consensus for Change ........................................................................................................55

Launching the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy ................................................................55

A Broad Mandate .................................................................................................................55

The Commission Members................................................................................................56

How the Commission Did Its Work..................................................................................56

The Preliminary Report and Governor’s Comments.......................................................59

The Result.............................................................................................................................59
xx A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 3

SETTING THE NATION’S SIGHTS ...............................................................................60

Imagining a Brighter Future......................................................................................................60

Building Ocean Policy on Sound Guiding Principles............................................................61

Translating Principles into Policy.............................................................................................63

Ecosystem-based Management..........................................................................................63

Science for Decision Making..............................................................................................67

Effective Ocean Governance ..............................................................................................68

Public Education .................................................................................................................68

PRIMER ON OCEAN JURISDICTIONS: 

DRAWING LINES IN THE WATER...............................................................................70

PART II

BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE: 

A NEW NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY FRAMEWORK

CHAPTER 4

ENHANCING OCEAN LEADERSHIP AND COORDINATION ............................76

Making Improvements at the National Level..........................................................................76

National Ocean Council .....................................................................................................79

Assistant to the President...................................................................................................80

President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy............................................................81

Other Needed Elements......................................................................................................81

CHAPTER 5

ADVANCING A REGIONAL APPROACH ....................................................................86

Addressing Issues Across Jurisdictional Lines........................................................................86

Facilitating Bottom-up Responses............................................................................................87

National Support and Guidelines......................................................................................87

Nature and Functions of Regional Ocean Councils........................................................90

Building on Existing Regional Initiatives.........................................................................91

Enhancing Federal Support for a Regional Approach ...........................................................92

Federal Agency Coordination............................................................................................92

Moving Toward Common Regional Boundaries..............................................................92

Meeting Regional Research and Information Needs..............................................................94

Developing Regional Ecosystem Assessments........................................................................96

CHAPTER 6

COORDINATING MANAGEMENT IN FEDERAL WATERS .................................98

Meeting Growing Needs............................................................................................................98

Clarifying Offshore Responsibilities......................................................................................100

Establishing a Coordinated Offshore Management Regime ...............................................100

A Fair Return for the Use of Offshore Resources..........................................................102

Employing Marine Protected Areas as a Management Tool ...............................................103
Federal Efforts...................................................................................................................103

The Role of Marine Protected Areas...............................................................................104

National Interests..............................................................................................................105

Regional and Local Stakeholders....................................................................................106

CHAPTER 7

STRENGTHENING THE FEDERAL AGENCY STRUCTURE .............................108

Reorganizing to Support an Ecosystem-based Management Approach............................108

Reviewing Previous Reorganization Proposals.....................................................................109

Strengthening NOAA: Phase I................................................................................................110

Consolidating Ocean and Coastal Programs: Phase II........................................................112

Managing All Natural Resources in an Ecosystem-based Management 

Approach: Phase III ..........................................................................................................115

PART III

OCEAN STEWARDSHIP: THE IMPORTANCE OF

EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS

CHAPTER 8

PROMOTING LIFELONG OCEAN EDUCATION ..................................................122

Strengthening the Nation’s Ocean Awareness ......................................................................122

Ocean Stewardship ...........................................................................................................123

Science Literacy.................................................................................................................123

Future Ocean Leaders ......................................................................................................123

Crosscutting Themes........................................................................................................124

Building a Collaborative Ocean Education Network ..........................................................124

Participants in Ocean Education ....................................................................................124

Coordinating Ocean Education.......................................................................................125

Funding and Assessment .................................................................................................128

Linking the Research and Education Communities.....................................................129

Incorporating Oceans into K-12 Education..........................................................................130

Using Ocean-based Examples to Meet Education Standards......................................131

Bridging the Gap between Scientists and Educators....................................................133

Investing in Higher Education and the Future Ocean Workforce.....................................136

The Leadership Void.........................................................................................................137

Drawing Students into the Field.....................................................................................137

Expanding Graduate Educational Opportunities.........................................................138

Workforce Needs...............................................................................................................139

Specific Federal Responsibilities.....................................................................................139

Strength through Diversity ..............................................................................................141

Bringing the Ocean and Coasts to All Americans................................................................142

Multifaceted Approaches .................................................................................................142

Coordinating Messages ....................................................................................................143

Broad Outreach .................................................................................................................144

xxi
xxii A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

PART IV

LIVING ON THE EDGE: ECONOMIC GROWTH AND

RESOURCE CONSERVATION ALONG THE COAST

CHAPTER 9

MANAGING COASTS AND THEIR WATERSHEDS .............................................150

Attracting Crowds, Creating Opportunities.........................................................................150

Implications of Growth....................................................................................................150

Strengthening Coastal Planning and Management..............................................................152

Multi-layered Decision Making.......................................................................................152

Federal Area-based Coastal Programs............................................................................153

Other Relevant Federal Programs...................................................................................157

Linking Coastal and Watershed Management......................................................................157

Linking Coastal and Offshore Management.........................................................................160

Increasing Understanding of Coastal Ecosystems ...............................................................160

CHAPTER 10

GUARDING PEOPLE AND PROPERTY AGAINST

NATURAL HAZARDS ........................................................................................................162

Assessing the Growing Cost of Natural Hazards .................................................................162

Improving Federal Management of Hazards in Coastal Areas...........................................163

Changing Inappropriate Federal Incentives..................................................................163

Improving Understanding ...............................................................................................164

The National Flood Insurance Program ........................................................................166

Hazard Mitigation Planning.............................................................................................168

CHAPTER 11

CONSERVING AND RESTORING COASTAL HABITAT ....................................170

Assessing the Threats to Coastal Habitat..............................................................................170

Conserving Coastal Habitat....................................................................................................171

Habitat Conservation Programs......................................................................................171

Restoring Coastal Habitat .......................................................................................................172

Improving Habitat Conservation and Restoration...............................................................176

Enhancing Information and Understanding.........................................................................176

Protecting the Nation’s Wetlands: A Special Case................................................................178

CHAPTER 12

MANAGING SEDIMENT AND SHORELINES .........................................................180

Understanding the Dual Nature of Sediment.......................................................................180

Reviewing Federal Roles in Sediment Management............................................................181

Altering Sediments through Human Intervention...............................................................182

Changing Sediment Quantities.......................................................................................182

Changing Sediment Quality ............................................................................................183

Developing Regional Strategies for Sediment Management ...............................................184

Moving Toward Regional Sediment Management at USACE......................................185

Weighing the Costs and Benefits of Dredging......................................................................185

Navigational Dredging .....................................................................................................185

Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material...............................................................................187
Techniques of Cost-Benefit Analysis ..............................................................................187

National and Regional Dredging Teams.........................................................................187

Improving Understanding, Assessment, and Treatment.....................................................188

Coordinated Strategy Needed..........................................................................................188

Contaminated Sediment...................................................................................................189

CHAPTER 13

SUPPORTING MARINE COMMERCE AND TRANSPORTATION ....................192

Connecting People, Places, and Products.............................................................................192

Value of the Marine Transportation System ..................................................................192

Components of the Marine Transportation System......................................................193

Positioning the U.S. Marine Transportation System for the Future ..................................196

Federal Roles.....................................................................................................................197

Links to the National Transportation Infrastructure....................................................198

Information Needs............................................................................................................199

Emergency Preparedness .................................................................................................200

PART V

CLEAR WATERS AHEAD: 

COASTAL AND OCEAN WATER QUALITY

CHAPTER 14

ADDRESSING COASTAL WATER POLLUTION....................................................204

Stopping the Degradation of Coastal Waters........................................................................204

Reducing Point Sources of Pollution.....................................................................................205

Existing Management Tools.............................................................................................207

Major Point Sources..........................................................................................................208

Improving the Control of Point Sources........................................................................211

Increasing the Focus on Nonpoint Sources of Pollution ....................................................212

Existing Management Tools.............................................................................................213

Major Nonpoint Sources..................................................................................................215

Improving the Control of Nonpoint Sources ................................................................217

Collaboration at the Watershed Scale ............................................................................222

International Efforts .........................................................................................................222

Addressing Atmospheric Sources of Pollution.....................................................................223

Improving Control of Atmospheric Sources..................................................................223

CHAPTER 15

CREATING A NATIONAL MONITORING NETWORK.......................................226

Recognizing the Value of Monitoring....................................................................................226

Monitoring at the Federal Level.............................................................................................227

Federal Programs..............................................................................................................228

Shortcomings in Federal Programs.................................................................................229

Promoting Interagency Coordination....................................................................................230

Ensuring Comprehensive, Coordinated Coverage ..............................................................231

Creating an Effective Monitoring Network ..........................................................................232

System Goals and Objectives...........................................................................................232

System Design ...................................................................................................................233

Technical Coordination....................................................................................................233

xxiii
xxiv A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Periodic Review and Modification..................................................................................233

Design Based on User Input ............................................................................................234

Making Data Accessible and Useful.......................................................................................235

CHAPTER 16

LIMITING VESSEL POLLUTION AND IMPROVING VESSEL SAFETY............236

Assessing the Benefits and Risks of Vessel Activities ..........................................................236

Strengthening Vessel Safety, Security, and Environmental Compliance............................237

A Culture of Compliance and Safety ..............................................................................237

Flag State Oversight and Enforcement.....................................................................238

Port State Control.....................................................................................................240

Reducing Vessel Pollution.......................................................................................................241

Waste Stream Discharges..........................................................................................241

Air Emissions.....................................................................................................................244

Oil Releases ..............................................................................................................245

Increasing Knowledge to Guide Change...............................................................................248

Improving Awareness of Ocean Activities.....................................................................249

CHAPTER 17

PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF INVASIVE SPECIES ........................................252

Acknowledging the Problem ..................................................................................................252

Assessing Existing Approaches ..............................................................................................253

Federal Statutes.................................................................................................................253

State and Federal Programs.............................................................................................255

Identifying Major Pathways for Introduction of Non-native Species .............................256

Ballast Water ............................................................................................................256

Global Trade in Marine Organisms ..........................................................................257

Making Prevention the First Line of Defense.......................................................................257

Ballast Water Management ..............................................................................................257

Controlling Other Pathways............................................................................................258

Accelerating Detection and Response ...................................................................................259

Improving the Control of Invasive Species.....................................................................260

Coordinated Action ..........................................................................................................260

International Partnerships .......................................................................................261

Research Needs..................................................................................................................262

CHAPTER 18

REDUCING MARINE DEBRIS ......................................................................................264

Assessing the Sources and Consequences of Marine Debris ..............................................264

Addressing Marine Debris Nationally ...................................................................................265

Existing Programs.............................................................................................................265

NOAA’s Role .............................................................................................................266

Expanding Marine Debris Efforts.............................................................................267

Reducing Derelict Fishing Gear.............................................................................................269

Ensuring Adequate Facilities for Disposal of Garbage from Ships .................................270
PART VI 

OCEAN VALUE AND VITALITY: ENHANCING THE

USE AND PROTECTION OF OCEAN RESOURCES

CHAPTER 19

ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ..................................................................274

Contemplating Thirty Years of Fishery Management..........................................................274

Building Sustainable Fisheries Based on Sound Science.....................................................276

The Value of Science for Wise Management .................................................................276

Separating Scientific and Management Decisions....................................................277

The Need for Independent Review.................................................................................278

Using Default Measures to Ensure Progress..................................................................279

Making Research Relevant...............................................................................................280

Strengthening Fishery Governance .......................................................................................283

Clarifying Fishery Management Authority and Jurisdiction.......................................283

Improving the Regional Fishery Management Councils.............................................285

Ending the Race for Fish.........................................................................................................287

Traditional Management Approaches.............................................................................287

Dedicated Access Privileges.............................................................................................288

Reducing Overcapitalization of Fishing Fleets .............................................................290

Improving Fishery Enforcement ............................................................................................291

Fishery Enforcement Mechanisms..................................................................................291

Enforcement Partnerships........................................................................................292

Technology for Enforcement....................................................................................293

Improving Enforceability as Part of the Management Process....................................294

Moving Toward an Ecosystem-based Management Approach ...........................................295

Linking Fisheries Management with other Regional Concerns..................................295

Essential Fish Habitat.......................................................................................................297

Reducing Bycatch..............................................................................................................298

Managing International Fisheries..........................................................................................299

The Status of International Fisheries .............................................................................299

The Law of the Sea Framework ......................................................................................300

International Fishery Conservation Agreements .....................................................300

International Fisheries and Trade ............................................................................303

CHAPTER 20

PROTECTING MARINE MAMMALS AND

ENDANGERED MARINE SPECIES..............................................................................306

Assessing the Threats to Marine Populations.................................................................306

Marine Mammals .....................................................................................................306

Endangered Species..........................................................................................................307

Reviewing Authorities and Responsibilities.........................................................................309

The Marine Mammal Protection Act..............................................................................309

The Endangered Species Act ...........................................................................................309

Identifying and Overcoming Gaps in Protection .................................................................310

Clarifying Jurisdiction and Authority ............................................................................310

Cooperation with States...................................................................................................311

Unclear Permitting and Review Standards....................................................................311

The Meaning of Harassment in the MMPA ...................................................................312

The Promise of Programmatic Permitting For Marine Mammals ..............................312

xxv
xxvi A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Expanding Research and Education ...............................................................................314

Understanding Behavior and Human Impacts..............................................................314

Effects of Noise on Marine Mammals ............................................................................315

Public Education and Outreach......................................................................................316

Applying Ecosystem-based Management Principles...........................................................316

Domestic Action................................................................................................................316

International Coordination..............................................................................................318

CHAPTER 21

PRESERVING CORAL REEFS AND OTHER CORAL COMMUNITIES.........320

Assessing the Status of Coral Ecosystems.............................................................................320

The Distribution of Coral Ecosystems...........................................................................320

The Value of Coral Ecosystems................................................................................321

Threats to Coral Ecosystems...........................................................................................322

Managing U.S. Coral Resources......................................................................................323

Federal Agency Roles and Responsibilities..............................................................323

Interagency and Intergovernmental Coral Reef Management Initiatives.................324

Improving the Management of U.S. Coral Resources ..................................................325

Promoting International Coral Reef Initiatives....................................................................326

Creating More Sustainable Harvesting Practices......................................................327

Improving Understanding of Coral Ecosystems..................................................................327

CHAPTER 22

SETTING A COURSE FOR SUSTAINABLE MARINE AQUACULTURE .......330

Acknowledging the Growing Significance of Marine Aquaculture ................................330

Addressing Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture.......................................................331

Dealing with Uncertainties in the Existing Management Structure ..............................332

Marine Aquaculture in Offshore Areas ....................................................................332

The Current Regulatory Conundrum ......................................................................332

Developing a New Marine Aquaculture Management Framework ...................................333

Coordinated Action ..........................................................................................................333

Implementation.................................................................................................................334

Increasing the Knowledge Base ..............................................................................................335

Promoting International Improvements and Cooperation.................................................336

CHAPTER 23

CONNECTING THE OCEANS AND HUMAN HEALTH .....................................338

Understanding the Links between the Oceans and Human Health ..................................338

Maximizing the Beneficial Uses of Marine-derived Bioproducts.......................................339

Specific Applications........................................................................................................340

Encouraging Interdisciplinary Marine Biomedical Research ......................................341

Managing Marine Bioproduct Discovery and Development ....................................343

Reducing the Negative Health Impacts of Marine Microorganisms..................................343

Harmful Algal Blooms......................................................................................................344

Marine Bacteria and Viruses............................................................................................346

Contaminated Seafood .............................................................................................346

Implications of Global Climate Change.........................................................................346

Progress through Research and Technology Development..........................................347

Increasing Federal Coordination on Oceans and Human Health......................................348

Implementing Human Health Protections............................................................................348
Seafood Safety....................................................................................................................348

Coastal Water Quality ..............................................................................................349

Public Education and Outreach......................................................................................350

Regional Dimensions........................................................................................................350

CHAPTER 24

MANAGING OFFSHORE ENERGY AND OTHER MINERAL RESOURCES ....352

Exercising Jurisdiction over Nonliving Resources in Federal Waters...............................352

Managing Offshore Oil and Gas Resources...........................................................................352

From a Quiet Beginning to Prohibitions on Leasing....................................................353

The OCS Leasing, Exploration, and Development Process.........................................354

Trends in Domestic Offshore Oil and Gas Production.................................................357

Federal Revenues from Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing and Production.....................357

State Involvement in OCS Oil and Gas Decision Making ...........................................361

Environmental Issues Related to Offshore Oil and Gas Production ........................361

Opportunities for Sharing Ocean Observation Information and Resources.............364

Assessing the Potential of Offshore Methane Hydrates.......................................................364

Developing Offshore Renewable Energy Resources ............................................................365

Offshore Wind Energy Development .............................................................................365

Wave Energy Conversion—Current and Tidal .............................................................366

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion.........................................................................367

Comprehensive Management for Offshore Renewable Energy...................................368

Managing Other Marine Minerals..........................................................................................368

PART VII

SCIENCE-BASED DECISIONS: ADVANCING OUR

UNDERSTANDING OF THE OCEANS

CHAPTER 25

CREATING A NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR

INCREASING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE...............................................................374

Fortifying the Foundations of Ocean Understanding .........................................................374

Components of Ocean Science and Technology...........................................................374

Federal Leadership in Ocean Science and Technology ................................................375

Reviving the Federal Investment ....................................................................................376

Creating a National Strategy...................................................................................................377

Advancing Ocean and Coastal Research ...............................................................................378

Climate Change.................................................................................................................378

Marine Biodiversity...........................................................................................................379

Regional Ecosystem Dynamics........................................................................................379

Social and Economic Research.................................................................................379

The National Sea Grant College Program......................................................................385

Agency Strategies and Funding Mechanisms...........................................................385

Building a National Ocean Exploration Program ................................................................386

The Value of Ocean Exploration.....................................................................................387

Growing Calls for a National Program...........................................................................387

Coordinating and Consolidating Marine Operations .....................................................388

Integrated National Maps and Assessments..................................................................389

Federal Mapping and Charting Activities......................................................................389

Providing Useful Information to Congress...........................................................................391

xxvii
xxviii A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 26

ACHIEVING A SUSTAINED, INTEGRATED OCEAN

OBSERVING SYSTEM .......................................................................................................394

Making the Case for an Integrated Ocean Observing System............................................394

Assessing Existing Observing Systems ...........................................................................395

Coastal and Ocean Observing Systems..........................................................................395

Committing to Creation of the IOOS ....................................................................................396

Creating a Governance Structure for the IOOS....................................................................397

National Planning .............................................................................................................397

Ocean.US..................................................................................................................398

Regional Structure ............................................................................................................398

Reaching Out to the User Community..................................................................................399

Assembling the Elements of a Successful IOOS...................................................................400

Critical Environmental Variables....................................................................................400

Converting Research into Operational Capabilities.....................................................402

Coordinating Civilian Satellite Observations................................................................403

Developing Useful End Products Based on IOOS Data................................................405

Funding the National IOOS....................................................................................................406

System Cost Estimates......................................................................................................407

Strengthening Earth Observations through National and International Partnerships....409

Other U.S. Operational Observing Systems...................................................................409

Enhancing Global Cooperation ......................................................................................409

CHAPTER 27

ENHANCING OCEAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................412

Supporting Ocean and Coastal Activities with Modern Tools ...........................................412

Improving Infrastructure and Technology............................................................................413

Gaps in Infrastructure ......................................................................................................413

Gaps in Technology Development..................................................................................413

Maximizing Resources through Collaboration .............................................................414

A National Strategy...........................................................................................................414

Periodic Reviews and Assessments ..........................................................................415

Funding the Modernization of Critically Needed Assets....................................................416

Essential Science Infrastructure and Technology Components..................................416

Other Essential Infrastructure and Technology Components.....................................421

Creating Virtual Marine Technology Centers.......................................................................426

CHAPTER 28

MODERNIZING OCEAN DATA AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS ..................428

Turning Oceans of Data into Useful Products......................................................................428

Reviewing the Data Management Structure .........................................................................429

Types of Data Centers.......................................................................................................429

Ocean and Coastal Data ...........................................................................................431

Coping with the Flood of Incoming Data.............................................................................432

Reinventing Data and Information Management.................................................................432

Interagency Planning........................................................................................................432

Access to Data and Information......................................................................................435

Incorporating Data into the National Data Centers.....................................................437

Meeting the Challenges of a New Century...........................................................................438
PART VIII

THE GLOBAL OCEAN: 

U.S. PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL POLICY

CHAPTER 29

ADVANCING INTERNATIONAL OCEAN SCIENCE AND POLICY...............442

Acting Globally to Safeguard the Oceans..............................................................................442

Reviewing the Evolution of the International Ocean Regime ............................................443

Developing and Implementing International Policy ...........................................................443

Guiding Principles............................................................................................................444

The Law of the Sea Convention......................................................................................444

Other Ocean-related International Agreements............................................................445

Collaboration for International Ocean Policy..........................................................449

Emerging International Management Challenges ........................................................450

Scientific Input to U.S. Policy Makers .....................................................................452

Enhancing International Ocean Science.........................................................................452

International Ocean Science Programs..........................................................................453

The Global Ocean Observing System.............................................................................453

U.S. Scientific Activities Abroad .....................................................................................454

Building International Capacity in Ocean Science and Management ...............................454

PART IX

MOVING AHEAD: IMPLEMENTING A

NEW NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY

CHAPTER 30

FUNDING NEEDS AND POSSIBLE SOURCES ......................................................458

Investing in Change.................................................................................................................458

Acknowledging the Cost of Taking Action...........................................................................459

Deferred Costs...................................................................................................................462

Costs Beyond the Scope of the Commission’s Report..................................................463

Itemizing Major Funding Areas .............................................................................................463

The National Ocean Policy Framework.........................................................................463

Ocean Education...............................................................................................................464

Ocean Science and Exploration ......................................................................................464

Monitoring, Observing, and Mapping............................................................................465

Other Ocean and Coastal Management Challenges.....................................................466

Recognizing the Important Roles of Nonfederal Authorities.............................................466

Dedicating Revenue from Ocean Uses for Improved Ocean Management.......................467

Existing and Emerging Uses............................................................................................467

Revenues for Ocean and Coastal Management: The Ocean Policy Trust Fund........468

Understanding the Changing Ocean and Coastal Budget...................................................469

CHAPTER 31

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................472

Context for the Recommendations........................................................................................472

Guiding Principles............................................................................................................472

Creating a Strong Role for States ....................................................................................473

The Need for Congressional Leadership........................................................................474

xxix
xxx A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Index to the Recommendations .............................................................................................475

Recommendations to Congress.......................................................................................475

Recommendations to the Executive Branch Leadership..............................................475

Recommendations to Federal Government Agencies..................................................476

Recommendations to Regional Bodies...........................................................................479

Recommendations to States.............................................................................................479

Recommendations Related to International Ocean Science, 

Policy, and Management ..................................................................................................479

Complete List of Recommendations as They Appear in the Report..................................480

PART X

APPENDICES

Printed in the Main Report:

APPENDIX A

OCEANS ACT OF 2000 .................................................................................................A 1

APPENDIX B

ACRONYMS APPEARING IN THE REPORT .............................................................B 1

APPENDIX C

LIVING NEAR... AND MAKING A LIVING FROM...

THE NATION’S COASTS AND OCEANS, BY CHARLES S. COLGAN........C 1

APPENDIX D

GLOSSARY OF FEDERAL OCEAN AND COASTAL-RELATED

COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, COUNCILS, LAWS, AND PROGRAMS..........D 1

APPENDIX E

PROPOSED STRUCTURE FOR COORDINATION OF

FEDERAL OCEAN ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................E 1

APPENDIX F

CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES WITH

JURISDICTION OVER OCEAN AND COASTAL ISSUES .....................................F 1

APPENDIX G

DETAILED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY ....................................................G 1

INDEX
Printed as Separate Documents: 

Available Electronically on CD or at www.oceancommission.gov

SPECIAL ADDENDUM

GOVERNORS’ COMMENTS ON THE PRELIMINARY REPORT

APPENDIX 1

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY

SYNTHESIS INDEXED BY POLICY TOPIC

APPENDIX 2

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY

SUMMARY INDEXED BY PRESENTER

APPENDIX 3

NATIONAL MARINE EDUCATORS ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP PROFILE

APPENDIX 4

U.S. OCEAN-RELATED ACADEMIC INFRASTRUCTURE

APPENDIX 5

INVENTORY OF U.S. OCEAN AND COASTAL FACILITIES

APPENDIX 6

REVIEW OF U.S. OCEAN AND COASTAL LAW:

THE EVOLUTION OF OCEAN GOVERNANCE OVER THREE DECADES

xxxi

EXTERNAL APPENDICES
xxxii A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1.1 The Value of the Oceans .........................................................................................31

Figure 1.2 The Value of the Coasts ..........................................................................................32

Figure 1.3 The Coasts: From the Nearshore to Coastal Watersheds...................................35

Figure 1.4 The Shift from Goods to Services in the Ocean Economy .................................36

Figure 1.5 Population Density Peaks Near the Shore ............................................................43

Figure 2.1 Invited Panelists Represented All Sectors of the Ocean Community ...............58

Figure 3.1 Large Marine Ecosystems Correspond to Natural Features...............................64

Figure 3.2 The Foundations of a New National Ocean Policy .............................................68

Figure P.1 Lines of U.S. Authority in Offshore Waters ..........................................................71

Figure 4.1 Ocean and Coastal Activities Are Conducted by 

Many Federal Departments and Agencies........................................................................78

Figure 4.2 Proposed Structure for Coordination of Federal Ocean Activities....................83

Figure 5.1 Alignment of Federal Regions Is Essential for Communication........................94

Figure 6.1 Coordination Is Essential in Busy Offshore Waters ............................................99

Figure 7.1 Proposals to Reorganize Federal Ocean Management......................................109

Table 7.1 Thirty Years of Proposals to Reorganize Federal Management 

of Ocean and Coastal Resources.....................................................................................116

Figure 8.1 Proposed Structure for the Coordination of Federal Ocean 

Education Activities..........................................................................................................126

Figure 8.2 U.S. Students Fall Behind in Science.............................................................131

Figure 8.3 Environment-based Education Boosts Overall Academic Achievement........131

Figure 10.1 The Growing Cost of Natural Disasters...........................................................163

Figure 11.1 Dramatic Coastal Land Loss in Louisiana........................................................174

Figure 12.1 Dams Impede Sediment Destined for the Coast .............................................182

Table 13.1 The Leading Role of the United States in International Trade........................193

Figure 13.1 Ports Are the Primary Gateway for International Trade ................................194

Figure 13.2 Goods Traveling through U.S. Ports Are Transported Nationwide ..............195

Figure 14.1 Report Card on Regional Coastal Conditions.................................................205

Figure 14.2 Land-based Nutrients Can Cause Death on the Seafloor...............................206

Figure 14.3 Changes in Funding for Water Pollution Controls ........................................208

Figure 14.4 Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution Is Key to Cleaner Waters ..............213

Figure 14.5 Thirty States Contribute to the “Dead Zone” in the Gulf of Mexico ...........216

Figure 14.6 Looking Skyward: Accounting for Airshed Deposition .................................223

Figure 15.1 Watershed Monitoring Has Been Reduced Near the Coasts..........................230

Figure 16.1 Most Cruise Ship Travel Originates in U.S. Waters........................................242

Figure 16.2 The Oil Pollution Act Curbs Spills in U.S. Waters.........................................247

Figure 17.1 Great Lakes States Take Lead in Implementing 

Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plans................................................................254

Figure 17.2 Addressing Aquatic Invasive Species Regionally ............................................255

Figure 18.1 Trash at the Beach Comes from Many Sources ...............................................265

Figure 19.1 Fishery Litigation Grows as Interests Clash....................................................276

Figure 19.2 U.S. Fisheries Are Managed at the Regional Level..........................................283

Figure 19.3 Migratory Fish Require Coordination Across Multiple Jurisdictions ..........284

Figure 20.1 Sea Lion Populations in Danger........................................................................317

Figure 21.1 Tropical Waters Are Home to the Majority of Known Reefs.........................321

Figure 21.2 Deep, Cold-water Coral Reefs Found Throughout U.S. Waters...................322

Figure 22.1 The United States Imports More Seafood Than It Exports............................331

Table 23.1 The Bounty of the Sea ..........................................................................................342
Figure 23.1 Harmful Algal Blooms on the Rise....................................................................345

Figure 24.1 Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing Has Been Limited to a 

Few Planning Areas..........................................................................................................355

Figure 24.2 A “Process Rich” but Clear Path to Offshore Leasing, 

Exploration, and Development Activities......................................................................356

Table 24.1 Federal Revenues from Offshore Mineral Development..................................359

Figure 24.3 Oil Inputs to the North American Marine Environment...............................363

Figure 24.4 Pipelines Are a Leading Source of Oil Leaks from OCS Infrastructure........363

Figure 25.1 Proposed Structure for the Coordination of Federal Ocean 

Science Activities ..............................................................................................................376

Figure 25.2 Ocean Research Is Neglected as Part of the National Research Budget .......377

Table 25.1 Organizations Collecting Socioeconomic Data on the Ocean and Coasts.....383

Figure 26.1 Many Different Platforms Collect Data as Part of the IOOS..........................396

Table 26.1 Proposed Core Variables for the IOOS ...............................................................401

Table 26.2 Proposed Supplemental IOOS Variables............................................................401

Table 26.3 Proposed Annual Costs for Implementation of the IOOS ...............................407

Table 26.4 Proposed Start-up Costs for the IOOS ...............................................................407

Table 28.1 National Civilian and Military Data Centers.....................................................430

Figure 28.1 The Flood of Ocean and Coastal Data into NOAA.........................................432

Figure 28.2 The Growing Demand for Ocean Data.............................................................433

Table 29.1 U.S. Participation in International Ocean Agreements....................................446

Table 30.1 Summary of Costs Associated with Recommendations of the 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.................................................................................460

xxxiii
xxxiv A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

LIST OF BOXES

Box 1.1 Defining Coastal Areas.................................................................................................34

Box 1.2 The “Fourth Seacoast”—The Great Lakes ................................................................38

Box. 2.1 Public Meetings of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy ...................................57

Box P.1 Acknowledging Change: The Need to Update Federal Laws..................................73

Box 5.1 Regional Approaches at Work ....................................................................................88

Box 5.2 Nature and Functions of Regional Ocean Councils.................................................91

Box 5.3 Moving Toward Improved Federal and Stakeholder Coordination 

in the Great Lakes Region ..................................................................................................93 

Box 6.1 Swimming through Hoops: Establishing an Offshore Aquaculture Facility ......101

Box 6.2 Sunken Treasure: Our Underwater Cultural Heritage ..........................................102

Box 7.1 Improving Ocean and Coastal Management by 

Enhancing NOAA’s Capacity ...........................................................................................111

Box 7.2 Federal Ocean and Coastal Activities in Agencies other than NOAA ................113

Box 7.3 Historical Precedent for Presidential Reorganization 

of the Executive Branch ...................................................................................................115

Box 8.1 The Need for Qualified Science Teachers...............................................................133

Box 8.2 COOL Professional Development for Teachers......................................................134

Box 8.3 Today’s Kids ... Tomorrow’s Ocean Professionals..................................................135

Box 8.4 The Ocean Information Gap ....................................................................................142

Box 8.5 What Is Informal Education?...................................................................................143

Box 8.6 NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuaries Program as a 

Vehicle for Public Education...........................................................................................144

Box 8.7 Equal Opportunity Educators..................................................................................145

Box 9.1 Coastal Activities Are Big Business..........................................................................151

Box 9.2 The Smart Growth Movement..................................................................................152

Box 9.3 What Is a Coastal Watershed?..................................................................................154

Box 9.4 Balancing Federal Ocean Activities with State Coastal Management 

Programs: The Federal Consistency Tool ......................................................................158

Box 10.1 Hurricanes Wreak Havoc Along the Coast...........................................................164

Box 10.2 New Orleans at Risk ........................................................................................165

Box 11.1 Examples of Large-scale Coastal Habitat Restoration Efforts..........................174

Box 11.2 A Community Habitat Restoration Effort: Friends of Heeia State Park ...........177

Box 12.1 Sediment: Friend or Foe .........................................................................................181

Box 12.2 The Legacy of Sediment Contamination ..............................................................183

Box 12.3 Beach Nourishment: One Use for Dredged Sediment.........................................186

Box 13.1 Federal Members of the Interagency Committee for the 

Marine Transportation System ........................................................................................199

Box 13.2 Nonfederal Member Organizations of the 

Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council ........................................199

Box 14.1 Nutrient Pollution in Coastal Waters ...................................................................206

Box 14.2 The Impact of Farm Nutrients on the Marine Environment .............................216

Box 15.1 Ocean and Coastal Monitoring Needs..................................................................227

Box 15.2 Keeping Up With New Contaminants..................................................................234

Box 17.1 What Is an Invasive Species? .................................................................................253

Box 17.2 Federal Departments and Agencies with 

Roles in Invasive Species Management..........................................................................260

Box 18.1 Abandoned Fishing Nets Catch a Wave to Hawaii..............................................270

Box 19.1 Dedicated Access Privileges: A Better Description..............................................289
Box 20.1 Making a Case for Ecosystem-based Management: The Steller Sea Lion.........317

Box 23.1 Special Focus on Microbial Diversity....................................................................341

Box 24.1 Offshore Liquefied Natural Gas Ports May Be on the Horizon .......................358

Box 24.2 The Federal Consistency Provision and Offshore Oil and Gas Development ......362

Box 24.3 A Mighty Wind Blows in Cape Cod ......................................................................367

Box 25.1 Examples of Ocean and Coastal Science Needs...................................................380

Box 25.2 Primary Federal Agencies that Conduct Science-based Marine Operations.......389

Box 25.3 Selected Ocean and Coastal Reports from the 

Former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment............................................391

Box 26.1 Components of the Integrated Ocean Observing System...................................396

Box 26.2 Signatories to the Ocean.US Memorandum of Agreement.................................398

Box 26.3 The National Weather Service: An Investment That Paid Off ...........................406

Box 26.4 An Investment with Big Returns: The Economic Value of 

Ocean Observations..........................................................................................................408

Box 28.1 Data Management Terminology.............................................................................429

Box 29.1 Selected International Bodies with Ocean-related Responsibilities ..................451

Box 29.2 U.S. Involvement in International Capacity Building Efforts............................455

xxxv
xxxvi A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

PHOTOGRAPH IDENTIFICATION

AND CREDITS

Bass Harbor lighthouse, ME, Fotosearch ...................................................................................28 

Sunbathers on the beach, Corbis................................................................................................30

Ship’s wheel and maps, Corbis....................................................................................................48

Driftwood and beach, Photolink .................................................................................................60

Satellite photograph of Boston, MA, Corbis..............................................................................74

Bridge in Newport, RI, Fotosearch..............................................................................................76

Waves crashing on the shore, Photolink ....................................................................................86

Fishing boat, Corbis.....................................................................................................................98

Storm clouds over the ocean, Photolink..................................................................................108

Man and children net fishing, Wonderfile ...............................................................................120

Boy examining aquatic organisms, Corbis..............................................................................122

Fort Lauderdale, FL, Wonderfile...............................................................................................148

Sailboats in front of Boston skyline, Photolink.......................................................................150

Hurricane damage near the shore, NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.....162

Sunset and reeds, Photolink ......................................................................................................170

A heavily silted river enters the ocean near San Juan, PR, NOAA Photo Library...............180

Cranes at shipyard loading and unloading cargo, Fotosearch ..............................................192

Coastal waters, Corbis...............................................................................................................202

Sewage outfall, Corbis ...............................................................................................................204

Polluted stream, Corbis.............................................................................................................226

Coast Guard helicopter assists sinking vessel, PhotoLink ...................................................236

Inside of a 2-inch pipe clogged with zebra mussels, Don Schloesser, 

Great Lakes Science Center, National Biological Services.................................................252

Trash and debris washed up on a beach, PhotoLink..............................................................264

Pink fish near crinoid on reef, Corbis .....................................................................................272

Fishermen haul in their catch, NOAA Photo Library.............................................................274

Leopard seal, PhotoLink ............................................................................................................306

Blue starfish on coral reef, Corbis............................................................................................320

Fish farms in Ago Bay, Japan, Corbis.......................................................................................330

A red-tide event off the coast of San Diego, CA, Peter J.S. Franks, SIO...............................338

Ocean Confidence oil rig, Diamond Offshore Drilling Company ..........................................352

Scientist collecting samples from Antarctic waters, Scripps Institution of Oceanography.....372

Sample collecting device being lowered from a research vessel, 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography...................................................................................374

False-color satellite image showing Chlorophyll A concentration, 1997–2002, 

The SeaWiFS Project, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center and ORBIMAGE .................394

DSV Alvin underwater exploration vehicle, NOAA Photo Library ......................................412

Space Environment Center, Boulder, CO, 

NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research .........................................................428

Planet Earth, Corbis...................................................................................................................440

Flags of the world, Corbis.........................................................................................................442

School of Bluelined Snapper fish, Corbis................................................................................456

Aerial view of Seattle, NOAA Photo Library............................................................................458

Jellyfish, NOAA Office of Exploration.......................................................................................472

Green turtle, Corbis...................................................................................................................524
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

America is a nation intrinsically connected to and immensely reliant on the ocean. All

citizens—whether they reside in the country’s farmlands or mountains, in its cities or

along the coast—affect and are affected by the sea. Our grocery stores and restaurants are

stocked with seafood and our docks are bustling with seaborne cargo. Millions of visitors

annually flock to the nation’s shores, creating jobs and contributing substantially to the

U.S. economy through one of the country’s largest and most rapidly growing economic

sectors: tourism and recreation. 

The offshore ocean area under U.S. jurisdiction is larger than its total land mass, 

providing a vast expanse for commerce, trade, energy and mineral resources, and a buffer

for security. Born of the sea are clouds that bring life-sustaining water to our fields and

aquifers, and drifting microscopic plants that generate much of the oxygen we breathe.

Energy from beneath the seabed helps fuel our economy and sustain our high quality of

life. The oceans host great biological diversity with vast medical potential and are a frontier for exciting exploration and effective education. The importance of our oceans, coasts,

and Great Lakes cannot be overstated; they are critical to the very existence and wellbeing of the nation and its people. Yet, as the 21st century dawns, it is clear that these

invaluable and life-sustaining assets are vulnerable to the activities of humans.

Human ingenuity and ever-improving technologies have enabled us to exploit—and

significantly alter—the ocean’s bounty to meet society’s escalating needs. Pollution runs

off the land, degrading coastal waters and harming marine life. Many fish populations are

declining and some of our ocean’s most majestic creatures have nearly disappeared. Along

our coasts, habitats that are essential to fish and wildlife and provide valuable services to

humanity continue to suffer significant losses. Non-native species are being introduced,

both intentionally and accidentally, into distant areas, often resulting in significant economic costs, risks to human health, and ecological consequences that we are only beginning to comprehend. 

Yet all is not lost. This is a moment of unprecedented opportunity. Today, as never

before, we recognize the links among the land, air, oceans, and human activities. We have

access to advanced technology and timely information on a wide variety of scales. We recognize the detrimental impacts wrought by human influences. The time has come for us

to alter our course and set sail for a new vision for America, one in which the oceans,

coasts, and Great Lakes are healthy and productive, and our use of their resources is both

profitable and sustainable.

It has been thirty-five years since this nation’s management of the oceans, coasts, and

Great Lakes was comprehensively reviewed. In that time, significant changes have occurred

in how we use marine assets and in our understanding of the consequences of our actions.

This report from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy provides a blueprint for change in

the 21st century, with recommendations for creation of an effective national ocean policy

that ensures sustainable use and protection of our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes for

today and far into the future.

EXECUTIVE S UMMARY 1
2 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

The Value of the Oceans and Coasts

America’s oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes provide tremendous value to our economy.

Based on estimates in 2000, ocean-related activities directly contributed more than $117

billion to American prosperity and supported well over two million jobs. By including

coastal activities, the numbers become even more impressive; more than $1 trillion, or

one-tenth of the nation’s annual gross domestic product, is generated within the relatively

narrow strip of land immediately adjacent to the coast that we call the nearshore zone

(Figure ES.1). When the economies throughout coastal watershed counties are considered, the contribution swells to over $4.5 trillion, fully half of the nation’s gross domestic

product, accounting for some 60 million jobs. 

The United States uses the sea as a highway for transporting goods and people and as

a source of energy and potentially lifesaving drugs. Annually, the nation’s ports handle

more than $700 billion in merchandise, while the cruise industry and its passengers

account for another $12 billion in spending. More than thirteen million jobs are connected

to maritime trade. With offshore oil and gas operations expanding into ever deeper

waters, annual production is now valued at $25–$40 billion, and yearly bonus bid and

royalty payments contribute approximately $5 billion to the U.S. Treasury. Ocean exploration has also led to a growing and potentially multi-billion dollar industry in marinebased bioproducts and pharmaceuticals. 

Fisheries are another important source of economic revenue and jobs and provide a

critical supply of healthy protein. They also constitute an important cultural heritage for

fishing communities. The commercial fishing industry’s total annual value exceeds $28

billion, with the recreational saltwater fishing industry valued at around $20 billion, and

the annual U.S. retail trade in ornamental fish worth another $3 billion. 

Every year, hundreds of millions of people visit America’s coasts to enjoy the oceans,

spending billions of dollars and directly supporting millions of jobs. Nationwide, retail

expenditures on recreational boating alone exceeded $30 billion in 2002. In fact, tourism

and recreation is one of the nation’s fastest-growing business sectors, enriching economies

and supporting jobs in communities virtually everywhere along the shores of the United

States and its territories. Over half of the U.S. population lives in coastal watersheds, 

Figure ES.1 The Value of the Coasts

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

U.S.

Economy

Coastal

States

Coastal

Watershed

Counties

Nearshore $0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

U.S.

Economy

Coastal

States

Coastal

Watershed

Counties

Nearshore

Jobs Generated by Geographic Area Gross Domestic Product by Geographic Area

T

Millions of Jobs

rillions of Dollars

Coastal watershed counties, which account for less than a quarter of U.S. land area, are significant 

contributors to the U.S. economy. In 2000, they were home to nearly half of the nation’s jobs and 

generated a similar proportion of the nation’s gross domestic product.

Source: Living Near... and Making a Living from... the Nation’s Coasts and Oceans, Appendix C.
EXECUTIVE S UMMARY

and more than 37 million people and 19 million homes have been added to coastal areas

during the last three decades, driving up real estate values and requiring ever greater 

support services.

These concrete, quantifiable contributions are just one measure of the value of the

nation’s oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. There are many even more important attributes that

cannot be given a price tag, such as global climate control, life support, cultural heritage, and

the aesthetic value of the ocean with its intrinsic power to relax, rejuvenate, and inspire. 

Trouble in Paradise

Unfortunately, our use and enjoyment of the ocean and its resources have come with

costs, and we are only now discovering the full extent of the consequences of our actions.

In 2001, 23 percent of the nation’s estuarine areas were considered impaired for swimming, fishing, or supporting marine species. In 2003, there were more than 18,000 days 

of closings and advisories at ocean and Great Lakes beaches, most due to the presence of

bacteria associated with fecal contamination. Across the globe, marine toxins afflict more

than 90,000 people annually and are responsible for an estimated 62 percent of all seafoodrelated illnesses. Harmful algal blooms appear to be occurring more frequently in our

coastal waters and non-native species are increasingly invading marine ecosystems.

Experts estimate that 25 to 30 percent of the world’s major fish stocks are overexploited,

and many U.S. fisheries are experiencing serious difficulties. Since the Pilgrims first

arrived at Plymouth Rock, over half of our fresh and saltwater wetlands—more than 110

million acres—have been lost. 

Coastal waters are one of the nation’s greatest assets, yet they are being bombarded

with pollutants from a variety of sources. While progress has been made in reducing point

sources of pollution, nonpoint source pollution has increased and is the primary cause 

of nutrient enrichment, hypoxia, harmful algal blooms, toxic contamination, and other

problems that plague coastal waters. Nonpoint source pollution occurs when rainfall and

snowmelt wash pollutants such as fertilizers, pesticides, bacteria, viruses, pet waste, sediments, oil, chemicals, and litter into our rivers and coastal waters. Other pollutants, such

as mercury and some organic chemicals, can be carried vast distances through the atmosphere before settling into ocean waters. 

Our failure to properly manage the human activities that affect the nation’s oceans,

coasts, and Great Lakes is compromising their ecological integrity, diminishing our ability

to fully realize their potential, costing us jobs and revenue, threatening human health, and

putting our future at risk. 

The Work of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

Congress clearly recognized both the promise of the oceans and the threats to them when

it passed the Oceans Act of 2000, calling for establishment of a Commission on Ocean

Policy to establish findings and develop recommendations for a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy. Pursuant to that Act, the President appointed sixteen

Commission members drawn from diverse backgrounds, including individuals nominated

by the leadership in the United States Senate and House of Representatives. 

The Commission held sixteen public meetings around the country and conducted

eighteen regional site visits, receiving testimony, both oral and written, from hundreds 

of people. Overall, the Commission heard from some 447 witnesses, including over 275

invited presentations and an additional 172 comments from the public, resulting in nearly

1,900 pages of testimony.

3
4 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

The message from both experts and the public alike was clear: our oceans, coasts, and

Great Lakes are in trouble and major changes are urgently needed in the way we manage

them. The Commission learned about new scientific findings that demonstrate the complexity and interconnectedness of natural systems. It also confirmed that our management

approaches have not been updated to reflect this complexity, with responsibilities remaining dispersed among a confusing array of agencies at the federal, state, and local levels.

Managers, decision makers, and the public cried out for improved and timely access to

reliable data and solid scientific information that have been translated into useful results

and products. Another steady theme heard around the country was the plea for additional

federal support, citing decades of underinvestment in the study, exploration, protection,

and management of our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. Finally, the point was made that

we must enhance ocean-related education so that all citizens recognize the role of the

oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes in their own lives and the impacts they themselves have

on these environments.

Following extensive consideration, and deliberation of a broad array of potential solutions, the Commission presented a preliminary report in early 2004. Comments were

solicited from state and territorial governors, tribal leaders, and the public; the response

was overwhelming. Thoughtful, constructive feedback was received from thirty-seven

governors (including 33 of the 34 coastal state governors), five tribal leaders, and a multitude of other organizations and individuals—over one thousand pages in all. Commenters

were nearly unanimous in praising the report, agreeing that our oceans are in trouble, and

supporting the call for action to rectify the situation. Where governors and others offered

corrections or suggestions for improvement, the Commission paid close attention and

made changes as needed.

This final report lays out the Commission’s conclusions and detailed recommendations

for reform—reform that needs to start now, while it is still possible to reverse distressing

declines, seize exciting opportunities, and sustain the oceans and their valuable assets for

future generations. 

A Vision and Strategy for the 21st Century and Beyond

The Commission began by envisioning a desirable future. In this future, the oceans, coasts,

and Great Lakes are clean, safe, prospering, and sustainably managed. They contribute

significantly to the economy, supporting multiple, beneficial uses such as food production,

development of energy and mineral resources, recreation and tourism, transportation of

goods and people, and the discovery of novel medicines, while preserving a high level of

biodiversity and a wide range of critical natural habitats. 

In this future, the coasts are attractive places to live, work, and play, with clean water

and beaches, easy public access, sustainable and strong economies, safe bustling harbors

and ports, adequate roads and services, and special protection for sensitive habitats and

threatened species. Beach closings, toxic algal blooms, proliferation of invasive species,

and vanishing native species are rare. Better land-use planning and improved predictions

of severe weather and other natural hazards save lives and money.

In this future, the management of our impacts on the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes

has also changed. Management boundaries correspond with ecosystem regions, and policies

consider interactions among all ecosystem components. In the face of scientific uncertainty,

managers balance competing considerations and proceed with caution. Ocean governance

is effective, participatory, and well coordinated among government agencies, the private

sector, and the public. 

The Commission envisions a time when the importance of reliable data and sound

science is widely recognized and strong support is provided for physical, biological, social,
EXECUTIVE S UMMARY

and economic research, as well as ocean exploration. The nation invests in the needed 

scientific tools and technologies, including ample, well-equipped surface and underwater

research vessels, reliable, sustained satellites, state-of-the-art computing facilities, and

innovative sensors that can withstand harsh ocean conditions. A widespread network of

observing and monitoring stations provides a steady stream of data, and scientific findings

are translated into practical information and products for decision makers, vessel operators, educators, and the public. 

In this hoped-for future, better education is a cornerstone of national ocean policy,

with the United States once again joining the top ranks in math, science, and technology

achievement. An audacious program to explore unknown reaches of the ocean inspires

and engages people of all ages. An ample, diverse, well-trained, and motivated workforce

is available to study the oceans, set wise policies, develop and apply technological advances,

and engineer new solutions. An effective team of educators works closely with scientists

to learn and teach about the oceans—its value, beauty, and critical role on the planet. And,

as a result of lifelong education, all citizens are better stewards of the nation’s resources

and marine environment. 

Finally, the Commission’s vision sees the United States as an exemplary leader and full

partner globally, eagerly exchanging science, engineering, technology, and policy expertise

with others, particularly those in developing countries, to facilitate the achievement of

sustainable ocean management on an international level. 

While progress has been made in a number of areas, the nation’s existing system for

managing our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes is simply unable to effectively implement the

appropriate guiding principles (see next page) and realize a positive long-term vision. 

The Commission recommends moving toward an ecosystem-based management approach

by focusing on three cross-cutting themes: (1) a new, coordinated national ocean policy

framework to improve decision making; (2) cutting edge ocean data and science translated

into high-quality information for managers; and (3) lifelong ocean-related education to 

create well-informed citizens with a strong stewardship ethic. These themes are woven

throughout the report, appearing again and again in chapters dealing with a wide variety 

of ocean challenges. 

A New National Ocean Policy Framework

To improve decision making, promote effective coordination, and move toward an 

ecosystem-based management approach, a new National Ocean Policy Framework is

needed. While this framework is intended to produce strong, national leadership, it is 

also designed to support and enhance the critical roles of state, territorial, tribal, and 

local decision makers. 

Improved National Coordination and Leadership

At the federal level, eleven of fifteen cabinet-level departments and four independent

agencies play important roles in the development of ocean and coastal policy. These 

agencies interact with one another and with state, territorial, tribal, and local authorities

in sometimes haphazard ways. Improved communication and coordination would greatly

enhance the effectiveness of the nation’s ocean policy.

Within the Executive Office of the President, three entities have some responsibilities

relevant to oceans: the Office of Science and Technology Policy addresses governmentwide science and technology issues and includes an ocean subcommittee; the Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) oversees broad federal environmental efforts and implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act; and the National Security Council’s

5
6 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Guiding Principles

T he Commission believes its vision for the future is both practical and attainable. To

achieve it, however, an overarching set of principles should guide national ocean policy.

• Sustainability: Ocean policy should be designed to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

• Stewardship: The principle of stewardship applies both to the government and to every

citizen. The U.S. government holds ocean and coastal resources in the public trust—a 

special responsibility that necessitates balancing different uses of those resources for the

continued benefit of all Americans. Just as important, every member of the public should

recognize the value of the oceans and coasts, supporting appropriate policies and acting

responsibly while minimizing negative environmental impacts.

• Ocean–Land–Atmosphere Connections: Ocean policies should be based on the recognition that the oceans, land, and atmosphere are inextricably intertwined and that actions

that affect one Earth system component are likely to affect another.

• Ecosystem-based Management: U.S. ocean and coastal resources should be managed to

reflect the relationships among all ecosystem components, including humans and nonhuman species and the environments in which they live. Applying this principle will require

defining relevant geographic management areas based on ecosystem, rather than political, boundaries. 

• Multiple Use Management: The many potentially beneficial uses of ocean and coastal

resources should be acknowledged and managed in a way that balances competing uses

while preserving and protecting the overall integrity of the ocean and coastal environments. 

• Preservation of Marine Biodiversity: Downward trends in marine biodiversity should be

reversed where they exist, with a desired end of maintaining or recovering natural levels

of biological diversity and ecosystem services. 

• Best Available Science and Information: Ocean policy decisions should be based on the

best available understanding of the natural, social, and economic processes that affect

ocean and coastal environments. Decision makers should be able to obtain and understand quality science and information in a way that facilitates successful management of

ocean and coastal resources.

• Adaptive Management: Ocean management programs should be designed to meet clear

goals and provide new information to continually improve the scientific basis for future

management. Periodic reevaluation of the goals and effectiveness of management measures, and incorporation of new information in implementing future management, are

essential. 

• Understandable Laws and Clear Decisions: Laws governing uses of ocean and coastal

resources should be clear, coordinated, and accessible to the nation’s citizens to facilitate

compliance. Policy decisions and the reasoning behind them should also be clear and

available to all interested parties.

• Participatory Governance: Governance of ocean uses should ensure widespread participation by all citizens on issues that affect them. 

• Timeliness: Ocean governance systems should operate with as much efficiency and 

predictability as possible.

• Accountability: Decision makers and members of the public should be accountable for

the actions they take that affect ocean and coastal resources.

• International Responsibility: The United States should act cooperatively with other

nations in developing and implementing international ocean policy, reflecting the deep

connections between U.S. interests and the global ocean. 
EXECUTIVE S UMMARY

Global Environment Policy Coordinating Committee includes a subcommittee to deal

with international ocean issues. But there is no multi-issue, interagency mechanism to

guide, oversee, and coordinate all aspects of ocean and coastal science and policy. 

As part of a new National Ocean Policy Framework, the Commission recommends

that Congress establish a National Ocean Council (NOC) within the Executive Office of

the President, chaired by an Assistant to the President and composed of cabinet secretaries

of departments and administrators of independent agencies with relevant ocean- and

coastal-related responsibilities (Figure ES.2). The NOC should provide high-level attention to ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes issues, develop and guide the implementation of

7

Figure ES.2 Proposed Structure for Coordination of Federal Ocean Activities

President’s Council of 

Advisors on Ocean Policy

Co-Chairs: National Ocean

Council Chair and

one nonfederal member

Membership: Broad, nonfederal

Council on

Environmental Quality 

(CEQ)

Independent ocean

and coastal advisory 

commissions or councils

Committee on Ocean Resource Management

Chair: CEQ Chair

Membership: Undersecretary/assistant secretary 

level of relevant agencies

Committee on Ocean Science, Education, 

Technology, and Operations

(formerly NORLC)

Chair: OSTP Director

Membership: Current NORLC members and others

National Ocean Council

Chair: Assistant to the President

Membership: Cabinet secretaries of 

departments and directors of independent 

agencies with ocean and coastal 

functions; others, as needed

Staff: Office of Ocean Policy

National Science & 

Technology Council

and the

Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP) 

Executive Office 

of the President

President’s Council 

of Advisors on 

Science and Technology

Shown here are the institutional components that should be established in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) to 

improve federal leadership and coordination of the nation’s oceans and coasts. This diagram also illustrates the organizational

relationship between these new components and existing units in the EOP. 

■ Existing Entities

■ New Entities

Reporting lines

Communication Lines

Advisory Lines

Relation to Overall 

Structure (Appendix E)
8 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

appropriate national policies, and coordinate the many federal departments and agencies

with ocean and coastal responsibilities. The Assistant to the President should also advise

OMB and the agencies on appropriate funding levels for important ocean- and coastalrelated activities, and prepare a biennial report as mandated by Section 5 of the Oceans Act

of 2000. A Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations and a

Committee on Ocean Resource Management should be created under the NOC to support

its coordination and planning functions.

A President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, consisting of representatives from

state, territorial, tribal, and local governments and academic, public interest, and private

sector organizations, should also be established to ensure a formal structure for nonfederal input to the NOC and the President on ocean and coastal policy matters. 

A small Office of Ocean Policy should provide staff support to all the bodies discussed

above. Pending congressional action, the Commission recommends that the President put

this structure in place through an executive order. 

An Enhanced Regional Approach

Ensuring full state, territorial, tribal, and local participation in ocean policy development

and implementation is a critical element of the new National Ocean Policy Framework.

Many of the nation’s most pressing ocean and coastal issues are local or regional in nature

and their resolution requires the active involvement of state and local policy makers, as

well as a wide range of stakeholders. 

One of the priority tasks for the new National Ocean Council should be to develop

and promote a flexible, voluntary process that groups of states could use to establish

regional ocean councils. These regional ocean councils would then serve as focal points

for discussion, cooperation, and coordination. They would improve the nation’s ability 

to respond to issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries and would help policy makers

address the large-scale connections and conflicts among watershed, coastal, and offshore

uses. To complement and support this effort, the President should direct all federal agencies with ocean-related functions to immediately improve their regional coordination,

moving over time to adopt a common regional structure (Figure ES.3). 

Figure ES.3 Alignment of Federal Regions Is Essential for Communication

Environmental Protection Agency Regions U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regions

Shown above are the existing regional management areas for three federal agencies. Because these areas do not coincide, it is 

difficult for the agencies to coordinate and communicate about issues of common concern at the regional level. Furthermore, 

this lack of coordination impedes their ability to effectively interact with regional, state, territorial, tribal, and local entities on a 

regional basis.

Alaska Hawaii Puerto Rico Alaska Hawaii Puerto Rico Alaska Hawaii Puerto Rico
EXECUTIVE S UMMARY

One pervasive problem for state

and local managers is lack of sufficient, reliable information on which

to base decisions. The Commission

recommends that governors within a

region identify an appropriate organization to create a regional ocean

information program. Such programs

will identify user-driven regional 

priorities for research, data, and science-based information products and

help meet those needs by enhancing

existing resources and promoting

education, training, and outreach in

support of improved ocean and

coastal management. 

Coordinated Governance 

of Offshore Waters

The nation’s vast offshore ocean areas

are becoming an increasingly appealing place to pursue economic activities (Figure ES.4). Well-established

institutional frameworks exist for

longstanding ocean uses, such as

fishing and energy extraction; 

however, authorities governing new

activities, such as the placement of

wind farms or aquaculture facilities,

need to be clarified. A comprehensive offshore management regime is

needed that enables us to realize the

ocean’s potential while safeguarding

human and ecosystem health, minimizing conflicts among users, and

fulfilling the government’s obligation

to manage the sea in a way that maximizes long-term benefits for all the

nation’s citizens. 

The National Ocean Council,

supported by congressional action

where necessary, should ensure that

each current or foreseeable activity

in federal waters is administered by a

lead federal agency. Well-developed

laws or authorities that cover existing programs would not be supplanted, but the 

lead agency would be expected to continue and enhance coordination among all other

involved federal partners. For emerging ocean activities whose management is ill defined,

dispersed, or essentially non-existent, the National Ocean Council and Congress, working

with affected stakeholders, should ensure that the lead agency provides strong coordination, while working toward a more comprehensive governance structure. 

9

Massachusetts

Rhode 

Island

Figure ES.4 Coordination Is Essential in Busy Offshore Waters

Like many offshore areas of the nation, the waters off a small portion of the 

New England coast are home to a number of existing and proposed activities. 

In addition to the uses shown above, many offshore areas also contain dredging 

projects, marine protected areas, fishery closures, recreational activities, artificial 

reefs, and in certain coastal regions, oil and gas development. User conflicts can 

and do arise when incompatible activities take place in the same area. A 

comprehensive offshore management regime is needed for the balanced 

coordination of all offshore uses.

Source: Minerals Management Service, Washington, DC.

■ Wind farm proposals

■ Shipping lanes, fairways, and 

precautionary areas

■ Hazardous areas—dumping areas; 

toxic wastes; unexploded ordnance, 

torpedos, depth charges, etc.

■ State Waters (3 nautical miles)

■ National Marine Sanctuary

Telecommunications cables—active

Telecommunications 

cables—inactive
10 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Based on an improved understanding of offshore areas and their resources, the federal

government should work with appropriate state and local authorities to ensure that the

many different activities within a given area are compatible, in keeping with an ecosystembased management approach. As the pressure for offshore uses grows, and before serious

conflicts arise, it is critical that the National Ocean Council review the complete array of

single-purpose offshore programs with the goal of achieving coordination among them.

Ultimately, a streamlined program for each activity should be combined with a comprehensive offshore management regime that considers all uses, addresses the cumulative

impacts of multiple activities, and coordinates the many authorities with interests in offshore waters. The National Ocean Council, President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean

Policy, federal agencies, regional ocean councils, and states will all have roles to play in

realizing more coordinated, participatory management of offshore ocean activities. 

In considering the coordination of ocean activities, marine protected areas provide

one valuable tool for achieving more ecosystem-based management of both nearshore and

offshore areas. Such areas can be created for many different reasons including: enhancement of living marine resources; protection of habitats, endangered species, and marine

biological diversity; or preservation of historically or culturally important submerged

archeological resources. Marine protected areas may also provide scientific, recreational,

and educational benefits. The level of protection and types of activities allowed can vary

greatly depending on the goals of the protected area. 

With its multiple use, ecosystem-based perspective, the National Ocean Council

should oversee the development of a flexible process—one that is adaptive and based 

on the best available science—to design, implement, and assess marine protected areas.

Regional ocean councils, or other appropriate entities, can provide a forum for engaging

all stakeholders in this process. 

A Strengthened Federal Agency Structure

Improved coordination through a National Ocean Council is necessary, but not sufficient

to bring about the depth of change needed. Some restructuring of existing federal agencies

will be needed to make government less redundant, more flexible, more responsive to the

needs of states and stakeholders, and better suited to an ecosystem-based management

approach. Because of the significant hurdles involved, a phased approach is suggested. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the nation’s primary

ocean agency. Although it has made significant progress in many areas, there is widespread

agreement that the agency could manage its activities more effectively. In addition, many

of the recommendations in this report call for NOAA to handle additional responsibilities.

A stronger, more effective, science-based and service-oriented ocean agency is needed—

one that works with others to achieve better management of oceans and coasts through an

ecosystem-based approach. 

As an initial step in a phased approach, Congress should pass an organic act that 

codifies the existence of NOAA. This will strengthen the agency and help ensure that its

structure is consistent with three primary functions: management; assessment, prediction,

and operations; and research and education. To support the move toward a more ecosystem-based management approach within and among federal agencies, the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) should review NOAA’s budget within its natural resource

programs directorate, rather than the general government programs directorate. This

change would make it easier to reconcile NOAA’s budget with those of the other major

resource-oriented departments and agencies, all of which are reviewed as natural resource

programs at OMB. 

As a second step in the phased approach, all federal agencies with ocean-related

responsibilities should be reviewed and strengthened and overlapping programs should be

considered for consolidation. Programmatic overlaps can be positive, providing useful
EXECUTIVE S UMMARY

checks and balances as agencies bring different perspectives and experiences to the table.

However, they can also diffuse responsibility, introduce unnecessary redundancy, raise

administrative costs, and interfere with the development of a comprehensive management

regime. The Commission recommends that program consolidation be pursued in areas

such as area-based ocean and coastal resource management, invasive species, marine

mammals, aquaculture, and satellite-based Earth observing. The Assistant to the President,

with advice from the National Ocean Council and the President’s Council of Advisors on

Ocean Policy, should review other federal ocean, coastal, and atmospheric programs, and

recommend additional opportunities for consolidation. 

Ultimately, our growing understanding of ecosystems and the inextricable links

among the sea, land, air, and all living things, points to the need for more fundamental

reorganization of the federal government. Consolidation of all natural resource functions,

including those involving oceans and coasts, would enable federal agencies to move

toward true ecosystem-based management. 

Sound Science and Information for Wise Decisions

An effective national ocean policy should be based on unbiased, credible, and up-to-date

scientific information. Unfortunately, the oceans remain one of the least explored and

most poorly understood environments on the planet, despite some tantalizing discoveries

over the last century. 

Sustained investments will be required to: support research and exploration; provide

an adequate infrastructure for data collection, science, and management; and translate

new scientific findings into useful and timely information products for managers, educators, and the public. This is especially true as we move toward an ecosystem-based management approach that imposes new responsibilities on managers and requires improved

understanding of physical, biological, social, and economic forces. 

Investing in Science and Exploration

Over the past two decades, with our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes under siege, federal

investment in ocean research has stagnated while other fields have grown. As a result,

ocean science funding has fallen from 7 percent of the total federal research budget twentyfive years ago to just 3.5 percent today. This lagging support in the United States, combined

with growing foreign capability, has lessened the nation’s pre-eminence in ocean research,

exploration, and technology development. Chronic under-investment has also left much

of our ocean-related infrastructure in woefully poor condition. 

The current annual federal investment in marine science is well below the level necessary

to adequately meet the nation’s needs for coastal and ocean information. The Commission

urges Congress to double the federal ocean and coastal research budget over the next five

years, including a national program of social science and economic research to examine

the human dimensions and economic value of the nation’s marine resources. In addition, a

dedicated ocean exploration program should be launched to unlock the mysteries of the

deep by discovering new ecosystems, natural resources, and archaeological treasures.

A renewed U.S. commitment to ocean science and technology will require not only

substantially increased funding, but also improved strategic planning, closer interagency

coordination, robust technology and infrastructure, and 21st century data management

systems. The Commission recommends: creation of a national strategy for ocean research

that will guide individual agencies’ ten-year science plans; enhancement and maintenance

of the nation’s ocean and coastal infrastructure; and development of new technologies,

with more rapid transition of experimental technologies into operational applications.

11
12 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Launching a New Era of Data Collection

The Integrated Ocean Observing System

About 150 years ago, this nation set out to create a comprehensive weather forecasting

and warning network. Today it is hard to imagine living without constantly updated and

increasingly accurate weather reports. Now it is time

to fully incorporate the oceans in this observational

and forecasting capability. A sustained, national

Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) will provide invaluable economic, societal, and environmental benefits, including improved warnings of coastal

and health hazards, more efficient use of living and

nonliving resources, safer marine operations, and a

better understanding of climate change. Our information needs are growing and the challenges we face

along our coasts and in our oceans are escalating.

The nation needs to substantially advance its ability

to observe, monitor, and forecast ocean and coastal

conditions, and contribute to global Earth observing

capabilities (Figure ES.5).

The Commission recommends that the Federal

government, through the National Ocean Council,

make the development and implementation of the

IOOS a high priority, to be organized through a formalized Ocean.US office. The United States simply

cannot achieve the levels of understanding and predictive capability needed, or generate the information required by a wide range of users, without the

IOOS. While implementation of the IOOS will

require significant, sustained funding, estimates 

suggest that an operational IOOS will save the

United States billions of dollars annually through

enhanced weather forecasts, improved resource management, and safer, more efficient marine operations. 

The IOOS must meet the needs of a broad suite of users, from scientists to the general

public. To maximize its benefits, resource managers at federal, regional, state, and local

levels will need to explain their information needs and provide guidance on the most useful outputs and products. The regional observing systems, overseen by Regional Associations,

will provide a visible avenue for all users to provide input to the national IOOS.

The National Monitoring Network

Despite the growing threats to ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes waters, there is no national

monitoring network in place to assess their status, track changes over time, help identify

causes and impacts, or determine the success of management efforts. Increased monitoring is needed not only along the nation’s coasts, but also inland where pollutants often

originate, traveling downstream and ultimately affecting coastal waters. A national monitoring network is essential to support the move toward an ecosystem-based management

approach that considers the impacts of human activities within the context of the broader

biological and physical environment. NOAA, EPA, and USGS should lead an effort to

develop a national monitoring network that coordinates and expands existing efforts by

federal, state, local, and private entities. 

Figure ES.5 Many Different Platforms 

Collect Data as Part of the IOOS 

This picture is an artist’s rendering of the various water-, air-, 

and space-components of ocean observing systems. The data 

collected by each of these different sensors are transmitted via 

seafloor fiber optic cables and satellites to a central location 

on land.

Source: HARRIS Corporation Maritime Communications, Melbourne, FL.
EXECUTIVE S UMMARY

Because of the inherent overlap between inland, coastal, and open-ocean waters,

NOAA should ensure that the national monitoring network includes adequate coverage 

in both coastal areas and the upland reaches that affect them, and that it is closely linked

with the IOOS. User communities should participate fully in developing the network, and

the data collected should be made available in useful formats to managers and stakeholders so they can make continual progress toward ecosystem-based management goals. 

The design and implementation of the national monitoring network will require not only

federal coordination, but also significant input from states and regional entities.

Turning Data into Useful Information

The data generated from increased research, enhanced monitoring networks, and new

observing systems will be essential in improving our management of ocean and coastal

resources. However, two major challenges face today’s data managers: the sheer volume of

incoming data, which strains storage and assimilation capabilities, and the demand for

timely access to the data in a variety of formats by user communities. Meeting these challenges will require a concerted effort to modernize the current data management system

and will require greatly improved interagency planning and coordination. The Commission

recommends the creation of several new programs and partnerships to achieve these goals. 

First, Congress should amend the National Oceanographic Partnership Act to establish

Ocean.IT, a new federal interagency mechanism to oversee ocean and coastal data management. This interagency group will enhance coordination, harmonize future software

and hardware acquisitions and upgrades, and oversee strategic planning and funding.

Building partnerships with the private sector and academia should also be a major goal of

Ocean.IT. 

Second, NOAA and the U.S. Navy should establish an ocean and coastal information

management and communications partnership to generate information products relevant

to national, regional, state, and local operational needs. Building upon the Navy’s model

for operational oceanography, this partnership would rapidly advance U.S. coastal and

ocean analyses and forecasting capabilities by drawing on the distinct, yet complementary

capabilities of each organization and using all available physical, biological, chemical, and

socioeconomic data. 

The Commission recommends the creation of two additional programs that will aid in

the creation and dissemination of information: multi-stakeholder regional ocean information programs to develop and disseminate useful information products on a regional basis;

and accelerated coastal and ocean mapping and charting, coordinated through the Federal

Geographic Data Committee.

Education: A Foundation for the Future

Testing results suggest that, after getting off to a good start in elementary school, by the

time U.S. students graduate from high school their achievement in math and science falls

well below the international average (Figure ES.6). More specifically, a 1999 study

revealed that just 32 percent of the nation’s adults grasp simple environmental concepts

and even fewer understand more complex issues, such as ecosystem decline, loss of biodiversity, or watershed degradation. It is not widely understood that nonpoint source pollution threatens the health of coastal waters, or that mercury in fish comes from human

activities via the atmosphere. From excess application of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides on lawns, to the trash washed off city streets into rivers and coastal waters, ordinary

activities contribute significantly to the degradation of the marine environment, but without an informed and educated citizenry, it will be difficult to achieve a collective commitment to stewardship, sustained investment, and more effective policies. 

13
14 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

A new national ocean policy should include a

strong commitment to education to reverse scientific

and environmental illiteracy, create a strong, diverse

workforce, produce informed decision makers, and

develop a national stewardship ethic for the oceans,

coasts, and Great Lakes. The Commission recommends that all ocean-related agencies take responsibility for promoting education and outreach as an

integral part of their missions. Ocean education at

all levels, both formal and informal, should be

enhanced with targeted projects and continual

assessments and improvement.

A national ocean education office, Ocean.ED,

should be created under the National Ocean Council

to promote nationwide improvements in ocean education. As an interagency office, Ocean.ED should

develop a coordinated national strategy and work in

partnership with state and local governments and

with K–12, university level, and informal educators.

The National Science Foundation Centers for Ocean

Science Education Excellence provide one outstanding model that should be expanded. Other recommendations include increased funding for training

and fellowships, targeted efforts to increase participation by under-represented groups, and closer interaction between scientists and educators. All oceanrelated agencies must explore innovative ways to engage people of all ages in learning and

stewardship, using the excitement of ocean science and exploration as a catalyst. 

Specific Management Challenges

Building on the foundation of improved governance, new scientific information, and

enhanced education, the Commission’s report covers the full breadth of topics included in

its charge from Congress. As a result, it includes over 200 recommendations that span the

gamut of ocean and coastal issues, ranging from upstream areas to the depths of the sea,

from practical problem solving to broad guidance for ocean policy. 

Several important issues pose particular challenges and are highlighted in the following sections. The full report addresses these topics and a number of others in much

greater depth.

Managing Coasts and Their Watersheds

While coastal watershed counties comprise less than 25 percent of the land area in the

United States, they are home to more than 52 percent of the total U.S. population. On

average, some 3,600 people a day are moving to coastal counties, suggesting that by 2015

coastal populations will reach a total of 165 million. With another 180 million people visiting the coast each year, the pressure on our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes will become

ever more intense and the need for effective management greater (Figure ES.7). 

Population growth and tourism bring many benefits to coastal communities and the

nation, including new jobs, businesses, and enhanced educational opportunities. The

great popularity of these areas, however, also puts more people and property at risk from

Figure ES.6 U.S. Students Fall Behind in Science 

■ U.S. Average

■ International Average

Test Score

420

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

U.S. students in fourth grade score above the international 

average in science achievement, according to the Trends in 

International Mathematics and Science Study. However, 

as students approach their final year in secondary school, 

the performance in U.S. schools drops well below the 

international average.

Source: Calsyn, C., P. Gonzales, and M. Frase. Highlights from TIMSS 

[Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study]. Washington, 

DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1999.
EXECUTIVE S UMMARY

coastal hazards, reduces and fragments fish and wildlife habitat, alters sediment and water

flows, and contributes to coastal water pollution. Fortunately, we are gaining a muchimproved understanding of human influences on coastal ecosystems, whether they originate locally, regionally, or in watersheds hundreds of miles upstream.

Without question, management of the nation’s coastal zone has made great strides,

but further improvements are urgently needed, with an emphasis on ecosystem-based,

watershed approaches that consider environmental, economic, and social concerns. The

Commission recommends that federal area-based coastal programs be consolidated and

federal laws be modified to improve coastal resource protection and sustainable use.

Congress should reauthorize and boost support for the Coastal Zone Management Act,

strengthening the management capabilities of coastal states and enabling them to incorporate a watershed focus. The Coastal Zone Management Act, Clean Water Act, and other

federal laws should be amended to provide financial, technical, and institutional support

for watershed initiatives. 

At the highest level, the National Ocean Council should develop national goals and

direct changes to better link coastal and watershed management and minimize impacts asso15

People per square 

mile by county

3,000.0 to 6,6940.0

300.0 to 2,999.9

160.0 to 299.9

79.6 to 159.9

7.0 to 79.5

1.0 to 6.9

0.0 to 0.9

People per square mile by state

300.0 to 9,316.0

79.6 to 299.9

7.0 to 79.5

1.1 to 6.9

U.S. 

density 

is 79.6

U.S. 

density 

is 79.6

As shown by 2000 U.S. Census figures, population density is generally highest in coastal areas, including counties surrounding the 

Great Lakes. Population growth and increasing population density in coastal counties reflect the attraction of the coast but also 

result in increased environmental impacts on coastal ecosystems.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “Census 2000.” <www.census.gov> (Accessed March 2004).

Alaska Hawaii

Puerto Rico

Figure ES.7 Population Density Peaks Near the Shore

0 100

Miles

0 100

Miles

0 100

Miles

0 100

Miles
16 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

ciated with coastal population and housing growth. The President’s Council of Advisors on

Ocean Policy can serve as a forum through which nonfederal entities have an opportunity to

provide critically needed input to help guide this change. Regional ocean councils can also

provide a mechanism for coordinating coastal and watershed management. 

Guarding People and Property against Natural Hazards

Conservative estimates of damages from natural hazards, looking only at direct costs such

as those for structural replacement and repair, put nationwide losses at more than $50 

billion a year. Some experts believe this figure represents only half or less of the true costs.

More accurate figures are unavailable because the United States does not consistently 

collect and compile such data, let alone focus specifically on losses in coastal areas or

costs associated with damage to natural environments. 

Many federal agencies have explicit operational responsibilities related to hazards

management, while others provide technical information or deliver disaster assistance.

The nation’s lead agencies for natural hazards planning, response, recovery, and mitigation

are the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE). These agencies implement programs that specifically target the

reduction and management of risks from natural hazards. 

Opportunities for improving Federal natural hazards management include: modifying

federal infrastructure policies that encourage inappropriate development in hazard-prone

areas; augmenting hazards information collection, analysis, and dissemination; refining

the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); and undertaking effective and universal

state and local hazards mitigation planning.

Conserving and Restoring Coastal Habitat 

The diverse habitats that comprise the ocean and coastal environment provide tangible

benefits such as filtering pollutants from runoff, buffering coastal communities against the

effects of storms, and providing a basis for booming recreation and tourism industries.

These habitats also supply spawning grounds, nurseries, shelter, and food for marine life,

including a disproportionate number of endangered or commercially important species. 

As more people come to the coast to live, work, and visit, coastal habitats are increasingly stressed and damaged. Over the past several decades the nation has lost millions of

acres of wetlands, seen the destruction of seagrass and kelp beds, and faced a loss of significant mangrove forests. Cost-effective conservation and restoration programs should be

expanded according to a national strategy that sets goals and priorities, enhances the

effectiveness and coordination of individual efforts, and periodically evaluates progress.

Many habitat conservation and restoration projects have been successful, but continued

progress will depend on sustained funding, improved government leadership and coordination, enhanced scientific research and monitoring, better education and outreach, and

solid stakeholder support. 

Managing Sediment and Shorelines

From a human perspective, sediment has a dual nature—desirable in some locations and

unwanted in others—making its management particularly challenging. The natural flow

of sediment over land and through waterways is important for sustaining coastal habitats

and maintaining beaches. Too little sediment can lead to declining habitats, diminishing

wetlands and eroding beaches. However, excess or contaminated sediment can block shipping channels, destroy habitats, poison the food chain, and endanger lives. Navigational

dredging, infrastructure projects, farming, forestry, urban development, industrial opera-
EXECUTIVE S UMMARY

tions, and many other necessary and beneficial human activities can interfere with 

natural sediment processes, adversely affecting the interests of other stakeholders and 

the environment.

The nation must overcome several challenges to improve its management of sediment.

The natural processes that create, move, and deposit sediment operate on regional scales,

while today’s management regime generally addresses discrete locations—a single beach,

wetland, or port—and rarely addresses broader upstream or coastal activities that affect

sediment processes. To complicate matters further, the policies that control sediment

dredging, transport, and quality fall under the jurisdiction of an assortment of programs

within multiple agencies at all levels of government. Finally, our understanding of natural

sediment processes, and how human activities affect sediment movement, is still limited. 

A national sediment management strategy is needed that balances ecological and economic needs according to an ecosystem-based management approach. Such a strategy

should consider sediment on a multi-project, regional, watershed basis, and should

involve all relevant parties. Participation in watershed management efforts by federal,

state, and local entities, along with key stakeholders such as coastal planners and port

managers, is an important step in diminishing upland sources of excess or contaminated

sediment. Scientifically sound methods for characterizing contaminated sediment, combined with innovative technologies for dredging, treatment, and disposal of this material,

will also be critical. 

Supporting Marine Commerce 

and Transportation

Global trade is an essential and growing component

of the nation’s economy, accounting for nearly 7 percent of the gross domestic product. The vast majority

of our import-export goods pass through the nation’s

extensive marine transportation system (Figure

ES.8). To meet current demands and prepare for

expected growth in the future, this system will

require maintenance, improvement, and significant

expansion. 

A first step in the process will be better coordination, planning, and allocation of resources at the 

federal level. As part of a national move toward an

ecosystem-based management approach, the efficient,

safe, and secure movement of cargo and passengers

should be well coordinated with other ocean and

coastal uses and activities, and with efforts to protect

the marine environment. 

Specific recommendations include giving the

Department of Transportation (DOT) lead responsibility within the federal government for oversight of

the marine transportation system, including regular

assessments of its status and future needs. DOT

should develop an integrated national freight transportation strategy that strengthens the

links between ports and other modes of transportation to support continued growth of

international and domestic trade. In developing a national freight transportation strategy,

DOT should work closely with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and FEMA to

incorporate port security and other emergency preparedness requirements. 

17

Figure ES.8 Ports are the Primary Gateway 

for International Trade 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Water Air Truck Rail Pipeline Other

Contributions to 

U.S. International Trade

Mode of Transportation

In 2001, U.S. ports were major gateways for international trade. 

Waterborne commerce accounted for 78 percent of total U.S. 

international trade by weight (1,643 million tons) and 38 

percent by value ($718 billion).

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation. 

“U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends 2003.“ 

<www.bts.gov/publications/us_international_trade_and_freight_

transportation_trends/2003/> (Accessed May 2004).

■ Value ■ Weight
18 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

To ensure good coordination, the Interagency Committee for the Marine Transportation

System should be strengthened, codified, and placed under the oversight of the National

Ocean Council. Because marine transportation is primarily a nonfederal activity, the

Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council should also be maintained to

provide a venue for outside input to the federal government on relevant issues. 

Addressing Coastal Water Pollution

Coastal and ocean water quality is threatened by multiple sources of pollution, including

point, nonpoint, and atmospheric sources, vessels, invasive species, and trash being

washed onto beaches and into the ocean. Addressing these many sources requires development of an ecosystem-based and watershed management approach that draws on a 

variety of management tools. Because water contamination problems are complex and

pervasive, their solution will require substantial investments of federal resources and

greatly enhanced coordination both among federal agencies (primarily EPA, NOAA,

USDA, and USACE) and between the federal government and managers at state, territorial, tribal, and local levels, in addition to watershed groups, nongovernmental organizations, private stakeholders, and the academic and research communities. 

Over the last few decades, great strides have been made in reducing water pollution

from point sources, although further improvements can be realized through increased

funding, strengthened enforcement, and promotion of innovative approaches, such as

market-based incentives. Persistently troublesome point sources of pollution, including

wastewater treatment plants, sewer system overflows, septic systems, industrial facilities,

and animal feeding operations, must continue to be addressed. 

But the widespread and growing problem of nonpoint source pollution (Figure ES.9)

has not seen similar success. Significant reduction of such pollution in all impaired coastal

watersheds should be established as a national goal with measurable objectives set to meet

water quality standards. Federal nonpoint source pollution programs should be better coordinated so they are mutually supportive. Because agricultural runoff contributes substantially to such pollution, USDA should align its conservation programs, technical assistance,

and funding with EPA and NOAA programs for

reducing nonpoint source pollution. State and local

governments can also play central roles through better land-use planning and stormwater management. 

Pollution reduction efforts should include the

aggressive use of state revolving loan funds, implementation of incentives to reward good practices,

and improved monitoring to assess compliance and

overall progress. Congress should also amend the

Clean Water Act to authorize federal financial disincentives to discourage activities that degrade water

quality and to provide federal authority to act if a

state chronically fails to make progress in controlling

nonpoint sources. 

Given the natural functioning of hydrologic 

systems, watersheds are often the appropriate geographic unit within which to address water-related

problems. Collaborative watershed groups have had

particular success in addressing nonpoint source 

pollution. The federal government should strengthen

collaborative watershed groups by providing them

with adequate technical, institutional, and financial

support. 

Figure ES.9 Controlling Nonpoint Source 

Pollution Is Key to Cleaner Waters 

47% 43%

10%

Nonpoint source pollution is a factor in 90 percent of all 

incidents where water quality is determined to be below the 

standards set for specific activities, such as recreation, water 

supply, aquatic life, or agriculture.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Water Act Section 

303(d) Lists: Overview of TMDL Program. Washington, DC, 1998. 

Combination

of Point and

Nonpoint 

Sources Nonpoint

Sources

Only

Point Sources Only
EXECUTIVE S UMMARY

Because contaminants can travel long distances through the atmosphere and be deposited

far from their origin, EPA and states should also develop and implement regional and

national strategies for controlling this source of water pollution, building upon efforts such

as the EPA Air-Water Interface Work Plan. In addition, the United States should participate in a vigorous international research program on the sources and impacts of atmospheric deposition and play a leadership role in negotiating international solutions. 

Limiting Vessel Pollution and Improving Vessel Safety

Ships carry more than 95 percent of the nation’s overseas cargo, but their operations also

present safety, security, and environmental risks. To minimize these risks, the Commission

recommends that the U.S. Coast Guard work with industry partners and enhance incentive

programs to encourage voluntary commitments from vessel owners and operators to build

a workplace ethic that values safety, security, and environmental protection as central

components of everyday vessel operations. These voluntary measures should be complemented by effective oversight and monitoring, whether conducted by the Coast Guard 

or third-party audit firms, and backed up by consistent enforcement efforts, including 

performance-based vessel inspections. 

The United States should also work with other nations, through the International

Maritime Organization, to enhance flag state oversight and enforcement. Initiatives should

include expeditious promulgation of a code outlining flag state responsibilities and development of a mandatory external audit regime to evaluate flag state performance and identify areas where additional technical assistance is needed. 

Control over vessels entering U.S. ports should be improved by ensuring that the

Coast Guard has sufficient resources to sustain and strengthen its performance-based

inspection program for marine safety and environmental protection, while also meeting 

its enhanced security responsibilities. In addition, the Coast Guard should work at the

regional and international levels to increase effective coordination and vessel information

sharing among concerned port states. 

A number of other important vessel-related priorities are discussed in the report,

including the need for a uniform national regime to deal with cruise ship waste streams

and reduction of recreational vessel pollution. 

Preventing the Spread of Invasive Species

The introduction of non-native organisms into ports, coastal areas, and watersheds is

causing harm to marine ecosystems around the world resulting in millions of dollars in

costs for monitoring, control, and remediation. The most effective weapon against invasive species is prevention. To control the introduction of invasive species through ships’

ballast water, a major pathway, the U.S. Coast Guard’s national ballast water management

program should: incorporate sound science in the development of biologically meaningful, mandatory, and enforceable ballast water treatment standards; develop new treatment

technologies, revising the standards as needed to incorporate these technologies; and

allow for full consultation with EPA.

To address introduction pathways other than ballast water, such as ships’ hulls,

anchors, navigational buoys, drilling platforms, fishing activities, the aquarium trade,

aquaculture, and floating marine debris, the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, the

Interior, and Homeland Security should more actively monitor and prevent the importation of potentially invasive aquatic species. Because prevention will never be entirely effective, the Commission also recommends the development of a national plan for early detection of invasive species and a system for prompt notification and rapid response. 

The National Ocean Council, working with the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force

and the National Invasive Species Council, should review and streamline the current pro19
20 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

liferation of federal and state programs for managing invasive species and should coordinate education and outreach efforts to increase public awareness about the importance of

prevention. In the long run, a rigorous program of research, technology development, and

monitoring will be needed to understand and effectively prevent aquatic species invasions.

Reducing Marine Debris

Marine debris refers to the enormous amount of trash, abandoned fishing gear, and other

waste that can be found drifting around the global ocean and washing up along its coastlines,

posing serious threats to wildlife, habitats, and human health and safety. Approximately 80

percent of this debris originates on land, either washed along in runoff, blown by winds,

or intentionally dumped from shore, while 20 percent comes from offshore platforms and

vessels, including fishing boats.

The Commission recommends that NOAA, as the nation’s primary ocean and coastal

management agency, reestablish its defunct marine debris program to build on and 

complement EPA’s modest program. NOAA and EPA should expand their marine debris

efforts, taking advantage of each agency’s strengths by pursuing: public outreach and 

education; partnerships with local governments, community groups, and industry; and

strengthened research and monitoring efforts. 

An interagency committee under the National Ocean Council should coordinate federal

marine debris programs and take maximum advantage of the significant efforts conducted

by private citizens, state and local governments, and nongovernmental organizations. 

The United States should also remain active on the international level. An immediate

priority is the development of an international plan of action to address derelict fishing

gear on the high seas. 

Achieving Sustainable Fisheries 

Over the last thirty years, the fishing industry has evolved from being largely unmanaged,

with seemingly boundless opportunities, to one that is highly regulated and struggling to

remain viable in some places. While the current regime has many positive features, such

as an emphasis on local participation, the pairing of science and management, and regional

flexibility, it has also allowed overexploitation of many fish stocks, degradation of habitats, and negative impacts on many ecosystems and fishing communities. 

The Commission’s recommendations to improve fishery management can be grouped

into six areas: re-emphasizing the role of science in the management process; strengthening

the Regional Fishery Management Council (RFMC) system and clarifying jurisdictions;

expanding the use of dedicated access privileges; improving enforcement; adopting an

ecosystem-based management approach; and strengthening international management.

To strengthen the link between strong science and sustainable fishery management,

RFMCs should be required to rely on the peer-reviewed advice of their Scientific and

Statistical Committees (SSCs), particularly in setting harvest levels. In particular, an

RFMC should not be allowed to approve any measure that exceeds the allowable biological catch recommended by its SSC. Because of their importance in the process, SSC members should be nominated by the RFMCs but appointed by the Administrator of NOAA,

and their credentials and potential conflicts of interest should be vetted by an external

organization. An expanded research program is needed that involves fishermen where

possible and is responsive to managers’ requirements.

Several recommendations are made concerning the composition, responsibilities, and

jurisdiction of the various federal and interstate fishery management entities. In particular, membership on the RFMCs needs to be diversified and new members should receive

consistent training in the often arcane vocabulary and policies involved in U.S. fishery

management. 
EXECUTIVE S UMMARY

To reverse existing incentives that create an unsustainable “race for the fish,” fishery

managers should explore the adoption of dedicated access privileges to promote conservation and help reduce overcapitalization. Congress should amend the Magnuson–Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management Act to affirm that RFMCs are authorized to institute dedicated access privileges, subject to meeting national guidelines, and every federal,

interstate, and state fishery management body should consider the potential benefits of

adopting such programs. In addition, Congress should address overcapitalization directly

by revising federal programs that subsidize this practice, as well as working with NOAA to

develop programs that permanently reduce overcapitalization in fisheries.

Fishery enforcement should be continually strengthened through the adoption of 

better technologies, such as Vessel Monitoring Systems, better cooperation among federal

and state agencies, and enhanced support for the infrastructure, personnel, and programs

that make enforcement possible. 

Consistent with one of the major themes of this report, fishery management needs to

move toward a more ecosystem-based approach to improve its effectiveness and reduce

conflicts between socioeconomic forces and biological sustainability. An ecosystem-based

management approach will be particularly helpful in protecting essential fish habitat and

reducing the impacts of bycatch. 

Finally, the U.S. should work with other countries on worldwide adoption and

enforcement of international agreements that promote sustainable fishery practices, in

particular the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement and the U.N. Food and Agriculture

Organization’s Compliance Agreement and Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

The United States should also continue to press for the inclusion of environmental 

objectives—particularly those specified in international environmental agreements—

as legitimate elements of trade policy.

Protecting Marine Mammals and Endangered Marine Species

The Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act are landmark laws

that have protected marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, and other populations at risk

since their passage. However, both Acts need to be updated to support the move toward a

more ecosystem-based approach.

As in so many other areas of ocean policy, immediate clarification and coordination 

of federal agency policies is needed. The Commission recommends that Congress consolidate the jurisdiction for marine mammals within NOAA, and that the National Ocean

Council improve coordination between NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in

implementation of the Endangered Species Act, particularly for anadromous species or

where land-based activities have significant impacts on marine species. Congress should

also amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to require NOAA to specify categories of

activities that are allowed without a permit, those that require a permit, and those that are

strictly prohibited. The permitting process itself should be streamlined by using programmatic permitting where possible. The definition of harassment in the Marine Mammal

Protection Act should also be revised to cover only activities that meaningfully disrupt

behaviors that are significant to the survival and reproduction of marine mammals. 

The Commission recommends an expanded research, technology, and engineering

program, coordinated through the National Ocean Council, to examine and mitigate the

effects of human activities—including fishing, pollution, and climate change—on marine

mammals, seabirds, sea turtles and all other marine endangered species. In addition,

Congress should expand federal funding for research into ocean acoustics and the potential impacts of noise on marine mammals and other species. 

21
22 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Preserving Coral Reefs and Other Coral Communities

Coral communities are among the oldest and most diverse ecosystems on the planet, rivaling tropical rainforests in biodiversity and potential economic value. Unfortunately, like

the rainforests, the world’s coral reefs are increasingly showing signs of serious decline,

with pristine reefs becoming rare and up to one-third of the world’s reefs severely damaged

according to some estimates. 

A strengthened Coral Reef Task Force, under the oversight of the National Ocean

Council, should promote immediate actions to reverse the impacts on tropical coral communities from pollution (with EPA and USDA in the lead) and from fishing (with NOAA

in the lead). NOAA should be assigned as the lead agency for assessing and protecting the

nation’s relatively unexplored cold water coral communities, including dedicated research

on their distribution and abundance and strategies to reduce major threats to their survival.

Congress should enact a Coral Protection and Management Act that provides direct

authorities to protect and manage corals, and creates a framework for research and for

cooperation with international efforts. This legislation should include: mapping, monitoring, and research programs to fill critical information gaps; liability provisions for damages to coral reefs, similar to those in the National Marine Sanctuaries Act; outreach 

activities to educate the public about coral conservation and reduce human impacts; and

mechanisms for U.S. involvement in bilateral, regional, and international coral reef programs, particularly through the sharing of scientific, technical, and management expertise.

In many places, harvesting methods continue to damage reefs and overexploit ornamental species. As the world’s largest importer of ornamental coral reef resources, the

United States has a particular responsibility to help eliminate destructive harvesting 

practices and ensure the sustainable use of reef resources. The nation should develop 

standards for the importation of coral species to balance legitimate trade with protection

of the world’s coral reefs and to ensure that U.S. citizens do not unknowingly promote

unsustainable practices.

Setting a Course for Sustainable Marine Aquaculture

Marine aquaculture has the potential to supply a significant part of the ever increasing

domestic and global demand for seafood. However, two major concerns must be addressed:

environmental problems associated with some aquaculture operations, particularly net-pen

facilities, and a confusing, inconsistent array of state and federal regulations that hinder

private sector investment.

The Commission recommends that Congress amend the National Aquaculture Act to

designate NOAA as the lead federal agency for implementing a national policy on environmentally and economically sustainable marine aquaculture. Through a new Office of

Sustainable Marine Aquaculture, NOAA should develop a single, multi-agency federal permitting process for the industry that ensures that aquaculture facilities meet all applicable

environmental standards and protects the sustainability and diversity of wild stocks. 

Additional investments in research, demonstration projects, and technical assistance

can help the industry address environmental issues, conduct risk assessments, develop

improved technology, select appropriate species, and create best management practices. 

Connecting the Oceans and Human Health

Over the last several decades, scientific studies have demonstrated that the health of

humans and the oceans are inextricably linked. Human inputs such as point and nonpoint

source pollution adversely affect the health of coastal ecosystems, resulting in conditions

which in turn affect human health. 
EXECUTIVE S UMMARY

Sewage effluent and stormwater discharges can contaminate water and marine organisms, leading to outbreaks of viral and bacterial diseases with serious medical consequences,

and curtailing beach and ocean recreation. Chemicals like polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs) and toxic metals like mercury enter the oceans from rivers and from atmospheric

deposition. Once there, they accumulate in finfish and shellfish, posing potentially serious

long-term health threats to consumers. Excessive nutrient inputs from nonpoint source

pollution can lead to harmful algal blooms that are toxic to fish and humans and can

result in oxygen-depleted “dead zones” that kill marine organisms and decimate recreational and commercial fishing. Global climate change may also result in the spread of

human diseases such as cholera and malaria via the marine environment. 

On a brighter note, a growing number of important medical treatments and biotechnologies are now based on chemicals that originate from marine organisms. Marine bioproducts with anti-inflammatory and cancer fighting properties are just a few examples 

of the promising medical advances found in the oceans. A more focused program of 

exploration and bioprospecting holds great promise for similar discoveries in the future.

Despite these threats and opportunities, our knowledge of the links between the

oceans and human health is in its infancy and remains inadequate to make the sciencebased decisions that are needed. To expand this knowledge base, Congress should establish a major initiative on the oceans and human health. Existing programs at NOAA, NSF,

and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences should be coordinated under

this initiative, with additional input from EPA and FDA.

Managing Offshore Energy and Other Mineral Resources

Oil and gas development on the outer Continental Shelf (OCS) supplies over a quarter of

the nation’s domestic oil and gas reserves, and contributes thousands of jobs and billions

of dollars to the economy. Although controversial in many locations, the process for oil

and gas leasing and production is well developed, reasonably comprehensive, and could

serve as a model for implementing offshore renewable energy projects within the context

of a coordinated offshore management regime. 

To maintain a strong link between ocean uses and ocean management, the Commission

recommends dedicating federal revenues from OCS energy leasing and production to

ensuring the sustainability of ocean and coastal resources. A portion of these funds should

be given to coastal states, with larger shares going to OCS producing states to help address

the environmental and economic consequences of energy production. 

In addition to oil and gas, other offshore energy sources are being explored. The

National Ocean Council (NOC), working with the U.S. Department of Energy and others,

should determine whether methane hydrates can contribute significantly to meeting the

nation’s long-term energy needs and, if so, what level of investment in research and development is warranted. Renewable energy sources should also be considered as part of a

coordinated offshore management regime. Congress, with input from the NOC, should

enact legislation to streamline the licensing of renewable energy facilities in U.S. waters,

relying on an open, transparent process that accounts for state, local, and public concerns.

The legislation should include the principle that the ocean is a public resource and that

the U.S. Treasury should receive a fair return from its use. 

Advancing International Ocean Science and Policy

The United States has historically been a world leader in international ocean policy, participating actively in the development of international agreements that govern the planet’s

ocean areas and resources. That leadership must now be reaffirmed and reinvigorated by

acceding to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, enhancing the partici23
24 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

pation of all ocean-related federal agencies in international discussions and negotiations,

and taking a leading role in building international capacity in ocean science and management, particularly in developing countries.

The United States can advance its own interests and contribute to the health of the

world’s oceans by first ensuring that U.S. domestic policies and actions embody exemplary

standards of wise, sustainable ocean management. The new National Ocean Policy Framework

will be instrumental in setting this positive tone for the international community. Many

additional recommendations for action at the international level are presented throughout

the report in the context of specific ocean and coastal management issues, such as international fisheries, global transportation of air pollutants, trade in corals and other living

marine resources, the worldwide spread of marine debris, and many others. 

Implementing a New National Ocean Policy

There are over 200 recommendations in the Commission’s report, each one calling on 

specific responsible parties to spearhead its implementation and be accountable for its

progress. A large number of recommendations are directed at Congress, the leadership of

the executive branch, and federal agencies, as shown in Chapter 31. 

Although the Commission has generally targeted few recommendations specifically at

state or local governments, it recognizes that a significant enhancement of the ocean and

coastal partnership between the federal government and nonfederal governmental and

nongovernmental stakeholders is one of the foundations of the new national ocean policy.

These entities will have critically important roles to play in the establishment of regional

ocean councils, and in areas such as coastal development, water quality, education, natural

hazards planning, fishery management, habitat conservation, and much more. Strong state

participation is also needed in the design and implementation of regional ocean observing

systems and their integration into the national IOOS, as well as in other research and

monitoring activities. 

A Worthwhile Investment

Implementation of the recommendations in this report will lead to tangible, measurable

improvements in U.S. ocean policy and in the health of our oceans, coasts, and Great

Lakes. However, significant change cannot be achieved without adequate investments—of

time, money, and political will. A summary of costs is presented in Chapter 30, and a

detailed breakdown of the cost of each recommendation is provided in Appendix G. The

Commission estimates the total additional cost for initiatives outlined in this report at

approximately $1.5 billion in the first year and $3.9 billion per year after full implementation. The payoff from these investments will be substantial for the United States and its

citizens, benefiting our economy, health, environment, quality of life, and security. 

Long Term Support: The Ocean Policy Trust Fund

As noted previously, almost $5 trillion dollars, or one half of the nation’s annual gross

domestic product, is generated each year within coastal watershed counties. That enormous economic contribution is now being threatened by the degradation of our oceans,

coasts, and Great Lakes. Modest levels of additional funding will reap significant dividends

by supporting management strategies that restore and sustain our ocean and coastal

resources and maximize their long-term value.

Despite pressing needs, the Commission is mindful of the intense budgetary constraints

that exist at both federal and state levels—and is sensitive to the hardships associated with

unfunded mandates, whether imposed on state governments or federal agencies. To cover
EXECUTIVE S UMMARY

the cost of its recommendations, the Commission believes it is important to identify

appropriate, dedicated sources of revenue. In this regard, the nexus between federal offshore activities and the management responsibilities they engender is obvious. Thus, the

Commission proposes the creation of an Ocean Policy Trust Fund in the U.S. Treasury,

composed of revenues generated from permitted activities in federal waters. 

The Trust Fund would start out with OCS oil and gas revenues that are not already

committed to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the National Historic Preservation

Fund, or to certain coastal states based on oil and gas production in the three nautical

mile area seaward of their submerged lands. After those existing programs are funded in

accordance with law, the remaining OCS monies would be deposited into the Trust Fund.

New offshore activities, such as renewable energy, aquaculture, or bioprospecting, may

25

Critical Actions Recommended by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

The following key recommendations provide the foundation for a comprehensive national

ocean policy that will lead to significant improvements in ocean and coastal management.

Improved Governance

• Establish a National Ocean Council in the Executive Office of the President, chaired by an

Assistant to the President.

• Create a non-federal President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy.

• Improve the federal agency structure by strengthening NOAA and consolidating federal

agency programs according to a phased approach.

• Develop a flexible, voluntary process for creating regional ocean councils, facilitated and

supported by the National Ocean Council. 

• Create a coordinated management regime for activities in federal offshore waters.

Sound Science for Wise Decisions

• Double the nation’s investment in ocean research, launch a new area of ocean exploration,

and create the advanced technologies and modern infrastructure needed to support them.

• Implement the national Integrated Ocean Observing System and a national monitoring

network.

Education—A Foundation for the Future

• Improve ocean-related education through coordinated and effective formal and informal

efforts.

Specific Management Challenges

• Strengthen coastal and watershed management and the links between them.

• Set measurable goals for reducing water pollution, particularly from nonpoint sources,

and strengthen incentives, technical assistance, enforcement, and other management

tools to achieve those goals.

• Reform fisheries management by separating assessment and allocation, improving the

Regional Fishery Management Council system, and exploring the use of dedicated access

privileges. 

• Accede to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to remain fully engaged

on the international level.

Implementation

• Establish an Ocean Policy Trust Fund, based on unallocated revenues from offshore oil

and gas development and new offshore activities, that is dedicated to supporting

improved ocean and coastal management at federal and state levels.
26 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

also produce revenues in time, and these should be added to the Fund. Establishment of,

and distributions from, the Ocean Policy Trust Fund should be kept separate from any

decisions about whether a particular offshore activity should be authorized and permitted.

Approximately $5 billion is generated annually from OCS oil and gas revenues.

Protecting the three programs noted above would remove about $1 billion from that total.

Thus, some $4 billion would remain available for the Ocean Policy Trust Fund each year

under current projections. It is not possible to estimate the level of revenue that might

accompany emerging activities in federal waters, nor to predict when this income could

begin to flow, but the amounts may be significant in years to come. 

Trust Fund monies should be used to support the additional research, education, and

management responsibilities recommended for federal and state agencies and other appropriate coastal authorities, consistent with a coordinated and comprehensive national

ocean policy. Such funds would be used to supplement—not replace—existing appropriations for ocean and coastal programs, and to fund new or expanded duties. 

Call to Action

This report reflects the input of hundreds of Americans from across the nation, testimony

from many of the world’s leading experts, and months of deliberation. The recommendations contained within can set the course toward a future in which our oceans, coasts, and

Great Lakes are healthy, enjoyed, and treasured by all people, and America’s marine

resources are restored and sustained for generations to come. 

The opportunity is here and the time to act is now. A new national ocean policy can

be implemented that balances ocean use with sustainability, is based on sound science and

supported by excellent education, and is overseen by a coordinated system of governance

with strong leadership at national and regional levels. It will take great political will, 

significant fiscal investment, and strong public support, but in the long run all of America

will benefit from these changes. 


PART I

OU R OCEANS :

A NATIONAL ASSET

CHAPTER 1 

RECOGNIZING OCEAN ASSETS AND CHALLENGES ........................................30

CHAPTER 2 

UNDERSTANDING THE PAST TO SHAPE

A NEW NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY..........................................................................48

CHAPTER 3 

SETTING THE NATION’S SIGHTS ...............................................................................60
30 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 1

RECOGNIZING OCEAN ASSETS

AND CHALLENGES

America’s oceans and coasts are priceless assets. Indispensable to life itself, they

also contribute significantly to our prosperity and overall quality of life. Too

often, however, we take these gifts for granted, underestimating their value and

ignoring our impact on them. Then our use of the oceans becomes abuse, and

the productive capacity of our marine resources is diminished. 

The nation needs a comprehensive national ocean policy, implemented

through an integrated and coordinated management structure that

results in greater participation and collaboration in decision making.

By rising to the challenge and addressing the many activities that

are degrading the oceans and coasts, America can protect the

marine environment while creating jobs, increasing revenues,

enhancing security, protecting cultural heritage, expanding trade,

and ensuring ample supplies of energy, minerals, healthy food,

and life-saving drugs. 

Evaluating the Vast Wealth of 

U.S. Oceans and Coasts

America is a nation surrounded by and reliant on the oceans.

From the fisherman in Maine, to the homemaker in Oregon, to

the businessperson in Miami, and even the farmer in Iowa, every

American influences and is influenced by the sea. Our grocery stores are

stocked with fish, our docks bustle with waterborne cargo, and millions of

tourists visit our coastal communities each year, creating jobs and pumping

dollars into our economy. Born of the ocean are clouds that bring life-sustaining

rain to our fields and reservoirs, microscopic plankton that generate the oxygen we

breathe, energy resources that fuel industry and sustain our standard of living, and a

diversity of biological species that is unmatched on land. Careful stewardship of our ocean

and coastal resources is imperative to conserve and enhance the financial, ecological, and

aesthetic benefits we have come to rely upon and enjoy.

Economic and Employment Value 

America’s oceans and coasts are big business. The United States has jurisdiction over 3.4

million square nautical miles of ocean territory in its exclusive economic zone—larger
than the combined land area of all fifty states. Millions of families depend on paychecks

earned directly or indirectly from the value of the sea, including the magnetic pull of the

nation’s coasts and beaches. However, our understanding of the full economic value of

these resources is far from complete. In contrast to sectors like agriculture on which the

federal government spends more than $100 million a year for economic research, we do

not make a serious effort to analyze and quantify the material contributions of our oceans

and coasts. Standard government data are not designed to measure the complex ocean

economy. They also ignore the intangible values associated with healthy ecosystems,

including clean water, safe seafood, healthy habitats, and desirable living and recreational

environments. This lack of basic information has prevented Americans from fully understanding and appreciating the economic importance

of our oceans and coasts. 

To better inform the public and policy makers,

the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy partnered with

the National Ocean Economics Project to produce an

economic study, “Living Near... And Making A Living

From... The Nation’s Coasts And Oceans” (Appendix

C). This study pulls together information from a wide

range of sources and clearly shows that our oceans

and coasts are among our nation’s most vital economic assets. In so doing, it distinguishes between

the ocean economy, the portion of the economy that

relies directly on ocean attributes, and the coastal

economy, which includes all economic activity that

takes place on or near the coast, whether or not that

activity has a direct link to the sea.

In 2000, the ocean economy contributed more

than $117 billion to American prosperity and supported well over two million jobs. Roughly threequarters of the jobs and half the economic value were

produced by ocean-related tourism and recreation

(Figure 1.1). For comparison, ocean-related employment was almost 11

⁄2 times larger than agricultural

employment in 2000, and total economic output was

21

⁄2 times larger than that of the farm sector. 

The level of overall economic activity within

coastal areas is even higher (Figure 1.2). More than

$1 trillion, or one-tenth, of the nation’s annual gross

domestic product (GDP) is generated within

nearshore areas, the relatively narrow strip of land

immediately adjacent to the coast. Looking at all

coastal watershed counties, the contribution swells to over $4.5 trillion, half of the

nation’s GDP. (For definitions of the different coastal zones, see Box 1.1.) The contribution to employment is equally impressive, with sixteen million jobs in nearshore areas and

sixty million in coastal watershed counties. (See Appendix C for additional details.)

Even these remarkable numbers do not fully capture the economic contributions of

oceans and coastal industries. More than thirteen million jobs are related to trade transported by the network of inland waterways and ports that support U.S. waterborne commerce.1,2 The oceans provide tremendous value to our national economy. Annually, the

nation’s ports handle more than $700 billion in goods,3 and the cruise industry and its

passengers account for $12 billion in spending.4 The commercial fishing industry’s total

value exceeds $28 billion annually,5 with the recreational saltwater fishing industry valued

at around $20 billion,6 and the annual U.S. retail trade in ornamental fish worth another

C HAPTER 1: RECOGNIZING OCEAN ASSETS AND C HALLENGES 31

Figure 1.1 The Value of the Oceans

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

Gross Domestic 

Jobs by Sector Product by Sector

■ Tourism & Recreation

■ Transportation

■ Ship & Boat Building

■ Living Resources

■ Minerals

■ Construction Billions of Dollars

Number of Jobs

The ocean economy includes activities that rely directly on 

ocean attributes or that take place on or under the ocean. 

In 2000, Tourism and Recreation was the largest sector in the 

ocean economy, providing approximately 1.6 million jobs.

Source: Living Near... and Making a Living From... the Nation’s Coasts 

and Oceans, Appendix C.
32 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

$3 billion.7 Nationwide retail expenditures on recreational boating exceeded $30 billion in

2002.8 Governments at all levels, universities, and corporations provide many other jobs

in ocean-related fields ranging from management and law enforcement to pollution prevention and research. 

Our oceans and coasts are among the chief pillars of our nation’s wealth and economic

well-being. Yet our lack of full understanding of the complexity of marine ecosystems, and

our failure to properly manage the human activities that affect them, are compromising

the health of these systems and diminishing our ability to fully realize their potential.

Marine Transportation and Ports

The quality of life in America, among the best in the world, is made possible partly

through access to goods and markets from around the globe. Our ports are endowed with

modern maritime facilities and deep-water channels. Over the next two decades, overseas

trade via U.S. ports, including the Great Lakes, is expected to double in volume; for some

ports and types of trade, this increase will be even greater.9 The expanding ferry and

cruise line industries continue to provide economically valuable means of transportation

for work and leisure. Marine transportation and ports also play a central role in national 

security as U.S. harbors and ports are major points of entry to our country. 

Marine Fisheries

Sustainable sources of fish and shellfish are critical to the United States as a source of

healthy food, financial revenue, and jobs. Americans consume more than 4 billion pounds

of seafood at home or in restaurants and cafeterias every year. This represents about $54

billion in consumer expenditures.10 As the population grows and problems such as heart

disease and obesity continue to plague our nation, the desire and need for a relatively lowfat source of protein will rise. If every person in America followed the American Heart

Association’s recommendation to eat at least two servings of fish per week, the United

States would need an additional 11

⁄2 billion pounds of seafood each year.

32

Figure 1.2 The Value of the Coasts

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

U.S.

Economy

Coastal

States

Coastal

Watershed

Counties

Nearshore $0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

U.S.

Economy

Coastal

States

Coastal

Watershed

Counties

Nearshore

Jobs Generated by Geographic Area Gross Domestic Product by Geographic Area

T

Millions of Jobs

rillions of Dollars

Coastal watershed counties, which account for less than a quarter of U.S. land area, are significant 

contributors to the U.S. economy. In 2000, they were home to nearly half of the nation’s jobs and 

generated a similar proportion of the nation’s gross domestic product.

Source: Living Near... and Making a Living from... the Nation’s Coasts and Oceans, Appendix C.
C HAPTER 1: RECOGNIZING OCEAN ASSETS AND C HALLENGES 33

Worldwide, fish are even more important as a source of protein. More than three billion people derive at least one-fifth of their needed protein from freshwater and saltwater

fish, and in some parts of the world, fish provide the sole source of animal protein. The

aquaculture industry, which has become the fastest growing sector of the world food economy, now supplies more than 25 percent of the globe’s seafood consumption.11,12

In addition to their dietary value, fish are fundamental to the economy, culture, and

heritage of many coastal communities in the United States. Fishing has deep cultural,

even spiritual, roots in many seafaring cities and villages where it has provided both a

vocation and recreation for hundreds of years. 

Offshore Energy, Minerals, and Emerging Uses 

Valuable oil and mineral resources are found off our shores and in the seabed; they fuel

our cars and our economy, provide materials for construction and shoreline protection,

and offer exciting opportunities for the future. Currently, about 30 percent of the nation’s

oil supplies and 25 percent of its natural gas supplies are produced from offshore areas.13

These energy supplies also provide a major source of revenue and tens of thousands of

jobs. Since the start of the offshore oil and gas program, the U.S. Department of the

Interior has distributed an estimated $145 billion to various conservation funds and the

U.S. Treasury from bonus bid and royalty payments related to ocean energy.14

While advances in technology are enabling the offshore industry to drill deeper,

cleaner, and more efficiently, increasing energy demands coupled with environmental concerns have spurred efforts to find alternative sources of power. Modern technology is creating the opportunity to use wind, waves, currents, and ocean temperature gradients to

produce renewable, clean energy in favorable settings. Extensive gas hydrates in the

seabed also hold promise as a potential—though not yet economically and environmentally feasible—source of energy. 

In addition to energy, our offshore waters and the underlying seabed are also rich

sources of non-petroleum minerals. As easily accessible sand resources are depleted, offshore areas along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts will be used increasingly to provide such

resources to restore and protect coastal communities, beaches, and habitat. Minerals, such

as phosphates, polymetallic sulfides, and deposits that form around high-temperature

vents, may also have commercial value some day if technical and economic barriers to

their extraction can be overcome. 

Interest in the ocean goes beyond the traditional resource industries. The telecommunications industry’s investment in submerged cables will continue as international communication needs expand. There is also growing interest in other offshore uses including

aquaculture, carbon dioxide sequestration, artificial reefs, conservation areas, research and

observation facilities, and natural gas offloading stations. 

Human Health and Biodiversity

The ocean provides the largest living space on Earth and is home to millions of known

species, with millions more yet to be discovered. An expedition to previously unexplored

waters typically leads to the discovery of dozens of new species. Within this vast biological

storehouse, there exists a treasure trove of potentially useful organisms and chemicals that

provide the foundation for a budding multibillion-dollar marine biotechnology industry.

Over the past two decades, thousands of marine biochemicals have been identified.

Many have potential commercial uses, especially in the fields of health care and nutrition.

For example, a chemical originally derived from a sea sponge is now the basis of an antiviral medicine and two anti-cancer drugs. Blood drawn from the horseshoe crab is used to

detect potentially harmful toxins in drugs, medical devices, and water. A synthetic drug
34 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Box 1.1 Defining Coastal Areas

The coast is a widely used term encompassing numerous geographic subregions within 

the broad area where the land meets the sea. Areas of the coast identified in this and

other chapters include coastal states, the coastal zone, coastal watershed counties, and the

nearshore (Figure 1.3). Some of these terms are defined in law, some agreed to by conventional usage, and others delineated specifically for use in this report.

Coastal States

This report uses the definition of a coastal state established by the Coastal Zone Management

Act (CZMA). Under the CZMA, coastal state includes any state or territory of the United States

in, or bordering on, the Atlantic, Pacific, or Arctic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, Long Island

Sound, or one or more of the Great Lakes, as well as Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands,

Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the Trust Territories of the

Pacific Islands, and American Samoa. A total of thirty-five coastal states and territories fall

under this definition. 

Coastal Zone Counties

The term coastal zone counties refers to all counties that fall at least partly within a state’s

coastal zone, as defined under the CZMA. Under the CZMA, the coastal zone of most states

with a federally-approved coastal management program extends on its seaward side to 3

nautical miles offshore (the coastal zones of Texas and the west coast of Florida extend to 9

nautical miles, while those of Great Lakes states bordering Canada extend to the international boundary). The inland extent is determined by each participating state to include the

upland region needed to manage activities with a direct and significant impact on coastal

waters. Based on this definition, some states have designated their entire land area as the

coastal zone, while others have specified certain political jurisdictions, distinct natural features, or geographic boundaries. (Note: Although Illinois does not participate in the CZMA 

program, Cook and Lake Counties on Lake Michigan are considered coastal counties for the

purposes of this report.)

Coastal Watershed Counties

Since approximately 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has used

a specific methodology, also adopted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census after 1992, to define

coastal watershed counties. The methodology combines the Census Bureau’s delineation 

of counties and the U.S. Geological Survey’s mapping of watersheds, identifying those

counties with at least 15 percent of their land area in a coastal watershed. Based on this

methodology, the United States has 673 coastal watershed counties: 285 along the Atlantic

Ocean; 142 in the Gulf of Mexico region; 87 bordering the Pacific Ocean; and 159 fronting

the Great Lakes.i

The Nearshore

To allow for more detailed analyses of economic conditions in the region closest to the coastline, this report defines the nearshore as postal zip code areas that touch the shoreline of the

oceans, Great Lakes, and major bays and estuaries.

i National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Spatial Patterns of Socioeconomic Data from 1970 to 2000: 

A National Research Dataset Aggregated by Watershed and Political Boundaries. Silver Spring, MD, 2001.
C HAPTER 1: RECOGNIZING OCEAN ASSETS AND C HALLENGES

that copies the molecular structure of a salmon

gland extract is one of the new treatments available to fight osteoporosis. And coral, mollusk, and

echinoderm skeletons are being tested as orthopedic and cosmetic surgical implants.

Scientists are also growing marine organisms

in the laboratory and using them as models for

physiological research. For example, they are

using the damselfish to study cancer tumors, the

sea hare and squid to investigate the nervous system, and the toadfish to investigate the effects of

liver failure on the brain. In addition, bacteria and

other organisms living in extreme deep-sea environments hold promise for the bioremediation of

oil spills and other wastes. 

Remarkably, in this first decade of the 21st

century, about 95 percent of the world’s ocean area

remains unexplored. We have barely begun to

comprehend the full richness and value of the

diverse resources residing beneath the surface of

the sea. 

Tourism and Recreation

Every year, hundreds of millions of American and

international visitors flock to the nation’s coasts to

enjoy the many pleasures the ocean affords, while

spending billions of dollars and directly supporting

more than a million and a half jobs. Millions of

other tourists take to the sea aboard cruise ships,

and still more visit the nation’s aquariums, nautical

museums, and seaside communities to learn about

the oceans and their history. 

Tourism and recreation constitute by far the

fastest growing sector of the ocean economy

(Figure 1.4), extending virtually everywhere along

the coasts of the continental United States, southeast Alaska, Hawaii, and our island territories and

commonwealths. This rapid growth will surely

continue as incomes rise, more Americans retire,

and leisure time expands.

While there is no national program to calculate the economic value of the oceans and coasts,

several recent studies highlight the contributions

of beach-related activities to the economy. In southern California, visitors spent in excess

of $1 billion at the beaches of Orange and Los Angeles Counties during the summer of

2000.15 The annual value of Great Lakes beach visits may be as high as $1.65 billion.16

And in Hawaii, coral reefs are a major source of recreational benefits, generating an estimated $360 million per year.17

The real value of ocean recreation, however, goes beyond the number of jobs created

or amount of income produced—there are also immeasurable benefits to individuals and

society in being able to enjoy a day at the beach or in the water.

35

Figure 1.3 The Coasts: From the Nearshore 

to Coastal Watersheds

Varying interpretations of the geographic area encompassed 

by “the coast” have hampered our ability to quantify the 

economic and ecologic importance of this dynamic region. 

Defining distinct regions, including the nearshore, the 

coastal zone, and coastal watersheds, provides scientists and 

decision makers with clear boundaries as they develop 

policies and investigate coastal processes. 

Source: Living Near... and Making a Living From... the Nation’s Coasts 

and Oceans, Appendix C.

■ Nearshore 

Zip Codes

■ Coastal Zone 

Counties

■ Coastal 

Watershed 

Counties

Inset
36 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Coastal Real Estate

It is no secret that people are attracted to our coasts. They want to buy property and raise

their families near the ocean, and visit it during vacations and on the weekends. They

want to fish, sail, swim, listen to the waves crashing, and gaze upon the watery horizon 

at sunset. Coastal cities are major economic assets, supporting working ports and harbors

and generating tourism. This has made areas close to the coast some of the most soughtafter property in our nation. Coastal watershed counties comprise less than 25 percent 

of America’s land area, yet they are home to more than 50 percent of our population

(Appendix C). Nine of our country’s ten largest cities are located in coastal watershed

counties.18 Waterfront properties often sell or rent for several times the value of similar

properties just a short distance inland. Even a decade ago, eighteen of the twenty 

wealthiest U.S. counties (ranked by per capita income) were coastal counties.19

Nonmarket Values

Many of the most valuable contributions of our oceans and coasts are not readily measured by traditional market-based accounting. Most dramatically, of course, we need the

oceans to live and breathe. Other ocean assets, such as functioning coastal habitats, 

contribute to the health of our environment and the sustainability of commercial and

recreational resources. Still others assist in what our nation’s founders referred to as the

“pursuit of happiness.” In addition, the cultural importance of the ocean and its resources

to indigenous populations living along the coasts and in island states and territories

should not be underemphasized. It may not be possible to assign a dollar value to all the

functions of the sea, but it is necessary to bear each in mind when determining priorities

for marine management and protection. 

36

Change from 1990–2000

Figure 1.4 The Shift from Goods to Services in the Ocean Economy

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Tourism & Transportation

Recreation

Ship &

Boat Building

Living Minerals

Resources

Construction

■ Employment ■ Gross domestic product

Between 1990 and 2000, the ocean economy experienced a significant increase in the importance 

of service-oriented activities. This trend is clearly illustrated by the dramatic increase in both 

employment and output associated with tourism and recreation. Shifts in employment and revenue 

in the traditional goods-producing sectors—minerals, living resources, transportation, ship and boat 

building—were affected by changes in technology, national priorities, and the status of living and 

nonliving resources.

Source: Living Near... and Making a Living From... the Nation’s Coasts and Oceans, Appendix C.
C HAPTER 1: RECOGNIZING OCEAN ASSETS AND C HALLENGES

Life Support and Climate Control

The oceans provided the cradle from which all life evolved. They sustain life through

evaporation which fills the atmosphere with vapor, producing clouds and rain to grow

crops, fill reservoirs, and recharge underground aquifers.

The oceans can absorb over a thousand times more heat than the atmosphere, storing

and transporting it around the globe. They also hold sixty-five times more carbon than the

atmosphere and twenty times more than terrestrial biomass,20 a critical factor in counteracting the excess carbon dioxide emitted by human activities. Ocean carbon is used by the

sea’s immense population of phytoplankton to produce oxygen for our atmosphere. The

oceans’ dominant role in the cycling of water, heat, and carbon on the planet has profound,

and poorly understood, impacts on global climate.

Marine Habitat 

Wetlands, estuaries, barrier islands, seagrass and kelp beds, coral reefs, and other coastal

habitats, are vital to the health of marine and estuarine ecosystems. They protect the

shoreline, maintain and improve water quality, and supply habitat and food for migratory

and resident animals. An estimated 95 percent of commercial fish and 85 percent of sport

fish spend a portion of their lives in coastal wetlands and estuarine habitats.21

Tropical coral reefs cover only about one-fifth of 1 percent of ocean area and yet provide a home to one-third of all marine fish species and tens of thousands of other species.

Coral reef fisheries yield 6 million metric tons of seafood annually, including one-quarter

of fish production in developing countries.22 In addition to their immense ecological and

direct economic benefits, healthy marine habitats offer highly valuable recreation and

tourism opportunities and enhance the worth of coastal real estate. 

Exploration, Inspiration, and Education

Throughout history, the oceans’ mysteries and our reliance on its resources have inspired

great works of literature and art, spurred the human instinct to explore, and provided

diverse forms of entertainment. Shipwrecks, prehistoric settlements, and other submerged

sites document and preserve important historical and cultural events, while offering

unique opportunities for both professional archeologists and recreational divers and for

educating the public. 

With only about 5 percent of the ocean having been explored, the sea also offers something rare on Earth today: the unknown. Only thirty years ago, no one contemplated the

existence of vast biological communities living in the deep sea at hydrothermal vents or the

associated mineral-rich flows that form towers more than 50 feet high. Today, we are just

beginning to learn about the immense scope of microbial life within and below the seabed. 

The ocean provides an exciting way to engage people of all ages in learning and

inspire academic achievement in the nation’s schools. Using the oceans as a unifying

theme, students can participate in research at sea, and teachers can connect mathematic

and scientific principles with real-world problems, environmental issues, and the use of

modern technology. Exposure to underwater historical resources provides teachers with a

bridge to past cultures, offering unique opportunities to study history, sociology, and

anthropology. From young to old, in formal and informal education, the ocean offers an

unparalleled tool to improve the literacy and knowledge of our citizens. If we are sufficiently creative, we can produce an entire new generation of experts and cultivate a fresh

appreciation and understanding that will deepen the stewardship ethic within our society. 

International Leadership 

Many nations border on, or have direct access to, the sea. All are affected by it. People

everywhere have a stake in how well the oceans are managed, how wisely they are used,

and how extensively they are explored and understood. For the United States, this means

37
38 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

the oceans provide an ideal vehicle for global leadership. From international security to

ocean resource management, education, scientific research, and the development of

ocean-related technology, the United States can gain respect by demonstrating exemplary

policies and achievements at home and seeking to spread positive results through collaborative efforts around the world. 

Undermining America’s Ocean and Coastal Assets

Human ingenuity and ever-improving technology have enabled us to harvest—and significantly alter—the ocean’s bounty. Our engineering skills have allowed us to redirect the

course of rivers, deflect the impacts of waves, scoop up huge quantities of fish, and transform empty shorelines into crowded resort communities. Yet the cumulative effects of

these actions threaten the long-term sustainability of our ocean and coastal resources.

Through inattention, lack of information, and irresponsibility, we have depleted fisheries,

despoiled recreational areas, degraded water quality, drained wetlands, endangered our

own health, and deprived many of our citizens of jobs. If we are to adopt and implement

an effective national ocean policy, we must first understand and acknowledge the full consequences of failing to take action.

Degraded Waters

Despite some progress, America’s ocean and coastal ecosystems continue to show signs of

degradation, thereby compromising human health, damaging the economy, and harming

marine life. Coastal and ocean water quality is threatened by multiple sources of pollution, including point, nonpoint, and atmospheric sources, vessel pollution, and trash

washed onto beaches and into the ocean. In 2001, 23 percent of the nation’s estuarine

areas were impaired for swimming, fishing, and supporting marine species.23 Meanwhile,

pollution could jeopardize the safety of drinking water for millions of people living near

or around the Great Lakes. 

38

Box 1.2 The “Fourth Seacoast”—The Great Lakes

The Great Lakes system enjoys global prominence, containing some 6.5 quadrillion gallons of fresh surface water, a full 20 percent of the world’s supply and 95 percent of the

United States’ supply. Its component parts—the five Great Lakes—are all among the fifteen

largest freshwater lakes in the world. Collectively, the lakes and their connecting channels

comprise the world’s largest body of fresh surface water. They lend not only geographic definition to the region, but help define the region’s distinctive socioeconomic, cultural, and

quality of life attributes, as well. 

An international resource shared by the United States and Canada, the system encompasses some 95,000 square miles of surface water and a drainage area of almost 200,000

square miles. Extending some 2,400 miles from its western-most shores to the Atlantic, the

system is comparable in length to a trans-Atlantic crossing from the East Coast of the United

States to Europe. Recognized in U.S. federal law as the nation’s “fourth seacoast,” the Great

Lakes system includes well over 10,000 miles of coastline. The coastal reaches of all basin

jurisdictions are population centers and the locus of intensive and diverse water-dependent

economic activity. Almost 20 percent of the U.S. population and 40 percent of the Canadian

population reside within the basin.
C HAPTER 1: RECOGNIZING OCEAN ASSETS AND C HALLENGES

Excess Nutrients

The oversupply of nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients in coastal ecosystems is one

of our nation’s most widespread pollution problems. Runoff from agricultural land, animal

feeding operations, and urban areas, along with discharges from wastewater treatment

plants, storm sewers, and leaky septic systems, adds nutrients to waters that eventually

enter the sea. 

All told, more than eighty of our bays and estuaries show signs of nutrient overenrichment, including oxygen depletion, loss of seagrass beds, and toxic algal blooms.24 And not

all of these excess nutrients come from local sources. The Gulf of Mexico’s “dead zone” is

the result of cumulative drainage from the Mississippi–Atchafalaya River Basin, which

includes all or parts of thirty states.25 In addition, atmospheric deposition from agriculture, power plants, industrial facilities, motor vehicles, and other often distant sources

accounts for up to 40 percent of the nitrogen entering estuaries.26,27

Other Contaminants

A 2003 National Research Council report estimated that every year, more than 28 million

gallons of oil from human activities enter North American waters. Land-based runoff

accounts for well over half of this. Much smaller amounts of oil enter our waterways 

from tanker and barge spills and from recreational boats and personal watercraft.28

Pollution from sewage treatment plants has been reduced as the result of tighter 

regulation during the past thirty years, but concerns remain about the release of untreated

human pathogens, pharmaceuticals, toxic substances, and chlorinated hydrocarbons. 

In 2003, more than 18,000 days of beach closings and swimming advisories were issued

across the nation, often directly related to bacteria associated with fecal contamination

from stormwater and sewer overflows. This represents a 50 percent increase in closures

and advisories from 2002, continuing a rising trend that can be attributed to improved

monitoring and more thorough reporting, and revealing the true extent of beachwater 

pollution.29 The consequences of such contamination cost many millions of dollars a year

in decreased revenues from tourism and recreation and higher costs for health care. 

Harmful Algal Blooms 

For reasons not yet clearly understood, harmful algal blooms are occurring more frequently

both within America’s waters and worldwide. The consequences are particularly destructive

when the algae contain toxins. 

Marine toxins afflict more than 90,000 people annually across the globe and are

responsible for an estimated 62 percent of all seafood-related illnesses. In the United

States, contaminated fish, shellfish, and other marine organisms are responsible for at least

one in six food poisoning outbreaks with a known cause, and for 15 percent of the deaths

associated with these incidents.30 In the last two decades, reports of gastrointestinal and

neurological diseases associated with algal blooms and waterborne bacteria and viruses

have increased.31 Though seafood poisonings are probably underreported, they also seem

to be rising in incidence and geographic scope.32

Harmful algal blooms cost our nation an average of $49 million a year33 due to fisheries closures, loss of tourism and recreation, and increased health care and monitoring

expenses. 

Sediment Contamination

A study conducted at more than 2,000 sites representing over 70 percent of the nation’s

total estuarine area (excluding Alaska) found that 99 percent of the sediments tested contained 5 or more toxic contaminants at detectable levels. More than 600 sites had contamination levels high enough to harm fish and other aquatic organisms.34 Because some

39
40 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

chemicals tend to bind to particles and thus accumulate in sediments, bottom-dwelling

and bottom-feeding organisms are particularly at risk. As sediment-bound pollutants enter

these organisms and move up through the food web, larger animals and humans are also

affected. Excess sediments can also cause harm by smothering stationary, bottom-dwelling

marine communities.

Compromised Resources

Fishery declines, degraded coastal habitats, and invasive species are compromising our

ability to meet current and future demands for healthy and productive marine resources.

Fishery Declines

Experts estimate that 25 to 30 percent of the world’s major fish stocks are overexploited,35

and a recent report indicates that U.S. fisheries are experiencing similar difficulties. Of 

the nation’s 267 major fish stocks—representing 99 percent of all landings—roughly 20

percent are either already overfished, experiencing overfishing, or approaching an overfished condition.36 The same report indicates that there is inadequate information to make

these status determinations for over 30 percent of the major fish stocks and virtually all 

of the over 640 minor fish stocks—most of which are not subject to commercial fishing

pressure—limiting both our understanding of the overall state of the nation’s fisheries and

of their role in the marine ecosystem. 

Declining fish populations are the result of overfishing, the unintentional removal 

of non-targeted species (known as bycatch), habitat loss, pollution, climate changes, and

uneven management. The cumulative impact of these factors is serious. As fishing boats turn

to smaller, less valuable, and once discarded species, they are progressively “fishing down the

food web,”37 thereby causing changes in the size, age structure, genetic makeup, and reproductive status of fish populations. This compromises the integrity of marine ecosystems,

the ecological services they provide, and the resources upon which Americans rely. 

Although U.S. fishery management has been successful in some regions, failures elsewhere have resulted in substantial social and economic costs. For example, the collapse 

of the North Atlantic cod fishery in the early 1990s resulted in the loss of an estimated

20,000 jobs and $349 million.38,39 In the Northwest, decreasing salmon populations have

cost 72,000 jobs and more than $500 million.40 This tally does not begin to assess the

social and psychological impacts these events have had on individuals, families, and 

communities for whom fishing has been a tradition for generations. 

Questions also exist about how best to manage our growing marine aquaculture industry. This industry is vital to increase seafood supplies, but its potential impact on the ocean

environment and wild populations of fish and shellfish present serious concerns. These

include the discharge of wastes and chemicals, the spread of disease or genetic changes

resulting from the escape of farmed species, the demand for wild-caught fish as aquaculture

feed, and the appropriation of sensitive habitats to create aquaculture facilities. 

Coastal Habitat Loss

Since the Pilgrims first arrived at Plymouth Rock, the lands that now comprise the United

States have lost over half of their fresh and saltwater wetlands—more than 110 million

acres.41 California has lost 91 percent of its wetlands since the 1780s.42 And Louisiana,

which currently is home to 40 percent of the coastal wetlands in the lower 48 states, is

losing 25–35 square miles of wetlands each year.43

Pollution, subsidence, sea level rise, development, and the building of structures that

alter sediment flow all contribute to the problem. With the loss of the nation’s wetlands,

shorelines are becoming more vulnerable to erosion, saltwater is intruding into freshwater environments, flooding is on the rise, water quality is being degraded, and wildlife

habitat is being fragmented or lost. 

40
C HAPTER 1: RECOGNIZING OCEAN ASSETS AND C HALLENGES

The nation is also losing thousands of acres of seagrass and miles of mangrove and kelp

forests. More than 50 percent of the historical seagrass cover has been lost in Tampa Bay, 

76 percent in the Mississippi Sound, and 90 percent in Galveston Bay.44 Extensive seagrass

losses have also occurred in Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, and along Florida’s coasts.

Coral reef habitats are also increasingly under siege. Recent research suggests that

direct human disturbances and environmental change are two major causes of harm to

coral reefs, although a host of other factors also contribute. Many reefs, particularly those

within range of growing human populations, are under threat of destruction as evidenced

by dramatic declines in Florida, the Caribbean, and parts of Hawaii.45 Coral reef declines

are exacerbated by cumulative impacts, such as when overfishing, coral bleaching, and

disease decrease a reef’s resilience. As the reefs disappear, so do the fish they harbor and

the millions of dollars in jobs and economic revenue they provide. 

Invasive Species

Across the nation and throughout the world, invasive species of plants and animals are

being intentionally and unintentionally introduced into new ecosystems, often resulting

in significant ecological and economic impacts. We know that over 500 non-native species

have become established in coastal habitats of North America and that hundreds can be

found in a single estuary.46 Asian and European shore crabs inhabit the coasts of New

England and California, damaging valuable fisheries. A massive horde of zebra mussels

has assaulted the Great Lakes, clogging power plant intakes and fouling hulls, pilings, and

navigational buoys. And in the Chesapeake Bay, an alien pathogen has contributed to the

decline of the native oyster population.47

Many non-native marine animals and plants are introduced through the discharge of

ships’ ballast water and holding tanks. At least 7,000 different species of marine life are

transported around the world every day, and every hour some 2 million gallons of ballast

water arrive in U.S. waters carrying at least a portion of this immense fleet of foreign

organisms.48,49 Further contributors to the spread of invasive species include the aquarium

trade, fishery-related activities, floating marine debris, boating, navigational buoys, and

drilling platforms. Strains on coastal environments caused by other factors may make

them even more vulnerable to the spread of non-native species. 

The economic impact of invasive species can be substantial. From 1989 to 2000, zebra

mussels alone caused between $750 million and $1 billion in losses to natural resources

and damage to infrastructure in the Great Lakes. More than $2 million has been spent in

California to control and monitor the spread of the Mediterranean green seaweed Caulerpa

taxifolia, and more than $3 million has been spent investigating the impacts of Atlantic

cordgrass on the Pacific Coast.50 Invasive species can also cause significant ecological

damage by outcompeting native species, altering local food webs, and reducing the

resources available for other organisms.

Conflicts Between Man and Nature

As population density has risen in coastal watersheds, so has environmental stress.

Coastal planning and management policies implemented over the past thirty years have

limited, but not prevented, harmful impacts—both incremental and cumulative—on the

marine ecosystem. 

Coastal Population Growth and Land Use

Contrary to popular perception, the coasts have experienced a relatively stable rate of

population growth since 1970; coastal watershed counties representing 25 percent of the

nation’s land area have continued to support approximately 52 percent of the U.S. population over the past three decades (Appendix C). Between 1970 and 2000, the population of

41

Living and coastal

resources are threatened by pollution 

and human activities.

We've seen collapses

of fisheries and 

overfishing of many

stocks. We are losing

20,000 acres of coastal

wetlands each year.

We are losing millions

of acres of coral reefs

each year worldwide.

Increasing coastal

development presents

new stresses and

greater vulnerability

to extremes of

weather and changes

in sea level.

—The Honorable James

Connaughton, Chairman,

White House Council on

Environmental Quality,

testimony to the Commission, September 2001
42 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

coastal watershed counties grew by 37 million people (Appendix C) and is projected to

increase by another 21 million by 2015.51 At that point, the U.S. coasts will have absorbed

more than 58 million additional residents since 1970—more than 1.1 million a year. This

steady influx of people into a relatively small area has already created coastal population

densities that are on average two to three times higher than that of the nation as a whole

(Figure 1.5). 

The environmental impacts of rising population density in the coastal zone have been

magnified by a relative shift in population and housing development away from expensive

shoreline property and toward the upland reaches of coastal watersheds. This has had the

effect of expanding environmental consequences over larger geographic areas and has

eroded the health of ecosystems and resources throughout coastal watersheds. 

Most development profoundly changes the landscape. Impervious materials such as

concrete or asphalt typically cover 25–60 percent of the land surface in medium-density,

single-family-home residential areas, and more than 90 percent in strip malls, urban areas,

and other commercial sites.52 Research indicates that nearby water bodies can become

seriously degraded when more than 10 percent of a watershed is covered by roads, parking lots, rooftops, and similar surfaces.53 A one-acre parking lot produces sixteen times the

volume of runoff that comes from a one-acre meadow.54 Expanding coastal sprawl can also

destroy natural habitats, thus compromising the environment’s ability to provide food and

refuge for wildlife or supply ecosystem services, such as maintaining water quality. 

These concerns are exacerbated by the fact that land is being developed for housing at

more than twice the rate of population growth.55 This is partly the result of a decline in

the size of the average American household from 3.14 people in 1970 to 2.59 people in

2000.56 Nearshore areas also experience spurts of temporary population growth—from

commuters, vacationers, day-tourists and others—creating a robust demand for seasonal

housing. The result is pressure for development in nearshore areas accelerating at a rate

far greater than might be expected based simply on population trends. 

A less apparent, but still important contributor to developmental pressures is the

increasing rate of overall economic growth that is occurring in nearshore areas. Although

population and housing are moving upstream within coastal watersheds, economic

growth has been occurring more rapidly—and more intensely—along the nearshore. This

growth has tended to focus on the trade and service industries, which use more land per

unit of output than other types of activity. Thus, it is important to understand the significance of the growing recreation and tourism industry and the relative impact its related

businesses are having on the coast, in addition to managing coastal population growth. 

Natural Hazards

As the nation’s shores become more densely populated, people and property are increasingly vulnerable to costly natural hazards. Before 1989, no single coastal storm had caused

insured losses greater than $1 billion.57 Since then, at least ten storms have resulted in

such losses, including Hurricane Andrew, with insured losses of $15.5 billion and total

economic losses estimated at $30 billion (in 1992 dollars).58,59

Coastal erosion, storm surges, tsunamis, and sea level rise are serious threats to people living and working along the shore, particularly in low-lying areas. Roughly 1,500

homes and the land on which they are built are lost to erosion each year, with annual

costs to coastal property owners expected to average $530 million over the next several

decades.60 In some instances, American engineering capability has improved protection

against natural hazards along the coast; in others, however, it has made us more vulnerable.

The loss of wetlands and other shoreline vegetation increases susceptibility to erosion and

flooding. The installation of seawalls, groins, and other coastal armoring structures can

alter patterns of sediment and current flow, eventually accelerating erosion, rather than

preventing it.

42
C HAPTER 1: RECOGNIZING OCEAN ASSETS AND C HALLENGES

Climate Change

Average global temperatures have been rising over the last several decades. Scientists

believe these changes are probably due primarily to the accumulation of greenhouse gases

in Earth’s atmosphere from human activities, although natural variability may also be a

contributing factor.61 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that the

average near-surface temperature of the Earth increased by about 1 ̊F between 1861 and

1990, but is expected to increase by another 2.5—10.4 ̊F by the end of this century.62 As

oceans warm, the global spread and incidence of human diseases, such as cholera and

malaria, may also increase.63,64 Marine organisms that are sensitive to temperature must

either alter their geographic distribution or face extinction. Already, changing ocean conditions in the North Pacific have altered ecosystem productivity and have been associated

with poor ocean survival of young salmon and modifications in the composition of

nearshore fish populations.65

43

0 100

Miles

0 100

Miles

0 100

Miles

0 100

Miles

People per square 

mile by county

3,000.0 to 6,6940.0

300.0 to 2,999.9

160.0 to 299.9

79.6 to 159.9

7.0 to 79.5

1.0 to 6.9

0.0 to 0.9

People per square mile by state

300.0 to 9,316.0

79.6 to 299.9

7.0 to 79.5

1.1 to 6.9

U.S. 

density 

is 79.6

U.S. 

density 

is 79.6

As shown by 2000 U.S. Census figures, population density is generally highest in coastal areas, including counties surrounding the 

Great Lakes. Population growth and increasing population density in coastal counties reflect the attraction of the coast but also 

result in increased environmental impacts on coastal ecosystems.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “Census 2000.” <www.census.gov> (Accessed March 2004).

Alaska Hawaii

Puerto Rico

Figure 1.5 Population Density Peaks Near the Shore
44 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

One of the most immediate phenomena associated with increasing global temperatures has been a change in average sea level, which is estimated to have risen by 4–8

inches during the 20th century. By 2100, sea level is projected to rise by another 4–35

inches.66 Although the exact amount and rate of the increase are uncertain, the fact that

the ocean will continue to expand is widely accepted. As this occurs, low-lying coastal

regions and island territories will be particularly vulnerable to flooding and storms. In the

Pacific, for example, entire archipelagos have maximum elevations of only a few meters

above sea level, leaving both human communities and natural ecosystems in danger. This

vulnerability is compounded by the concentration of human activities along the water’s

edge, the point of greatest risk. Many island jurisdictions are already facing problems associated with long-term sea-level rise, including saltwater contamination of fresh-water

sources, coastal erosion, damage to natural barriers such as corals and mangroves, and

loss of agricultural sites and infrastructure. For example, saltwater intrusion has rendered

aquifers on the Marshall Islands unusable, and ocean waters regularly flood the airport. A

steady increase in sea-level rise could cause whole islands to disappear.

Polar regions are also exhibiting dramatic signs of change due to rising temperatures,

with thinning ice caps and melting glaciers. The average thickness of sea ice in the Arctic

has decreased by approximately 4.25 feet from the late 1950s to the late 1990s.67 Alarming

changes are occurring in Arctic permafrost, with potentially significant economic and ecological impacts.68 In the tropics, coral reef diseases and bleaching are occurring more frequently, and coral growth may be inhibited by increasing concentrations of dissolved carbon dioxide in the sea.69

The transport and transformation of heat, carbon, and many other gases and chemicals

in the ocean play a central role in controlling, moderating, and altering global climate. 

In fact, research into ancient climate cycles suggests that change can actually occur much

more rapidly than once expected.70 Rather than the scenario of gradual surface temperature

increases often envisioned for the next century, sudden shifts in polar ice and ocean circulation could result in drastic temperature changes occurring within a decade or less.71

The specter of abrupt change, and a growing awareness of the impacts even gradual

climate change can have on coastal development, ecosystems, and human health, call

for a significant improvement in climate research, monitoring, assessment, and prediction capabilities. Understanding the role of the oceans in climate is an area in need of

particular attention.

Acting Today for Tomorrow’s Generations

For centuries, Americans have been drawn to the sea. We have battled the tides, enjoyed

the beaches, and harvested the bounty of our coasts. The oceans are among nature’s greatest gifts to us. The responsibility of our generation is to reclaim and renew that gift for

ourselves, for our children, and—if we do the job right—for those whose footprints will

mark the beaches from Maine to Hawaii long after ours have washed away.

The nation’s ocean and coastal assets are worth hundreds of billions of dollars to society and untold more to the Earth’s complex ecosystems and the many cultures whose 

heritage is directly tied to the sea. Although losses in some areas have been significant and

continue, in other areas sound policy and sustained investments have slowed or reversed

harmful trends. There is every reason to believe that wise actions taken today, based on

the best available science, can restore what has been lost and create even greater benefits.

But to achieve this, our nation’s leaders must take immediate steps to formulate a coherent, comprehensive, and effective national ocean policy. Implementation of the far-reaching recommendations offered throughout this report can halt the losses and help restore,

protect, and enhance America’s ocean assets.

44
C HAPTER 1: RECOGNIZING OCEAN ASSETS AND C HALLENGES

References

1 U.S. Department of Transportation. An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System: A Report to Congress.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999.

2 Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2003 Pocket Guide to Transportation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Transportation, 2003.

3 U.S. Department of Transportation. An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System: A Report to Congress.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999.

4 Business Research and Economic Advisors. The Contribution of the North American Cruise Industry to the U.S.

Economy in 2002. Arlington, VA: International Council of Cruise Lines, August 2003.

5 National Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries of the United States—2002. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, 2003.

6 American Sportfishing Association. Sportfishing in America: Values of Our Traditional Pastime. Alexandria, VA, 2002.

7 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome, Italy:

United Nations, 2002.

8 National Marine Manufacturers Association. <www.nmma.org/facts/boatingstats/2002/files/retailexpenditures.asp>

Accessed January 22, 2004.

9 U.S. Department of Transportation. An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System: A Report to Congress.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999.

10 National Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries of the United States, 2001. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, 2002. 

11 “How Fish Farming Could Feed the World.” Financial Times, January 13, 2004.

12 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome, Italy:

United Nations, 2002. 

13 Minerals Management Service. Our Ocean Role. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fall 2003.

14 Minerals Management Service. <www.mrm.mms.gov/Stats/pdfdocs/coll_off.pdf> Accessed January 22, 2004. 

15 Hanemann, M., L. Pendleton, and D. Layton. Summary Report on the Expenditure Module. Southern California Beach

Valuation Project. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2001.

16 Kite-Powell, H.L., and C.S. Colgan. Estimating the Economic Benefits of Regional Ocean Observing Systems (under

review). Washington, DC: National Oceanographic Partnership Program, 2004.

17 Cesar, H.P., et al. Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawaii: Final Report (FY 2001–2002). Hawaii Coral Reef

Initiative Research Program. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, 2002.

18 Bureau of the Census. Demographic Trends in the 20th Century. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce,

November 2002. 

19 Culliton, T.J. Population, Distribution, Density and Growth: NOAA’s State of the Coast Report. Silver Spring, MD:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1998. 

20 Field, J.G., G. Hempel, and C.P. Summerhayes. Oceans 2020: Science, Trends, and the Challenge of Sustainability.

Washington, DC: Island Press, 2002. 

21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Coastal Condition Report. EPA #620R01005. Washington, DC, 2001.

22 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Protected Resources.

<www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR/coralhome.html> Accessed January 22, 2004.

23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Coastal Condition Report. EPA #620R01005. Washington, DC, 2001. 

24 Bricker, S.B., et al. National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment: Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation’s

Estuaries. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1999. 

25 Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico.

Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council, 2000. 

26 Paerl, H.W. “Coastal Eutrophication and Harmful Algal Blooms: The Importance of Atmospheric Deposition and

Groundwater as “New” Nitrogen and Other Nutrient Sources.” Limnology and Oceanography 42 (1997): 1154–65. 

27 Paerl, H.W., and R. Whitall. “Anthropogenically-Derived Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition, Marine Eutrophication

and Harmful Algal Bloom Expansion: Is There a Link?” Ambio 28 (1999): 307–11.

28 National Research Council. Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates and Effects. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003.

29 Dorfman, M. Testing the Waters 2003: A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches. New York, NY: National

Resources Defense Council, 2003. 

45
46 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

30 Fleming, L.E., et al. “The Epidemiology of Seafood Poisoning.” In Seafood and Environmental Toxins, ed. Y.H. Hui, D.

Kits, and P.S. Stanfield, 287–310. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, 2001. 

31 Epstein, P., et al. Marine Ecosystems: Emerging Diseases as Indicators of Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Medical

School, 1998. 

32 Fleming, L.E., et al. “The Epidemiology of Seafood Poisoning.” In Seafood and Environmental Toxins, ed. Y.H. Hui, D.

Kits, and P.S. Stanfield, 287–310. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, 2001.

33 Anderson, D.M., et al. Estimated Annual Economic Impacts from Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in the United States.

Technical Report WHOI–2000–11. Woods Hole, MA: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 2000.

34 The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment. The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems:

Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States. Washington, DC, 2002. 

35 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome, Italy:

United Nations, 2002.

36 National Marine Fisheries Service. Annual Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries—2003. Silver Spring, MD:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2003. 

37 Pauly, D., et al. “Fishing Down Marine Food Webs.” Science 279 (1998): 860–63.

38 Weber, P. Net Loss: Fish, Jobs, and the Marine Environment. Worldwatch Paper 120. Washington, DC: Worldwatch

Institute, 1994. 

39 McGinn, A.P. Rocking the Boat: Conserving Fisheries and Protecting Jobs. Worldwatch Paper 142. Washington, DC:

Worldwatch Institute, 1998.

40 Pew Oceans Commission. Socioeconomic Perspectives on Marine Fisheries in the United States. Arlington, VA, 2003. 

41 Fretwell, J.D., J.S. Williams, and P.J. Redman. National Water Summary on Wetland Resources. USGS Water-Supply

Paper 2425. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey, 1996. 

42 Dahl, T.E. Wetlands Losses in the United States: 1780s to 1980s. Washington, DC, and Jamestown, ND: U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, 1990. 

43 National Wetland Research Center. Louisiana Coastal Ecosystem. USGS Fact Sheet #FS–015–00. Washington, DC: U.S.

Geological Survey, 2000.

44 Bookman, C.A., T.J. Culliton, and M.A. Warren. “Trends in U.S. Coastal Regions, 1970–1998.” Addendum to Trends and

Future Challenges for U.S. National Ocean and Coastal Policy. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, 1999. 

45 Wilkinson, C., ed. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2000. Queensland, Australia: Australian Institute of Marine

Science, 2000.

46 Ruiz, G.M. Written testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Subcommittee on

Environment, Technology, and Standards. June 20, 2002. 

47 Ruiz, G.M., et al. “Invasion of Coastal Marine Communities in North America: Apparent Patterns, Processes, and

Biases.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31 (2000): 481–531. 

48 Carlton, J.T., D.M. Reid, and H. van Leeuwen. Shipping Study. The Role of Shipping in the Introduction of

Nonindigenous Aquatic Organisms to the Coastal Waters of the United States (Other Than the Great Lakes) and an

Analysis of Control Options. The National Sea Grant College Program/Connecticut Sea Grant Project R/ES–6. Report

#CG–D–11–95. Washington, DC, and Groton, CT: U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. Coast Guard, 1995.

49 Carlton, J.T. “The Scale and Ecological Consequences of Biological Invasions in the World’s Oceans.” In Invasive Species

and Biodiversity Management, ed. O.T. Sandlund, P.J. Schei, and A. Viken. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic

Publishers, 1999. 

50 Carlton, J.T. Introduced Species in the U.S. Coastal Waters: Environmental Impacts and Management Priorities.

Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commission, 2001.

51 Bureau of the Census. “World Population Projections.” <www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl> 

Accessed October 2, 2003.

52 Natural Resources Defense Council. Stormwater Strategies: Community Responses to Runoff Pollution. New York, NY, 1999.

53 Beach, D. Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States. Arlington, VA: 

Pew Oceans Commission, 2002.

54 Schueler, T., and H.K. Holland. The Practice of Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed

Protection, 2000. 

55 Beach, D. Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States. Arlington, VA: 

Pew Oceans Commission, 2002. 

56 Bureau of the Census. United States Census 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 2001. 

46
C HAPTER 1: RECOGNIZING OCEAN ASSETS AND C HALLENGES

57 Bookman, C.A., T.J. Culliton, and M.A. Warren. “Trends in U.S. Coastal Regions, 1970–1998.” Addendum to Trends and

Future Challenges for U.S. National Ocean and Coastal Policy. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, 1999. 

58 Institute for Business and Home Safety. The Insured Cost of Natural Disasters: A Report on the IBHS Paid Loss Data

Base. Boston, MA, 1998.

59 Pielke, Jr., R.A., and R.A. Pielke, Sr. Hurricanes: Their Nature and Impacts on Society. London: Wiley and Sons, 1997.

60 The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment. Evaluation of Erosion Hazards Summary.

Washington, DC, 2000. 

61 National Research Council. Climate Change: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, 2001.

62 Houghton, J.T., et al., eds. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press and

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001. 

63 Colwell, R. “Global Climate and Infectious Disease: The Cholera Paradigm.” Science 274 (1996): 2025–31. 

64 National Research Council. From Monsoons to Microbes: Understanding the Ocean’s Role in Human Health.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999. 

65 National Research Council. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996.

66 Houghton, J.T., et al., eds. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press and

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001.

67 Rothrock, D.A., Y. Yu, and G.A. Makut. “Thinning of the Arctic Sea Ice Cover.” Geophysical Research Letters 26, no. 23

(1999): 3469–72.

68 U.S. Global Change Research Program. <www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overviewalaska.htm>

Accessed January 22, 2004.

69 Harvell, C.D., et al. “Emerging Marine Diseases: Climate Links and Anthropogenic Factors.” Science 285 (1999):

1505–10. 

70 Kennet, J.P., and L.C. Peterson. “Rapid Climate Change: Ocean Responses to Earth System Instability in the Late

Quaternary.” JOIDES Journal 28, no. 1 (2002): 5–9.

71 National Research Council. Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002.

47
48 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 2

UNDERSTANDING THE PAST

TO SHAPE A NEW NATIONAL

OCEAN POLICY

The phrase national ocean policy encompasses a vast array of issues, each of which

requires policy makers to answer some key questions. What is the current situation?

What goals does the nation wish to achieve? What rules, if any, should apply?

And who will formulate and enforce those rules? Those in charge must also be

prepared to justify their decisions to a wide variety of interested people and

find a way to place decisions about particular uses of the oceans into a

larger framework so the results will be coherent and enduring. 

In considering how to craft an ocean framework for the future, the

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy reviewed the lessons of the past

and listened closely to affected individuals around the country.

Ocean Policy from World War II 

to the Oceans Act of 2000

Volumes have been written about the intricacies of ocean 

policy and its development in the United States. The following

sections offer a brief glimpse of this history, setting the stage for

the work of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

Formative Years

U.S. ocean policy developed slowly and fairly consistently from the

founding of the United States until the immediate aftermath of World War

II. Since then, it has zigged and zagged in response to shifting public attitudes based on major events related to national security, the environment, and

political philosophy. American policy—or more accurately the amalgamation of

many policies—has been shaped by the nation’s unique status as both the world’s

leading maritime power and the possessor of a long and rich shoreline, giving us a stake

both in protecting freedom of navigation and in expanding the resource jurisdiction of

coastal countries. Over time, our management of ocean issues has been roiled by conflicting interests of the federal and state governments, torn by tensions between short- and

long-term needs, blurred by ideological disagreements, and complicated by the wide variety of uses we make of our vast and versatile—but also vulnerable—seas.

One ongoing challenge for policy makers has been to find the right balance between

the exploitation of marine resources, whether living or nonliving, and the conservation of

those resources and protection of the marine environment. Petroleum exploration, commercial fishing, and marine mammal protection are just three of the arenas where this
C HAPTER 2: UNDERSTANDING THE PAST TO S HAPE A NE W NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY

drama has played out. The United States has also shown a tendency to swing back and

forth between internationalism and unilateralism—at times working with other countries

to shape global rules, and at other times asserting the right to establish our own rules outside of, or in advance of, the global consensus.

The nation’s primary maritime concerns have been to preserve the right to free navigation while asserting jurisdiction over fishing and law enforcement in U.S. waters. In a letter from Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson to the governments of Britain and France in

1793, the United States officially claimed authority over a 3 nautical mile territorial sea.

Over the next century and a half, the federal government’s role in the oceans was limited

primarily to the activities of the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Coast and

Geodetic Survey, the promotion of the U.S. Merchant Marine, and diplomatic negotiations

over access to the rich fishing grounds off the North Atlantic coast and the taking of fur

seals in the North Pacific and Bering Sea. 

Interestingly, the problem of depleted fish stocks, often assumed to be a recent 

development, is not new. In 1871, the federal government established the Office of the

Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries to study the dilemma. Warnings have been issued

and various remedies proposed periodically ever since. In 1882, the first U.S. research 

vessel built exclusively for fisheries and oceanographic research entered service, and for

the next thirty-nine years the 234-foot USS Albatross plied waters around the globe. 

It was not until after World War II that a process referred to as enclosure of the oceans

began in earnest. In contrast to the traditional view of the oceans as belonging to everyone

(and therefore to no one), a movement to extend the rights of coastal states gathered

momentum. Among the factors driving this trend was competition for oil and gas. On

September 28, 1945, President Truman issued a proclamation asserting control over the

natural resources of the continental shelf beneath the high seas adjacent to the territorial

waters of the United States. In 1947, the Supreme Court decision in United States v.

California awarded the federal government jurisdiction over all U.S. ocean resources from

the tidemark seaward. This judgment, highly unpopular in coastal regions, led to the passage of the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, which returned resource jurisdiction within the

3 nautical mile territorial sea to coastal states. A companion bill enacted in the same year,

the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, authorized the Secretary of the Interior to lease

federal areas of the continental shelf for oil and gas exploration and development.

From Sputnik to Stratton

On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the world’s first space satellite.

This was one of several major events that would sharply alter the direction of U.S. ocean

policy during the last half of the 20th century. The show of Soviet prowess shocked

America, spurring national resolve. It seemed suddenly as if every arena of activity, from

the construction of intercontinental ballistic missiles to the training of athletes for the

Olympic high jump, had become a test of dueling national wills. The foremost areas of

competition were technology and science. 

In 1959, the National Research Council released a report that recommended doubling

the federal government’s commitment to oceanography, building a new research fleet, and

forging stronger partnerships with academic institutions.1 The recommendations served as

the basis for ocean policy under President Kennedy and attracted strong support from

such influential senators as Warren Magnuson of Washington who warned, in the spirit of

the times, “Soviet Russia aspires to command the oceans and has mapped a shrewdly conceived plan, using science as a weapon to win her that supremacy.”2

This era of scientific enthusiasm and advancement saw the Navy and the National

Science Foundation (NSF) take on critical roles in developing U.S. ocean capabilities. 

The post-World War II period brought significant Navy investment in basic research into

ocean processes, resulting in the development of most of today’s oceanographic instru49
50 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

ments. The Navy’s ocean data holdings have been called the crown jewels of global

oceanography, and its investment in operational ocean infrastructure has contributed

greatly to U.S. ocean capability and influence in international ocean affairs. NSF came 

into existence at the end of World War II, largely due to the recognition that support for

basic research was essential to national well-being. Since that time, NSF has increasingly

become the leader in support for ocean research and related infrastructure. Through their

investments in basic and applied research, operations, education, and infrastructure, NSF

and the Navy helped create a robust and influential ocean research community in the

United States. 

In the 1960s, faith in the power of science was at its apogee. Said Time magazine:

U.S. scientists and their colleagues in other free lands are indeed the 

true 20th century adventurers, the explorers of the unknown, the real

intellectuals of the day, the leaders of mankind’s greatest inquiry into the

mysteries of matter, of the earth, the universe and of life itself. Their work

shapes the life of every human presently inhabiting the planet, and will

influence the destiny of generations to come.3

In this context, the appetite for exploring the unknown was seemingly insatiable,

applying not only to outer space but also to inner space—the mysterious depths of the

sea. In addition to ongoing investments in ocean research by the Navy and NSF, in 1966

Congress created the National Sea Grant College Program (Sea Grant) within NSF, based

on the long-established model of Land Grant colleges. After a modest beginning, Sea

Grant evolved into a popular initiative within the marine science community and the 

public and became a prime source of support for research in marine-related subjects 

outside oceanography, including fisheries and law.

Support grew for the creation of an independent national ocean agency, a watery

counterpart to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. To prepare the way,

Congress approved the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act, signed by

President Johnson on June 17, 1966. The Act included a declaration of U.S. policy, the 

formation of a national council chaired by the Vice President, and the establishment of a

presidential Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources. Julius Stratton,

president emeritus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and chairman of the Ford

Foundation, was named as chair of that Commission. 

During the next two years, the Stratton Commission’s fifteen members and four 

congressional advisers conducted hearings and held meetings in every coastal region of

the country. In January 1969, the Commission issued its report, Our Nation and the Sea,

containing 126 recommendations.4 The report had a catalytic impact for several reasons. 

It was the first truly comprehensive study of American ocean policy. It went beyond

oceanography to examine a wide range of marine issues, including: the organization of 

the federal government; the role of the ocean in national security; the potential economic

contributions of oil, gas, and other marine resources; the importance of protecting coastal

and marine environments; and the need to promote American fisheries. Some recommendations were never realized (such as building offshore nuclear power plants), but others

comprised the foundation for a new era in U.S. ocean policy, leading most directly to 

creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 1970 and

the enactment of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972.

The Stratton Commission called for the centralization of federal civilian ocean 

management efforts within a single new agency—envisioning a NOAA that would be

independent and in charge of virtually every nonmilitary aspect of marine policy. This did

not happen. The White House budget office opposed the establishment of an independent

agency, the Secretary of Transportation was unwilling to give up the Coast Guard, and the
C HAPTER 2: UNDERSTANDING THE PAST TO S HAPE A NE W NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY

Maritime Administration remained separate. So when NOAA was born on July 9, 1970

(via Reorganization Plan #4), its prospects for thriving within the bureaucracy were slim.

Lodged within the U.S. Department of Commerce, it lacked cabinet status, independence,

a congressional charter, and control over many federal marine activities. NOAA did, however, become a center of federal ocean and atmospheric expertise, bringing together nine

programs from five departments, including the Environmental Sciences Services

Administration, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, and the Sea Grant program.

The impact of the Stratton Commission report was magnified by its timeliness. Once

again, events were occurring that would guide the direction of ocean policy, this time toward

greater environmental awareness. In 1966, seismic tests in the Georges Bank fishing grounds

caused an explosion that halted fishing for three weeks and prompted calls for a ban on oil

and gas activity in the area. In January 1969, Union Oil’s Platform A in the Santa Barbara

Channel blew out, spilling some 3 million gallons of oil, killing marine life, and affecting

more than 150 miles of shoreline. The images of soiled beaches, oil-soaked birds, and bellyup fish generated widespread public concern and contributed to the enactment of a law

that would profoundly affect the approach of the federal government to natural resources

of every description—the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Years of Activism

To an extent not seen before or since, the political climate between 1969 and 1980 was ripe

for initiatives to expand the federal role in ocean and environmental management. The

Stratton report had sounded the trumpet, calling upon “Congress and the President to

develop a national ocean program worthy of a great sea nation.” Segments of the American

public, aroused by the Santa Barbara oil spill and the inaugural Earth Day on April 22,

1970, lent support to a new generation of activist environmental organizations demanding

federal action. Members of Congress, empowered by internal reforms that enlarged staffs

and somewhat weakened the seniority system for selection of committee chairs, were eager

to play a policy-making role. Internationally, the United Nations Conference on the Human

Environment met in Stockholm in 1972, a milestone for the environmental movement.

Both at home and overseas, the oceans were caught up in the larger pro-environment trend.

As a result, the stewardship ethic embodied by NEPA—the idea that the government

should study, plan, and offer the opportunity for public comment before acting—was

applied to the oceans. This principle was at the heart of the new law dealing with America’s

increasingly populous coastal zone. The CZMA constituted a marriage of federal activism

and states’ rights. Entirely voluntary, the program offered grants to states to help develop

and implement coastal management plans tailored to local needs but reflecting broad

national interests. To encourage states to enforce their plans, the federal government

agreed to honor them as well. This pledge to make federal actions affecting the coastal

zone consistent with state plans (referred to as the federal consistency provisions) was

novel and would, at times, prove controversial.

Other major ocean-related legislation enacted during this period included measures to

improve the nation’s water quality, regulate ocean dumping, designate marine sanctuaries,

prohibit the taking of marine mammals, protect endangered species, license deep-water

ports, promote aquaculture, and encourage the development of ocean thermal energy 

conversion as a renewable source of power. The most dramatic expansion of federal ocean

activity, however, resulted from enactment of the Fishery Conservation and Management

Act, later renamed the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

According to its terms, on March 1, 1977, American fisheries jurisdiction was extended

from 12 to 200 nautical miles, an expansion in area roughly equal to the size of the continental United States. This action reflected a triumph of America’s interest in championing

the rights of coastal nations to control resources over its interest in defending the maximum degree of freedom on the high seas. 

51

Thirty years ago

when the Stratton

Commission looked 

at the problems of

our oceans, the main

focus was the threat

to our ocean resources

from others. One of

the things that 

helped the Stratton

Commission is the

fact that when you

have an enemy you

can identify, you can

get policy done pretty

fast. But when your

enemy is your own

behavior, that’s tough

to do. I think that’s

what we confront

now.

—The Honorable Leon

Panetta, Chairman of

the Pew Oceans 

Commission, testimony

to the Commission,

October 2002
52 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

The legislation was prompted by the anger of U.S. fishermen, especially in the North

Atlantic and off Alaska, regarding the presence on their traditional fishing grounds of 

massive foreign factory trawlers scooping tons of fish from the sea. The trawlers, many

from the Soviet Union, were able to operate at all hours, even in harsh weather, catching

fish and freezing them on the spot. By the end of the 1960s, America had dropped from

second to sixth in its share of world fishery catch and a substantial segment of the U.S.

commercial fishing industry was in deep trouble. Compared to the large, modern, efficient

Soviet trawlers, most U.S. vessels were small and inefficient. Although the U.S. Department

of State urged Congress to delay action pending the outcome of global negotiations on the

U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention), those discussions were going

slowly, and the pressure to act became overwhelming.

The management scheme created by the Magnuson–Stevens Act was imaginative, yet

complicated: Regional Fishery Management Councils were appointed and required to

develop and submit plans for managing particular species to the Secretary of Commerce

for approval. The intention was to harness regional expertise in the national interest,

make full use of scientific data, and give the industry a voice in designing the means of its

own regulation. The Coast Guard was tasked with achieving the law’s main selling point—

foreigner fishing fleets out, Americans in—and various measures were developed to

encourage new investment in the U.S. fishing fleet. The explicit intent of the statute was

to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, and realize the full potential of the

nation’s fishery resources. Despite the challenge of persuading fiercely independent fishermen to accept restrictions on their activities, there was much optimism in the early years

that the Magnuson–Stevens Act’s ambitious goals would be met. 

Meanwhile, policy makers were coping with another pressing concern: the Arab oil

embargo triggered by the 1973 Middle East war had a direct impact on the lives of millions of Americans. Heating costs soared, and the simple act of filling up at the local gas

station turned into a nightmare. The country’s vulnerability to disruptions caused by

dependence on uncertain supplies of foreign oil became a major economic and national

security issue. In response, the Nixon administration proposed a massive expansion of

outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas leasing to include frontier areas off the Atlantic,

Gulf, and Pacific coasts. This proposal ran counter to the pro-environmental currents then

circulating, and posed a challenge to lawmakers searching for a way to address ecological

and energy supply concerns simultaneously. The result was the OCS Lands Act

Amendments of 1978, the product of three years of bipartisan legislative effort, designed

to encourage leasing subject to new planning requirements, more rigorous environmental

standards, and measures to ensure that the views of state and local governments were

taken into account.

The many ocean-related laws spawned during the 1970s addressed urgent needs,

introduced creative management concepts, and multiplied the scope of federal responsibility. But they lacked an overarching vision critical to a coherent national ocean policy.

NOAA was neither equipped nor authorized to set priorities across more than a small portion of the spectrum of marine activities, and most of the laws enacted were aimed at a

single purpose or ocean use, and implemented with little reference to others. 

The inherent difficulty of managing diverse activities over a vast geographic area, 

and the incremental manner in which the federal ocean regime was assembled, inevitably

resulted in fragmentation. The three presidents who served between 1969 and 1981 did

not provide strong policy direction on ocean issues. In the absence of such direction, 

neither the executive branch nor Congress was structured in a way that fostered a comprehensive approach to the oceans. No federal department could claim the lead, and

crosscutting legislative initiatives were referred to multiple congressional committees

where differing perspectives tended to cancel each other out. Notwithstanding the

Stratton Commission’s call for centralization, by 1980 federal responsibility for oceanrelated programs was distributed among ten departments and eight independent agencies.
C HAPTER 2: UNDERSTANDING THE PAST TO S HAPE A NE W NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY

Contention and Stalemate 

The 1981 inauguration of President Reagan altered the direction of America’s approach 

to ocean and coastal issues. For the first time since the days of Presidents Kennedy and

Johnson, the White House was the source of clear policy direction for the oceans. While the

consensus in the 1970s had favored a larger federal role, the new administration wanted to

reduce the size of government. While legislation approved in the 1970s called for a steady

increase in investments to achieve marine-related goals, the Reagan philosophy called for

cutbacks. While the mood of the 1970s leaned heavily in the direction of environmental

protection, the new administration favored a minimum of restrictions on the private sector.

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary James Watt departed from the earlier

practice of offering limited offshore areas for energy leases and, in 1982, introduced the

concept of area-wide leasing, opening dramatically larger areas of the OCS simultaneously.

As a result of Watt’s new policy, 275 million acres of the OCS were offered for lease in

1983-84, compared to a two-year average of less than 8.5 million acres in the immediately

preceding ten year period. At the same time, the administration proposed to eliminate

funding for the Sea Grant and Coastal Zone Management programs, reduce investments 

in oceanographic research, and privatize a number of functions carried out by NOAA.

Congress responded to Secretary Watt’s proposals by including a provision in the 1982

DOI appropriations bill that prohibited it from leasing certain offshore areas. This practice

of legislating moratoria soon took hold, leading eventually to 50 nautical mile no-leasing

buffer zones along much of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. President Reagan’s successors

later removed almost all new areas from leasing consideration through 2012. As the OCS

program gyrated from one extreme to the other, the balanced approach Congress sought

when amending the OCS Lands Act in 1978 was never fully tested, despite the stillcompelling need for secure energy supplies.

The Reagan administration also changed the tenor of American ocean policy internationally. Since 1958, efforts had been underway to negotiate an international agreement 

on the law of the sea, spelling out a global consensus on such matters as freedom of navigation, fisheries jurisdiction, continental shelf resources, and the width of the territorial

sea. At the request of less developed nations, the third round of negotiations, begun in

1973, included consideration of an elaborate international regime to govern the mining of

minerals from the deep seabed in areas outside the jurisdiction of any country. Advocates

argued that minerals found beneath international waters should be considered part of 

the “common heritage of mankind,” thus subject to a system of controls on production,

mandatory technology transfer provisions, and other regulatory requirements implemented by an international seabed institution. The Reagan administration, with support

from many in both parties in Congress, argued that the deep seabed was a frontier area to

which access for exploration and exploitation should be assured without the restrictions

of what it deemed to be the anti-free market components of the pending regime. When

the Law of the Sea negotiations concluded in 1982, the United States was one of four

countries to vote against the resulting convention.

Despite this, the administration soon took a number of steps that recognized provisions in the convention. In 1983, President Reagan declared a 200 nautical mile exclusive

economic zone (EEZ), changing what had been a continental shelf and fishery resource

jurisdictional system into an exclusive regime governing access to all ocean and continental shelf resources, including the water column itself (though not impeding the right to

free navigation). The Reagan EEZ Proclamation included an accompanying presidential

statement that the United States would accept and act in accordance with the balance of

interests reflected in the convention, except for the provisions on deep seabed mining.

Finally, five years later, the United States officially extended its territorial sea from 3 to 12

nautical miles. The administration, however, did not offer any significant plans for exploring or exercising a new management role in these areas. 

53
54 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

The architects of ocean-related programs in the 1970s built on the foundation of the

Stratton Commission, creating a multidimensional framework for the management of

America’s stake in the oceans. The Reagan administration saw much of that framework 

as unrelated to—or even interfering with—the core government functions of national

defense and fostering free enterprise. The result was an ongoing clash that ratified the

vision of neither side, producing a stalemate. The administration did not succeed in eliminating programs such as Sea Grant and Coastal Zone Management, but it was able to hold

the line or reduce financial support for most of them. Funding for NOAA’s ocean research,

for example, declined from $117.9 million in 1982 to $40.7 million in 1988. Many managers, earlier preoccupied with implementing their programs, spent much of the 1980s

trying to save them.

Search for Coherence

Recent years have been characterized neither by the rapid growth in federal ocean activity

characteristic of the 1970s, nor by the change in course that took place in the 1980s. The

EXXON Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, occurring a few months after President

George H.W. Bush took office in 1989, helped revive support for environmentally protective

legislation. The spill led directly to enactment of the 1990 Oil Pollution Act, mandating double hulls for tankers entering U.S. ports by 2015 and setting liability standards for oil spills.

That same year, amendments to the CZMA clarified that OCS lease sales are subject to the

federal consistency provisions of the statute. Frustrated by the persistence of marine pollution, Congress continued to search for effective ways to reduce pollution from nonpoint

sources, such as urban runoff and agriculture. Mounting alarm about the depletion of major

groundfish stocks, despite two decades of management under the Magnuson–Stevens Act,

led to the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, designed to prevent overfishing. 

On the world stage, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development—

the Earth Summit—held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, made recommendations in seven program areas dealing with the conservation of marine and coastal resources. It also produced

the United Nations Framework Agreement on Climate Change (ratified by the United

States in 1992) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (which the United States has

not ratified). In 1994, an agreement was reached addressing U.S. concerns on implementing the deep seabed mining provisions of the LOS Convention, and the Clinton administration sent the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent, where it still lingers, though it

is in force internationally. (For a summary of many ocean-related international agreements,

see Table 29.1.)

The dominant trend in U.S. ocean policy in the 1990s was a growing sense of dissatisfaction with the ad hoc approach. Much had changed since the Stratton Commission

report was issued in 1969. New opportunities, such as offshore aquaculture and marine

biotechnology, were being held back by the lack of appropriate management structures to

guide development. Pressures on ocean and coastal areas continued to intensify and new

threats loomed, such as sea-level rise and increased storm frequency attributed to global

climate change, as well as puzzling and sometimes deadly algal blooms. The link between

science and policy that had seemed so essential and exciting to the nation in the 1960s

now suffered from insufficient investment and high-level neglect. On many key ocean

issues, debate was leading not to consensus, but rather to heightened disagreements that

could not be resolved under existing laws and arrangements, and often to litigation. 

The sense of partial paralysis was strengthened by the existence through most of the

decade of divided government, with different parties in control of the White House and

Congress. None of the many centers of power was able to lead with sustained success. In

search of coherence, panels assembled by the National Research Council, as well as expert

groups brought together under other auspices, recommended a detailed study of the

nation’s ocean-related laws, programs, activities, and needs.
C HAPTER 2: UNDERSTANDING THE PAST TO S HAPE A NE W NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY

Consensus for Change

Since the publication of the Stratton Commission’s report, seventeen Congresses and

seven presidents have created, expanded, and remodeled the current framework of laws

governing ocean and coastal management. At last count, more than 55 congressional committees and subcommittees (Appendix F) oversee some 20 federal agencies and permanent commissions in implementing at least 140 federal ocean-related statutes.

Recognition of the growing economic importance and ecological sensitivity of the

oceans and coasts, our responsibility to future generations, and the inadequacies of the

current management regime set the stage for enactment of the Oceans Act of 2000

(Appendix A), establishing the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Although publicly

financed, the Commission is fully independent and is charged with carrying out the first

comprehensive review of marine-related issues and laws in more than thirty years to assist

the nation in creating a truly effective and farsighted ocean policy. The timing of the

Commission’s work overlapped with that of the privately funded and more narrowly

focused Pew Oceans Commission, whose recommendations contributed to the growing

dialogue on the need for such policy.5

In enacting the Oceans Act, Congress cited the pressing need for a coherent national

system of ocean governance. Factors contributing to this need include rising coastal populations, increased competition for ocean space, demand for port facilities, the emergence

of potential new ocean uses, the decline of vital commercial fishery stocks, unresolved

debates over offshore energy and mineral development, the persistence of marine pollution, the contamination of seafood, the loss of coastal wetlands, and the prospect that

enhanced knowledge of the oceans will improve our ability to comprehend the causes of

climate variability and other not yet fully grasped environmental threats. 

The Commission was established because the nation is not now sufficiently organized

legally or administratively to make decisions, set priorities, resolve conflicts, and articulate

clear and consistent policies that respond to the wealth of problems and opportunities ocean

users face. In the words of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:

“Today, people who work and live on the water, from fishermen to corporations, face a patchwork of confusing and sometimes contradictory federal and state authorities and regulations.

No mechanism exists for establishing a common vision or set of objectives.”6

In September 2001, a major event again altered the lens through which America views

ocean policy. Terrorist attacks on U.S. soil resulted in the placement of a higher priority on

maritime security issues. That very month, the Commission’s initial organizational meeting

was held. The Coast Guard was soon transferred to the new U.S. Department of Homeland

Security. Meanwhile, partly as a result of the war on terror, constraints on the domestic discretionary part of the U.S. government’s budget raised new questions not only about what

U.S. ocean policy should be, but also about what policy choices the nation can afford.

Launching the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

A Broad Mandate

The Commission was directed to address numerous challenging issues, ranging from the

stewardship of fisheries and marine life to the status of knowledge about the marine environment, as well as the relationships among federal, state, and local governments and the

private sector in carrying out ocean and coastal activities. The Oceans Act requires that the

Commission suggest ways to reduce duplication, improve efficiency, enhance cooperation,

and modify the structure of federal agencies involved in managing the oceans and coasts. 

With input from the states, a science advisory panel, and the public, the Commission

was instructed to prepare a report presenting recommendations to the President and

55

The world has

changed politically,

technologically, 

scientifically, and

socially in the past

thirty years. The 

convening of this

Commission is timely

as it examines the

present status of

ocean policy in the

United States, and

changes that are

needed. 

—Dr. Robert White, 

President Emeritus of

the National Academy of

Engineering, Member of

the Stratton Commission

(’67–’68), and First NOAA

Administrator (’70–’77),

testimony to the 

Commission, 

October 2002
56 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Congress on ocean and coastal issues for the purpose of developing a coordinated and

comprehensive national ocean policy. The Oceans Act states that this national ocean policy

should promote protection of life and property, responsible stewardship of ocean and

coastal resources, protection of the marine environment and prevention of marine pollution, enhancement of marine commerce, expansion of human knowledge of the marine

environment, investment in technologies to promote energy and food security, close cooperation among government agencies, and preservation of U.S. leadership in ocean and

coastal activities. In developing its recommendations, the Commission was required to give

equal consideration to environmental, technical feasibility, economic, and scientific factors. 

Specifically, the Commission’s report was required to include the following elements:

• An assessment of ocean facilities including vessels, people, laboratories, computers,

and satellites (Appendix 5); 

• A review of federal laws and regulations on U.S. ocean and coastal activities (Appendix 6); 

• A review of the supply and demand for ocean and coastal resources; 

• A review of the relationships among federal, state, and local governments and the 

private sector; 

• A review of the opportunities for investment in new products and technologies; 

• Recommendations for modifications to federal laws and the structure of federal 

agencies; and 

• A review of the effectiveness of existing federal interagency policy coordination. 

The Commission Members

In accordance with guidelines set forth in the Oceans Act, in July 2001 President George

W. Bush appointed sixteen citizens knowledgeable in ocean and coastal activities to serve

on the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The President selected twelve members from

lists submitted by the Senate Majority Leader, the Senate Minority Leader, the Speaker of

the House of Representatives, and the Minority Leader of the House. The remaining four

members were chosen directly by the President. The Commission members (listed at the

front of this report) come from positions and diverse professional backgrounds in: federal,

state, and local governments; private industry; and academic and research institutions

involved in marine-related issues. Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Retired), was elected

chair by his fellow commissioners at the first Commission meeting. 

How the Commission Did Its Work

This report was developed after careful consideration of materials gathered during public

meetings, through public comment, from existing literature, and through input of science

advisors and other noteworthy experts. The input received from all of these sources served

to guide the development of this report. 

Regional Meetings

Because of the vast scope of topics the Commission was required to address, it sought

input from a wide range of experts across the country. After two initial organizing meetings

in Washington, D.C., the Commission heard testimony on ocean and coastal issues in

nine different areas around the United States during a series of regional meetings and

related site visits (Box 2.1). The Commission was required to hold at least one public

meeting in Alaska, the Northeast (including the Great Lakes), the Southeast (including the

Caribbean), the Southwest (including Hawaii and the Pacific Territories), the Northwest,

and the Gulf of Mexico. To obtain information from an even greater segment of U.S.

marine-related interests, the commissioners held three additional regional meetings. 

The commissioners also learned about important regional issues through site visits. 
C HAPTER 2: UNDERSTANDING THE PAST TO S HAPE A NE W NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY 57

The public meetings provided government agencies, nongovernmental organizations,

industry, academia, and the public the opportunity to directly discuss ocean and coastal

concerns with the Commission. Commissioners held dialogues with invited speakers and

sought comments from members of the public to gain insight into issues and opportunities facing each region, and to solicit recommendations for Commission consideration.

The regional meetings highlighted relevant case studies and regional models with potential national applicability. 

Invited panelists were selected based on their expertise on the topics highlighted at

each meeting, with a strong effort to maintain a balance of interests and gain perspectives

from all sectors (Figure 2.1). Six additional public meetings were held in Washington,

• Washington, D.C.

September 17–18, 2001: Public meeting

• Washington, D.C.

November 13–14, 2001: Public meeting

• Southeast—Delaware to Georgia

January 14, 2002: Regional site visits

(Annapolis/Chesapeake Bay, MD; 

Charleston, SC) 

January 15–16, 2002: Public meetings in

Charleston, SC

• Florida and the Caribbean

February 21, 2002: Regional site visits 

(Puerto Rico; South Florida east coast;

Tampa–Sarasota, FL)

February 22, 2002: Public meeting in 

St. Petersburg, FL

• Gulf of Mexico—Alabama to Texas

February 19, 2002: Regional site visit 

(Texas A&M University, TX)

March 6, 2002: Regional site visits 

(offshore New Orleans, LA; Stennis

Space Center, MS)

March 7–8, 2002: Public meetings in 

New Orleans, LA

• Southwest—California

April 17, 2002: Regional site visits 

(San Diego and Monterey, CA)

April 18–19, 2002: Public meetings in 

San Pedro, CA

• Hawaii and Pacific Islands

May 13–14, 2002: Public meetings in 

Honolulu, HI

• Northwest—Washington and Oregon

March 20, 2002: Regional site visit 

(Portland, OR)

June 12, 2002: Regional site visits 

(Olympia and Seattle, WA)

June 13–14, 2002: Public meetings 

in Seattle, WA

• Northeast—New Jersey to Maine

July 22, 2002: Regional site visits (southern New England; New York–New Jersey;

northern New England)

July 23–24, 2002: Public meetings in 

Boston, MA

• Alaska

August 21–22, 2002: Public meetings in

Anchorage, AK

August 23, 2002: Regional site visits 

(Dutch Harbor and Juneau, AK)

• Great Lakes

September 24–25, 2002: Public 

meetings in Chicago, IL

• Washington, D.C.

October 30, 2002: Public meeting

• Washington, D.C.

November 22, 2002: Public meeting

• Washington, D.C.

January 24, 2003: Public meeting

• Washington, D.C.

April 2–3, 2003: Public meetings

• Washington, D.C.

April 20, 2004: Release of the

Preliminary Report

• Washington, D.C.

July 22, 2004: Public meeting and

approval of the draft Final Report

Box 2.1 Public Meetings of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

The Commissioners held sixteen public meetings and conducted eighteen regional site visits

to examine a wide range of important issues and gain input from local, state, and regional

ocean communities throughout the United States.
58 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

D.C., after completion of the regional meetings. At

the four immediately following the regional meetings, the commissioners presented and discussed the

many policy options that served as the foundation

for the Commission’s recommendations. Overall during its public meetings, the Commission heard from

some 447 witnesses, including over 275 invited presentations and an additional 172 comments from the

public, resulting in nearly 1,900 pages of testimony

(Appendices 1 and 2).

Working Groups

During the first Commission meeting in September

2001, the commissioners agreed to establish four

working groups in the areas of: Governance;

Stewardship; Research, Education, and Marine

Operations; and Investment and Implementation.

These working groups were charged with reviewing

and analyzing issues within their area and reporting

their findings to the full Commission. 

Based on extensive reviews of the testimony,

public comments, background papers prepared by

expert consultants, existing literature, and discussions with a broad cross-section of the

marine-related community, the working groups identified key issues and outlined possible

options for addressing them. The working groups shared their work with each other

throughout the deliberative process to ensure thorough integration and coordination in

developing the final Commission report and recommendations.

The Governance Working Group examined the roles of federal, state, and local 

governments as they relate to the oceans. It also assessed the management of the coastal

zone and nonliving marine resources and provided options for improvement. 

The Stewardship Working Group addressed living marine resources, pollution, and water

quality issues and assessed the current status of ocean stewardship—the behavior of people

with respect to the oceans—and incentives for responsible actions. The group concentrated

on actions to achieve responsible and sustainable use of the ocean and its resources.

The Research, Education, and Marine Operations Working Group examined ocean

and coastal research, exploration, air-ocean interaction research, education, marine operations, and related technology and facilities. This group analyzed the current status in these

areas to assess their adequacy in achieving the national goals set forth in the Oceans Act.

Finally, the Investment and Implementation Working Group discussed the new

investment and implementation strategies needed to carry out the Commission’s proposed

ocean policy. This working group concentrated on identifying the federal structures,

processes, and investments necessary to integrate, implement, and sustain the recommendations proposed by the other working groups.

Science Advisory Panel

The Oceans Act directed the Commission, with assistance from the National Academy of

Sciences, to establish a multidisciplinary science advisory panel consisting of experts in

living and nonliving marine resource issues from outside the federal government. The

panel (listed at the front of this report) included many of the finest ocean science and

marine policy practitioners and researchers in the nation and reflected the breadth of

issues before the Commission. Panel members provided expert advice on a range of issues

and reviewed draft materials to ensure the Commission’s report was based on the best 

scientific information available. 

Figure 2.1 Invited Panelists Represented 

All Sectors of the Ocean Community

Academia/

Research

Industry

Public interest 

groups, other 

organizations, 

individuals

Government

37%

18%

26%

25%

A breakdown of the 275 panelists invited to present testimony 

before the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy illustrates the 

breadth of input received. 
C HAPTER 2: UNDERSTANDING THE PAST TO S HAPE A NE W NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY 59

Other Sources of Information

Throughout its work, the Commission continuously sought advice from experts on specific

issues of concern through formal seminars and conferences, informal meetings and discussions, and preparation of background reports. Striving to maintain communication

with all interested parties and to gain knowledge from a range of sources, the Commission

also encouraged members of the public to submit information for the official record

throughout the Commission’s fact-finding and deliberative phases. An active Web site 

was maintained to facilitate public input.

As a result of the Commission’s outreach efforts, some 3,200 pages of information

have been filed in the official Commission record. This vast wealth of accumulated 

information provided examples of successful approaches and formed the basis for the

Commission’s recommendations.

The Preliminary Report and Governors’ Comments

Following extensive consideration, and deliberations on a broad array of potential solutions, the Commission released a preliminary report in April 2004. Although the Oceans

Act only required the draft report be sent to coastal state governors, the Commission went

further, soliciting feedback from all state and territorial governors, tribal leaders, and the

public. The response was overwhelming. Thoughtful, constructive feedback was received

from thirty-seven governors (including 33 of the 34 from coastal states), five tribal leaders, and a multitude of other organizations and individuals—over one thousand pages in

all. Commenters were nearly unanimous in praising the report, agreeing that our oceans

are in trouble, and supporting the call for action to rectify the situation. Where governors

and others offered corrections or suggestions for improvement, the Commission paid

close attention and made changes as needed.

The Result

This final report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, along with its extensive appendices, is the culmination of more than two and a half years of information gathering, 

discussion, deliberation, review, and refinement. It represents a consensus of the sixteen

Commission members on the best course of action for this nation to realize a coordinated

and comprehensive national ocean and coastal policy. Meaningful change will require a

reorientation of political, economic, and social attitudes and behaviors. Such change is

likely to take time, but it must begin now if we are to reverse a continuing decline in the

health and economic vitality of ocean and coastal waters.

References

1 National Research Council. Oceanography 1960–1970. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1959.

2 Wenk, Jr., E. The Politics of the Ocean. Seattle, WA, and London, England: University of Washington Press, 1972.

3 “1960: U.S. Scientists [Men of the Year].” Time Magazine, January 2, 1961. 

4 U.S. Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources. Panel Reports of the Commission on Marine Science,

Engineering, and Resources. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.

5 Pew Oceans Commission. America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change. A Report to the Nation.

Arlington, VA, May 2003.

6 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Oceans Act of 2000. 106th Cong., 2d

sess., May 23, 2000. S. Rept. 106–30
60 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 3

SETTING THE NATION’S SIGHTS

The first step in any call for change should be to paint a picture of the desirable

end result and specify the principles that will guide the changes. For U.S. ocean

policy to improve, it must be based on a positive vision for the future, broad guiding principles, and translation of those principles into an effective governance

system with working policies and programs. 

In keeping with the latest scientific understanding about the world,

management based on ecosystems rather than political boundaries

should be at the heart of any new ocean policy framework. Success

also depends on greatly improved public awareness of the relationship between the oceans and human existence, the connections

among the land, air, and sea, the balance of benefits and costs

inherent in using ocean and coastal resources, and the role of 

governments and citizens as ocean stewards.

Imagining a Brighter Future

The potential benefits associated with oceans and coasts are

vast; however, the problems we face in protecting them and

realizing their full potential are numerous and complex. There is a

growing awareness of the connectivity within and between ecosystems

and the impacts of human activities on the marine environment. The

need for change emerged as a compelling theme at each of the U.S.

Commission on Ocean Policy’s public meetings—change not only in management and policies, but also in public awareness and education, and in the

use of science and technology. However, before attempting to reform any system,

it is important to identify the desired result. What would an improved ocean management system achieve? What would be its most important attributes? How would the

oceans and coasts benefit from this improved system? What would the world look like

after such reforms were realized? 

In the desirable future, the oceans and coasts would be clean, safe, and sustainably

managed. The oceans would contain a high level of biodiversity and contribute significantly to the economy, supporting multiple beneficial uses, including food production,

development of energy and mineral resources, recreation, transportation of goods and

people, and the discovery of novel life-saving drugs and other useful products. The coasts

would be attractive places to live, work, and play, with clean water and beaches, easy 
C HAPTER 3: S ETTING THE NATION ’ S SIGHTS

public access, vibrant economies, safe bustling harbors and ports, adequate roads and

services, and special protection for sensitive habitats. Beach closings, toxic algal blooms,

proliferation of invasive species, and vanishing native species would be rare. Better land

use planning and improved predictions of severe weather and other natural hazards would

save lives and money.

In the desirable future, management of the oceans and coasts would follow ecosystem

boundaries, looking at interactions among all elements of the system, rather than addressing isolated areas or problems. In the face of scientific uncertainty, managers would balance

competing considerations and proceed with caution. Ocean governance would be effective, participatory, and well coordinated among government agencies, the private sector,

and the public.

An improved ocean governance framework would recognize the critical importance 

of good information and provide strong support for physical, biological, social, and economic research. Investments would be made in the tools and technologies needed to conduct this research: ample, well-equipped surface and underwater research vessels; reliable,

sustained satellites; state-of-the-art computing facilities; and innovative sensors that withstand harsh ocean conditions. A widespread network of observing and monitoring stations

would provide data for research, planning, marine operations, timely forecasts, and periodic assessments. Scientific findings and observations would be translated into practical

information, maps, and products used by decision makers and the public. 

Better education would be a key element of the desirable future, with the United States

once again joining the top ranks in math, science, and technology achievement. An ample,

well-trained, and motivated workforce would be available to study the oceans, set wise

policies, apply technological advances, engineer new solutions, and teach the public about

the value and beauty of the oceans and coasts throughout their lives. As a result of this

lifelong education, people would understand the links among the sea, land, air, and human

activities, and would be better stewards of the nation’s resources. 

Finally, the United States would be a leader and full partner globally, sharing its science,

engineering, technology, and policy expertise, particularly with developing countries, to

facilitate the achievement of sustainable ocean management on a global level. 

The Commission believes this vision is practical and achievable.

Building Ocean Policy on Sound Guiding Principles

To achieve the vision, national ocean policy should be guided by a set of overarching principles. Although existing ocean policies address specific issues or resources with varying

degrees of success, there are no broad principles in place to guide the development and

implementation of new policies, provide consistency among the universe of different policies, and assess the effectiveness of any particular policy. The fundamental principles that

should guide ocean policy include the following:

• Sustainability: Ocean policy should be designed to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

• Stewardship: The principle of stewardship applies both to the government and to

every citizen. The U.S. government holds ocean and coastal resources in the public

trust—a special responsibility that necessitates balancing different uses of those

resources for the continued benefit of all Americans. Just as important, every member

of the public should recognize the value of the oceans and coasts, supporting appropriate policies and acting responsibly while minimizing negative environmental impacts.

• Ocean–Land–Atmosphere Connections: Ocean policies should be based on the

recognition that the oceans, land, and atmosphere are inextricably intertwined and

that actions that affect one Earth system component are likely to affect another.

61
62 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

• Ecosystem-based Management: U.S. ocean and coastal resources should be managed

to reflect the relationships among all ecosystem components, including humans and

nonhuman species and the environments in which they live. Applying this principle

will require defining relevant geographic management areas based on ecosystem,

rather than political, boundaries. 

• Multiple Use Management: The many potentially beneficial uses of ocean and coastal

resources should be acknowledged and managed in a way that balances competing

uses while preserving and protecting the overall integrity of the ocean and coastal

environments. 

• Preservation of Marine Biodiversity: Downward trends in marine biodiversity should

be reversed where they exist, with a desired end of maintaining or recovering natural

levels of biological diversity and ecosystem services. 

• Best Available Science and Information: Ocean policy decisions should be based on

the best available understanding of the natural, social, and economic processes that

affect ocean and coastal environments. Decision makers should be able to obtain and

understand quality science and information in a way that facilitates successful management of ocean and coastal resources.

• Adaptive Management: Ocean management programs should be designed to meet

clear goals and provide new information to continually improve the scientific basis for

future management. Periodic reevaluation of the goals and effectiveness of management measures, and incorporation of new information in implementing future management, are essential. 

• Understandable Laws and Clear Decisions: Laws governing uses of ocean and

coastal resources should be clear, coordinated, and accessible to the nation’s citizens

to facilitate compliance. Policy decisions and the reasoning behind them should also

be clear and available to all interested parties.

• Participatory Governance: Governance of ocean uses should ensure widespread 

participation by all citizens on issues that affect them. 

• Timeliness: Ocean governance systems should operate with as much efficiency and

predictability as possible.

The Commission’s guiding principles and other recommendations were based on input received at 

meetings throughout the nation, such as this one held in July 2002 at historic Faneuil Hall in Boston,

Massachusetts.

USCOP File Photo
C HAPTER 3: S ETTING THE NATION ’ S SIGHTS

• Accountability: Decision makers and members of the public should be accountable

for the actions they take that affect ocean and coastal resources.

• International Responsibility: The United States should act cooperatively with other

nations in developing and implementing international ocean policy, reflecting the

deep connections between U.S. interests and the global ocean. 

Translating Principles into Policy

While articulating a vision for the future and identifying fundamental principles are 

necessary first steps, these must then be translated into working policies and programs.

Four concepts serve as guideposts for developing and implementing new ocean policies:

ecosystem-based management; incorporation of scientific information in decision making;

improved governance; and broad public education. 

Ecosystem-based Management

Sound ocean policy requires managers to simultaneously consider the economic requirements of society, the need to protect the nation’s oceans and coasts, and the interplay among

social, cultural, economic, and ecological factors. These factors are closely intertwined, just

like the land, air, sea, and marine organisms. Activities that affect the oceans and coasts may

take place far inland. For example, land-based sources of pollution, such as runoff from

farms and city streets, are a significant source of the problems that plague marine ecosystems. Ocean policies cannot manage one activity, or one part of the system, without considering its connections with all the other parts. Thus, policies governing the use of U.S.

ocean and coastal resources must become ecosystem-based, science-based, and adaptive.

Ecosystem-based management looks at all the links among living and nonliving

resources, rather than considering single issues in isolation. This system of management

considers human activities, their benefits, and their potential impacts within the context

of the broader biological and physical environment. Instead of developing a management

plan for one issue (such as a commercial fishery or an individual source of pollution),

ecosystem-based management focuses on the multiple activities occurring within specific

areas that are defined by ecosystem, rather than political, boundaries. 

Defining New Management Boundaries

Splitting the natural world into clearly defined management units is a somewhat arbitrary

process. Existing management boundaries primarily follow political lines. However, new

scientific understanding of ecosystems makes it possible to design management areas that

conform more closely to ecological units. 

Since the 1960s, scientists have developed and refined the concept of “large marine

ecosystems,” (LMEs).1 These regions divide the ocean into large functional units based on

shared bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and populations. LMEs encompass areas

from river basins and estuaries to the outer edges of continental shelves and seaward margins of coastal current systems (Figure 3.1). Large marine ecosystems are not currently

employed as management areas, although they were used in part to define the fishery

management regions in the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management

Act. On land, watersheds have often been identified as appropriate ecosystem-based management units, particularly for issues related to hydrology and water pollution. Because of

the connection between land-based activities and ocean conditions, an appropriate geographic boundary for ecosystem-based management of ocean areas might combine all or

part of a large marine ecosystem with the watersheds that drain into it. 

63
64 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

While determining appropriate new boundaries is necessary to move toward ecosystem-based management, it is also important to maintain sufficient flexibility to manage on

both larger and smaller scales when necessary. For example, air pollution problems must

be dealt with on national and even international levels, while certain water pollution

issues may need to be addressed on a small-scale watershed level. Managers should be

able to adapt to the scale of different activities and the ecosystems they affect.

Aligning Decision Making within Ecosystem Boundaries

The current political and issue-specific delineation of jurisdictional boundaries makes it

difficult to address complex issues that affect many parts of the ecosystem. Economic

development in a coastal area may fall under the jurisdiction of several local governments,

and natural resource management under the jurisdiction of one or more states, while pollution control and environmental monitoring of the same area may be overseen by several

federal agencies. Yet water, people, fish, marine mammals, and ships flow continually

across these invisible institutional borders.

Ecosystem-based management can provide many benefits over the current structure.

The coordination of efforts within a specific geographic area allows agencies to reduce

duplication and maximize limited resources. It also provides an opportunity for addressing conflicts among management entities with different mandates. Less obvious, but

equally important, ecosystem-based management may engender a greater sense of stewardship among government agencies, private interests, and the public by promoting identification and connection with a specific area. 

Figure 3.1 Large Marine Ecosystems Correspond to Natural Features

Gulf of

Mexico LME

Gulf of 

Alaska LME

Eastern Bering

Sea LME

Chukchi

Sea LME Beaufort

Sea LME

Insular PacificHawaiian LME

Southeast

U.S. LME California 

Current LME

Northeast

U.S. LME

Caribbean

LME

Ten large marine ecosystems (LMEs) have been identified for the United States. These LMEs are 

regions of the ocean starting in coastal areas and extending out to the seaward boundaries of 

continental shelves and major current systems. They take into account the biological and physical 

components of the marine environment as well as terrestrial features such as river basins and 

estuaries that drain into these ocean areas. 

Source: University of Rhode Island Environmental Data Center, Department of Natural Resources. 

<mapper.edc.uri.edu/website/lmeims/viewer.htm> (Accessed January 2004).
C HAPTER 3: S ETTING THE NATION ’ S SIGHTS

Finally, ecosystem-based management makes it easier to assess and manage the cumulative impacts of many different activities. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’

wetlands permitting program has been criticized for not evaluating cumulative impacts in

its review of individual dredge-and-fill permits. A true ecosystem-based management

approach would ameliorate this fragmented approach.

While ecosystem-based management is being attempted in some places on a limited

basis, applying it broadly and successfully will take time and effort. In particular, the transition to such management will require explicit recognition of the uncertainty of current

information and understanding. This uncertainty creates risks. One widely accepted

guideline for managing in the face of uncertainty and risk is to adopt a precautionary and

adaptive approach.

Precautionary and Adaptive Management

Scientific uncertainty has always been, and will probably always be, a reality of the 

management process. Because scientists cannot predict the behavior of humans or the

environment with 100 percent accuracy, managers cannot be expected to manage with

complete certainty. Nevertheless, scientists can provide managers with an estimate of the

level of uncertainty associated with the information they are providing. Managers must

incorporate this level of uncertainty into the decision-making process, support the research

and data collection needed to reduce the uncertainties, and be prepared to adapt their

decisions as the information improves.

The precautionary principle has been proposed by some parties as a touchstone for

managers faced with uncertain scientific information. In its strictest formulation, the precautionary principle states that when the potentially adverse effects of a proposed activity

are not fully understood, the activity should not be allowed to proceed. While this may

appear sensible at first glance, its application could lead to extreme and often undesirable

results. Because scientific information can never fully explain and predict all impacts,

strict adoption of the precautionary principle would prevent most, if not all, activities

from proceeding.

In contrast to the precautionary principle, the Commission recommends adoption of a

more balanced precautionary approach that weighs the level of scientific uncertainty and

the potential risk of damage as part of every management decision. Such an approach can

be explained as follows:

Precautionary Approach: To ensure the sustainability of ecosystems for

the benefit of future as well as current generations, decision makers

should follow a balanced precautionary approach, applying judicious and

responsible management practices based on the best available science and

on proactive, rather than reactive, policies. Where threats of serious or

irreversible damage exist, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used

as a justification for postponing action to prevent environmental degradation. Management plans and actions based on this precautionary approach

should include scientific assessments, monitoring, mitigation measures to

reduce environmental risk where needed, and periodic reviews of any

restrictions and their scientific bases. 

According to this approach, scientific uncertainty—by itself—should neither prevent

protective measures from being implemented nor prevent uses of the ocean. Managers

should review the best available science and weigh decisions in light of both the level of

scientific uncertainty and the potential for damage. When the level of uncertainty is low

and the likelihood of damage is also low, the decision to proceed is clearly supported. At

the other extreme, when the level of uncertainty is high and the potential for irreversible

65

Rather than a crisisbased approach to

managing our oceans,

we should adopt a

proactive, integrated,

and adaptive one.

—Ted Danson, Founding

President, American

Oceans Campaign, 

testimony to the 

Commission, April 2002
66 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

damage is also high, managers should clearly not allow a proposed action to proceed. 

In the real world, managers will most likely face decisions between these two extremes,

where the correct outcome will require balancing competing interests, using the best

available information despite considerable uncertainty, and imposing some limits or mitigation measures to prevent environmental damage. After a decision is made, managers

must continue to gather the information needed to reduce uncertainty, periodically assess

the situation, and modify activities as appropriate. 

Goals and Objectives for Ecosystem-based Management Plans

As with any major, complex undertaking, ecosystem-based management should be guided

by clear, measurable goals and objectives. These goals should cover multiple uses and

should be based on a combination of policy judgments, community values, and science.

Although good science is essential for solving problems and scientists should advise managers about the consequences of various courses of action, science cannot determine the

“best” outcome in the absence of clearly identified management goals. The setting of goals

and objectives will depend on a blending of values and information. 

Where multiple desirable but competing objectives exist, it is not possible to maximize each. For example, both recreational boating and marine aquaculture are potential

uses of nearshore marine waters. Both provide benefits and costs to society, and both have

impacts on the environment that can be lessened with proper planning. However, these

activities can also conflict with each other: a large-scale aquaculture operation would 

prevent access by recreational boaters to certain waters. Science can inform managers of

the potential positive or negative impacts of each activity but cannot ultimately determine

whether to favor aquaculture or boating. Instead, a community judgment must be made,

weighing the value of each activity against its potential impacts. 

Ecosystem-based management will lead to better decisions that protect the environment while balancing multiple uses of ocean areas. Managers will need to work with the

scientific community to develop the necessary information and understanding to support

such complex decisions. But the critical process of setting goals to guide management will

require active participation by many different stakeholders with divergent views. This will

be difficult to achieve without changes to the existing governance system.

Biodiversity

One of the central goals for ecosystem-based management should be the explicit consideration of biodiversity on species, genetic, and ecosystem levels. While humans have always

depended on particularly valued marine species for food, medicine, and other useful products, there has been a tendency to ignore species that do not have a clear, recognizable

impact on society. However, it is now understood that every species makes some contribution to the structure and function of its ecosystem. Thus, an ecosystem’s survival may well

be linked to the survival of all species that inhabit it.

Species diversity, or the number of species within an ecosystem, is one measure of 

biodiversity. However, biodiversity is also significant at larger and smaller scales. Within 

a single-species population, it is important to preserve genetic diversity—the bedrock of

evolution. Maintaining genetic diversity is important for species to adapt to changing

environmental conditions. It is also important to understand and protect ecosystem diversity, the number of different ecosystems and different kinds of ecosystems, on Earth.

Because scientists have tended to study specific habitats, such as coral reefs, mangroves, or wetlands, quantitative measures of marine biodiversity at larger scales are rare.

Nevertheless, there is broad consensus that the biodiversity of life in the oceans is being

affected by human activities. Studies indicate that in many marine and coastal locations,

community composition has changed to conditions that are less valuable from ecological,
C HAPTER 3: S ETTING THE NATION ’ S SIGHTS

economic, and even cultural perspectives.2 There have been reductions in food and medicinal species and alterations of aesthetic and recreational values important to humans,

including much greater abundance of less desirable species like toxic algae and bacteria. 

Despite the importance of biodiversity to ecosystem functions and values, very little is

known about how biodiversity arises, is maintained, and is affected by outside forces

including climate variability and direct human impacts.

Science for Decision Making

Ecosystem-based management provides many potential benefits, but also imposes new

responsibilities on managers. The need to collect good information and to improve understanding is perhaps foremost among these new responsibilities. Despite considerable

progress over the last century, the oceans remain one of the least explored and most

poorly understood environments on the planet. 

Greater knowledge can enable policy makers and managers to make science-based

decisions at the national, regional, state, and local levels. Existing research and monitoring programs, which tend to be agency- and issue-centric, should be reoriented to become

ecosystem-based. This will help resolve the current mismatch between the size and complexity of marine ecosystems and the many fragmented research and monitoring programs

for coastal and ocean ecosystems. 

In addition to the need for better understanding, the nation lacks effective mechanisms

for incorporating scientific information into decision-making processes in a timely manner.

As knowledge improves, it must be actively incorporated into policy through an adaptive

process. To make this policy translation effective, local, state, regional, and national managers need an avenue to communicate their information needs and priorities.

Better coordination can facilitate more efficient use of existing funds. However, to 

significantly improve U.S. management of oceans and coasts and make ecosystem-based

management a reality, the nation will need to commit to greater investments in ocean 

science, engineering, exploration, observations, infrastructure, and data management.

Increased investments will help restore the pre-eminence of U.S. ocean capabilities, which

has eroded since the end of the Cold War.

Although multiple use conflicts are common in coastal and ocean environments,

efforts to understand the social, cultural, and economic dimensions of ocean issues have

received surprisingly little support. Because of this, studies of humans and their behavior—so critical to virtually every ecosystem—deserve special emphasis. 

Climate Change

The causes and impacts of climate variability and climate change are among the most pressing scientific questions facing our nation and the planet. Changing atmospheric composition

and global temperatures, due to natural variation and human activities, have the potential

to significantly affect societies and environments on local, regional, and worldwide scales.

Decision makers require reliable information on which to base both short- and long-term

strategies for addressing these impacts. In addition, a growing awareness of the possibility

of abrupt climate change (characterized by extreme climatic shifts over relatively short time

periods) reinforces the need for enhanced prediction and response capabilities. 

Although a solid body of knowledge exists on which to base immediate actions, continued improvements in understanding will help refine these strategies over time. Two

areas in particular need of elucidation are the role of oceans in the global cycling of water,

heat, and carbon, and the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry and temperatures

on marine ecosystems and biological processes themselves. For example, research shows

that over the last 200 years the oceans have absorbed 48 percent of the carbon dioxide

67
68 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

emitted by human activities.3 This has resulted in

elevated concentrations of carbon dioxide in ocean

waters, impairing the ability of certain marine organisms to produce protective shells, with potentially

profound impacts on marine productivity and biodiversity.4 Armed with expanded research findings in

these areas and others, and with more comprehensive ocean observations, the nation’s leaders will be

able to modify management strategies to more effectively predict and mitigate the potential impacts of

climate change. 

Effective Ocean Governance 

National ocean policy can only be implemented if an

effective governance system is in place. Many of the

guiding principles defined in this chapter speak

directly to this need. An effective governance system

will be predictable, efficient, and accountable. Laws, 

policies, and programs must be well coordinated and

easily understood by regulated parties and the public. A comprehensive framework should be in place

that defines the appropriate roles for different levels

of government, the private sector, and citizens, 

promoting effective partnerships for managing ocean and coastal resources. Equally

important, decision makers and the public should be accountable for decisions and

actions that affect the ocean and its resources.

Participation by a broad sector of the public is essential to a successful ocean governance system. Facing an array of complex problems and competing desires, interested 

parties must reach agreements on what actions are needed, which are of greatest priority,

and how to implement decisions once they are made. Public input is critical to this decision-making process so that all interests are fairly represented and support is built from

the ground up. Without a truly participatory form of ocean governance, dispute and litigation are inevitable. At the same time, clear roles, jurisdictions, and authorities must be

delineated to avoid gridlock and allow progress.

Today, no federal entity has the mission to evaluate the vast array of federal actions

affecting ocean and coastal resources and to advocate for more effective approaches, 

prioritized investment, improved agency coordination, and program consolidation where

needed. Nor is there a coherent national policy for ocean management that guides the

missions of various federal agencies. A more unified federal voice is also needed in discussing policy options with the many nonfederal stakeholders. 

Not since the Stratton Commission in the 1960s has an opportunity such as this

existed. One of the top priorities of this Commission is to instigate changes in ocean 

governance that will result in tangible improvements, today and for future generations.

Public Education

Education has provided the skilled and knowledgeable workforce that made America a

world leader in technology, productivity, prosperity, and security. However, rampant illiteracy about science, mathematics, and the environment now threaten the future of America,

its people, and the oceans on which we rely. 

Figure 3.2 The Foundations of a New 

National Ocean Policy

Ecosystem-based

Management

Implementing an ecosystem-based management approach for 

oceans and coasts will require a strong foundation of effective 

national, regional, and local governance; improvements in 

research and monitoring to provide managers with sound 

information on which to base decisions; and a strengthened 

stewardship ethic among all citizens, achieved through formal 

and informal education.

Effective 

Governance 

Structures Improved 

Science for 

Decision 

Making

Strengthened 

Educational 

Programs
C HAPTER 3: S ETTING THE NATION ’ S SIGHTS

Testing results suggest that, after getting off to a good start in elementary school, by

the time U.S. students graduate from high school their achievement in math and science

falls well below the international average.5 Ocean-related topics offer an effective tool to

keep students interested in science, increase their awareness of the natural world, and

boost their academic achievement in many areas. In addition, the links between the

marine environment and human experience make the oceans a powerful vehicle for teaching history, culture, economics, and other social sciences. Yet, teachers receive little guidance on how they might use exciting ocean subjects to engage students, while adhering to

the national and state science and other education standards that prescribe their curricula. 

A 1999 study indicated that just 32 percent of the nation’s adults grasp simple environmental concepts, and even fewer understand more complex issues, such as ecosystem

decline, loss of biodiversity, or watershed degradation.6 It is not generally understood that

nonpoint source pollution threatens the health of our coastal waters or that mercury in

fish comes from human activities via the atmosphere. Few people understand the tangible

value of the ocean to the nation or that their own actions can have an impact on that

resource. From excess applications of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides on lawns, to

the trash washed off city streets into rivers and coastal waters, ordinary activities can and

do contribute significantly to the degradation of the marine environment. Instilling a

stewardship ethic in the American public is an important element of a national ocean policy. Without an acknowledgement of the impacts associated with ordinary behavior and a

willingness to take the necessary action—which may incur additional costs—achieving a

collective commitment to more responsible lifestyles and new policies will be difficult. 

Excellent lifelong education in marine affairs and sciences is essential to raising public

awareness of the close connection between the oceans and humans, including our history

and culture. This awareness will result in better public understanding of the connections

among the ocean, land, and atmosphere, the potential benefits and costs inherent in

resource use, and the roles of government and citizens as ocean stewards. 

References

1 Sherman, K., and L. Alexander, eds. Variability and Management of Large Marine Ecosystems. AAAS Selected

Symposium 99. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1986. 

2 Norse, E., ed. Global Marine Biological Diversity: A Strategy for Building Conservation into Decision Making.

Washington, DC: Island Press, 1993. 

3 Sabine, C.L., et al. “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2.” Science 305 (2004): 367-371.

4 Feely, R.A., et al. “Impact of Anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 Systems of the Oceans.” Science 305 (2004): 362-366.

5 Calsyn, C., P. Gonzales, and M. Frase. Highlights from TIMSS [Third International Mathematics and Science Study].

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1999. 

6 National Environmental Education & Training Foundation [NEETF]. 1999 National Report Card: Environmental

Readiness for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: NEETF/Roper Starch Worldwide, 1999.

69
70 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

PRIMER ON OCEAN JURISDICTIONS:

DRAWING LINES IN THE WATER

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

many zones, based on both international and domestic laws. These zones are often

complex, with overlapping legal authorities and agency responsibilities. Internationally, the

closer one gets to the shore, the more authority a coastal nation has. Similarly, for domestic

purposes, the closer one gets to the shore, the more control an individual U.S. state has. 

This primer explains the ocean jurisdiction of the United States under international law,

as well as the domestic distinction between federal and state waters (Figure P.1). 

The Baseline (0 Miles)

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

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

Zone and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention),

and is normally the low water line along the coast, as marked on charts officially recognized by the coastal nation. 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. The baseline is drawn across river

mouths, the opening of bays, and along the outer points of complex coastlines. Water

bodies inland of the baseline—such as bays, estuaries, rivers, and lakes—are considered

“internal waters” subject to national sovereignty.

State Seaward Boundaries in the United States

(0 to 3 Nautical Miles; 0 to 9 Nautical Miles for Texas, 

Florida’s Gulf Coast, and Puerto Rico)

In the 1940s, several states claimed jurisdiction over mineral and other resources off their

coasts. This was overturned in 1947, when the Supreme Court determined that states had

no title to, or property interest in, these resources. In response, the Submerged Lands Act

was enacted in 1953 giving coastal states jurisdiction over a region extending 3 nautical

miles seaward from the baseline, commonly referred to as state waters. For historical reasons, Texas and the Gulf Coast of Florida are an exception, with state waters extending 

to 9 nautical miles offshore. (Note: A nautical mile is approximately 6,076 feet. All 

references hereafter in this Primer to miles are to nautical miles.) Subsequent legislation

granted the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa jurisdiction out to 3 miles,

while Puerto Rico has a 9-mile jurisdictional boundary.
PRIMER ON OCEAN J URISDICTIONS : DRAWING LINES IN THE WATER

The federal government retains the power to regulate commerce, navigation, power

generation, national defense, and international affairs throughout state waters. However,

states are given the authority to manage, develop, and lease resources throughout the water

column and on and under the seafloor. (States have similar authorities on the land side of

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

In general, states must exercise their authority for the benefit of the public, consistent

with 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) in tidelands and in the water column and submerged lands below navigable waters.

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. 

71

CONTINENTAL SHELF3

CONTINENTAL SLOPE

CONTINENTAL RISE

STATE WATERS1

(0–3 NM)

BASELINE

TERRITORIAL SEA

(0–12 NM)

CONTIGUOUS ZONE

(12–24 NM)

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE (EEZ)

(12–200 NM)

HIGH SEAS

NOTE 1: Three nautical miles is 

the jurisdictional limit for U.S. states 

and some territories under domestic law, 

with the exception of Texas, Florida’s west coast, 

and Puerto Rico, whose jurisdictions extend to 9 

nautical miles offshore.

NOTE 2: The outer edge of the continental margin is a principal 

basis for determining a coastal nation’s jurisdiction over seabed 

resources beyond 200 nautical miles from the baseline. 

NOTE 3: The continental shelf is depicted here based on its geological definition. 

The term is sometimes used differently in international law.

Illustration not to scale. 

EDGE OF THE 

CONTINENTAL 

MARGIN2

Figure P.1 Lines of U.S. Authority in Offshore Waters

Several jurisdictional zones exist off the coast of the United States for purposes of international and domestic law. Within these 

zones, the United States asserts varying degrees of authority over offshore activities, including living and nonliving resource

management, shipping and maritime transportation, and national security. A nation’s jurisdictional authority is greatest near 

the coast.
72 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

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 and, in more limited circumstances, foreign aircraft. 

For almost two hundred years, beginning with an assertion by Secretary of State

Thomas Jefferson in 1793, the United States claimed a territorial sea out to 3 miles. In

1988, President Reagan proclaimed a 12-mile territorial sea for the United States, consistent with provisions in the LOS Convention. The proclamation extended the territorial sea

only for purposes of international law, explicitly stating that there was no intention to

alter domestic law. 

The Contiguous Zone (12 to 24 Nautical Miles)

International law recognizes a contiguous zone outside the territorial sea of each coastal

nation. Within its contiguous zone, a nation can assert limited authority related to customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitary laws. In 1999, President Clinton proclaimed a U.S.

contiguous zone from 12 to 24 miles offshore enhancing the U.S. Coast Guard’s authority

to take enforcement actions against foreign flag vessels throughout this larger area. 

The Exclusive Economic Zone (12 to 200 Nautical Miles)

The LOS Convention allows each coastal nation to establish an exclusive economic zone

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

baseline. Within its EEZ, the coastal nation has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing living and nonliving resources, whether found

in ocean waters, the seabed, or subsoil. It also has jurisdiction over artificial islands or

other structures with economic purposes. 

In 1983, President Reagan proclaimed the U.S. EEZ, which currently occupies the

area between 12 miles (the seaward limit of the territorial sea) and 200 miles offshore for

international purposes. It also includes areas contiguous to its commonwealths, territories,

and possessions. Consistent with international law and traditional high-seas freedoms, 

the U.S. does not generally assert control over surface or submarine vessel transit, aircraft

overflight, or the laying of cables and pipelines on the ocean floor, nor does it assert jurisdiction over marine scientific research in the U.S. EEZ to the same extent that most coastal

nations do. The United States requires advance consent for marine research, if and only 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 involves

contact with the U.S. continental shelf.

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. A 1945

proclamation by President Truman first asserted a U.S. claim to resources of its continental shelf. This proclamation set a precedent for other coastal nations to assert similar

claims over resources far from their shores. The need to establish greater uniformity was

one of the driving forces behind the 1958 United Nations Convention on the Continental

Shelf. However, the 1958 Convention showed limited vision, defining the continental
PRIMER ON OCEAN J URISDICTIONS : DRAWING LINES IN THE WATER

shelf based on a nation’s ability to recover resources from the seabed. As technological

capabilities improved, uncertainty began anew about the seaward boundary of a nation’s

exclusive rights to continental shelf resources.

The LOS Convention generally defines the continental shelf for purposes of international law as the seafloor and subsoil that extend beyond the territorial sea throughout the

natural prolongation of a coastal nation’s land mass to the outer edge of the continental

margin or to 200 miles from the baseline if the continental margin does not extend that far.

The legal definition of the continental shelf thus overlaps geographically with the EEZ. 

Where a coastal nation can demonstrate that its continental margin extends beyond

200 miles, the LOS Convention 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 the LOS Convention, it can not assert

its claims through LOS Convention mechanisms. (For more discussion on the LOS

Convention, see Chapter 29.)

The High Seas (Areas Beyond National Jurisdictions) 

International law has long considered areas of the ocean 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 over the water, harvest fish, lay submarine cables and pipelines, conduct scientific research, and construct

artificial islands and certain other installations. 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. 

Originally defined as the area beyond the territorial seas of coastal nations, today the

high seas are defined by the LOS Convention as the area seaward of the EEZs of those

nations. Sixty percent of the world’s oceans remain in this zone, where the traditional freedom of the seas still prevails. Even on the high seas, the United States and other coastal

nations have some limited ability to exercise governmental authority. For example, U.S.

citizens on the high seas remain subject to U.S. law, as do individuals on U.S.-flagged 

vessels and aircraft. 

73

Box P.1 Acknowledging Change: The Need to Update Federal Laws 

Over the past twenty years, U.S. presidents have issued a series of proclamations changing

the extent and nature of U.S. authority over the oceans. The changes, creating a territorial

sea to 12 miles, a contiguous zone to 24 miles, and an exclusive economic zone to 200 miles,

have not been comprehensively reflected in domestic laws. Many laws also use imprecise or

inconsistent terms to refer to ocean areas, such as “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 mean different things in different

statutes and sometimes are not defined at all.

Legal disputes have already occurred over the seaward extent of jurisdiction of the

Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The Clean Water Act and

the Oil Pollution Act both refer to a 3-mile territorial sea. Inconsistencies and ambiguities in

geographic definitions have caused problems in civil and criminal cases unrelated to natural

resources, such as the regulation of offshore gambling. Congress has amended some laws 

regulating marine commerce to reflect the 12-mile U.S. territorial sea. However, there has

been no systematic effort to review and update all ocean-related U.S. statutes and regulations.

PART 2

BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE:

A NEW NATIONAL OCEAN

POLICY FRAMEWORK

CHAPTER 4 

ENHANCING OCEAN LEADERSHIP AND COORDINATION .............................76

CHAPTER 5 

ADVANCING A REGIONAL APPROACH.....................................................................86

CHAPTER 6 

COORDINATING MANAGEMENT IN FEDERAL WATERS .................................98

CHAPTER 7 

STRENGTHENING THE FEDERAL AGENCY STRUCTURE..............................108
76 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 4

ENHANCING OCEAN LEADERSHIP

AND COORDINATION

S

ome thirty-five years have passed since the Stratton Commission issued its influential report. The time has come again to consider significant improvements to the

nation’s ocean and coastal governance system—improvements that build upon

that Commission’s approach, while acknowledging societal and environmental

changes and taking advantage of scientific and technological advances. 

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy believes that an effective, integrated

national ocean policy can be achieved through implementation of a

new National Ocean Policy Framework. Each of the chapters in Part II

focuses on one component of this framework: national coordination

and leadership (Chapter 4); a regional approach (Chapter 5);

improved governance of offshore waters (Chapter 6); and a 

streamlined federal agency structure (Chapter 7). 

Making Improvements at 

the National Level

The previous chapters have illustrated many of the compelling

reasons for addressing ocean and coastal issues in a new and

improved fashion. There is a growing consensus about a number of

ocean-related facts:

• The United States controls extensive resources in ocean and

coastal areas that serve a wide range of national needs and are held

in public trust. 

• There are enormous opportunities for ocean science and technology to

uncover new sources of energy, food, and drugs, and increase general

understanding about the planet.

• Serious risks to living marine resources exist, and degraded ocean environments need to be returned to productivity.

• National security requires greater awareness, knowledge, and observation of ocean

and coastal areas.

• Marine transportation needs to be enhanced to adequately handle growing demands

from commerce and recreation.

• Improved understanding of the factors influencing global climate is needed, along

with ideas for mitigating any adverse impacts. 
C HAPTER 4: ENHANCING OCEAN L EADERSHIP AND COORDINATION

Government agencies work on these and many other problems. However, a lack of

communication, coordination, and a strong sense of partnership continues to inhibit

effective action. 

“Ocean issues” include virtually every aspect of the government’s duties, from promoting international commerce to protecting the environment, and from guarding national

security to facilitating tourism and recreation. More than two-thirds of the fifteen existing

cabinet-level departments, plus several independent agencies, play important roles in the

development of ocean and coastal policy (Figure 4.1). Many individual programs within

these departments and agencies administer specific initiatives that address varying, and

sometimes overlapping, ocean and coastal issues. A few additional departments have a

more limited role in ocean policy, usually through a single division, such as the U.S.

Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.

A first step in enhancing the management of oceans and coasts, and a central part of

the new National Ocean Policy Framework, is improving coordination among these many

federal programs. A 1997 report by the National Research Council highlighted the need to

harmonize ocean activities at the highest levels of government, with the objective of

allowing federal agencies and the President to develop and carry out decisions within

their authority.1 The Pew Oceans Commission also recognized the need to coordinate 

federal agency activities and address interagency disputes.2

Although a number of attempts have been made to achieve better coordination, none

of them is adequate to cover the breadth of issues involved. Some coordinating mechanisms

deal with particular topics, such as ocean research, coral reefs, or marine transportation.

Other efforts are broader, but still fail to encompass the universe of responsibilities illustrated in Figure 4.1. 

The importance of oceans to American society calls for greater visibility and leadership

on ocean and coastal issues. Within the Executive Branch, only the White House can

move past traditional conflicts among departments and agencies, make recommendations

for broad federal agency reorganization, and provide guidance on funding priorities. Thus,

the Executive Office of the President is the appropriate venue to provide high-level attention and coordination for an integrated national ocean policy. 

There are three entities within the Executive Office of the President that have specific

responsibilities involving, to some extent, oceans. The Office of Science and Technology

Policy supports the National Science and Technology Council in addressing governmentwide science and technology issues. Within this structure, a Joint Subcommittee on Oceans

was recently established to coordinate national ocean science and technology policy. The

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) coordinates broad federal environmental efforts,

oversees implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, and serves as the

principal environmental policy advisor to the President. Finally, the National Security

Council’s Global Environment Policy Coordinating Committee includes a subcommittee

to address international ocean issues. 

While these efforts are helpful in their designated areas of interest, they fall far short

of a high-level interagency council with the ability to deal with all of the interconnected

ocean and coastal challenges facing the nation, including not only science and technology,

environmental, and international matters, but the many other economic, social, and technical issues specifically related to the management of marine resources. In effect, in the

Executive Office of the President, the whole of the oceans is greater than the sum of the

marine-related parts of existing institutions.

Although legislative action will be needed to codify the establishment of an ocean

leadership body and ensure a national commitment to and long-term stability for ocean

issues, immediate presidential action can facilitate an early start to the process. 

77
78 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY Independent Agencies Departments

Figure 4.1 Ocean and Coastal Activities Are Conducted by Many Federal Departments and Agencies 

Agriculture

Transportation

State

Labor

Justice

U.S. Agency for 

International 

Development

National 

Science 

Foundation

National 

Aeronautics

and Space 

Administration

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency

Interior

Homeland 

Security

Health and

Human

Services

Energy

Defense

Commerce

National 

Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration

Department of 

the Navy

Office of 

Science

National 

Institutes of 

Health

Federal 

Emergency 

Management 

Agency

U.S. Geological 

Survey

Occupational 

Safety & 

Health

Administration

Office of 

Water

Office of

Earth Science

Office of

Polar 

Programs

Directorate for 

Geosciences

Directorate for 

Biological 

Science

Office of 

Research & 

Development

Office of Air

& Radiation

Office of 

Enforcement 

and 

Compliance 

Assurance

Office of 

Prevention, 

Pesticides, 

and Toxic 

Substances

Office of Solid 

Waste and 

Emergency 

Response

Bureau of 

Oceans & 

International 

Environmental 

& Scientific 

Affairs

Bureau of 

International 

Organization 

Affairs

U.S. Maritime 

Administration

St. Lawrence 

Seaway 

Development 

Corp.

Research and 

Special 

Programs 

Administration

Environment

& Natural 

Resources 

Division

National Park 

Service

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife 

Service

Minerals 

Management 

Service

Bureau of 

Reclamation

Bureau of 

Indian Affairs

U.S. Coast 

Guard

Transportation 

Security 

Administration

Bureau of 

Customs and 

Border 

Protection

U.S. Food 

and Drug 

Administration

Office of

Fossil Energy

U.S. Army 

Corps of 

Engineers

National 

GeospatialIntelligence 

Agency

National 

Ocean 

Service

National

Marine

Fisheries

Service

National 

Weather

Service

Office of 

Oceanic & 

Atmospheric

Research

National 

Environmental 

Satellite, Data, 

& Information 

Service

Office of 

Program 

Planning and 

Integration

Natural

Resources

Conservation

Service

Agricultural

Research 

Service

Animal and 

Plant Health

Inspection

Service

U.S. Forest 

Service

Cooperative 

State Research, 

Education, and 

Extension 

Service

President

The agencies and departments depicted have varying ocean and coastal responsibilities. Their number and diversity make it clear

that coordination is essential to effectively manage the nation’s oceans and coasts.
C HAPTER 4: ENHANCING OCEAN L EADERSHIP AND COORDINATION

Recommendation 4–1

Congress should establish a National Ocean Council (NOC) within the Executive Office of 

the President, and a nonfederal President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy to provide

enhanced federal leadership and coordination for the ocean and coasts. While Congress

works to establish these components in law, the President should begin immediately to

implement an integrated national ocean policy by establishing the NOC and President’s

Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy through an executive order, and by designating an

Assistant to the President to chair the NOC.

These recommendations are in line with developing international trends. The United

States was a leader at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, which reiterated support for the principles developed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro,

including a call for better coordination of environmental policy at the national level.3

Several nations, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Korea, and the Netherlands, have 

initiated strong national-level coordination on ocean and coastal policy.

National Ocean Council

There is important historical precedent for a body such as the National Ocean Council.

The Marine Science, Engineering and Resources Council, chaired by the Vice President,

was established in 1966 by the same statute that created the Stratton Commission. That

council was disbanded in the early 1970s after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) was established. Since then, no interagency body has existed to

coordinate multi-agency implementation of an integrated national ocean policy. 

The National Ocean Council would oversee all existing and new ocean- and coastalrelated interagency mechanisms and coordination efforts. The Council would not have

operational duties; rather, it would have responsibility for planning and coordination,

with support from a small staff and committees created to carry out specific functions.

Recommendation 4–2

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should provide high-level attention to ocean and coastal

issues, develop appropriate national policies, and coordinate their implementation by the many

federal departments and agencies with ocean and coastal responsibilities.

The NOC should be:

• chaired by an Assistant to the President.

• composed of cabinet secretaries of departments and directors of independent agencies

with appropriate ocean- and coastal-related responsibilities. Heads of other relevant

executive departments, agencies, commissions, quasi-official agencies and senior White

House officials should be invited to attend meetings of the NOC when appropriate. 

The NOC should carry out the following functions:

• develop broad principles (based on those outlined in Chapter 3) and national goals for

governance of the nation’s oceans and coasts, and periodically review and revise these

goals.

• make recommendations to the President on developing and carrying out national ocean

policy, including domestic implementation of international ocean agreements.

• coordinate and integrate activities of ocean-related federal agencies and provide incentives

for meeting national goals.

• 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.

• guide the effective use of science in ocean policy and ensure the availability of data and

information for decision making at national and regional levels.

79
80 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

• develop and support partnerships among government agencies and nongovernmental

organizations, the private sector, academia, and the public.

• expand education and outreach efforts by federal ocean and coastal agencies.

• work with a broad range of nonfederal stakeholders, governmental and nongovernmental, to develop a broad, flexible, and voluntary process for the establishment of regional

ocean councils to help advance regional approaches.

• periodically assess the state of the nation’s oceans and coasts to measure the achievement of national ocean goals.

While the nation has made great strides in understanding the connections among the

ocean, the atmosphere, and the rest of the living world, it has been less successful in

applying this knowledge to the management of ocean and coastal resources. New ocean

and coastal policies should avoid the common practice of managing one activity or one

part of an ecosystem without considering the impacts on and influences of other parts,

including its human inhabitants. Rather, ocean policies should promote an ecosystembased management approach, placing human interests and activities squarely within the

context of the larger environment. 

Moving toward such an approach requires several steps: assessing the ecosystem,

including human needs; minimizing any threats and promoting opportunities; monitoring

the ecosystem to evaluate progress; and revising management measures as appropriate. 

As part of the move toward an ecosystem-based management approach, a precautionary

approach (described in Chapter 3) should be incorporated into decision-making processes

and adopted by the National Ocean Council in developing national standards for ecosystem-based management.

Recommendation 4–3

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should adopt the principle of ecosystem-based management

and assist federal agencies in moving toward an ecosystem-based management approach. 

As part of this effort, the NOC should: 

• coordinate the development of procedures for the practical application of the precautionary

approach and adaptive management.

• encourage agencies to incorporate preservation of marine biodiversity in their management

programs and support further study of biodiversity.

Assistant to the President

One role of the National Ocean Council is to resolve policy disputes and reach consensus

among federal departments and agencies. To achieve this, the Council will need to be

chaired by a high-level presidential appointee who is not part of any department or agency

represented on the Council.

Recommendation 4–4

The President should designate an Assistant to the President to provide leadership and 

support for national ocean and coastal policy.

The Assistant to the President should have the following responsibilities:

• chair the NOC.

• co-chair the President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy.

• lead NOC efforts to coordinate federal agency actions related to oceans and coasts.

• make recommendations for federal agency reorganization as needed to improve ocean

and coastal management.

• resolve interagency policy disputes on ocean and coastal issues.
C HAPTER 4: ENHANCING OCEAN L EADERSHIP AND COORDINATION

• reach out to state, territorial, tribal, and local stakeholders and promote regional

approaches to ocean and coastal management.

• consult with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director and NOC members to

identify programs that contribute significantly to the national policy for oceans and

coasts, advise OMB and the agencies on appropriate funding levels for ocean- and

coastal-related activities, and prepare the biennial reports mandated by section 5 of the

Oceans Act of 2000.

President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy

In 1969, the Stratton Commission recommended establishment of a broadly representative,

presidentially-appointed committee of nonfederal individuals to provide continuing advice

in the development of a national marine program. In response, in 1971 Congress created

the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA). NACOA reported

to the President and Congress, advised the Secretary of Commerce, and provided analyses,

recommendations, annual reports, and special studies on virtually every aspect of ocean

policy. NACOA ceased meeting in the late 1980s, due primarily to lack of political support.

Nevertheless, the need it fulfilled is more imperative than ever. To adequately represent

the full spectrum of national interests, the National Ocean Council and the Assistant to

the President will need input from a variety of interested groups and individuals from outside the federal government. 

Recommendation 4–5

The President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, a formal structure for input from 

nonfederal individuals and organizations, should advise the President on ocean and coastal

policy matters. 

The President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy should be:

• composed of a representative selection of individuals appointed by the President, including governors of coastal states and other appropriate state, territorial, tribal and local

government representatives, plus individuals from the private sector, research and education communities, nongovernmental organizations, watershed organizations, and other

nonfederal bodies with ocean interests. 

• comprised of members knowledgeable about and experienced in ocean and coastal issues. 

• co-chaired by the chair of the National Ocean Council and a nonfederal member. 

Other Needed Elements

Office of Ocean Policy

Because the National Ocean Council will be responsible for planning and coordination

rather than operational duties, and because its cabinet-level members are unlikely to meet

more than a few times a year, the support of a small staff and committees will be required

to carry out its functions and associated daily activities. It is important for strong links to

be maintained among the National Ocean Council, its committees, other relevant entities

in the Executive Office of the President, as well as among other ocean-related advisory

councils and commissions. (All the elements of the proposed national ocean coordinating

structure are illustrated in Figure 4.2.)

81
82 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 4–6

Congress should establish an Office of Ocean Policy to support the Assistant to the President,

the National Ocean Council (NOC), and the President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy. To

provide staff support immediately, the President should establish an Office of Ocean Policy

through the executive order creating the NOC and the President’s Council of Advisors on

Ocean Policy.

The Office of Ocean Policy should be:

• composed of a small staff that reports to the Assistant to the President. 

• managed by an executive director responsible for daily staff activities.

Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations

A committee under the National Ocean Council will be needed to assume the functions 

of the current National Ocean Research Leadership Council (NORLC), plus additional

responsibilities. The NORLC is an important effort at government coordination in one

area. It was established by Congress in 1997 as the decision-making body for the National

Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) to provide coordination and leadership of

oceanographic research programs on the national level. In addition to the NORLC, NOPP

includes a Program Office, an Ocean Research Advisory Panel, an Interagency Working

Group, a Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee, and an ocean observing office

(Ocean.US).

NOPP has had difficulty fulfilling the original vision of the National Oceanographic

Partnership Act, due largely to the NORLC’s lack of authority to ensure active participation by federal agencies. By placing the NORLC under the National Ocean Council,

renaming it as the Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations

(COSETO), and broadening its responsibilities to include coordination, planning, and

oversight of operational programs and education activities in addition to research, it will

become more visible and more effective.

Because the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) plays an important role

in government-wide science and technology issues, it is logical for OSTP to work closely

with the National Ocean Council on these issues. In particular, a strong connection between

OSTP and COSETO will be essential for providing coordinated, high-level advice to the

President. The tasks of the existing Joint Subcommittee on Oceans under the National

Science and Technology Council, which focus on coordination of ocean science and technology issues in the executive branch, would be appropriately subsumed by COSETO.

Recommendation 4–7

Congress, working with the National Ocean Council (NOC), should amend the National

Oceanographic Partnership Act to integrate ocean observing, operations, and education 

into its marine research mission. A strengthened and enhanced National Ocean Research

Leadership Council (NORLC) should be redesignated as the Committee on Ocean Science,

Education, Technology, and Operations (COSETO), under the oversight of the NOC.

In particular, amendments to the National Oceanographic Partnership Act should specify that

the newly-named COSETO:

• reports to the NOC.

• is chaired by the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to ensure appropriate links to government-wide science and technology policy and equity among participating federal agencies.

• includes in its mandate coordination and planning of federal marine facilities and operations, federal oversight of the Integrated Ocean Observing System, and coordination of

ocean-related education efforts, in addition to its existing research responsibilities.

• includes existing NORLC members plus the director of the National Institute of

Environmental Health Sciences at the National Institutes of Health, the assistant 
C HAPTER 4: ENHANCING OCEAN L EADERSHIP AND COORDINATION 83

Figure 4.2 Proposed Structure for Coordination of Federal Ocean Activities

President’s Council of 

Advisors on Ocean Policy

Co-Chairs: National Ocean

Council Chair and

one nonfederal member

Membership: Broad, nonfederal

Council on

Environmental Quality 

(CEQ)

Independent ocean

and coastal advisory 

commissions or councils

Committee on Ocean Resource Management

Chair: CEQ Chair

Membership: Undersecretary/assistant secretary 

level of relevant agencies

Committee on Ocean Science, Education, 

Technology, and Operations

(formerly NORLC)

Chair: OSTP Director

Membership: Current NORLC members and others

National Ocean Council

Chair: Assistant to the President

Membership: Cabinet secretaries of 

departments and directors of independent 

agencies with ocean and coastal 

functions; others, as needed

Staff: Office of Ocean Policy

National Science & 

Technology Council

and the

Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP) 

Executive Office 

of the President

President’s Council 

of Advisors on 

Science and Technology

Shown here are the institutional components that should be established in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) to 

improve federal leadership and coordination of the nation’s oceans and coasts. This diagram also illustrates the organizational

relationship between these new components and existing units in the EOP. 

■ Existing Entities

■ New Entities

Reporting lines

Communication Lines

Advisory Lines

Relation to Overall 

Structure (Appendix E)

secretary for Natural Resources and Environment at the Department of Agriculture, and

the undersecretary for science at the Smithsonian Institution.

• subsumes the current tasks of the National Science and Technology Council’s Joint

Subcommittee on Oceans. 

• is supported by the Office of Ocean Policy.

Committee on Ocean Resource Management 

In addition to COSETO, the National Ocean Council will need an equivalent working committee, the Committee on Ocean Resource Management (CORM), to coordinate federal
84 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

resource management decisions and policy. In general, interagency coordination ranges

from simple exchanges of information on a voluntary ad hoc basis, to legally mandated

coordination on specific issues such as climate, marine mammals, or habitat conservation. 

Examples of formal coordination mechanisms on ocean-related issues include the

Coral Reef Task Force, the Interagency Committee on the Marine Transportation System,

Coastal America, and many others. Other formal coordinating bodies address broader

issues with important ocean components, such as the National Invasive Species Council,

the National Dredging Team, and the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture. Many of these

efforts are discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this report, and most merit continued

support. Indeed, additional task forces may be required to address new and emerging uses,

such as the coordination of activities in federal waters. However, there is no high-level,

cross-cutting oversight of these issue-specific efforts, limiting the federal government’s

ability to consider cumulative impacts, avoid conflicting mandates, and implement an

ecosystem-based management approach. Better coordination is needed among existing

ocean and coastal interagency groups—whether formal or informal—as well as among the

ocean components of interagency groups with broader mandates.

Because of the Council on Environmental Quality’s important role in environmental

and resource management issues, this office, like the Office of Science and Technology

Policy, should have a strong connection with the National Ocean Council. 

Recommendation 4–8

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should establish a Committee on Ocean Resource Management

to better integrate the resource management activities of ocean-related agencies. This committee should oversee and coordinate the work of existing ocean and coastal interagency

groups and less formal efforts, recommend the creation of new topical task forces as needed,

and coordinate with government-wide environmental and natural resource efforts that have

important ocean components.

The Committee on Ocean Resource Management should:

• be chaired by the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality to ensure appropriate

links to government-wide environmental policy and equity among participating federal

agencies.

• include undersecretaries and assistant secretaries of departments and agencies that are

members of the NOC.

• report to the NOC.

• be supported by the Office of Ocean Policy.

Ocean-related Advisory Councils or Commissions

In addition to the interagency coordinating groups discussed above, a number of independent ocean-related councils and commissions have been established by law (Appendix

D). Some are no longer operational, such as NACOA, while others maintain active roles,

like the Marine Mammal Commission. Strong connections will be needed between all

existing bodies and the National Ocean Council.

Recommendation 4–9

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should review all existing ocean-related councils and 

commissions and make recommendations about their ongoing utility, reporting structure,

and connections to the NOC. 
C HAPTER 4: ENHANCING OCEAN L EADERSHIP AND COORDINATION

References

1 National Research Council. Striking a Balance: Improving Stewardship of Marine Areas. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1997.

2 Pew Oceans Commission. America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change. A Report to the Nation.

Arlington, VA, May 2003.

3 United Nations. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Johannesburg, South Africa, August 26–

September 4, 2002. New York, NY, 2002.

85
86 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 5

ADVANCING A

REGIONAL APPROACH

The nation’s ocean and coastal resources offer many opportunities for beneficial

uses but are also affected by the cumulative impacts of human activities that span

cities, counties, states, and sometimes nations. To move toward an ecosystembased management approach, government should have the institutional

capacity to respond to ocean and coastal issues in a coordinated fashion

across jurisdictional boundaries. 

The voluntary establishment of regional ocean councils, developed

through a process supported by the National Ocean Council, would

facilitate the development of regional goals and priorities and

improve responses to regional issues. Improved coordination of federal agencies at the regional level would complement the establishment of regional ocean councils, improving the federal response to

state and local needs while furthering national goals and priorities.

The development and dissemination of regionally significant

research and information is imperative to meet the information

needs of managers and support ecosystem-based decisions.

Addressing Issues Across Jurisdictional Lines

I

n addition to improving coordination at the national level, as described

in Chapter 4, an important component of the new National Ocean

Policy Framework is the strengthening of regional approaches that allow

decision makers to address pressing ocean and coastal issues on an ecosystembased scale. Today’s governance systems are generally not designed to transcend

traditional political boundaries. Governments rarely consider opportunities or

impacts outside their immediate jurisdictional area, although these borders seldom correspond with ecosystem boundaries. In addition, individual agency mandates are often too

narrow in scope, sector-based, and poorly coordinated to address regional issues. Finally,

broadly accepted regional goals—social, economic, and environmental—are infrequently

available to promote and gauge progress. 

Despite these challenges, there are many instances where concern for the health of a

particular ecosystem has motivated a wide range of participants to create new structures

for addressing regional concerns. The declining health of the Chesapeake Bay triggered a
C HAPTER 5: ADVANCING A REGIONAL APPROACH 87

significant initiative by federal agencies, state and local governments, nongovernmental

organizations, and other stakeholders to address the region’s water quality and living

resource problems. In the Pacific Northwest, a similar mix of governmental and nongovernmental entities came together to address the decline in endangered salmon stocks.

Efforts to address the growing hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico brought together 

several Gulf states, as well as states throughout the Mississippi River Basin. Water quality

and quantity issues spurred the development of multiple regional initiatives among Great

Lakes states and Canadian provinces. The United States and Canada are also partners in

area-wide efforts to enhance environmental quality in the Gulf of Maine. Additionally, U.S.

island states and territories are collaborating to develop strategies to protect and preserve

coral reef ecosystems and address impacts due to climate change. Several examples of

regional coordination are described in Box 5.1.

Regional efforts are usually initiated at the grassroots level in response to pressing,

shared concerns. Ideally, these bottom-up efforts are complemented by federal support,

creating conditions where all levels of decision making strive to move in concert toward

common ecosystem goals. Partnerships developed at the regional level can take optimum

advantage of the expertise, resources, and infrastructure found in federal, state, and local

governments, as well as in industry, academia, and other nongovernmental entities.

There is a growing awareness that regional approaches can benefit each of the nation’s

ocean and coastal regions. Focusing efforts within whole ecosystems, rather than arbitrary

political boundaries, provides an opportunity for decision makers at all levels to coordinate

their activities, reduce duplication of efforts, minimize conflicts, and maximize limited

resources. It also promotes a sense of stewardship among government, private interests,

and the public by encouraging a shared feeling of connection to a specific area.

Facilitating Bottom-Up Regional Responses

National Support and Guidelines

An important element of the proposed National Ocean Policy Framework is development

of a voluntary process for a wide range of participants (including federal, state, territorial,

tribal, and local leaders, and participants from the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and academia) to establish regional ocean councils. Although the process should

be implemented by those most directly involved, broad national guidelines can provide a

measure of consistency and help ensure minimum standards for performance while allowing each region to tailor its approach to meet unique needs. A flexible approach is essential in view of the dramatic variations in environmental, political, social, and economic

conditions across the country. With its broad mandate and high-level visibility, the

National Ocean Council will be in a good position to encourage and facilitate the process

of bringing participants together at the regional level. 

Recommendation 5–1

The National Ocean Council should work with Congress, the President’s Council of Advisors

on Ocean Policy, and state, territorial, tribal, and local leaders, including representatives from

the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and academia, to develop a flexible and

voluntary process for the creation of regional ocean councils. States, working with relevant

stakeholders, should use this process to establish regional ocean councils, with support from

the National Ocean Council.
88 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Box 5.1 Regional Approaches at Work 

Different initiatives have taken different approaches to address pressing regional issues,

although a hallmark of most efforts is the establishment of measurable goals and clear

implementation strategies for achieving healthier regional ecosystems. Several types of organizational structures and functions have been tried, often tailored to the political and social

climate of the individual region, but sometimes evolving on a haphazard basis, particularly at

the outset. These initiatives are now at different stages of their development, learning what

works best in their regions as they proceed. All have helped move the nation toward more

ecosystem-based management approaches. 

The Chesapeake Bay Program

The Chesapeake Bay ecosystem is a vast, 64,000 square-mile watershed that includes parts of

New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and the entire District

of Columbia. The initiative to restore the Bay began thirty years ago as an

informal gathering of conservation leaders, citizens, and government officials to address nutrient over-enrichment, dwindling underwater Bay

grasses, toxic pollution, and the reduction of fish, shellfish, and other

wildlife populations. In 1983, the interstate Chesapeake Bay Agreement,

which is the basis of the Chesapeake Bay Program, was signed, calling on

participating states and the federal government to achieve specific ecosystem goals. Although the Agreement (most recently updated in 2000) is not

binding, it represents a commitment by the members of the executive

council, consisting of: the governors of the states of Maryland,

Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the mayor of the District of Columbia; the

chairman of the tri-state Chesapeake Bay Commission; and the administrator of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (representing fifteen federal agencies), to implement

actions to achieve these goals.

The Delaware River Basin Commission 

The drainage basin of the 326 mile-long Delaware River encompasses an almost 13,000 square

mile area that includes portions of four states and stretches from its headwaters in the Catskill

Mountains of New York to the mouth of the Delaware Bay. Growing concerns in the 1950s about water quality protection, water supply allocation,

flood control, and other issues, created pressure for the establishment of 

a regional body with legal authority to manage the entire river system,

regardless of political boundaries. In 1961, President Kennedy, together

with the governors of Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York,

created an interstate-federal compact establishing the Delaware River Basin

Commission and charging it with adopting and promoting coordinated

policies for water management in the basin. The Commission has broad

regulatory and planning authority and plays a critical role in coordinating

among the multiple federal, state, local, and private entities that influence

water resource management in the Basin. Commission members include the four basin state

governors, who appoint high-ranking, knowledgeable commissioners from relevant state agencies, and a Presidentially-appointed federal representative from the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers. The Commission partners with the Delaware Estuary Program and other organizations, the private sector, and citizens to restore, maintain, and protect the Delaware Estuary. 
C HAPTER 5: ADVANCING A REGIONAL APPROACH 89

The California Bay-Delta Authority (CALFED)

The San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary is the largest estuarine system on the West Coast. It is

dominated by the state’s two largest rivers, the Sacramento and the San Joaquin, which

together drain a watershed of about 39,000 square miles. To reverse negative trends in water quality, fish and wildlife populations, and the reliability

of water supplies—all exacerbated by the drought of the late eighties and

early nineties—an accord was signed between the state of California and

the federal government in 1994 to find solutions to long-standing regional

problems. The California Bay-Delta Authority, known as CALFED, began in

1995 as a mechanism for the region’s disparate agencies and authorities to

work collaboratively to develop and implement actions to achieve goals in

four main areas: ecosystem restoration; water supply reliability; and water

quality and levee system integrity. This effort includes enlisting local governments and stakeholder support in the process. CALFED was initially

organized under a memorandum of understanding among its state and federal members,

relying on individual agencies to act pursuant to their existing authority. In 2002, legislation

was passed in California to create a single governing body for CALFED, giving it authority to

oversee work plans and coordinate funding spent by the state on water and environmental

projects. The authority will sunset in 2006 unless corresponding federal legislation is enacted

to authorize participation of appropriate federal agencies in the Authority.

The Gulf of Mexico Program

The Gulf of Mexico is bordered by five U.S. states, Mexico, and Cuba. The system encompasses

1.8 million square miles and is the receiving body for 66 percent of the rivers within the continental United States, including the Mississippi, the largest river system in

North America. In 1998, growing natural resource problems in the region

prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish the

Gulf of Mexico Program, which brings federal and state environmental and

resource management programs together in partnership with a broad

coalition of regional and local stakeholders to collaboratively improve the

health of the Gulf region while sustaining economic development. A policy

review board composed of governmental and nongovernmental leaders

from key sectors of five U.S. Gulf coast states (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana,

Mississippi, and Texas) provides the EPA Gulf of Mexico Program Office with

policy and management direction and guidance. The board is advised by a

citizens advisory committee, made up of representatives from the agricultural, tourism, environmental, fisheries, and business communities, as well as a scientific and technical committee. Additional committees focus on specific issues of concern in the Gulf region such as 

nutrients, habitat, public health, environmental monitoring, modeling, and research. This

non-regulatory program relies on the commitment of its partners to effectively carry out

regional goals and priorities. 

Regional approaches at work in the Great Lakes region are profiled in Box 5.3.
90 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Nature and Functions of Regional Ocean Councils

The purpose of the regional ocean councils is to facilitate more coordinated and collaborative approaches to realizing opportunities and addressing concerns in the region. The

councils should develop regional goals and priorities and identify the best mechanism for

responding to each issue. The councils should also work with the President’s Council of

Advisors on Ocean Policy to communicate regional needs at the national level and better

address issues of national importance in the regions.

Although the specific structure and functions of a regional ocean council should be

determined by participants in the region, the geographic scale, scope, and membership

will need to be broad to enable them to realize their potential. The councils should address

a wide range of issues, look at interactions among many activities, and consider influences

from upstream to far offshore, and from the atmosphere down to the groundwater and

seafloor. Council membership should be representative of every level of decision making

in the region, drawing on the knowledge of all stakeholders, whether through formal

membership on the council or through separate advisory bodies. The councils will also

need to work with inland decision makers on issues such as nonpoint source pollution.

Additionally, in certain regions, including the Great Lakes, New England, the Pacific

Northwest, the Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. island territories, the councils may need to work

closely with other nations.

The boundaries of regional ocean councils should encompass relatively large areas

with similar ecosystem features. Large Marine Ecosystems (Figure 3.1), which helped

define the Regional Fishery Management Council (RFMC) regions, may be used as a starting point, although these regions might not always be suitable. For example, more than

one regional council may be necessary along the Pacific Coast and for island states and

territories. A council for the Great Lakes region is also desirable. At a minimum, councils

should encompass the area from the inland extent of coastal watersheds to the offshore

boundary of the nation’s exclusive economic zone.

The regional ocean councils are not intended to supplant any existing authorities,

such as the RFMCs, state agencies, and tribal governments. Rather, the councils will work

with these authorities to further regional goals, providing a mechanism for coordination

on myriad regional issues. However, the structure and function of a council may evolve

over time. For example, participants might choose to pursue more formal mechanisms for

implementing decisions, such as interstate compacts, interagency agreements, or changes

to regulatory requirements.

Regional ocean councils may be used to carry out a variety of other functions. They

may designate ad hoc committees to examine discrete issues of regional concern, address

sub-regional priorities, or mediate and resolve specific disputes. They can help facilitate

required government approvals or permitting processes that involve several government

agencies within the region. They may monitor and evaluate the state of the region and the

effectiveness of management efforts. They will be important in engaging stakeholders in

the design of marine protected areas. Finally, the councils can help ensure that offshore

activities are planned and managed in an ecosystem context by providing input to the

National Ocean Council and Congress as they establish an offshore management regime

(as discussed in Chapter 6). Above and beyond all their specific functions, the regional

councils will help build public awareness about ocean and coastal issues.

The creation of regional ocean councils will undoubtedly be challenging, particularly

given that regions vary greatly in their level of coordination, interest, and expertise. Steps

can be taken, however, to promote their development. In areas where readiness and

enthusiasm for a regional approach is already strong, efforts to establish councils should

be supported immediately. The first councils can then serve as pilot projects, enabling

those involved to learn what works and serving as models for other regions.
C HAPTER 5: ADVANCING A REGIONAL APPROACH

Building on Existing Regional Initiatives

As noted above, problems in ocean and coastal areas around the nation have prompted a

number of regional-scale responses (Box 5.1). These innovative initiatives have sought to

overcome traditional political and institutional barriers that impede the goal of restoring

the health and productivity of entire ecosystems. However, lacking formal mechanisms for

responding to complex, cross-cutting issues, many of these initiatives have faced considerable obstacles in coordinating policies and management actions to address immediate concerns and plan for the future of ocean and coastal areas.

The experiences of current regional initiatives illustrate the advantages and challenges

in pursuing such approaches. They also demonstrate different ways for the many layers of

decision making in a region to work together on common goals. Often, coordination must

be developed incrementally to knit together traditional decision-making responsibilities that

are vested in dozens of entities. These initiatives also demonstrate that concern and persistence among local stakeholders are needed to drive change at higher institutional levels.

In some areas, existing initiatives can serve as excellent starting points for the creation

of regional ocean councils. The councils can build on their experiences, while developing

a broader and more comprehensive role. An existing regional initiative could be used as

the nucleus for development of a regional ocean council, preventing duplication and

establishment of new structures. However, to achieve the comprehensive regional mandate

envisioned for the councils, existing initiatives may require changes to their geographic

scale, scope, functions, and membership.

In all regions, a major responsibility of the regional ocean council will be to offer 

support to any existing regional initiatives, coordinate among them where necessary, and

facilitate the creation of new forums for improving the management of specific issues. 

The councils can help ensure that regional initiatives are carried out in harmony with one

another to achieve larger ecosystem goals.

91

Box 5.2 Nature and Functions of Regional Ocean Councils

The establishment of regional ocean councils is intended to be voluntary and flexible,

guided by the needs and circumstances in each region. The councils, on their own, will not

supplant existing laws or authorities, or alter state, territorial, or tribal sovereignty. However,

as the councils evolve, participants may choose to pursue more formal mechanisms for implementing decisions, such as interstate compacts. 

Regional ocean councils should have several basic characteristics: 

• Their boundaries should be based approximately on those of Large Marine Ecosystems or

other appropriate ecosystem-based areas. At a minimum, councils should encompass the

area from the inland extent of coastal watersheds to the offshore boundary of the

nation’s exclusive economic zone. 

• They should address a wide range of ocean and coastal issues. 

• Their membership should be broad and representative of all appropriate levels of 

government. Nongovernmental stakeholders also need to be represented, either 

through council membership or through an advisory body. 

The councils should fulfill certain core functions:

• Facilitating coordinated and collaborative responses to regional issues.

• Developing regional goals and priorities.

• Communicating regional concerns to the National Ocean Council through the President’s

Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy. 
92 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Enhancing Federal Support for a Regional Approach

Federal Agency Coordination

Federal agencies play an important role in the management of ocean and coastal resources

by addressing issues of national significance, supporting state and local management efforts,

and encouraging environmental stewardship among all citizens. Within each of the nation’s

regions, federal policies and programs are carried out that affect common resources. Often,

these activities overlap, conflict, or are inconsistent with one another, impeding efforts at

all levels to effectively address regional concerns. For example, navigation projects, highway

development, and other federal infrastructure activities often conflict with environmental

protection goals. Several federal agencies oversee habitat protection and restoration programs, but in isolation from one another. Furthermore, federal regulations and permit

requirements are typically applied on a project-by-project basis, without adequate consideration of the cumulative effect of these decisions on ocean and coastal ecosystems.

Federal agencies can support regional progress by immediately improving their own

coordination at the regional level. Systematic collaboration will lead to better integration

of federal policies, strategies, plans, programs, and other activities within the region. It

will also help the agencies identify inconsistencies in agency mandates, policies, regulations, practices, or funding. The agencies can then communicate these and other regional

concerns and priorities to the National Ocean Council, which may in turn recommend

changes to existing laws, regulations, practices, and funding.

Equally important, regionally coordinated federal agencies will provide a visible point

of contact for nonfederal entities, enhancing communication in both directions—federal

agencies will be able to reach out to local and state governments and other stakeholders,

while nonfederal groups will know where to convey regional priorities, issues of concern,

and information needs to federal agencies. All interested parties will be able to exchange

information more effectively, develop regional goals, and mitigate the cumulative impacts

of activities in the region.

A regionally coordinated federal presence will provide an additional incentive for the

formation of regional ocean councils that can serve as clear counterparts to work with the

federal agencies. The recent creation of a Great Lakes Interagency Task Force is one

attempt to improve federal coordination at the regional level (Box 5.3).

Recommendation 5–2

The President, through an executive order, should direct all federal agencies with ocean- and

coastal-related functions to immediately improve their regional coordination and increase

their outreach efforts to regional stakeholders.

To initiate this process, NOAA, EPA, USACE, DOI, and USDA should:

• collaborate with regional, state, territorial, tribal, and local governments, and 

nongovernmental parties to identify regional priorities and information needs. 

• identify inconsistencies in agency mandates, policies, regulations, practices, or funding

that prevent regional issues from being effectively addressed and communicate these to

the National Ocean Council.

• improve coordination and communication among agencies, including the possible development of interagency protocols to guide regional decision making.

• coordinate funding and grants in a manner consistent with regional priorities. 

Moving Toward Common Regional Boundaries

Many federal agencies already divide their nationwide operations and management

responsibilities along regional lines. For example: the U.S. Environmental Protection

For coastal states, it’s

difficult enough to

figure out how to

deal with the many

offices and programs

within NOAA, let

alone the complex

interactions of all the

other federal agencies of jurisdiction.

—The Honorable Mary

Nichols, Secretary of

Resources, State of California, testimony to the

Commission, April 2002
C HAPTER 5: ADVANCING A REGIONAL APPROACH 93

Agency (EPA) has ten regional offices throughout the nation, mapped along state lines;

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has seven regions, also following state lines but different

from the EPA regions; and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is organized into eight

regions defined by the boundaries of watersheds, not states (Figure 5.1). The structures

and functions of regional offices also differ among agencies, with some possessing more

independence and authority than others. In some cases, regional offices have not had

strong ties to their agencies’ national management, and it is common for the regional

office of one agency to operate in isolation from the corresponding regional offices of

other agencies. The current structure hinders the ability of federal agencies with oceanand coastal-related responsibilities to effectively interact on a regional basis with each

other and with state, territorial, tribal, and local entities.

Box 5.3 Moving Toward Improved Federal and Stakeholder Coordination 

in the Great Lakes Region 

The five Great Lakes and their related waterways span eight U.S. states and two Canadian

provinces. They comprise the largest freshwater system in the world, containing 20 percent of the world’s freshwater and occupying a nearly 200,000 square-mile basin. The Great

Lakes have been the focus of regional management for more than a century, originating

from the need to avoid and resolve disputes over control of water levels and flows in the

basin. The United States and Canada have also joined together in bilateral treaties and agreements to address shared concerns. Numerous regional intergovernmental organizations have

been established to address basin-wide issues, many of which have binational representation.

Examples include the International Joint Commission, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Great

Lakes Commission, Council of Great Lakes Governors, Great Lakes Cities Initiative, and the

International Association of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Mayors. There are also several nongovernmental organizations, such as Great Lakes United, that are concerned with the health

of the Great Lakes ecosystem. 

A plethora of government programs help fund and implement environmental restoration

and management activities throughout the Great Lakes region. A 2003 report by the U.S.

General Accounting Office (GAO) found that there are over 140 such programs administered

by federal agencies, and another 51 at the state level.i Despite the abundance of regional initiatives and government programs, the GAO found a lack of coordination among the Great

Lakes environmental strategies being used at the international, federal, and state levels. The

lack of a coordinated strategy hinders progress toward establishing priorities, assessing

progress, and applying ecosystem-based management throughout the Great Lakes basin. 

Recent developments show promise for improving coordination among federal agencies

and regional stakeholders in the Great Lakes. In May 2004, President Bush signed an executive order creating the Great Lakes Task Force. The Task Force will bring together ten federal

agencies with responsibilities in the Great Lakes basin to better coordinate their policies and

programs at both the national and regional levels. The executive order also calls on the federal agencies to collaborate with Canada, Great Lakes states, tribal, and local governments,

communities, and other interests to address nationally significant environmental and

resource management issues in the basin. 

The executive order should benefit the many intergovernmental bodies in the basin by

enabling more systematic collaboration and better integration at all levels. Establishment of

the Task Force may also spur the development of a complementary process of collaboration

among the existing intergovernmental bodies in the region to create a more unified regional

voice in support of ecosystem-wide goals and priorities for the Great Lakes. 

i U.S. General Accounting Office. Great Lakes: An Overall Strategy and Indicators for Measuring Progress Are Needed

to Better Achieve Restoration Goals. GAO–03–515. Washington, DC, April 2003.
94 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 5–3

The President should form a task force of federal resource management agencies to develop

a proposal for adoption and implementation of common federal regional boundaries. The

task force should solicit input from state, territorial, tribal, and local representatives.

Any re-designation of federal regions should be closely coordinated with the ongoing

process of establishing regional ocean councils. Although the regions may be of different

sizes and their boundaries may not be identical, they should be complementary to facilitate smooth coordination.

Meeting Regional Research and Information Needs 

Even with greatly improved coordination among regional stakeholders and federal agencies,

the movement toward an ecosystem-based management approach will require greater

knowledge about ocean and coastal ecosystems, including how human activities impact

these systems. Decision makers at all levels, especially local managers, require this information to develop and apply appropriate management measures. Improved coordination

among federal and nonfederal entities within a region will begin to help regional managers

communicate their information needs to the institutions that fund and carry out research

and data gathering efforts. Notwithstanding these improvements, enhanced investments

will also be needed to provide managers with the best available science, information,

tools, and technology on which to base their decisions. 

Today, research targeted at regional concerns, such as the origins of nonpoint source

pollution, the impacts of development on coastal habitat and water quality, socioeconomic

trends in coastal areas, or the impacts of global-scale processes on local resources, is

severely limited. Furthermore, the data that do exist are rarely translated into products

that are useful to managers. As the National Research Council concluded in a 2002 report,

Bridging Boundaries through Regional Marine Research, enhanced regional research and

Figure 5.1 Alignment of Federal Regions Is Essential for Communication

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Regions

Environmental Protection 

Agency Regions

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Regions

Shown above are the existing regional management areas for three federal agencies. Because these areas do not coincide, it is 

difficult for the agencies to coordinate and communicate about issues of common concern at the regional level. Furthermore, 

this lack of coordination impedes their ability to effectively interact with regional, state, territorial, tribal, and local entities on a 

regional basis.

Alaska Hawaii Puerto Rico Alaska Hawaii Puerto Rico Alaska Hawaii Puerto Rico
C HAPTER 5: ADVANCING A REGIONAL APPROACH

data collection efforts are essential, as are efforts to solicit information needs from those

that require this information to manage ocean and coastal ecosystems.1 There are four

essential regional information needs: 

• Research.

• Data collection, monitoring, and observations.

• Development of useful information products.

• Outreach, education, training, and technical assistance for decision makers.

Ideally, efforts to meet these information needs should be carried out under the guidance of regional ocean councils. However, because the process to develop these councils is

voluntary and may take time to implement, in the interim these efforts should be undertaken by some other entity, as determined by each region. The organization tasked with

meeting these needs should draw on existing governmental and nongovernmental institutional capacity in the region and be guided primarily by the needs of the users in the

region. Each region should also collaborate with others, as appropriate, to address issues

that transcend regional boundaries.

Regions may have several options for establishing a program to improve regional

ocean information development and dissemination. For example, the Regional Associations

that are being organized throughout the country to administer the regional components of

the national Integrated Ocean Observing System may have the capacity to take on these

broader responsibilities. The National Sea Grant College Program is another potential

vehicle for carrying out regional information tasks. Some regions have other existing science and information programs that could also be broadened or adapted to fill this need.

However, an existing entity may need to revise its scope to include the four regional information responsibilities listed above and be driven primarily by the needs of end users. 

For example, a Regional Association would have to expand its mandate beyond observing

activities. Likewise, the Sea Grant program would need to find a mechanism to transcend

state and local interests. Whatever the implementing vehicle, a representative group of

information providers and end users should oversee the development of regional information priorities, to be carried out through partnerships among existing governmental and

nongovernmental institutions.

Recommendation 5–4

Pending the creation of a regional ocean council, the governors in each region should select 

a suitable entity to operate a regional ocean information program that carries out research,

data collection, information product development, and outreach based on the needs and 

priorities of ocean and coastal decision makers.

The entity assigned to carry out the regional ocean information program should:

• include representation from federal agencies, state, territorial, tribal, and local decision

makers, scientists, as well as experts in information exchange and outreach.

• communicate regional research and information priorities to federal agencies and others

with ocean and coastal responsibilities to help guide their programs.

• maintain strong links with the regional ocean observing systems to help them fulfill

regional data collection requirements while adhering to national Integrated Ocean

Observing System requirements.

Although regions may want to experiment with different approaches for achieving the

goals of the regional ocean information programs, the National Ocean Council can offer

support. If the entity selected by the governors (or by a regional ocean council) develops a

comprehensive plan for regional research, data collection, information product development, and outreach, based on regional needs and priorities, the plan could be submitted to

the National Ocean Council to coordinate funding by relevant agencies. Proposals can then

be solicited to implement elements of the plan, with grants awarded on a competitive basis.

95
96 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Developing Regional Ecosystem Assessments

Assessments of the natural, cultural, and economic attributes of each region, including an

inventory of the region’s environmental resources and demographic characteristics, would

be extremely valuable to decision makers for a variety of different purposes. For example,

these assessments could be used to establish baselines of ocean and coastal ecosystem

health, enhancing the ability of decision makers to analyze the cumulative impacts of

human activities on the ecosystem. Enhanced regional research and information activities

would contribute greatly to the creation of these assessments, as would the wealth of

information developed by states.

Recommendation 5–5

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), working with other appropriate federal and regional entities, should

coordinate the development of regional ecosystem assessments, to be updated periodically. 

As part of this process, NOAA and EPA should:

• incorporate data and information developed at the state and local levels, including

resource assessments developed by state coastal management programs.

• coordinate with the organization responsible for improving regional ocean information 

collection and dissemination activities to make optimum use of regional information.

• collaborate closely with regional ocean councils.

Regional ecosystem assessments would also improve the process mandated under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that requires federal agencies to prepare

Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for proposed major activities. Currently, each

agency must conduct an individual assessment of the state of the environment to determine the impact of a proposed activity or related set of activities. The existence of a single,

scientifically-based regional ecosystem assessment that is updated periodically would

reduce duplication of effort and help ensure that every EIS is based on similar, comprehensive, and timely information about the region.

Assessments are also important to evaluate the cumulative impacts over time of many

proposed activities. Although guidelines developed by the Council on Environmental

Quality (the office responsible for overseeing NEPA implementation) require federal 

agencies to prepare cumulative impact evaluations for proposed activities, challenges in

developing a consistent approach have made it difficult for federal agencies to meet this

requirement.

Recommendation 5–6

The Council on Environmental Quality should revise its National Environmental Policy Act

guidelines to state that environmental impact statements for proposed ocean- and coastalrelated activities should incorporate the regional ecosystem assessments called for in

Recommendation 5–5.

References

1 National Research Council. Bridging Boundaries through Regional Marine Research. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 2002

98 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 6

COORDINATING MANAGEMENT

IN FEDERAL WATERS

F

ederal waters provide vast opportunities to build the nation’s economy, enhance

our quality of life, and increase knowledge about the workings of nature.

Converging economic, technological, demographic, and other factors make these

areas of the surrounding sea an increasingly attractive place for new enterprises seeking to tap the ocean’s resources, as well as for the continuation

and expansion of traditional uses. The challenge for policy makers will be

to unlock the ocean’s potential while minimizing conflicts among users,

safeguarding human and marine health and cultural resources, and

fulfilling the federal government’s obligation to manage public

resources for the maximum long-term benefit of the entire nation. 

While legal, policy, and institutional frameworks exist for managing some ocean uses, there remain increasingly unacceptable gaps.

The nation needs a coordinated offshore management regime

that encompasses traditional and emerging uses and is adaptable

enough to incorporate uses not yet clearly foreseen. 

Meeting Growing Needs

An important task for the new National Ocean Policy Framework 

is to improve the ability of the federal government to manage

the growing number of activities taking place or being proposed in federal waters. This area, which extends from 3 to 200 nautical miles offshore, contains an enormous diversity of resources, many of which are used

or affected by human activities. Within federal waters, the United States has

sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing the living and nonliving natural resources of the seabed and subsoil and the surface and subsurface of the waters. The federal government also has jurisdiction over the

establishment and use of artificial structures, islands, and installations that have economic

purposes, and the protection and preservation of the ocean environment. Associated with

these authorities is the federal government’s responsibility to ensure that ocean activities

are managed for the benefit of the public.

In decades past, nearshore areas held certain inherent advantages for human activities—

the waters tend to be shallower, logistics simpler, and costs lower. Increasingly, however,

these advantages are shrinking. Nearshore waters are now crowded with competing users

whose ranks are steadily augmented by surging coastal populations. There is also consid-
C HAPTER 6: COORDINATING MANAGEMENT IN F EDERAL WATERS

erable public opposition to certain

activities when conducted close to

shore, such as those that involve the

use of heavy equipment or disrupt

scenic views. In addition, technological advances and an evolving scientific understanding of the ocean

have made activities in offshore

areas more feasible and economical

than in the past. 

For these reasons, interest in the

use of federal waters is growing and

activities farther offshore are expected

to multiply (Figure 6.1). In many

instances, these activities are mutually

compatible and can take place in the

same approximate area without

problems. In other instances, uses 

conflict with and can disrupt one

another. Later chapters discuss

many specific offshore activities,

including fisheries (Chapter 19), aquaculture (Chapter 22), bioprospecting

(Chapter 23), and development of

offshore energy and mineral resources

(Chapter 24). The chapters in Part V

discuss the various responsibilities

related to protecting the oceans from

the impacts of pollution. The focus

of this chapter, however, is the overarching offshore management regime

that will be needed to coordinate 

all these activities and more—an

important part of moving toward 

an ecosystem-based management

approach.

An offshore management regime

should encompass robust coordination for all ocean activities, while

recognizing the particular needs and

challenges associated with each individual use. It must be able to address

the needs of the ecosystem—including

human needs—by prioritizing activities, minimizing conflicts, protecting resources, and ensuring that uses

are compatible. It is also important to strike a balance between long-term and short-term

strategies. For example, a legislative remedy may be warranted to address immediate 

concerns about one ocean activity, but the legislation should leave room to incorporate

the activity within a broader, developing regime.

Any new offshore management regime should be grounded in the guiding principles

set forth by the Commission in Chapter 3. For example, the nation should not wait until

technologies are fully developed or scientific information is complete to establish mecha99

Massachusetts

Rhode 

Island

Figure 6.1 Coordination Is Essential in Busy Offshore Waters

Like many offshore areas of the nation, the waters off a small portion of the 

New England coast are home to a number of existing and proposed activities. 

In addition to the uses shown above, many offshore areas also contain dredging 

projects, marine protected areas, fishery closures, recreational activities, artificial 

reefs, and in certain coastal regions, oil and gas development. User conflicts can 

and do arise when incompatible activities take place in the same area. A 

comprehensive offshore management regime is needed for the balanced 

coordination of all offshore uses.

Source: Minerals Management Service, Washington, DC.

■ Wind farm proposals

■ Shipping lanes, fairways, and 

precautionary areas

■ Hazardous areas—dumping areas; 

toxic wastes; unexploded ordnance, 

torpedos, depth charges, etc.

■ State Waters (3 nautical miles)

■ National Marine Sanctuary

Telecommunications cables—active

Telecommunications 

cables—inactive
100 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

nisms for managing new ocean uses. Instead, policy makers should proceed judiciously

and responsibly to prepare for new uses, and to establish proactive means for identifying

and remedying any negative impacts. Creating a coherent and coordinated management

regime will make it easier for governments at all levels to protect the public interest and

for private interests to make informed decisions. 

One of the biggest obstacles to improving management of offshore resources is inadequate scientific understanding of how ecosystems function and how to evaluate the cumulative impacts of activities over time. Regional ecosystem assessments, as recommended in

Chapter 5, provide a vehicle to comprehensively and periodically analyze the status of an

ocean region, establish baselines for ocean ecosystem health, and describe existing or

potential impacts from human activities. These assessments, coupled with a strong commitment to furthering scientific understanding of ecosystems and their components,

would dramatically enhance the effectiveness of offshore management. 

Clarifying Offshore Responsibilities

The management of offshore activities by federal agencies is a mixed picture. Some, such

as fishing or offshore oil and gas development, are governed according to well-developed

regulatory regimes established in accordance with specific legislative mandates while others,

such as marine bioprospecting, are essentially unmanaged in federal waters. Other new

and emerging ocean uses, such as offshore aquaculture or wind energy, are subject to regulation by a number of authorities executing varying responsibilities, but are not managed

by any comprehensive federal law (Box 6.1). 

When authorities and responsibilities remain dispersed, ill defined, or virtually nonexistent, obviously the decision making process is unclear. The resulting confusion can

create roadblocks to public participation, discourage private investment, cause harmful

delays, and generate unnecessary costs. Further, serious gaps in the protection of the public interest could result. Without an understandable, streamlined, and broadly accepted

method for reviewing, authorizing and managing offshore activities, reactive, ad hoc

approaches will continue, perpetuating uncertainty and raising questions about the 

comprehensiveness and legitimacy of decisions. 

Recommendation 6–1

The National Ocean Council should ensure that each current and emerging activity in federal

waters is administered by a lead federal agency and make recommendations for Congressional

action where needed. The lead agency should coordinate with other applicable authorities

and should ensure full consideration of the public interest. 

Establishing a Coordinated Offshore Management Regime

There are two main categories of ocean uses: those that are confined to a specific location,

typically linked to an offshore structure such as an oil rig, a wind turbine, an aquaculture

pen, or a sunken vessel, and those, such as fishing or recreation, that are more diffuse,

taking place within broad, flexible areas. Some activities combine these characteristics and

could be managed according to either scenario. As an example, bioprospecting could be

treated as a site-specific use by granting exclusive rights to explore for organisms in a 

particular area, or as a moveable activity by granting permits to collect certain organisms

regardless of their location. To move toward an ecosystem-based management approach,

the federal government needs to develop a better understanding of offshore areas and

resources, prioritize uses, and ensure that activities in a given area are compatible.
C HAPTER 6: COORDINATING MANAGEMENT IN F EDERAL WATERS

Where a proposed activity will occupy a certain space to the exclusion of other uses, 

it is the federal government’s responsibility to determine where the activity can take place,

by whom, in what manner, and for what length of time. But wise decisions cannot be made

in isolation: the agency administering the siting of aquaculture facilities, for example, must

be aware of actions taken by another agency permitting offshore power generation facilities. 

As the pressure for offshore uses grows, and before serious conflicts arise, coordination should be immediately improved among single-activity management programs that

regulate location-dependent activities. The National Ocean Council will be well-positioned

to review single-purpose ocean programs that regulate offshore activities with the goal of

determining how such programs may be better coordinated. In addition, coordination of

the management of all offshore activities is necessary—including those that are not tied to

a specific geographic location. Any new offshore management regime will need to make

101

Box 6.1 Swimming through Hoops: Establishing an 

Offshore Aquaculture Facility

The growing interest in offshore aquaculture offers an excellent example of how confusing

and overlapping agency responsibilities create difficulties. As more entrepreneurs pursue

this enterprise, they find they must overcome several bureaucratic hurdles at the federal and

state levels, often with little guidance from the agencies on what is needed, from whom, 

and when.

At the federal level, at least five agencies must be consulted or grant permits before an

aquaculture facility can proceed:

• The Rivers and Harbors Act authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to require 

permits for any device attached to the seafloor that poses a threat to navigation.

• The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for marking potential obstructions to safe navigation. 

• The Clean Water Act authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to

require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for any facility that 

discharges a pollutant into U.S. navigable waters or exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 

• Although the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act may not

have been intended as a mechanism for managing marine aquaculture, the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration asserts that the harvest of aquaculture species

falls under the Act. Therefore, the Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs) may

develop management measures for aquaculture in offshore waters and the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) may regulate aquaculture harvest based on RFMC 

recommendations. In addition, NMFS, under the Endangered Species Act and the Marine

Mammal Protection Act, must review aquaculture applications for any potential impacts

on endangered species or marine mammals. 

• In certain circumstances, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may also review aquaculture

applications for their impacts on endangered species or marine mammals, or other 

activities under its jurisdiction.

At the state level, each jurisdiction has its own procedures, with no uniformity among states.

In fact, continuity is sometimes lacking even within a single state—one applicant may start the

process with the state environmental protection office, another may begin with the state marine

fisheries agency, and a third may initiate activities with the state agricultural office. 

Each of the federal and state offices may require a separate application, although much

of the information required is exactly the same. Rarely do these offices coordinate with each

other, and the application may be stopped at any stage. A more coordinated and consistent

regime is needed to provide greater protection for the ocean environment, as well as to

lessen unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on applicants.
102 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

sure that disputes are resolved and decisions made through an open process that involves

the participation of all parties. 

Building a coordinated offshore management regime will take time. It will not be easy.

No regime for governing ocean activities will eliminate all conflicts, given the complexity

of the problems and the diverse perspectives of competing interests. However, the

National Ocean Council, President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, regional ocean

councils, and states provide the basis for more coordinated, participatory management of

ocean activities. This new decision-making framework provides the opportunity—perhaps

long overdue—for a broad dialogue among stakeholders at the national, regional, and

state levels on a more coordinated and deliberate approach to managing activities in offshore areas. (The interests and roles of state and territorial governments in activities that

take place in federal waters is discussed in Chapter 9.)

A Fair Return for the Use of Offshore Resources

The management of public resources generally includes issues of public compensation.

Specifically, economists refer to the economic value derived from a natural resource as

resource rent. In the ocean, a natural resource may be an area, a space, or a living or nonliving commodity. When a publicly-owned resource is made available to the private sector,

Box 6.2 Sunken Treasure: Our Underwater Cultural Heritage

As technology has improved, so has the ability to locate objects of historical, cultural,

and financial interest on the seafloor. At least 50,000 shipwrecks are scattered about

the territorial waters and exclusive economic zone of the United States. Other sites harbor the physical evidence of past cultures, preserved in inundated human communities.

Many of these sites hold considerable archeological value, providing a tangible and

unique link to our past. They are also attractive for recreational enjoyment and financial

returns through salvage. Whatever their origin or value, all submerged objects are highly

susceptible to burial, decay, and destruction. 

Considerable controversy surrounds the complicated set of local, state, federal, foreign, and international laws related to the management of shipwreck sites. Commercial

salvors rely on traditional admiralty law to support their right to locate, recover, and

remove objects of value from shipwrecks. However, many archeologists argue that historic shipwrecks and other submerged sites, as well as the material recovered from them,

are part of the world’s collective heritage, and that the sale of artifacts deprives the public of important historical, cultural, and educational assets. 

The lack of a comprehensive national strategy has exacerbated this debate. At least a

dozen federal laws contain provisions relating or applied to historic shipwreck sites. Some

apply in all U.S. waters, while others apply only in some zones, and still others apply only

to certain agencies, or to specific types of sunken vessels, such as warships. There are also

international agreements that apply to state-owned vessels submerged in the waters of

another nation. However, there are currently no federal laws that assert ownership of

cultural resources outside of state waters, or that claim jurisdiction over such resources

outside specifically designated marine protected areas. 

The new coordinated offshore management regime should incorporate a comprehensive policy on submerged cultural resources, including shipwreck sites. The offshore

regime will need to balance the historical importance of certain sites with their potential

recreational and economic value, preserving the most significant sites for future generations while leaving room for the recreational use and salvage of others. The establishment of a comprehensive national policy will also help in promoting an international

regime for the use and protection of submerged cultural resources.
C HAPTER 6: COORDINATING MANAGEMENT IN F EDERAL WATERS

fairness and efficiency argue for a return to the public of some portion of the rent received

from the use of that resource. This principle has been clearly established on land, where

the government collects rents from ranchers through grazing fees and from timber and

mining companies through royalties. The government also collects revenues from outer

Continental Shelf oil and natural gas operations in the form of bonuses and royalties. In

keeping with this concept, it is appropriate for the public to receive some return when 

private entities are allowed to benefit from ocean space and resources.

Recommendation 6–2

Congress, working with the National Ocean Council (NOC) and regional ocean councils, should

establish a balanced, ecosystem-based offshore management regime that sets forth guiding

principles for the coordination of offshore activities, including a policy that requires a reasonable portion of the resource rent derived from such activities to be returned to the public.

In developing an offshore management regime, Congress, the NOC, and regional ocean 

councils should:

• adopt as guiding principles those set forth by the Commission.

• recognize the need, where appropriate, for comprehensive, single-purpose ocean governance structures, which would be based on the guiding principles of the new regime and

integrated with other uses.

• include a process for addressing new and emerging activities.

Employing Marine Protected Areas as a Management Tool

Marine protected areas are one type of management tool the federal government can

employ for locations and resources in estuarine, nearshore, and offshore areas in need of

protection. A broad umbrella term, marine protected areas are created for many different

reasons, including conserving living marine resources and habitat, protecting endangered

or threatened species, maintaining biological diversity, and preserving historically or culturally important resources. These areas have also been recognized for their scientific,

recreational, and educational values. 

Marine protected areas can vary from restricting all activities to limiting only some

uses. Examples of activities that might be restricted include oil and gas exploration and

production, dredging, dumping, certain types of vessel traffic, fishing, and placing structures on the seabed. Marine protected areas can be set aside permanently or temporarily

and can be implemented either seasonally or year-round. Even within a marine protected

area, a particular activity may be allowed in one part of the area but not in others. Marine

protected areas can be established and managed by a variety of agencies at the federal,

state, territorial, tribal, and local levels, pursuant to a number of authorities. 

Federal Efforts

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is authorized to develop

and implement marine protected areas through several programs. NOAA’s National Marine

Sanctuary Program has had over thirty years of experience in area-based management.

The thirteen marine sanctuaries included in the program cover over 18,000 square miles

of ocean and coastal area—much of it in federal waters. Although the primary purpose of

the sanctuary program is to ensure long-term protection of natural and cultural resources,

the sanctuaries incorporate a number of interests and plan for a variety of uses while pursuing management, research, and public education activities. The program coordinates

with local, state, territorial, tribal, and federal interests, and has experimented with a wide

range of management techniques. NOAA also administers the National Estuarine Research

103
104 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Reserve System, which is made up of a network of twenty-six protected estuarine areas,

and manages a variety of fishery zones and area closures to protect critical habitat for

selected species. 

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), through the National Park Service (NPS)

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), is also authorized to create and manage

marine protected areas. NPS manages the National Park System, which includes national

parks, monuments, and preserves in ocean areas, as well as ten areas designated as

national seashores on the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts, and four national lakeshores

along the Great Lakes coastline. USFWS manages the National Wildlife Refuge System,

which includes more than 500 wildlife refuges, many of which are located in ocean and

coastal areas. 

In 2000, an executive order on Marine Protected Areas directed NOAA and DOI to

establish a Marine Protected Area Center. The Center is charged with developing a framework for a national system of marine protected areas and providing federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local governments with information, tools, and strategies for effectively

designing and managing such areas. The Center has made progress in improving coordination and working to establish a national system of marine protected areas; however, further consolidation of the many related federal programs may be needed. Simplifying the

multiplicity of marine protected area management regimes can lessen confusion, foster

stewardship, and enhance enforcement. (Federal marine protected area programs are summarized in Appendix D.)

The Role of Marine Protected Areas 

Marine protected areas are important tools for ecosystem-based management, although

they will not in and of themselves deliver long-term sustainable use of the oceans. Other

pressing problems will continue to require attention, including resource use outside protected areas, point and nonpoint source pollution, and intensive coastal development. For

this reason, marine protected areas are most effective when they are designed within the

broader context of regional ecosystem planning and adaptive management, and when they

are employed in conjunction with other management tools.

When a marine protected area is determined to be the best approach for addressing

ecosystem goals in a particular area, its design must take a number of factors into consideration. These factors include local, state, regional, and national objectives, ecosystem

characteristics and threats, competing uses within the targeted area, ecological and

socioeconomic impacts, and the capacity for effective implementation and enforcement

of the protected area. Marine protected areas must also be designed using the best available scientific information to ensure that their establishment is likely to meet the intended

objectives. Monitoring, periodic assessment, and modification are also essential to ensure

the continuing effectiveness of marine protected areas and to remain accountable to

affected stakeholders. 

Although at times controversial, appropriately designed and implemented marine 

protected areas have proven useful. A 2001 report by the National Research Council 

concluded that marine protected areas can be effective in maintaining marine biological

diversity and protecting habitats, and have the potential to provide a flexible, spatiallybased management framework for addressing multiple ecological and socioeconomic

objectives.1 The report stated that, in particular, closing certain areas to fishing—temporarily, seasonally, or permanently—can advance sustainable fisheries management and

provide insurance against uncertainties in fisheries science. Nevertheless, design and

implementation of marine protected areas, like any other marine resource management

measure, must be considered in the context of broader planning and the implementation

of a coordinated regime.

MPAs can be unique

tools in the marine

resource management

toolbox, because they

shift the emphasis of

marine resource 

management from

the traditional singlespecies focus to protection of a specific

area or habitat and

can often help meet

multiple goals and

objectives.

—Dr. William T. Hogarth,

Assistant Administrator

for Fisheries, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

testimony to the Commission, April 2002
C HAPTER 6: COORDINATING MANAGEMENT IN F EDERAL WATERS

National Interests

It is appropriate for marine protected areas to be designed and implemented with strong

input from the regional, state, and local levels. However, because marine protected areas

have the potential to affect issues of national concern, such as freedom of navigation, there

will always be a need for national-level oversight. With its multiple use, ecosystem-based

perspective, the National Ocean Council is the appropriate entity for overseeing the development of a uniform process to design, implement, and evaluate marine protected areas. 

The design of marine protected areas should not unreasonably limit important

national interests, such as international trade, national security, recreation, clean energy,

economic development, and scientific research. For example, in most cases, freedom of

navigation through marine protected areas should not be restricted. However, where some

infringement on such national interests is deemed essential to achieve the purposes of a

marine protected area, restrictions should be based on the best available scientific information, with a plan for ongoing monitoring and modifications over time. The overall 

ecological and socioeconomic impacts of marine protected areas need to be assessed at 

the national level. 

Recommendation 6–3

The National Ocean Council should develop national goals and guidelines leading to a uniform

process for the effective design, implementation, and evaluation of marine protected areas. 

The process should include the following:

• marine protected area designations that are based on the best available science to

ensure that an area is appropriate for its intended purpose.

• periodic assessment, monitoring, and modification to ensure continuing ecological and

socioeconomic effectiveness of marine protected areas.

• design and implementation that consider issues of national importance, such as freedom

of navigation, and are conducted in the context of an ecosystem-based comprehensive

offshore management regime. 

105

This giant kelp forest in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary is one of the unique habitats

found in marine protected areas.

NOAA Photo Library
106 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Regional and Local Stakeholders

Part of the controversy surrounding marine protected areas stems from the impacts their

restrictions can have on stakeholders. While some stakeholders recognize the benefits of

creating such areas, others vigorously oppose the limitations on otherwise legal ocean uses.

When designing and implementing a marine protected area, it is important to engage all

regional and local stakeholders to build support for the proposed protected area and to

ensure compliance with any restrictions it may impose. 

Because marine protected areas are used to accomplish a broad range of objectives and

have different meanings for different people, it is imperative that each proposed area has

clearly defined goals and objectives that meet the needs of that particular area, but are also

consistent with national goals and guidelines. Regional ocean councils, or other appropriate regional, state, and local entities, can provide a forum for applying the uniform process

developed by the National Ocean Council to design marine protected areas. They can also

facilitate stakeholder input and public discussion of the trade-offs inherent in implementing marine protected areas. Well-designed scientific studies at the design and review

stages can assist in the evaluation of the potential impacts of marine protected areas on

communities. 

Recommendation 6–4

To create effective and enforceable marine protected areas, regional ocean councils and

appropriate federal, regional, state, and local entities should work together on marine protected area design, implementation, and evaluation. Planners should follow the process developed by the National Ocean Council, actively soliciting stakeholder input and participation.

References

1 National Research Council. Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 2001

CHAPTER 7

STRENGTHENING THE

FEDERAL AGENCY STRUCTURE

Although improved coordination is a vital aspect of the new National Ocean

Policy Framework, changes to the structure of some federal agencies will also

be needed to enable effective implementation of national ocean policy.

Strengthening the federal agency structure through a phased approach—

in combination with improving coordination through the National Ocean

Council—will improve agency performance, reduce unnecessary overlap,

and significantly enhance the long-term goal of addressing the nation’s

management of oceans, coasts, and other natural resources through

an ecosystem-based management approach. 

Immediate strengthening of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration’s ability to carry out its many ocean- and coastalrelated responsibilities is critical. That is to be followed by

strengthening of other agencies with ocean-related responsibilities, and consolidation, where appropriate, of ocean and coastal

programs in all agencies. Over the long term, more fundamental

changes to the federal agency structure should be made to recognize the inextricable connections among the sea, the land, the

atmosphere, and all living creatures on Earth, including humans. 

Reorganizing to Support an 

Ecosystem-based Management Approach 

New knowledge about the functioning of ecosystems—and specifically about

our ocean and coastal regions—supports the need for fundamental changes

in the nation’s approach to managing its resources. The benefits of improved coordination at national and regional levels were discussed in Chapters 4 through 6, and a number

of recommendations made. But even excellent coordination does not preclude the need to

consider reorganization. The new National Ocean Policy Framework contemplates both.

The proliferation of federal agencies with some responsibility for ocean and coastal activities (illustrated in Figure 4.1) strongly suggests that consolidation might improve government performance, reduce unnecessary overlaps, facilitate local, state, and regional interactions with the federal government, and begin to move the nation toward a more

ecosystem-based management approach.

108 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY
C HAPTER 7: STRENGTHENING THE F EDERAL A GENCY STRUCTURE

Reviewing Previous Reorganization Proposals

In 1969, the Stratton Commission called for the establishment of a major new independent agency to administer the nation’s civil marine and atmospheric programs.1 Around the

same time, the President’s Advisory Council on Executive Reorganization (known as the

Ash Council) made recommendations for more effective management of all federal programs and agencies. 

Based on the advice from these two groups, the Nixon administration planned to 

create an ocean and atmospheric agency and place it in a new Department of Natural

Resources, in which the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and several other agencies

were identified as key elements. However, in 1970 the administration decided, largely for

political reasons, to establish the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) as an agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Since that time, members of Congress have introduced many reorganization proposals

to improve federal management generally or specifically as it affects oceans and coasts. 

Two presidential proposals addressed broad reorganization around natural resources, while

a national advisory committee on oceans and coasts proposed specific recommendations to

improve the federal agency structure in that area. Proposals in the 1970s called for putting

NOAA within a broader Department of Natural Resources, while a mix of proposals during

the 1980s and 1990s would have either established an independent NOAA or moved parts

of the agency to a different department. In the end, largely because of the political complexity

associated with any reorganization of executive branch agencies, none of the proposals to

reorganize or relocate NOAA was adopted. (Brief summaries of past proposals are included

in Table 7.1 at the end of this chapter and summarized in Figure 7.1.)

Despite past failures to reorganize ocean and coastal programs, the concept of 

combining federal programs with similar functions remains under active consideration. 

In its 2003 report, the National Commission on the Public Service (known as the Volcker

Commission) concluded that the historical phenomenon of governmental expansion on

an issue-by-issue basis has resulted in a “virtually unmanageable tangle of government

activities” that negatively affects program performance. That commission emphasized the

need to reorganize the federal government “into a limited number of mission-related executive departments.”2

109

Figure 7.1 Proposals to Reorganize Federal Ocean Management 

Proposal for a Department of Natural Resources

Proposal for an independent NOAA

Proposal to move NOAA into a different department

Since 1970, there have been many congressional, presidential, and federal advisory committee 

proposals to consolidate the management of natural resources, including oceans, within the federal 

government (Table 7.1). Most recently, proposals have focused on establishing NOAA as an 

independent agency, or moving it out of the Department of Commerce to a more compatible home.

1970 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 1975
110 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

The complexity of the current policy-making process, with its many political and

jurisdictional components, compels a cautious, methodical, phased approach for moving

toward a more ecosystem-based federal structure. The phases include:

1. Phase I—Immediate Action: Solidify NOAA’s role as the nation’s lead civilian ocean

agency through the enactment of a NOAA organic act that codifies the agency’s establishment within the Department of Commerce, clarifies its mission, and strengthens

execution of its functions. 

2. Phase II—Medium-term Action: Strengthen other agencies with ocean-related responsibilities and consolidate selected ocean and coastal functions and programs where such

consolidation would eliminate unnecessary duplication, achieve more effective policy

implementation, and not undermine the central mission of any agency.

3. Phase III—Long-term Action: Include oceans and coasts within a unified federal agency

structure to manage all natural resources according to an ecosystem-based management approach.

Strengthening NOAA: Phase I

NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment and to

conserve and manage ocean and coastal resources to meet the nation’s economic, social,

and environmental needs. The agency’s responsibilities have been spread across five line

offices: the National Ocean Service; the National Marine Fisheries Service; the National

Weather Service; the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service; and

the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. 

Since its creation, NOAA has made significant strides in weather prediction, navigational charting, marine operations and services on the ocean and along the coast, management and protection of living marine resources, satellite operations, processing and distribution of data, and development of innovative technologies and observing systems. These

successes have occurred despite significant programmatic and functional overlaps, and

frequent disagreements and disconnects among the current line offices. Recently, a sixth

line office, the Office of Program Planning and Integration, was established to improve

horizontal integration among NOAA line offices. Although this change will require time

to take hold and show results, such initiatives constitute one of many steps required to

strengthen NOAA’s performance. 

NOAA needs both to manage its current activities more effectively and, if some or all

of the recommendations discussed in this report are implemented, to handle a number of

new responsibilities (Box 7.1). For example, Chapter 26 discusses significant improvements

that will be needed at NOAA to enable its effective implementation of the Integrated Ocean

Observing System (IOOS), including streamlined distribution of funds to other involved

agencies, closer partnerships with industry and academia, and the ability to assume operational responsibilities for satellite Earth observing programs. A stronger, more effective, science-based and service-oriented ocean agency—one that contributes to better management

of oceans and coasts through an ecosystem-based approach—is needed. 

NOAA’s three primary functions can be categorized as follows: 1) assessment, prediction, and operations for ocean, coastal, and atmospheric environments; 2) marine resource

and area management; and 3) scientific research and education. One of the critical objectives for a strengthened NOAA is improved interaction within and among these categories

such that NOAA’s functions complement and support each other. For example, resource

management decisions should be based on the best available science, research efforts

should be planned to support the agency’s management missions, and all research—sea,

land, and air—should be connected and coordinated. Changes of this nature will likely

require adjustments to the internal operation of the agency, including possible additional

changes to the current line office structure.
C HAPTER 7: STRENGTHENING THE F EDERAL A GENCY STRUCTURE 111

Recommendation 7–1

Congress should establish an organic act for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) that codifies its existence and mission. The act should ensure that

NOAA’s structure is consistent with the principles of ecosystem-based management and with

its three primary functions of: assessment, prediction, and operations; management; and

research and education. 

Specifically, NOAA’s structure should support its role in: 

• assessment, prediction, and operations for ocean, coastal, and atmospheric environments,

including mapping and charting, satellite-based and in situ data collection, implementation of the Integrated Ocean Observing System, broadly based data information systems,

and weather services and products.

• management of ocean and coastal areas and living and nonliving marine resources,

including fisheries, ocean and coastal areas, vulnerable species and habitats, and 

protection from pollution and invasive species.

• research and education on all aspects of marine resources, including a focus on the

importance of research and development, the use of scientifically valid technical data

throughout the agency and with external partners, and promotion of educational 

activities across the agency and with the public.

NOAA’s entire structure, leadership, and staff should be oriented to support the 

effective exercise of these functions. Beginning with a strengthened science program and 

a more service-oriented approach, NOAA should be organized not only to improve its 

efficiency, but also to promote inclusiveness and a commitment to meaningful partnerships

with other agencies, states, the private sector, and the academic community. Where partnerships are strong, each institution benefits from the strengths of the others and the 

Box 7.1 Improving Ocean and Coastal Management 

by Enhancing NOAA’s Capacity

NOAA is currently responsible for a variety of ocean and coastal activities and this report

contains many recommendations intended to increase the agency’s responsibilities and

strengthen its performance in the following areas:

• Ocean exploration.

• Implementation of the Integrated Ocean Observing System.

• Scientific planning and budgeting.

• Research support in a broad range of areas, including socioeconomics, oceans and human

health, and monitoring.

• Infrastructure and technology development, including the transition from research 

to operations.

• Mapping and charting.

• Data and information management and communication.

• Formal and informal education for all ages.

• Domestic and international fishery management.

• Marine mammal and other marine species protection.

• Coral reef conservation.

• Sustainable aquaculture.

• Coastal and watershed management.

• Natural hazards planning and response.

• Habitat conservation and restoration.

• Coastal sediment management.

• Water pollution and water quality monitoring.

• Invasive species control.
112 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

tendency to duplicate similar expertise and functions is minimized. International responsibilities will also need visibility at the highest levels of the agency. 

As the clear lead civilian ocean agency in the federal government, NOAA will require

budget support commensurate with its important and varied responsibilities. NOAA’s

placement within DOC may be partly responsible for insufficient visibility, but it has definite budgetary implications. At this time, NOAA’s budget is reviewed within the Office of

Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) General Government Programs, along with other elements of the U.S. Department of Commerce, such as the Bureaus of Industry and Security,

Economics and Statistics, and Economic Analysis, the Census Bureau, the International

Trade Administration, and the Patent and Trademark Office. These programs all have fundamental characteristics and missions programmatically separate from NOAA’s, requiring

budget examiners with very different expertise and perspectives. NOAA’s placement

within OMB also precludes its ocean and atmospheric programs from being considered in

an ecosystem-based context along with the other resource and science programs in the

federal government.

Recommendation 7–2

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), at the instruction of the President, should

review the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration budget within OMB’s Natural

Resources Programs, along with the budgets of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Energy,

and the Interior, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation,

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’

Directorate of Civil Works.

Consolidating Ocean and Coastal Programs: Phase II

In addition to NOAA, many other agencies across the federal government administer oceanand coastal-related programs (Box 7.2). In fact, although NOAA encompasses the single

largest aggregation of civilian ocean programs, other agencies, taken together, represent the

majority of federal spending on ocean, coastal, and atmospheric issues. Thus, changes

within NOAA address only one part of the federal agency structure for oceans and coasts.

Other agencies with ocean-related activities must be strengthened in a similar manner.

Recommendations throughout this report are intended to strengthen the execution of

programs in other federal agencies with ocean- and coastal-related responsibilities, including the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human

Services, Homeland Security, the Interior, Labor, State, and Transportation, and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). The goal of moving toward an

ecosystem-based management approach requires that all agencies consider how the central

functions of: assessment, prediction, and operations; resource management; and scientific

research and education fit within their missions. The structure and coordination of these

primary functions within each agency should assure they are complementary and support

each other.

Departments and agencies often support very similar or overlapping activities. In

some cases, this programmatic overlap can provide useful checks and balances when

agencies bring different perspectives and experiences to the table. Furthermore, some

entities, such as the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Department of Justice, or the NSF, have such 

distinct missions that their ocean- and coastal-related components could not be simply

removed and transferred without harm to the overall enterprise. Programs that are not

suitable for consolidation will need to be coordinated through the National Ocean

Council and the regional ocean councils. 
C HAPTER 7: STRENGTHENING THE F EDERAL A GENCY STRUCTURE 113

Box 7.2 Federal Ocean and Coastal Activities in Agencies other than NOAA

T he U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) mission is to protect the nation’s treasures for

future generations, provide access to the nation’s natural and cultural heritage, provide

wise stewardship of energy and mineral resources, foster sound use of land and water

resources, and conserve and protect fish and wildlife. Several agencies within DOI have ocean

and coastal functions, including the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Park Service

(NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Minerals Management Service

(MMS). USGS provides scientific information to describe and understand the Earth, minimize

loss of life and property from natural disasters, and manage water, biological, energy, and

mineral resources. The goal of NPS is to conserve the scenery, the natural and historic objects

and the wildlife therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of these resources in a manner

that will leave them unimpaired for future generations. Many units within the National Park

System are located in coastal areas. The USFWS mission is to conserve, protect, and enhance

fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American

people. MMS assesses the nature, extent, recoverability, and value of leasable minerals on the

outer Continental Shelf. It oversees the development and efficient recovery of mineral

resources and promotes the use of safe offshore operational technologies.

The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to protect human

health and to safeguard the natural environment—air, water, and land—upon which life

depends. Within EPA, the Office of Water includes the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and

Watersheds, which addresses wetlands protection, protection of ocean and coastal

environments, including watersheds and estuaries, management of dredged material, and

water quality monitoring.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Earth Science Enterprise studies the

Earth from space through environmental research programs and observing systems to meet

the needs of the nation’s scientific communities.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Directorate of Civil Works, located in the U.S.

Department of Defense, administers flood control and shore protection programs,

environmental restoration programs, and the regulation of U.S. waters and wetlands. 

The U.S. Coast Guard, a multi-mission agency recently transferred from the U.S.

Department of Transportation to the new U.S. Department of Homeland Security, is the

principal federal marine enforcement agency for environmental and natural resource

regulations in U.S. ocean and coastal waters, and regulates vessel and port safety, 

security, and environmental protection.

The U.S. Navy contributes significant resources to ocean science activities. Through the

Office of Naval Research and the Naval Meteorological and Oceanography Command, the

Navy has been instrumental in a number of areas since long before the creation of NOAA.

Some of these areas include global ocean and seafloor data collection, archival, modeling,

data fusion, and product generation, as well as a wide array of ocean research and

technology, diving and salvage technology, deep submergence, ocean engineering and

construction, and medical research.

The National Science Foundation supports basic research to further the understanding of all

aspects of the global oceans and their interactions with the land and the atmosphere.

Other agencies in the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security also carry out

activities with significant ocean components, although typically in a military or security

context quite different from the resource management focus of the primary ocean agencies.

Programs with ocean-related functions also exist within the Departments of Agriculture,

Energy, Health and Human Services, Justice, Labor, State, and Transportation and in the U.S.

Agency for International Development.
114 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Nevertheless, during the 1970 reorganization that established NOAA, many programs

that arguably should have become part of that new agency were left in other departments.

Since that time, ocean- and coastal-related programs have continued to proliferate. In

some cases, the number of separate agencies addressing a similar issue is not helpful. Such

fragmentation diffuses responsibility, introduces unnecessary overlap, raises administrative costs, inhibits communication, and interferes with the development of a comprehensive management regime that addresses issues within an ecosystem-based context. 

Programs that may be appropriate for consolidation can be found in several departments and agencies, including DOI, EPA, USACE’s Directorate of Civil Works, and NASA.

These agencies carry out important functions related to managing and protecting marine

areas and resources, conducting science, education, and outreach, and carrying out assessment and prediction in the ocean, coastal, and atmospheric environments. In Phase II of

strengthening the federal agency structure, judicious consolidation of ocean- and coastalrelated functions and programs will improve policy integration and program effectiveness. 

Recommendation 7–3

The Assistant to the President, with advice from the National Ocean Council and the President’s

Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, should review federal ocean, coastal, and atmospheric

programs, and recommend opportunities for consolidation of similar functions.

Discussion of possible candidates for program consolidation can be found throughout

this report, including in Chapter 9 (area-based ocean and coastal resource management),

Chapter 14 (nonpoint source pollution), Chapter 16 (vessel pollution), Chapter 17 (invasive species), Chapter 20 (marine mammals), Chapter 22 (aquaculture), and Chapter 26

(satellite Earth observing operations).

Because the legislative process to create or reorganize agencies is often contentious,

lengthy, and uncertain, involving multiple committees in both houses of Congress, limited

reorganization authority has been granted to the President at various times (Box 7.3). 

In its 2003 report, the Volcker Commission supported the reinstatement of presidential

reorganization authority, with suitable congressional oversight, to streamline improvements in the executive branch.3 Allowing the President authority to propose expedited

agency reorganization, with a congressional review and approval process that is timely,

constitutionally valid, administratively workable, transparent, and accountable, would

provide an excellent mechanism to achieve reorganization of federal ocean- and coastalrelated agencies and programs more expeditiously. 

Recommendation 7–4

Congress should authorize the President to propose structural reorganization of federal

departments and agencies, subject to Congressional approval. 

In particular, such legislation should:

• preclude Congress from amending the President’s proposal.

• require Congress to vote on the President’s proposal within a specified time period after

submission of the plan by the President. 
C HAPTER 7: STRENGTHENING THE F EDERAL A GENCY STRUCTURE

Managing All Natural Resources in an Ecosystem-based

Management Approach: Phase III

Based on a growing understanding of ecosystems, including recognition of the inextricable links among the sea, land, air, and all living things, a more fundamental reorganization

of federal resource agencies will eventually be needed. 

As noted, the major ocean- and coastal-related functions of: assessment, prediction, and

operations; resource management; and research and education reside in a variety of agencies.

Strengthening the performance of ocean, coastal, and atmospheric programs through

coordination and consolidation are important steps in moving toward an ecosystem-based

management approach. By immediately establishing the National Ocean Council and

strengthening NOAA, followed by the consolidation of suitable ocean and coastal programs

and functions, the nation will be poised to take a further step in strengthening the federal

government structure. 

Consolidation of all natural resource functions, including those applicable to oceans

and coasts, would enable the federal government to move toward true ecosystem-based

management. This could be implemented through the establishment of a Department of

Natural Resources or some other structural unification that brings together all of the

nation’s natural resource programs.

Recommendation 7–5

Following establishment of the National Ocean Council and the President’s Council of

Advisors on Ocean Policy, strengthening of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, and consolidation of similar federal ocean and coastal programs, the

President should propose to Congress a reorganization of the federal government that

recognizes the links among all the resources of the sea, land, and air, and establishes a

structure for more unified, ecosystem-based management of natural resources. 

115

Box 7.3 Historical Precedent for Presidential Reorganization 

of the Executive Branch

By historical practice and case law interpretation, the President and Congress have

operated on the premise that the power to establish, structure, and reorganize federal

agencies is a legislative power, conferred on Congress by the U.S. Constitution. In the absence

of a specific statute stating otherwise, the President lacks authority to reorganize executive

branch departments and agencies. 

However, over the last one hundred years, Congress has intermittently granted the

President such authority, with a variety of restrictions and with provisions for expedited

congressional approval or disapproval of the President’s proposals. A total of eighteen

reorganization acts were passed between 1932 and 1984. 

In 1970, President Nixon used the Reorganization Act of 1949, which authorized the

President to propose agency reorganization subject to congressional disapproval, to establish

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. The most recent presidential reorganization authority expired at the end of 1984. 
116 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

■ Ash Council Proposal (1971) for a Department of Natural

Resources: The proposal of the President’s Advisory

Council on Executive Reorganization called for eight

cabinet-level agencies, including a Department of 

Natural Resources, which would include an Oceanic,

Atmospheric, and Earth Science Administration made

up of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Geological Survey. The 

proposal was modified in 1972 to also address the

nation’s energy resources in the form of a Department

of Energy and Natural Resources. Neither proposal was

acted upon by Congress.

■ Moss Proposal (1973) for a Department of Natural

Resources and Environment: The proposal (S. 27) called

for the creation of a new Department of Natural

Resources and Environment, and transferred all of the

functions of the Department of the Interior, the Water

Resources Council, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Federal Energy Administration to the new

department. Various functions of the Department of

Commerce (including NOAA), the Department of

Defense (civil works and civil regulatory functions), the

Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency

were also to be transferred to the new department. The

proposal was introduced again in 1975 (also S. 27), but

no action was taken on either proposal.

■ Dingell Proposal (1973) for a Department of Natural

Resources: The proposal (H.R. 3249) called for redesignating the Department of the Interior as the Department of Natural Resources and moving NOAA to this

department. No action was taken.

■ Holifield Proposal (1973) for a Department of Energy

and Natural Resources: The proposal (H.R. 9090) called

for establishing an executive department to be known

as the Department of Energy and Natural Resources,

with five administrations to include an Oceanic, Atmospheric, and Earth Sciences Administration. NOAA and

several other agencies would be transferred to the new

department, with a division of functions among the five

administrations. No action was taken.

■ McDade Proposal (1974) for a Department of Natural

Resources: The proposal (H.R. 12733) called for redesignating the Department of the Interior as the Department of Natural Resources, within which a National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency would be established.

No action was taken.

■ Tunney Proposal (1975) for a Department of Natural

Resources: The proposal (S. 2726) called for establishing

a new Department of Natural Resources in the executive

branch, transferring all of the functions of the Department of the Interior, the Federal Energy Administration,

the Federal Energy Research and Development Administration, and the Water Resources Council to the new

department. Various functions of the Departments of

Commerce, Defense, Agriculture, and Transportation

would also be transferred to the new department. The

proposal also called for the establishment of an Executive Office of Resource and Materials Policy and a Joint

Congressional Committee on Energy, Materials, and the

Environment. No action was taken on this proposal.

■ Ribicoff Proposal (1976) for a Department of Energy 

and Natural Resources: The proposal (S. 3339) called 

for establishing a Department of Energy and Natural

Resources to assume the nonregulatory functions of

specified agencies dealing with the management and

conservation of natural resources and energy research. 

It also proposed to establish, within the Executive Office

of the President, the Natural Resources Council to facilitate communication among federal agencies responsible

for natural resource management and policy and to recommend improvements in such management and policy.

No action was taken.

■ Hollings Proposal (1976) for a Department of the Environment and Oceans: The proposal (S. 3889) called for

creating a Department of the Environment and Oceans,

transferring into this new department existing agencies,

such as the Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA,

and the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as a number of services

and programs from both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior, to deal with

the nation’s “common property resources.” No action

was taken.

■ Percy Proposal (1977) for a Department of Energy Supply and Natural Resources: The proposal (S. 591) called

for reorganizing federal energy-related activities in the

executive branch, temporarily establishing an Energy

Policy Council and a cabinet-level Committee on Conservation to establish energy policy objectives. The proposal

also called for establishing an executive Department of

Energy Supply and Natural Resources, transferring energy

and natural resources functions from the Department 

of the Interior, the Federal Energy Administration, the

Energy Research and Development Administration, and

the U.S. Forest Service to the new agency, and transferring additional functions to existing departments and

agencies. No action was taken.

Between 1971 and 2001, there were many congressional, presidential, and federal advisory committee proposals to improve the

management of oceans and other natural resources within the federal government. Details of these proposals are shown

below. The icons on the left of each proposal correspond to Figure 7.1.

Table 7.1 Thirty Years of Proposals to Reorganize 

Federal Management of Ocean and Coastal Resources
C HAPTER 7: STRENGTHENING THE F EDERAL A GENCY STRUCTURE 117

■ Brooke Proposal (1977) for a Department of Environment and Natural Resources: The proposal (S. 1481)

called for creating a Department of Environment and

Natural Resources, transferring all functions of the 

Environmental Protection Agency and the Department

of the Interior to the new department. Additional

authority with respect to oceans, vessel and facility 

pollution control, coastal zone management, and 

atmospheric services was also to be transferred to the

new department. No action was taken.

■ President Carter’s Reorganization Proposal (1978) for a

Department of Natural Resources: The proposal called

for a larger governmental reorganization, which

included a new Department of Natural Resources, to

address the problems being faced on a national scale 

in the area of natural resource development, with the

mission of “managing the nation’s natural resources for

multiple purposes, including protection, preservation,

and wise use.” The composition of this new department

would be a large part of the Department of the Interior,

NOAA, the U.S. Forest Service, and a number of programs from the Department of Agriculture and the U.S

Army Corps of Engineers’ Directorate of Civil Works.

Within the department would be five administrations,

one of which would be the Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration to include the functions of NOAA; the

Bureau of Land Management’s Outer Continental Shelf

(OCS) program; the U.S. Geological Survey Conservation

Division’s OCS program; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s

anadromous fisheries and marine mammal programs;

and the Bureau of Reclamation’s Weather Modification

program. This proposal was not adopted.

● National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (advisory to NOAA) (1971–87): This body, created

in 1971 as a result of the Stratton Commission, made a

number of recommendations for reorganization. In its

1978 and 1979 reports, the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere recommended that “the

President and the Congress should refashion the nonmilitary federal structure dealing with the atmosphere,

coastal zone, polar regions, and the oceans...[so as to]

centralize programs and federal management elements...

to improve control of activities relating to economic

development, environmental protection, and scientific

and technological capabilities in the oceans and affecting the atmosphere.” These recommendations were

never implemented.

● Scheuer Proposal (1983) for an independent NOAA: The

proposal (H.R. 3355) called for establishing NOAA as an

independent agency, granting the agency coordination

responsibility for oceanic and atmospheric matters, and

setting forth the enforcement authority of the administration. No action was taken.

● Forsythe Proposal (1983) for an independent NOAA: The

proposal (H.R. 3381) called for establishing NOAA as an

independent agency, granting it coordination responsibility for oceanic and atmospheric matters, and setting

forth the enforcement authority of the administration.

The bill reported to the House from the Committee on

Merchant Marine and Fisheries, but the proposal was

never adopted.

● Weicker Proposal (1987) for an independent NOAA:

The proposal (S. 821) called for establishing NOAA as 

an independent federal agency. No action was taken.

● Lowry Proposal (1988) for an independent NOAA: The

proposal (H.R. 5070) called for establishing NOAA as an

independent agency to administer features of U.S. policy

with respect to civil oceanic, coastal, and atmospheric

activities and programs. No action was taken.

▲ Unsoeld Proposal (1993) for transfer of NOAA functions:

The proposal (H.R. 2761) called for transferring to the

Department of the Interior the following NOAA offices

and assets: the National Ocean Service, the National

Marine Fisheries Service, the Office of Oceanic and

Atmospheric Research, the fleet of research and survey

vessels, and the NOAA Corps. It also called for the transfer of components of the National Ocean Service that

carry out coastal management and assessment programs

to the Environmental Protection Agency. No action was

taken. 

▲ Chrysler Proposal (1995) for transfer of NOAA functions:

After the House and Senate passed the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal 1996 (H. Con. Res. 67),

which called for eliminating the Department of Commerce as part of a congressional effort to streamline

government, increase efficiency, and save taxpayer dollars, Congressman Chrysler introduced H.R. 1756, proposing to eliminate various parts of NOAA and transfer

other parts of the agency to other existing agencies as

part of an overall proposal to dismantle and wind up

the affairs of the Department of Commerce over a

period of three years. As with other proposals of this

magnitude, the bill was referred to eleven committees,

involving an additional ten subcommittees. Several committee members strongly dissented in the House Committee on Ways and Means report (Rept. 104-260), but

no specific mention was made about NOAA. Although

several subcommittees discharged or reported on the

bill, no further action was taken.

● Abraham Proposal (1995, 1997) for an independent

NOAA: The proposal (S. 929) called for re-establishing

NOAA as an independent executive entity, following the

abolishment of the Department of Commerce and transferring the functions from the former NOAA to a new

NOAA. It also set forth other administrative changes, as

well as the coordination of environmental policy. The

proposal was reported out of committee to the Senate

floor, but action was never taken. Variations of this 

proposal were introduced again in 1997 (S. 1226 and S.

1316), but no action was taken.

Table 7.1 (continued) Thirty Years of Proposals to Reorganize 

Federal Management of Ocean and Coastal Resources
118 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

References

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

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.

2 National Commission on the Public Service. Urgent Business for America: Revitalizing the Federal Government for the

21st Century. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Center for Public Service, 2003.

3 Ibid.

Table 7.1 (continued) Thirty Years of Proposals to Reorganize 

Federal Management of Ocean and Coastal Resources

▲ Royce Proposal (1997) for transfer of NOAA functions:

This proposal (H.R. 1319), similar to earlier House proposals to dismantle the Department of Commerce,

called for the termination of various parts of NOAA and

the transfer of other parts of the agency to other existing agencies. No action was taken. 

● Royce Proposal (1997) for an independent NOAA: This

proposal (H.R. 2667) was similar to other House proposals to terminate the Department of Commerce, except

that it called for creating an independent NOAA, to

which any of the former NOAA’s functions that were

not already terminated or transferred to other agencies

by the bill would be transferred. No action was taken.

▲ Young Proposal (1998) for transfer of certain NOAA

functions: The proposal (H.R. 4335) called for transferring to the Secretary of the Interior the functions of the

Secretary of Commerce and the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

No action was taken.

● Royce Proposal (1999) for an independent NOAA: The

proposal (H.R. 2452) called for re-establishing NOAA as

an independent agency in the executive branch, under

the supervision and direction of an Administrator of

Oceans and Atmosphere. Certain functions would be

transferred to a new NOAA: National Marine Fisheries

Service functions; all functions performed by the

National Ocean Service; National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service functions; Office of

Oceanic and Atmospheric Research functions; and

National Weather Service functions. Other programs

would be transferred to other existing agencies: coastal

nonpoint pollution functions would be transferred to

the Environmental Protection Agency; aeronautical

mapping and charting functions would be transferred to

the Transportation Administrative Services Center at the

Department of Transportation; and functions relating to

mapping, charting, and geodesy would be moved to the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This proposal was part of

a larger proposal to terminate the Department of Commerce. It was introduced again in 2001 (H.R. 375). No

action was taken on either proposal.


PART 3

OCEAN STEWARDSHIP: 

THE IMPORTANCE OF

EDUCATION AND

PUBLIC AWARENESS

CHAPTER 8 

PROMOTING LIFELONG OCEAN EDUCATION...................................................122
122 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 8

PROMOTING LIFELONG

OCEAN EDUCATION

S

trengthening the nation’s awareness of the importance of the oceans requires a

heightened focus on the marine environment, through both formal and informal

education efforts. School curricula, starting in kindergarten, should expose students

to ocean issues, preparing the next generation of ocean scientists, managers,

educators, and leaders through diverse educational opportunities. In addition, because formal curricula only reach students for a limited time,

informal education aimed at the entire population is needed to foster

lifelong learning. 

An education office under the oversight of the National Ocean

Council and empowered by federal agency leadership will provide 

a national focal point to improve ocean-related education efforts,

facilitate coordination of ocean-related education among federal

agencies, and enhance collaboration among the research community, state and local education authorities, and the private sector. 

Strengthening the Nation’s Ocean Awareness

Arecent national survey indicates that the American public has

only a superficial awareness of the importance of the ocean to

their daily lives, let alone its importance to all life on the planet.1 The

ocean is a source of food and medicine, controls global climate, provides

energy, supplies jobs, supports economies, and reveals information about

the planet that cannot be gained from any other source. The ocean conceals

the highest mountains and deepest canyons on Earth, as well as valuable cultural artifacts. Exploration of the ocean has revealed amazing organisms straight

out of science fiction and entire ecosystems previously unknown to humankind. 

But the extent of what we do not know—what remains undiscovered—sparks the imagination. With so much of the marine environment still unexplored, the ocean can be viewed

as the final frontier on Earth. 

While most people do not recognize the number of benefits the ocean provides, or its

potential for further discovery, many do feel a positive connection with it, sensing perhaps

that the vitality of the sea is directly related to human survival. This connection can be a

powerful tool for increasing awareness of, interest in, and responsible action toward the

marine environment, and is critical to building an ocean stewardship ethic, strengthening

the nation’s science literacy, and creating a new generation of ocean leaders. 
C HAPTER 8: PROMOTING LIFELONG OCEAN E DUCATION

Ocean Stewardship

To successfully address complex ocean- and coastal-related issues, balance the use and

conservation of marine resources, and realize future benefits from the ocean, an interested,

engaged public is essential. The public should be armed not only with the knowledge and

skills needed to make informed choices, but also with a sense of excitement. Individuals

need to understand the importance of the ocean to their lives and realize how their individual actions affect the marine environment. Public understanding of human impacts 

on the marine environment will engender recognition of the benefits to be derived from

well-managed ocean resources. Because of the connection among the oceans, the atmosphere, and the land, inland communities need to be as informed and involved as seaside

communities.

Science Literacy

Ocean-related education also has the potential to stem the tide of science illiteracy threatening

to undermine the nation’s health, safety, and security. The scientific literacy of U.S. high

school graduates is well below the international average.2 This progressive loss of literacy

weakens the nation’s ability to maintain its traditionally strong foundation in science and

mathematics. Only 15 percent of American adults now describe themselves as well

informed about science and technology issues.3

Children have a natural curiosity about the world around them. By the ninth grade,

however, this innate interest has too often faded or been transformed into apprehension—

or even fear.4 Capturing children’s attention early, and continually nurturing their inherent

scientific curiosity, is critical to achieving scientific literacy and would be well served by

employing the natural, multidisciplinary allure of the ocean as a basis for teaching 

science, mathematics, and engineering concepts. 

This allure could be parlayed into higher achievement in other subjects as well. The

influence of the ocean on nearly every aspect of daily life, and the central role it plays in

the development of the nation, make ocean-based studies ideal for enhancing student 

performance in areas such as geography, history, economics, policy, and law. Strengthening

science literacy, therefore, encompasses not only natural sciences, but a full suite of social

sciences.

Future Ocean Leaders

The nation needs a diverse, knowledgeable, and adequately prepared workforce to enhance

understanding of the marine environment and make decisions regarding complex oceanand coastal-related issues. As far back as 1929, the National Research Council emphasized

that advances in ocean knowledge would depend on an ocean-related workforce sufficient

in size and ability, with ample educational opportunities at its disposal.5 In today’s competitive world of knowledge-based, technology-driven economies, with increasing demands on

ocean and coastal resources, this need is even more relevant and urgent.

The education of the 21st century ocean-related workforce will require not only a

strong understanding of oceanography and other disciplines, but an ability to integrate

science concepts, engineering methods, and sociopolitical considerations. Resolving complex ocean issues related to economic stability, environmental health, and national security will require a workforce with diverse skills and backgrounds. Developing and maintaining such a workforce will rely, in turn, on programs of higher education that prepare

future ocean professionals at a variety of levels and in a variety of marine-related fields. 

123
124 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Crosscutting Themes

While this chapter is organized into several sections—a collaborative education network,

K–12 education, higher education and the workforce, and informal education—problems

identified in each of these areas often affect the others. For example, inadequate funding

is a concern throughout K–12, graduate, and informal education. Likewise, increased

coordination is needed within and among all educational areas. One critical issue is the

need to bridge the gap between the research and education communities. Ocean-based

professional development for teachers, scientifically sound ocean-based curricular materials, and up-to-date information for the public are just a few of the educational concerns

that will depend on strong, vibrant connections between researchers and educators. 

Another focus of this chapter is the role of the federal government in education.

Although states are the leaders in K–12 education, federal agencies are a critical component of the education community. Ocean agencies will need appropriate direction and

resources to fulfill this important role. 

Building a Collaborative Ocean Education Network

To achieve meaningful, lifelong learning on ocean issues, the efforts of federal agencies,

state and local authorities, nongovernmental entities, and professional societies with roles

in education need to be better coordinated. 

Participants in Ocean Education

Although not all ocean-related federal agencies have a specific education mission, most

have made efforts to reach out to students, teachers, and the public to inform them about

ocean issues, sometimes by adding ocean-related components to larger science and environmental education efforts. Agencies that have developed educational programs related

to planetary, environmental, and scientific processes include the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Navy, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA), National Science Foundation (NSF), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), Minerals Management Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. These programs increase public

understanding of the Earth’s systems and the environment. While it is valuable for oceanrelated information to be included as part of broader environmental and science education

efforts, it is also important to support educational efforts that focus specifically on oceans,

coasts, and the human relationship with them.

Of course, the U.S. Department of Education has the overarching responsibility of

ensuring equal access to and fostering excellence in education across the nation. The

department is engaged in a partnership effort with states and school districts to implement

education reforms, including requirements that each state meet certain goals in core subject areas, such as science, math, and reading.

Two national-level ocean education programs of particular importance are the Centers

for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence (COSEE) and the National Sea Grant College

Program (Sea Grant). COSEE is an NSF initiative, with additional support from the Office

of Naval Research (ONR) and NOAA, that has established a number of regional centers

and a national office to create a coordinated program for ocean science education. Sea

Grant, a partnership between NOAA and U.S. universities, is a national program implemented at the state level to further ocean-related research, education, and outreach.

While federal programs provide many opportunities for ocean-related education, 

education is primarily a state responsibility, with direct control exerted at the local level.
C HAPTER 8: PROMOTING LIFELONG OCEAN E DUCATION 125

Therefore, the interaction and involvement of education administrators at the state, 

district, and individual school levels will be fundamental to the success of any effort to

use ocean-based examples to enhance student achievement.

Aquariums, zoos, museums, and other informal education centers also provide the

public with opportunities to learn about the marine environment. Teachers rely on these

informal venues as another way to educate students about the oceans. The involvement 

of those who educate teachers, including subject-specific and professional development

instructors, is critical to providing teachers the knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and 

ability to teach ocean-related information. 

A number of groups and associations also have a significant role in ocean-related 

education, including professional societies, such as the National Marine Educators

Association (NMEA), the National Science Teachers Association, and the American

Association for the Advancement of Science. Finally, marine labs and field stations can

play a key role in college and university education in ocean and coastal sciences. Most

students have limited access to marine environments at their home campuses, and marine

labs and field stations can provide avenues for direct experience with marine life and

marine environments. 

Coordinating Ocean Education

Despite the existence of many positive efforts, ocean education remains a patchwork of

independently conceived and implemented programs and activities. These efforts cannot

provide the nationwide momentum and visibility needed to promote sustained ocean 

education for students, teachers, and the general public. Within the federal government,

there is little discussion of ocean education, even among those agencies with the greatest

responsibility for ocean issues. Different programs and funding mechanisms are not coordinated and resources are seldom leveraged. Even within individual agencies, offices that

have education components often do not collaborate or communicate. 

Existing Coordination Efforts

Existing efforts at coordination have failed to take hold nationally. For example, NMEA 

is a national organization that brings together individuals concerned with marine-related

education. However, it is strictly a volunteer initiative, with limited resources and capacity

to develop, support, and sustain national-scale efforts. The Federal Task Force on

Environmental Education, chaired by EPA, has had some success in bringing together 

federal agencies to support joint programs in environmental education. However, these

programs tend to be relatively small in scale and scope, with limited attention devoted 

to ocean issues. The National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Science

recently formed a Subcommittee on Education because of a recognized need for improved

coordination of all educational programs among federal agencies. The Subcommittee is

intended to help reduce fragmentation and duplication and to bring about a coordinated

set of programs. While this new body has the potential to unite agency education efforts,

it too lacks an ocean focus.

One program that does focus on ocean issues is the National Oceanographic Partnership

Program (NOPP), a statutory collaboration of fifteen federal agencies intended to provide

leadership and coordination of national oceanographic research and education programs.

Primarily through its grant program, NOPP has provided support for innovative education

and outreach projects. NOPP’s Ocean Research Advisory Panel recently drafted a national

ocean education strategy to improve ocean literacy and science education.6 This strategy

has great potential, but it has yet to be formally approved or adopted. Further, while NOPP

has provided a venue for agencies to jointly fund ocean education activities, it does not

provide a coordination mechanism for existing programs.

The sea and its mysteries fascinate most

people and this interest can be used to

engage students to

think about how they

are connected to the

sea and how the

ocean plays a role in

our collective future.

—Jean-Michel Cousteau,

President, The Ocean

Futures Society, testimony

to the Commission, 

April 2002
126 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

The coordination activities described above, while helpful, do not combine federal

resources across agencies in a coherent, planned, and visible way. Without leadership, no

common vision for ocean education has been developed, and no path for achieving such a

vision has been laid out. 

A National Ocean Education Office

As discussed in Chapter 4, the National Ocean Council, to be established within the

Executive Office of the President, would serve as the federal coordinating body for all

ocean-related activities. NOPP and its associated offices and committees would be incorporated within this structure. By strengthening and expanding NOPP’s governing body

(currently the National Ocean Research Leadership Council, but reconstituted pursuant 

to Recommendation 4–7 as the Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and

Operations [COSETO]), and placing it under the National Ocean Council, the original

NOPP goal of bringing agencies together on ocean research, operations, observing, and

education efforts is more likely to be fulfilled. A national ocean education office would be

an integral part of COSETO, serving as the education component of the enhanced NOPP

(Figure 8.1). Such an office would coordinate the various federal ocean-related education

efforts and perform many of the functions outlined in the education strategy crafted by

Figure 8.1 Proposed Structure for the Coordination of 

Federal Ocean Education Activities

■ Existing Entities

■ New Entities

Reporting lines

Communication Lines

Advisory Lines

Relation to Overall 

Structure (Appendix E)

Ocean.US Ocean.IT

Federal 

Oceanographic 

Facilities 

Committee

Ocean.ED

(including the existing 

COSEE Central 

Coordinating Office)

Regional

COSEE

Centers

Staff Staff Staff

Committee on Ocean Science, Education, 

Technology, and Operations

(formerly NORLC)

Chair: OSTP Director

Membership: Current NORLC members and others

Advisory Panel

(formerly ORAP)

Interagency Working Group Education Sub-Panel

Shown here are the institutional components that should be established under the Committee on 

Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations (COSETO, described in Chapter 4) to 

improve federal leadership and coordination in ocean education. This diagram also illustrates the 

links between education components and other units under COSETO. Entities shaded in gray are 

discussed in Chapter 25.
C HAPTER 8: PROMOTING LIFELONG OCEAN E DUCATION 127

NOPP’s Ocean Research Advisory Panel. The education office would work closely with the

other NOPP offices and committees, including Ocean.US, the office responsible for coordinating development of the Integrated Ocean Observing System, which includes several

education efforts. 

A national ocean education office would coordinate and integrate federal agency programs, leverage resources, serve as a central, visible point of contact for K–12, universitylevel, and informal education partners, and work with state and local education experts

and others to develop a vision, strategy, and coherent, comprehensive plans for national

ocean education. In doing so, the national office should also interact with the regional

ocean councils, as one avenue for ensuring consideration of regional needs.

Recommendation 8–1

Congress should amend the National Oceanographic Partnership Act to add a national ocean

education office (Ocean.ED) with responsibility for strengthening ocean-related education

and coordinating federal education efforts. 

In particular, Ocean.ED should:

• develop a national strategy for enhancing educational achievement in natural and social

sciences and increasing ocean awareness, including promotion of programs that transcend

the traditional mission boundaries of individual agencies. 

• develop a medium-term (five-year) national plan for ocean-related K–12 and informal

education, working with federal, state, and nongovernmental education entities. 

• coordinate and integrate all federal ocean-related education activities and investments.

• establish links among federal efforts, state and local education authorities, informal 

education facilities and programs, institutions of higher learning, and private-sector 

education initiatives, and strengthen existing partnerships.

• report to the National Ocean Council’s Committee on Ocean Science, Education,

Technology, and Operations.

Recommendation 8–2

Congress should provide funding for Ocean.ED operations and program implementation as 

a line item in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) budget, to be

spent at the direction of the National Ocean Council (NOC). NOAA should develop a streamlined process for distributing Ocean.ED funds to other federal and nonfederal entities based

on the NOC-approved plan. 

This national effort is not meant to replace other successful programs and activities,

but rather provide a mechanism for communication, coordination, and joining of forces.

Once created, Ocean.ED will need staff support, sustained funding, and oversight by an

interagency committee reporting to the National Ocean Council. While Ocean.ED will

focus on ocean-related education, these efforts will have a greater chance of success if they

are linked with efforts to improve education in other subjects, including natural sciences,

technology, engineering, math, and a range of social sciences. Therefore, participation

should extend beyond the current NOPP agencies, including the Department of Education.

The new education office will also need an external advisory body to ensure involvement

of and communication with professional teaching organizations and other experts. 

The ability of a national-level ocean education office to effectively coordinate and 

promote ocean education efforts depends on every ocean-related federal agency acknowledging education as a priority. NASA and NSF have long embraced this approach, but it

has been more difficult for many of the more mission-oriented agencies. Nevertheless,

NOAA’s strategic plan for fiscal years 2003–8 includes environmental literacy, outreach,

and education as a crosscutting priority7 and the agency recently created an Office of
128 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Education and Sustainable Development to coordinate its education activities. By passing

an organic act for NOAA that includes education as part of the agency’s charge, as recommended in Chapter 7, Congress can encourage these positive developments.

Funding and Assessment

In addition to the functions of Ocean.ED outlined above, the office, working through the

National Ocean Council process, should help ensure that adequate funding is available 

to carry out ocean-related education programs and activities. It is also important for the

office to work with the education community to develop a process for periodically assessing and evaluating ocean education efforts. 

Sustained Support for Ocean Education

Adequate funding will be needed to meet the goals outlined in this chapter, but it is 

particularly important that funding for ocean-related education be sustained over time

(for periods of at least five years) to allow programs to become established, produce

results, and identify potential nonfederal funding sources. Continuity of funding ensures

that successful education efforts can be continued, expanded, and replicated. Dedicated,

secure, sustained sources of support for formal and informal ocean education efforts are

needed. Such funding could be distributed through the existing NOPP funding process. 

Evaluation and Assessment of Ocean Education Efforts

If ocean-based K–12, informal, and professional development programs are to serve as the

basis for enhancing ocean awareness and increasing knowledge among students, educators, and the public, it will be critical to determine the effectiveness of these programs.

For professional development efforts, accurate, properly conducted evaluation and assessment is vital to know how to modify existing programs and establish effective new efforts

that provide educators with a productive and valuable experience. Likewise, identification

and evaluation of best practices for incorporating ocean-based concepts into K–12 and

teacher preparation coursework will help ensure continual improvement. Assessment

mechanisms are needed to determine whether ocean-based coursework and programs are

enhancing students’ academic achievement and to promote materials and programs that

provide the most enriching learning experiences.

Evaluation and assessment mechanisms are also critical to determining whether public education programs have been effective at delivering their messages. This information,

combined with data on the state of public knowledge, provides the basis for program

development and modification. 

Recommendation 8–3

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, Office

of Naval Research, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration should strengthen

their support of both formal and informal ocean-related education, including appropriate

evaluations of these efforts. 

In particular, these agencies should:

• develop, with assistance from Ocean.ED, a cooperative system of dedicated, sustained,

multi-agency funding for formal and informal ocean education. This funding should be

explicitly linked to the national ocean education plan. 

• provide support for development and implementation of ocean-related education 

materials and activities with a requirement that evaluation mechanisms be included as 

a component of every program.
C HAPTER 8: PROMOTING LIFELONG OCEAN E DUCATION 129

Recommendation 8–4

Ocean.ED should develop a framework for evaluating the effectiveness of ocean-related education programs, ocean-based K–12 professional development programs, best practices for

incorporating ocean-based examples into K–12 education, and public education programs.

Linking the Research and Education Communities

Collaboration between the research and education communities must be improved if

ocean-based information, including ocean data and new discoveries, is to be transformed

into exciting and accessible materials to stimulate student achievement and enhance 

public awareness. Some efforts do exist to make these connections, most notably through

the COSEE and Sea Grant programs. 

Centers for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence

The COSEE network includes regional centers and a central coordinating office that work

to integrate oceanographic data and information into high-quality curricular materials,

provide ocean scientists with opportunities to learn more about educational needs and

requirements, provide K–12 teachers with the knowledge and skills they need to effectively incorporate ocean-related information into their lessons, and deliver ocean-related

information to the public. 

Though recognized as a model for enhancing education and bringing accessible

ocean-related information to the public, COSEE currently has only seven regional centers,

each serving a limited number of schools in its area. The program does not have the level

of committed, long-term support required to fully realize its potential. 

While COSEE is currently an NSF program, placing it within the National Ocean

Council structure as a NOPP program would enable the other NOPP agencies to more 

easily support it, capitalizing on the tremendous potential to enhance and expand the 

program. The placement of COSEE within NOPP should not alter the relationships established between the central coordinating office and the regional centers, or among the

regional centers and their partners. Before COSEE is expanded significantly in scale and

scope, its regional centers need to be evaluated to ensure that they are all addressing 

educational needs effectively.

Recommendation 8–5

The National Ocean Council (NOC), working with the National Science Foundation, should

place the Centers for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence (COSEE) within the NOC structure

as a program to be organized and overseen through Ocean.ED. The NOC should also work to

expand the COSEE program. 

Expansion of COSEE should include:

• tripling the number of regional centers to twenty-one, with each center receiving at least

$1.5 million a year for an initial five year period.

• expanding the reach of each center beyond its immediate participants.

• identifying models for successful partnerships between scientists and K–12 teachers.

• devising strategies to incorporate the expertise of university science education specialists. 

• implementing professional development programs for K–12 teachers and university

research professors. 

The National Sea Grant College Program

The Sea Grant Program was created by Congress in 1966. Sea Grant sponsors research,

education, outreach, and technology transfer through a partnership between the nation’s

universities and NOAA. The program works with university scientists, educators, and out-
130 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

reach specialists to study marine and Great Lakes resource management, development,

and conservation issues, and then shares that knowledge with coastal businesses, marine

industries, government, educators, and the public. 

Sea Grant has forged connections between the research and education communities

since its inception. Its programs provide K–12 teacher preparation and professional development programs consistent with state education standards, offer hands-on educational

experiences for students, and develop research-based curricula and communications

materials for students and the public. The Sea Grant network relies on longstanding local

partnerships, with many connections to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented and underserved by the ocean community. 

Despite its successes, however, Sea Grant is currently an underutilized resource. The

existing Sea Grant network could expand its roles and responsibilities, particularly in 

education and outreach. Such an expanded and strengthened role is not possible with Sea

Grant’s current annual budget of just over $60 million. Funding for Sea Grant education

initiatives is particularly limited, amounting to approximately 5 percent of the program’s

budget in fiscal year 2002 (excluding fellowship programs). Although Sea Grant is one of

the few major education outlets for NOAA, not all state Sea Grant programs have even

one full-time education professional on staff due to funding limitations. 

Recommendation 8–6

The National Sea Grant College Program should increase the proportion of its resources dedicated to ocean and coastal education. 

The investment in Sea Grant’s education programs should be brought in line with its

extension efforts. This would enable all Sea Grant programs to employ full time education

staff, have direct interaction with COSEE, and have long-term, dedicated resources available for schools and teachers. (A discussion of the need to expand the Sea Grant program

overall is presented in Chapter 25.)

Because both the COSEE and Sea Grant programs play an important role in bringing

together the research and education communities, and both operate on national, regional,

state, and local levels, there are natural links that could be established between them.

While Sea Grant programs currently participate in many of the regional COSEE centers,

these two programs could enhance their partnership by developing links in all of the

regions in which they both operate. In addition, COSEE and Sea Grant will need to establish strong partnerships with the regional ocean information programs discussed in

Chapter 5.

Incorporating Oceans into K–12 Education

International studies show that the United States is not preparing its citizens to sustain and

build on the nation’s past scientific and technological accomplishments and compete successfully in an increasingly complex and technical world (Figure 8.2). At the same time, 

a lack of public awareness about the importance of the ocean hampers efforts to develop a

balanced approach to the use and conservation of marine resources. Incorporating oceanbased learning experiences into K–12 education can help redress both these deficiencies. 

A study of forty schools in twelve states found that integration of environment-based

programs into the overall education system increased student academic achievement in 

a number of areas (Figure 8.3), underscoring the power of using the student’s world,

including both natural and sociocultural environments, as a conduit for reaching and

engaging students. 
C HAPTER 8: PROMOTING LIFELONG OCEAN E DUCATION

The enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002 reemphasized education—

including science education—as a national priority. With the goal of improving educational quality and student achievement, the Act calls for all states to establish standards in

various subjects, with science education standards required by the 2005–6 school year. To

ensure that students are reaching the goals set for them, the Act calls for science achievement to be tested beginning in the 2007–8 school year. Although its implementation may

be challenging, this requirement offers an opportunity to demonstrate how ocean topics

excite students about science and other subjects by incorporating ocean-related concepts

into K–12 curricular materials and evaluating improvements in performance.

Using Ocean-based Examples to Meet Education Standards

There are two primary sets of science literacy guidelines at the national level: the American

Association for the Advancement of Science’s 1993 Benchmarks for Science Literacy; and

the National Research Council’s 1996 National Science Education Standards (NSES). Despite

similar goals of outlining what students should know, understand, and be able to do in 

science at various grade levels, the Benchmarks include ocean sciences and ocean-related

issues, while the NSES contain few explicit references to the oceans or ocean sciences. 

A recent survey of the NMEA membership revealed a clear preference among educators for using the NSES rather than the Benchmarks when aligning science lessons with

instructional standards (Appendix 3). And where statewide science standards exist, they

are also typically based on the NSES. Thus, the notion of using the oceans to meet science

requirements is not commonly incorporated at the state or local level, slowing the adoption of ocean-based curricula in K–12 classes.

131

Figure 8.2 U.S. Students Fall Behind in Science

■ U.S. Average

■ International Average

Test Score

420

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

U.S. students in fourth grade score above the international 

average in science achievement, according to the Trends 

in International Mathematics and Science Study. However, 

as students approach their final year in secondary school, 

the performance in U.S. schools drops well below the 

international average.

Source: Calsyn, C., P. Gonzales, and M. Frase. Highlights from 

TIMSS [Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study]. 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1999.

Figure 8.3 Environment-based Education 

Boosts Overall Academic Achievement

In a recent study, a high percentage of teachers reported 

increased student achievement when natural and 

sociocultural environments were used as a context for 

learning a range of subjects.

Source: Lieberman, G.A., and L.L. Hoody. Closing the Achievement 

Gap: Using the Environment as an Integrated Context for 

Learning. Poway, CA: Science Wizards, 1998.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Language Arts

Mathematics

Science Concepts

Social Studies

Content

Problem Solving/

Strategic Thinking

Communication

Skills

Percent of Teachers Reporting a

Measured Increase in Student 

Comprehension

93%

92%

99%

95%

97%

94%
132 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Nonetheless, while the NSES do not highlight oceans explicitly, they do endorse a

new approach to teaching and learning science that emphasizes inquiry-based education

as the ideal way for students to gain knowledge and an understanding of the world around

them. The oceans are an excellent vehicle for implementing this new approach. The

hands-on, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary nature of ocean-based studies lends

itself to teaching the basic principles of biology, chemistry, geology, physics, and mathematics in an engaging and novel manner. Principles of the core sciences, many of which

are relatively abstract, become more tangible and easier to grasp when introduced through

ocean examples. 

The centuries-old ties between the marine environment and human experience make

the ocean an equally powerful resource for teaching literature, economics, history, and

other social sciences. Ocean-based examples focusing on these areas can be a valuable tool

for K–12 teachers, not only to enhance student achievement, but to educate young people

on the many ways the oceans influence and are influenced by human activities. Both

NMEA and the National Geographic Society have made a start at outlining basic ocean 

literacy concepts that can be incorporated in curricula.

However, the value of ocean-based learning must be recognized within local school

districts to create a demand for ocean-related education products. A well-informed network will be needed to advocate inclusion of ocean-based examples in state and local

requirements and assessments. This network could begin with organizations and efforts

that have established local connections—such as COSEE, Sea Grant, NMEA, and the

National Science Teachers Association—to serve as facilitators. A potential model to

examine is NASA’s education program, which involves translators and liaisons who work

directly with teachers and administrators at the local level to produce high-quality,

research-based curricula that are tailored to the needs of the school system and aligned

with state and national standards. In addition, it will be important for professional teaching and ocean-related societies to encourage their members to become active participants

on boards and committees that decide content for statewide science achievement tests. 

Because scientists typically do not know what type, level, or format of information

K–12 teachers require, and because teachers generally are not aware of how ocean-related

data can be used to advance student achievement, collaborative efforts will be needed to

develop and disseminate research-based, ocean-related curricula that are aligned with

state and national educational standards and meet the needs of teachers. 

Recommendation 8–7

Ocean.ED, working with state and local education authorities and the research community,

should coordinate the development and adoption of ocean-related materials and examples

that meet existing education standards. 

Specifically, Ocean.ED should:

• assess existing ocean-based curricula offerings, highlighting exemplary materials that are

aligned with national standards.

• promote the creation of companion materials to the National Science Education

Standards that are based on ocean data and research findings (including social and 

economic fields). 

• disseminate ocean-based examples and assessment questions that link to the 

concept standards in physical and life sciences, geography, history, and other topics and

that demonstrate the value of oceans in teaching fundamental concepts. 

• promote the development of case studies that stress the interconnected nature of the

ocean, land, and atmosphere. 
C HAPTER 8: PROMOTING LIFELONG OCEAN E DUCATION 133

Bridging the Gap between Scientists and Educators

The extent to which the nation is able to enhance ocean awareness, boost student achievement, and prepare future generations of ocean professionals depends not only on the

teachers and administrators who guide students on a daily basis, but on the commitment

of the research community to prepare students to be responsible, knowledgeable, and

competitive members of the global society. The National Research Council has highlighted

the need for scientists to be fully engaged in the process of K–12 education, noting that

teachers and researchers possess different strengths and resources and that they must be

equally dedicated partners committed to improving educational opportunities.8 As noted

above, collaborations are needed in the development of ocean-related curricula, but they

are also needed to broaden opportunities for students and teachers to gain first-hand field

and research experience. 

Teaching the Teachers

Higher expectations for our youth mean higher expectations for teachers as well. Students

cannot achieve without instruction by capable teachers who are knowledgeable in the 

topics being presented (Box 8.1). Thus, improving the quality of science and math education must begin with improving preparation of undergraduates studying to be teachers

(referred to as pre-service teachers) and professional development for certified teachers 

in the classroom (referred to as in-service teachers).

The lack of content knowledge among educators is particularly pervasive on ocean

topics. The college science courses taken by pre-service teachers form the basis of their

scientific understanding and determine their comfort level in teaching science. Because

very few universities provide pre-service teachers exposure to ocean topics,9 they remain

poorly equipped to incorporate ocean-related concepts into their instruction. 

Similarly, in-service teachers have few opportunities to learn about ocean concepts

and how they can be introduced into lessons. First-hand, in-depth involvement of teachers

in research and field experiences is a proven way to connect science teaching and science

learning. The ocean research community is brimming with potential for engaging K–12

educators in the excitement and satisfaction of the scientific enterprise, and the nation’s

research infrastructure provides significant opportunities for formal preparation, hands-on

involvement, and teacher certification. Although several public and private sector programs

can provide teachers with research experience in ocean-related topics, access to these programs is quite limited, very few have long term, stable funding, and the different efforts

are poorly coordinated. 

Box 8.1 The Need for Qualified Science Teachers

A2000 National Research Council report confirmed that there is a strong relationship

between the level of knowledge of science and math teachers and the achievement 

of their students in these areas.i Nevertheless, many science and math classes continue 

to be taught by unqualified or under-qualified instructors. Thirty-nine percent of public

school students taking life science or biology classes in grades 7–12 are taught by teachers

without even a minor in these fields, while 56 percent of grade 7–12 students in physical 

science classes are taught by teachers without even a minor in physics, chemistry, geology, 

or earth science.ii 

i National Research Council. Educating Teachers of Science, Mathematics, and Technology: New Practices for the New

Millennium. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000. 

ii National Center for Education Statistics. Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality. Statistical Analysis Report

NCES 96-040. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement,

October 1996. 
134 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

For example, NSF’s Research Experiences for Teachers program could be expanded to

include ocean-based opportunities and NOAA could build on successful programs such as

Teachers-at-Sea and Ocean Explorer. Federal ocean agencies could also provide incentives

for ocean research institutions to establish certificate programs for pre-service and inservice teacher preparation and development, and include graduate courses that cover

ocean-related concepts and how they can be applied in teaching. To help broaden the

impact of such professional development programs, successful participants should be

encouraged to serve as master teachers or resource teachers after a period of evaluation.

The American Meteorological Society’s Project Maury and Project Atmosphere serve as

excellent models for achieving this type of long-term impact.

Despite an abundance of good ideas and successful models (Box 8.2), significant

obstacles remain in developing lasting collaborations between ocean scientists and teachers.

A 1996 National Research Council report found that researchers do not fully appreciate

the roles and responsibilities of teachers, and teachers are not fully aware of the duties 

and functions of researchers.10 Further, the existing academic culture can be a deterrent 

to scientists’ involvement in education and outreach activities. Although most faculty are

expected to participate in research, teaching, and service activities, universities typically

provide the greatest rewards for successful research, with teaching achievements a distant

second, and little if any recognition for community service.

Federal agencies could help bring about a cultural change by providing incentives 

for universities to raise the visibility and rewards for faculty interactions with educators.

Programs such as NSF’s Faculty Early Career Development program and Graduate Teaching

Fellows in K–12 Education program address this issue by providing support for involvement in K–12 education among graduate students and young faculty. But the limited size

and scope of these programs have restricted their influence. 

Effective partnerships between scientists and teachers will require new, long-term

arrangements between the academic community and school districts. Large-scale programs

such as NSF’s Math and Science Partnership, which funds university scientists to work

with teachers in areas such as professional development and curriculum enhancement, 

are urgently needed. The COSEE and Sea Grant networks could be used to coordinate

such programs within the ocean community.

Box 8.2 COOL Professional Development for Teachers

Apartnership between the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve and 

the Rutgers University Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences generates a wealth of

professional development opportunities designed to engage New Jersey teachers and school

administrators in using the ocean to enhance student learning experiences. Programs range

from field-based workshops to Web-based instructional modules dubbed the COOL (Coastal

Ocean Observation Laboratory) Classroom. This partnership is an example of the type of

innovative, relevant, and exciting educational opportunities that can be created when the

research and education communities work together to bring the latest advances in ocean

research into the classroom. 
Recommendation 8–8

Ocean.ED, working with academic institutions and local school districts, should help establish

more effective relationships between the research and education communities to expand

professional development opportunities for teachers and teacher educators. 

Specifically, Ocean.ED should:

• provide supplemental grants and other rewards to scientists who partner with teachers and

teacher educators to include educational components in their research projects. 

• establish a grants program for development and implementation of an enhanced core

curriculum in science content that incorporates ocean concepts for pre-service teachers.

Applicants should be required to demonstrate collaborations and partnerships among

education, science, mathematics, and engineering faculty. 

Bringing Oceans and Students Together

Field and laboratory experiments offer a natural avenue for students to gain first-hand

exposure to science while developing an awareness of the importance of the ocean. Not 

all students are near, or able to travel to, the shore, but new ocean research technologies

represent a tremendous and virtually untapped avenue to overcome this limitation, allowing students anywhere to be involved in real oceanographic investigations. The same

remote-access technologies that make advanced ocean research possible can also help 

students and teachers participate in collecting, analyzing, and distributing ocean data. 

The benefits of technological advances for science education can help U.S. students regain

their position among the best and brightest in the world.

Enabling students to interact with practicing scientists, even if they are thousands of miles

away, can help create a lifelong affinity for learning. Mentoring, from teachers, scientists, or

near-peers is a particularly valuable component of successful student-oriented programs. 

C HAPTER 8: PROMOTING LIFELONG OCEAN E DUCATION 135

Box 8.3 Today’s Kids ... Tomorrow’s Ocean Professionals 

With regular field trips beyond the resources of most educators and school systems, the

KidScience program serves as a model for bringing science to students through dynamic,

relevant programs broadcast directly into classrooms. Produced cooperatively by the Hawaii

Department of Education and Hawaii Public Television, this live, interactive series offers 

students in grades 4–8 two distinct types of learning opportunities. 

Locally broadcast programs demonstrate

hands-on lessons that involve students in a

range of research activities and allow them

to communicate with their on-screen

instructor by telephoning or e-mailing

questions throughout the broadcast. 

A more in-depth examination of selected

topics takes place during three-part series

that are broadcast not only in Hawaii but

also in Micronesia and American Samoa

and across the continental United States.

These series combine live discussions with

experts and pre-taped virtual field trips to

expose students to topics ranging from

“The Underwater Classroom” to “Living on

a Volcano.” Students are also engaged in

current events involving ocean and coastal

environments through discussions of

ocean-related policy questions.

NOAA Restoration Program
136 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Engaging Underrepresented and Underserved Groups

Social, economic, and cultural factors can play an influential role in inhibiting a student’s

access to education opportunities, especially science-based opportunities. These factors

are typically even stronger among minority students and other groups that have been 

traditionally underrepresented and underserved in scientific fields, including marine 

sciences. Repairing this broken link will depend on exposing minority students to oceanrelated studies early in their education, continuing that exposure throughout their school

years, and demonstrating the possibilities and rewards of a career in ocean-related fields.

Enhancing the appeal and viability of ocean-related careers among traditionally

underrepresented and underserved groups will not happen overnight. Such efforts will

need to address social and cultural issues and must demonstrate the relevance and importance of the oceans in daily life. As highlighted in testimony before the Commission by

Wendy Allen, president of NMEA, success depends on clearly demonstrating cultural 

connections to the heritage and daily lives of underrepresented groups so that a career in

an ocean-related field is seen as viable, socially-responsible, and financially rewarding

(Appendix 2).

Recommendation 8–9

Ocean.ED should promote partnerships among government agencies, school districts, institutions

of higher learning, aquariums, science centers, museums, and private marine laboratories to

develop more opportunities for students to explore the marine environment, both through

virtual means and hands-on field, laboratory, and at-sea experiences. 

Ocean.ED should ensure that programs for students:

• include a broad range of options, from in-school modules, to accessible after-school 

activities, daylong field trips, and summer programs. 

• acknowledge cultural differences and other aspects of human diversity to expose students

and teachers from all cultures and backgrounds to ocean issues. 

Investing in Higher Education and 

the Future Ocean Workforce

Understanding the marine environment and meeting our many ocean-related societal

needs will require a well-trained, diverse workforce, adequate in number, with expertise

across a range of ocean-related subjects. In addition to acquiring scientific knowledge and

research skills, the ocean leaders of the future need to engage interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary perspectives, use multiple contexts in solving problems, and communicate

complex ideas to a broad audience. Fostering these critical abilities requires diversification

of learning opportunities.

Stagnant or declining federal support for ocean-related research has eroded the ability

of academic institutions to maintain certain educational programs, limiting the breadth of

educational opportunities. For example, there are few vibrant schools of fishery science

and management, though advances in these areas are critical to successful fishery management efforts. Likewise, strong graduate educational efforts in marine taxonomy and biodiversity are very limited, though understanding of these topics is a baseline for ensuring

scientifically sound management decisions.

The graying trend in the existing federal and academic ocean workforce adds to the

urgency of training new ocean professionals. Projections of federal retirements indicate

that just over 30 percent of federal employees will leave the workforce in the next

decade.11 This trend will result in the loss of a great deal of the intellectual power and 
C HAPTER 8: PROMOTING LIFELONG OCEAN E DUCATION

creativity that has expanded our understanding and improved management of the marine

environment. The nation will require a human resource base capable of building on

advances of the past to solve the problems of tomorrow.

The Leadership Void 

There is no lead federal agency to assess, nurture, and maintain a strong ocean workforce,

both in numbers and in diversity of skills. As the nation’s primary civilian ocean agency,

NOAA would seem a natural candidate to fill this void. However, NOAA’s involvement in

education, which has been limited to grant-specific research assistantships and a handful

of policy and industry fellowships, falls far short of the effort needed on a national scale.

NOAA provided only 18 percent of federal support for ocean-related academic research

programs (on which much graduate student funding depends) for the 2001–2 academic

year. This level of support is inadequate given that NOAA is a major employer of ocean

professionals. The approach is markedly different at the National Institutes of Health,

which works hard to ensure a sufficient and knowledgeable workforce for the health 

sciences community.

The Navy, predominantly through ONR, has traditionally been a leader in supporting

ocean-related graduate student education. However, Navy funding for academic-based

basic ocean research has been on a downward trend. This leaves NSF as the primary 

supporter of ocean science graduate students, providing 36 percent of federal support for

ocean-related academic research programs for the 2001–2 academic year. While education

is a part of NSF’s mission, the agency’s proposal-driven approach is not ideally suited to

meet identified national needs for ocean-related education and training. Furthermore,

NSF graduate student support tends to emphasize the natural sciences and engineering, a

component—but not all—of the ocean workforce. (A detailed overview of federal agency

funding for academic ocean science programs can be found in Appendix 4.)

Academic institutions also have a responsibility to help meet future ocean-related

workforce needs. Redesigned graduate programs can expose students to aspects of the

marine field outside their primary focus, for example, by exposing science students to 

policy issues and policy students to the scientific process. Ocean-related graduate programs

are well-situated to develop cross-disciplinary opportunities, partnering with other university programs (such as education, public policy, economics, communications, resource

management, and engineering), or with federal facilities and private laboratories. 

Drawing Students into the Field

The ocean community must compete with countless other professions in attracting the

talent it needs. Success lies, in part, in promoting marine-related career opportunities

among undergraduate students from a broad range of disciplines. First-hand experiences

in marine fields can be influential in demonstrating the possibilities and rewards of an

ocean-related career. Intellectually stimulating and financially attractive options for pursuing graduate studies in an ocean-related field must follow, so a student’s developing interest in ocean studies is not overshadowed by other professions that actively pursue,

encourage, and support their future leaders. 

Ocean sciences have another potentially important role to play at the undergraduate

level. Marine science courses can be attractive options for non-science majors who need

to fulfill science requirements for graduation, presenting an excellent opportunity to raise

general ocean awareness. 

137
138 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 8–10

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, and

Office of Naval Research should support colleges and universities in promoting introductory

ocean and coastal science and engineering courses to expose a wider cross-section of students,

including non-science majors, to these subjects. 

These agencies should support this effort by:

• providing small grants to assist in course development, equipment purchases, faculty 

support, and field experiences. 

• fostering collaborations between institutions with graduate ocean programs and others

with a primarily undergraduate population.

Expanding Graduate Educational Opportunities

How students are funded significantly influences their opportunities to develop research,

engineering, teaching, management, and other skills. It can also limit or expand their

awareness of the career paths and job sectors available to them. More than 55 percent of

ocean sciences graduate students are supported by research assistantships, making the

ocean community more dependent on this type of support than other related fields

(Appendix 4). For example, in the life and physical sciences, students are supported

through a more diversified combination of opportunities including traineeships, fellowships, and teaching assistantships (Appendix 4).

Research assistantships are important for budding scientists and should continue as a

major student support mechanism. However, an over-reliance on research assistantships

limits students’ exposure to cross-disciplinary experiences that could better prepare them

for addressing complex marine-related issues. 

Fellowships allow top students to select a program best suited to their needs and

interests. Traineeships allow graduate students to be assembled in a highly qualified

research and learning environment. Student opportunities can also be diversified by getting both funding agencies and academic institutions to redefine what graduate research

assistants are allowed to do. The NSF Integrative Graduate Education and Research

Training program is an example of one attempt to move in this direction.

Because ocean science is fundamentally interdisciplinary, well-trained ocean professionals can find excellent careers in many areas including engineering, economics, education, law, management, policy, science, and technology. Individuals considering or pursuing

graduate studies in a marine field should be aware of these options, and exploration of

nontraditional marine areas should be encouraged. It is equally important for professionals educated and trained in other fields to be aware of the exciting opportunities available

to them in marine-related fields. 

Complementing the need to create an adequate workforce is the need to sustain and

enhance that workforce through professional development and continuing education

opportunities. Learning does not stop once the formal education process is complete;

ocean professionals in all fields must be provided the means and liberty to continually

build upon their knowledge and skills throughout their careers. A number of these training programs already exist and could be built on and expanded. For example, the National

Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) Coastal Training Program provides up-todate scientific information and skill-building opportunities for coastal decision makers.

This program focuses on issues such as coastal habitat conservation and restoration, 

biodiversity, water quality, and sustainable resource management, and targets a range of

audiences, including land use planners, elected officials, regulators, land developers, 

community groups, environmental non-profits, and coastal businesses. 
C HAPTER 8: PROMOTING LIFELONG OCEAN E DUCATION

Recommendation 8–11

Ocean.ED should guide and promote the development of the nation’s ocean-related workforce.

In particular, Ocean.ED should:

• promote student support, diversified educational opportunities, and investment in innovative approaches to graduate education that prepare students for a broad range of careers. 

• encourage, with targeted federal support, graduate departments of ocean sciences 

and engineering to experiment with new or redesigned programs that emphasize crossdisciplinary courses of study.

• set targets for federal stipends for ocean-related education to be competitive with other

disciplines. 

Workforce Needs

As discussed above, most graduate ocean education has been linked to faculty research, 

an approach that pays little or no attention to the needs of the ocean-related workforce—

which are poorly understood—or to national demographics, which are better understood

but not well integrated into workforce preparation. 

While the U.S. Department of Labor plays a role in assessing workforce status and

trends, currently there is no data collection or analysis of ocean-related workforce supply

or demand, including requirements for the maritime transportation system. Only sketchy

information is available on how many new ocean professionals are being produced and in

what fields. In a recent survey of ocean-related higher education programs, 26 percent

maintained no data on initial employment of recent graduates (Appendix 4). Even less

effort has been put into projecting the types of professionals the ocean community will

require in the future. 

Federal ocean funding agencies will continue to operate in the dark without improved

information on the status of the ocean-related workforce, with periodic follow-up to

determine whether workforce needs are being met. Some of the necessary data can be

found through the Department of Labor, NSF, and others, but additional analyses and a

tracking mechanism will be needed. The survey of academic institutions conducted by the

Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education can help in developing this tracking mechanism (Appendix 4). 

Recommendation 8–12

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Department of Labor

should establish a national ocean workforce database and compile an annual report for the

National Ocean Council on trends in ocean-related human resource development and needs.

This effort should include an information clearinghouse to facilitate career decisions, provide

access to career guidance, and enable employers, guidance counselors, and others to develop

effective strategies to attract students to ocean-related careers. Ocean.ED should organize an

ocean workforce summit every five years to address the alignment of ocean education with

workforce needs. 

Specific Federal Responsibilities

Each federal agency with ocean-related responsibilities—most notably NOAA, NSF, and

ONR—has a responsibility to help ensure a vibrant ocean-related workforce. NOAA

should be particularly concerned with creating a pipeline of students in areas it identifies

to be of critical importance to the agency and the nation. Opportunities should include

both research experiences, especially exposure to mission-oriented research, and experi139

Excellence in math

and science education

at all levels should

enhance every

American’s life 

opportunities

through productive

employment, active

citizenship, and lifelong learning.

—Dr. Sharon H. Walker,

Associate Dean, College

of Marine Sciences, The

University of Southern

Mississippi, testimony 

to the Commission,

March 2002
140 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

ences beyond the research arena. Student exposure can begin as early as the senior level in

high school, continuing through postdoctoral education. A range of programs will help

identify and recruit the best and brightest to careers in marine-related fields and ensure a

continuing source of essential human capital.

At the graduate and postdoctoral levels, NOAA can support fellowships and traineeships that emphasize interdisciplinary approaches and real-world experiences beyond the

university setting, such as those provided by the Dean John A. Knauss Marine Policy

Fellowship, the NOAA Coastal Services Center Coastal Management Fellowship, the

NERRS Graduate Research Fellowship Program, Smithsonian graduate and post-graduate

fellowships, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellowship.

NSF’s Integrative Graduate Education and Research Training program and NASA traineeships and fellowships offer other models. Within NOAA, Sea Grant plays a critical role in

providing graduate-level education opportunities, a role which could be enhanced as part

of an expansion of that program. 

The Navy has had success in partnering directly with academic institutions, providing

support for distinguished scientists who develop laboratories and educate students in

areas of fundamental interest to the Navy. NOAA could establish similar competitive

marine studies professorships at leading institutions of higher education with a demonstrated commitment to marine programs. Disciplines of interest to NOAA for such professorships might include fisheries science, climate research, atmospheric studies, and marine

resource economics, policy, aquaculture, genomics, education, and ecosystem studies. The

intent would be to create a cadre of distinguished NOAA endowed chairs at universities

around the nation. In a complementary effort, NOAA should consider establishing competitive national awards to recognize excellent teaching in marine-related topics. 

Recommendation 8–13

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should establish a national

ocean education and training program, patterned after the National Institutes of Health

model, within its Office of Education and Sustainable Development to provide diverse and

innovative ocean-related education opportunities at the undergraduate, graduate, and 

postdoctoral levels. 

Specifically, NOAA should:

• offer students at the undergraduate level experiential learning opportunities in a range

of marine fields through summer internships or similar mechanisms.

• support fellowships and traineeships at the graduate and postdoctoral levels that 

emphasize interdisciplinary approaches and real-world experiences outside the university

setting, especially in areas critical to the agency’s mission.

• support professorships in fields of particular interest to NOAA.

At NSF, higher education is an explicit part of its mission. At the undergraduate level,

NSF’s Research Experience for Undergraduates program could be expanded to include

more marine-related experiences. At the graduate and postdoctoral levels, opportunities

could include fellowships that encourage cross-disciplinary research, interdisciplinary

traineeships, and master’s degree fellowships. Programs such as NSF’s Integrative

Graduate Education and Research Training program, Centers for Learning and Teaching,

and Graduate Teaching Fellows in K–12 Education could be enhanced and broadened to

attract other federal sponsors. Finally, NSF cooperative programs are well-positioned to

strengthen support at universities, museums, and other institutions for educational 

opportunities related to biodiversity.
C HAPTER 8: PROMOTING LIFELONG OCEAN E DUCATION

Recommendation 8–14

The National Science Foundation’s Directorates for Geosciences, Biological Sciences, and

Education and Human Resources should develop cooperative programs to provide diverse,

multidisciplinary educational opportunities at the undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral

levels in a range of ocean-related fields. 

The success of the Navy depends on a well-developed understanding of the environment in which it operates. Understanding the ocean environment—including the atmosphere above it, the seafloor beneath it, and the coastlines that encircle it—will always be a

core naval requirement. Thus, the Navy should continue its historic role in supporting the

education of future generations of ocean professionals. 

Recommendation 8–15

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) should reinvigorate its support of graduate education in

ocean sciences and engineering. This could be accomplished, in part, by increasing the number of ocean-related awards made under ONR’s National Defense Science and Engineering

Graduate Fellowship Program.

Strength through Diversity

Human diversity has the power to enrich and invigorate the ocean community with a

range of perspectives critical to the overall capabilities of the ocean workforce. Science

and management professionals who are part of a particular cultural or ethnic community

can help to engender understanding of marine-related issues within their communities

and can serve as role models to help young people envision themselves as future ocean

professionals. Nearly 90 percent of students enrolled in U.S. ocean-related graduate programs during the fall of 2001, however, were identified as white.12

While a number of minority-serving institutions (MSIs) offer degree-granting programs in marine sciences, only the University of Puerto Rico offers a Ph.D.-level

program.13 This could be a contributing factor to the lack of minority representation

among ocean professionals with advanced degrees. In the United States, historically black

colleges and universities enroll only 13 percent of all African American college students,

but they award 40 percent of the science degrees earned by African Americans.14 There is

great potential for building on this success and developing more avenues for underrepresented and underserved students to pursue advanced ocean-related studies. Member

schools of the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities provide a similar opportunity for engaging Hispanic students in marine-related careers, as do tribal colleges and

universities in the American Indian Higher Education Consortium. 

One avenue that should be explored is support for collaborative programs that partner

MSIs with research institutions to develop more graduate-level marine science programs

at MSIs. One successful existing program that could provide opportunities for additional

underrepresented and underserved students is NOAA’s Educational Partnership Program

with MSIs. A central element in this and similar programs is the establishment of links

between students and minority ocean professionals through mentoring programs.

While efforts should be made to expand opportunities for marine-related study at MSIs,

all institutions need to provide an environment of cultural acceptance and instructional dedication to move students from diverse backgrounds forward academically. As part of the

effort to strengthen formal and informal education efforts, additional opportunities need to

be created for participation by traditionally underrepresented and underserved groups.

141
142 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 8–16

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, Office

of Naval Research, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration should encourage

increased participation of traditionally underrepresented and underserved groups in the

ocean-related workforce. Ocean.ED should coordinate among these agencies and institutions

of higher learning. 

Specifically, Ocean.ED should:

• ensure that the appropriate mix of programs and opportunities exists to provide underrepresented and underserved groups ample access to and support for pursuing oceanrelated graduate education, including opportunities at Minority Serving Institutions and

other universities and oceanographic institutions.

• ensure that programs are established through a competitive process and evaluated for

performance on an annual basis. 

Bringing the Ocean and Coasts to All Americans 

While the public has a general sense that the ocean is important, most people lack a full

awareness and understanding of the ocean, its health, the benefits it provides, and its connection to the nation’s collective well-being (Box 8.4). This information gap is a significant

obstacle in achieving responsible use of our nation’s ocean and coastal resources, empowering public involvement in ocean-related decision making, and realizing support for wise

investments in, and management of, ocean-related activities.

Although a healthy marine environment is a prerequisite for our continued enjoyment

of ocean and coastal benefits, a recent survey shows that many people consider the health

of the marine environment a second-tier environmental concern, overshadowed by the

problems of air and water pollution and toxic waste disposal. The American public apparently feels little sense of urgency for safeguarding our coastal and ocean resources. In

addition, while most Americans realize the marine environment can be degraded as a

result of human activities, they are less clear about the role individuals play in contributing to this damage. Nearly half the public mistakenly agrees with the statement, “What I

do in my lifetime doesn’t impact ocean health much at all” (Appendix 4). 

Multifaceted Approaches

Such public misinformation points to the urgent need for raising awareness about the

oceans. This herculean task is currently being undertaken by a number of informal education facilities and programs, publicly and privately funded, struggling to make headway in

advancing public knowledge about the marine environment.

The strength of the informal education community lies in the diversity of methods

used. The varied formats, styles of presentation, and depth of detail, coupled with wideranging modes of access, result in an array of opportunities for reaching the public.

Box 8.4 The Ocean Information Gap

According to a recent national survey on ocean awareness, nearly 60 percent of Americans

do not realize that more plants and animals live in the oceans than on the land; 75 percent mistakenly believe that forests, rather than oceans, are the planet’s major source of oxygen; and 40 percent are unaware of the essential role oceans play in regulating climate.i 

i Belden, Russonello, & Stewart and American Viewpoint. Communicating about Oceans: Results of a National Survey.

Washington, DC: The Ocean Project, 1999.
C HAPTER 8: PROMOTING LIFELONG OCEAN E DUCATION

Informal education facilities such as aquariums, science centers, zoos, museums, and marine

parks, along with other outlets such as national magazines and television programs, local

newscasts, traveling exhibits, and Internet sites, are all important contributors to the

domain of public education. 

U.S. aquariums, zoos, and other informal education centers welcome over 135 million

visitors a year to their on-site displays and bring information to millions of additional

guests through community outreach efforts.15 These informal education centers endeavor

to be equal opportunity teachers by employing mechanisms and instituting programs to

reach traditionally underrepresented and underserved groups. Natural history museums

and science centers also provide ocean-related science and cultural educational experiences

to millions each year. For example, the National Museum of Natural History in Washington,

D.C. just initiated a long-term Ocean Science Initiative. As part of this initiative, the

museum, in partnership with NOAA, is developing a major new Ocean Hall. Aquariums,

zoos, museums, and other informal facilities have a reputation for delivering accurate

information about the marine environment and represent a powerful voice in the realm of

public education. A recent public poll revealed that aquariums are a highly trusted source

of environmental information.16

In addition to informal education facilities, federal ocean-related agencies conduct

public education and outreach. Opportunities range from first-hand exploration of the

marine environment at a variety of marine sanctuaries, parks, and reserves to interactive

Web sites that follow oceanographic expeditions in real time, to materials that translate

scientific discoveries and relate them to everyday life (Box 8.6). Federal agencies also 

support informal education by funding projects that aim to increase public understanding

of scientific, cultural, and environmental issues. (Additional information on a sampling 

of programs and activities offered by informal education facilities and federal agencies is

provided in Appendix 5.) 

Coordinating Messages 

While the many existing informal education efforts have made progress, they have not

yielded the level of national consciousness needed to cultivate a broad sense of responsibility toward the use and conservation of the nation’s marine resources. As discussed 

earlier in this chapter, lack of leadership and coordination, in both message and action,

and lack of funding are usually cited as the most significant barriers to realizing the full

potential of informal education efforts. 

Although all ocean-related informal education efforts have a common goal, they 

generally lack the coordination, connectivity, and leveraging of resources needed to

achieve the greatest long-term impact. While nascent efforts are working to bring about

143

Box 8.5 What Is Informal Education?

The National Science Foundation describes informal

education as the life-long learning process in which

every person acquires knowledge, skills, attitudes, and

values from daily experiences and resources in his or

her environment. Informal learning is self-directed, 

voluntary, and motivated mainly by intrinsic interest,

curiosity, exploration, and social interaction.i

i National Science Foundation. Informal Science Education (ISE) 

Program Solicitation NSF 03-511, 2003.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography
144 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

better collaboration among aquariums and other informal education facilities, additional

leadership will be needed to realize a focused and coordinated informal education network

for ocean and coastal information. Government agencies, aquariums, academia, professional

societies, and all others involved in public education must play a role in coordinating

messages on the importance and significance of oceans. Tourism providers are often the

best messengers to communicate with visitors participating in ocean and coastal recreation.

A team approach will increase the longevity, breadth of delivery, and integration of messages

coming from many sources.

Coordination is also needed between the informal and K–12 education communities.

Informal education efforts can provide information that is used to develop K–12 classroom lessons and activities. While many aquariums and museums now routinely create

programs that are linked to state and local education standards, a stronger connection

between informal and K–12 education efforts is needed, and the requirements of K–12

educators and students should be a constant consideration. 

Funding for ocean-related informal education is a major concern. At the federal level,

there is no dedicated source of funding for ocean-related informal education initiatives.

While NSF, EPA, and other federal agencies support some informal education efforts, the

programs are relatively small and do not focus on ocean-related activities. 

The kinds of aquarium and science center exhibits most likely to have significant

impacts are costly to assemble. Without outside public or private support, aquariums and

similar facilities are often forced to focus on those topics that draw the greatest attendance,

generally marine biology rather than the chemistry, physics, or geology of the marine

environment. Reliable support would allow facilities to present a more complete picture 

of the marine environment and even illustrate the application of scientific understanding

in managing ocean resources. 

Broad Outreach

Public information needs are as varied as our population is diverse. Some individuals 

will benefit from detailed information on how specific issues directly affect their jobs or

business. Others may need information presented in a language and media tailored to

their culture and community. Still others seek advice on how to alter their own activities

to support responsible ocean stewardship. This information is as critical for those who

live in the heartland as for those who live near the shore.

Informal education requires outreach programs, in partnership with local communities,

to make contact with individuals where they live and work, regarding issues that affect

how they live and work, in a style that speaks to them (Box 8.7). Local organizations,

including youth, senior, and other community groups, can play a pivotal role. They 

possess knowledge of the community and experience implementing various strategies 

Box 8.6 NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuaries Program 

as a Vehicle for Public Education

One hundred years after the first national park was designated, NOAA designated the

nation’s first National Marine Sanctuary. The goals of NOAA’s thirteen sanctuary sites

range from protecting the breeding grounds of humpback whales to housing the remains of

historical shipwrecks. One of the primary features of this program is education and outreach.

From Massachusetts to American Samoa, the sanctuary system provides opportunities and

avenues for the public to learn about the marine environment through these living classrooms. The desire of the public to experience the unique ecosystems encompassed in the

sanctuary system is evidence by the many people who visit the sanctuaries each year, participate in the education and outreach activities, and use the educational products produced.
C HAPTER 8: PROMOTING LIFELONG OCEAN E DUCATION

to reach desired outcomes. While federal agencies, state governments, and nongovernmental groups partner with communities on such programs, and should continue to promote participation of traditionally underrepresented and underserved groups, increasing

populations and limited resources swamp the ability of these programs to reach all who

would benefit from ocean-related information. 

Information supplied to the public should be timely and accurate. It should also be

supported by a system that allows for follow-up and the acquisition of additional information or guidance. The roles of, and relationships among, scientists, educators, and journalists in translating research results for the public are especially critical. Innovative partnerships with media outlets or industries that deal with the public may offer new means to

broaden the visibility of ocean issues and increase public awareness. Informal education

facilities and the academic community will need to work closely together to facilitate the

rapid transfer and translation of the latest scientific discoveries into publicly accessible

displays, materials, and programs.

Information delivered through informal education programs, displays, and activities is

most effective when it is linked to the positive associations people have with the oceans.

Information should be presented in terms of the ocean’s role in the Earth system as a whole,

including the physical, chemical, and geological aspects of the marine environment, and

interactions with humans. 

Recommendation 8–17

Ocean.ED, working with other appropriate entities, should promote existing mechanisms and

establish new approaches for developing and delivering relevant, accessible information and

outreach programs that enhance community education. 

In particular, Ocean.ED should:

• work with ocean-related informal education initiatives to better engage underrepresented and underserved populations and communities by using mechanisms, materials,

and language familiar to and accepted by them. 

• work with informal education facilities to develop the capacity to quickly prepare and

deliver new science-based materials and programs to the public and the media to capture

immediate interest in noteworthy advances in ocean science.

• engage industry, the commercial sector, and the media in community education and

stewardship programs.

145

Box 8.7 Equal Opportunity Educators

The Splash Zone program at the Monterey Bay Aquarium is one example of an informal 

education effort designed to reach and engage underserved members of the community.

The program was developed in part to enhance Hispanic attendance, membership, and participation at the aquarium, which were far below their proportion in the Monterey area population.

The Splash Zone exhibit on coral reef ecosystems and the rocky shore forms the basis for

additional educational activities and materials. Working with local Head Start offices, the

aquarium is better able to reach and focus on Hispanic children and their families. The knowledge gained during visits to the aquarium is continued in the classroom. Appropriate activities and curricula are demonstrated to Head Start and other kindergarten through second

grade educators during a week-long Teachers Institute. In addition, the program includes

outreach to the schools through bilingual aquarium educators and family science nights in

the neighborhood community center. 

To continue the educational experience of the Splash Zone program, families can take

advantage of the Shelf to Shore program. This complementary effort, conducted in cooperation with local libraries in largely Hispanic communities, allows individuals to check out a free

aquarium pass for the entire family as easily as they would check out a book.
146 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

References

1 Belden, Russonello, & Stewart and American Viewpoint. Communicating about Oceans: Results of a National Survey.

Washington, DC: The Ocean Project, 1999. 

2 Calsyn, C., P. Gonzales, and M. Frase. Highlights from TIMSS [Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study].

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1999.

3 National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators—2002. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2002. 

4 McManus, D.A., et al. Center for Ocean Science Education Excellence: Report of a Workshop Sponsored by the

National Science Foundation. Ocean Springs, MS: University of Southern Mississippi, 2000.

5 National Research Council. Report of the Committee on Oceanography. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1929.

6 Ocean Research Advisory Panel. A National Strategy to Improve Ocean Literacy and Strengthen Science Education

through an Improved Knowledge of the Oceans and Coasts. Washington, DC, 2002. 

7 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. New Priorities for the 21st Century: NOAA’s Strategic Plan for FY

2003–FY 2008 and Beyond. Washington, DC, 2003.

8 National Research Council. The Role of Scientists in the Professional Development of Science Teachers. Washington,

DC: National Academy Press, 1996.

9 Geoscience Education Working Group. Geoscience Education: A Recommended Strategy. Arlington, VA: National

Science Foundation, 1997. 

10 National Research Council. The Role of Scientists in the Professional Development of Science Teachers. Washington,

DC: National Academy Press, 1996.

11 Kauffman, T., and S. Losey. “Work-Force Crisis Eased.” Federal Times. 39, no. 15 (May 12, 2003).

12 Ibid.

13 Cuker, B. E. “Steps to Increasing Minority Participation in the Aquatic Sciences: Catching Up with Shifting

Demographics.” ASLO Bulletin. 10, no. 2 (June 2001).

14 National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 2002. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Education, June 2003.

15 American Zoo and Aquarium Association. “The Collective Impact of America’s Zoos and Aquariums.”

<www.aza.org/AboutAZA/CollectiveImpact1/> Accessed July 30, 2003.

16 The Mellman Group. Presentation of Findings from a Nationwide Survey and Focus Groups. Washington, DC: SeaWeb,

June 1996.


PART 4

LIVING ON THE EDGE:

ECONOMIC GROWTH AND

RESOURCE CONSERVATION

ALONG THE COAST

CHAPTER 9 

MANAGING COASTS AND THEIR WATERSHEDS ..............................................150

CHAPTER 10 

GUARDING PEOPLE AND PROPERTY AGAINST NATURAL HAZARDS ...162

CHAPTER 11 

CONSERVING AND RESTORING COASTAL HABITAT .....................................170

CHAPTER 12 

MANAGING SEDIMENT AND SHORELINES ..........................................................180

CHAPTER 13 

SUPPORTING MARINE COMMERCE AND TRANSPORTATION ....................192
150 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 9

MANAGING COASTS AND

THEIR WATERSHEDS

The pressures of continuing growth are acutely felt in coastal areas. While largely

attributable to activities taking place at the coast, some pressures originate hundreds

of miles away in inland watersheds. To more effectively manage coasts, states

need a stronger capacity to plan for and guide growth—one that incorporates

a watershed approach to govern coastal and ocean resources. In addition, 

to assist states in such development and support the move toward an

ecosystem-based management approach, federal area-based coastal

programs should be consolidated to better integrate and capitalize on

the strengths of each. Finally, to reach the goal of economically and

environmentally sustainable development, changes should be made

to federal programs that currently encourage inappropriate

growth in fragile or hazard-prone areas.

Attracting Crowds, Creating Opportunities

While coastal watershed counties comprise less than 25 percent of the land area in the United States, they are home to

more than 52 percent of the total U.S. population (Appendix C). 

A study of coastal population trends predicts average increases of

3,600 people a day moving to coastal counties, reaching a total population of 165 million by 2015.1 These figures do not include the 180

million people who visit the coast every year.2

Population growth and tourism bring many benefits to coastal 

communities, including new jobs and businesses and enhanced educational

opportunities. Burgeoning industries associated with tourism and recreation in

coastal areas (such as hotels, resorts, restaurants, fishing and dive stores, vacation

housing, marinas, and other retail businesses) have created one of the nation’s largest

and fastest-growing economic forces (Appendix C). 

Implications of Growth 

The popularity of ocean and coastal areas intensifies pressures on these environments, 

creating a number of challenges for managers and decision makers. Increased development puts more people and property at risk from coastal hazards (Chapter 10). Every

year, millions of dollars are spent replenishing sand at the nation’s beaches and protecting
C HAPTER 9: MANAGING COASTS AND THEIR WATERSHEDS

coastal property from storms, waves, and erosion. Rising sea level exacerbates the damage

to beaches and wetlands. The growth in development, coupled with greater protection for

sensitive coastal habitats, also makes it increasingly difficult to maintain public access to

beaches and coastal waters for swimming, fishing, and boating. 

Poorly planned growth reduces and fragments fish and wildlife habitat (Chapter 11)

and can alter sedimentation rates and flows (Chapter 12). It is also well understood that

growth in coastal areas contributes to water pollution (Chapter 14), with impacts on 

fishing, swimming, and many other recreational and economic activities. One of the most

serious impacts on ocean and coastal areas is the increasing amount of polluted runoff

from urban, suburban, and agricultural areas, which is exacerbated by increases in impervious surfaces, such as roads, parking lots, sidewalks, and rooftops. Some evidence indicates that ecosystem health may be seriously impaired when the impervious area in a

watershed reaches 10 percent, particularly in the absence of mitigating factors, such as a

high percentage of wetlands or forest cover in the watershed, or urban stormwater best

management practices such as riparian buffers along streams. If current coastal growth

trends continue, many more watersheds will cross the 10 percent threshold over the next

twenty-five years.3

Although the rate of population growth in coastal counties is not greater than in other

areas of the country, the sheer number of people being added to fixed coastal land areas,

combined with the fragile nature of coastal resources, create disproportionate impacts

(Appendix C). In many cases, these impacts are destroying the very qualities that draw

people to the coast.

151

Box 9.1 Coastal Activities Are Big Business 

Across the country, more than 89 million people a year participate in marine-related recreation, such as swimming, scuba diving, surfing, motor boating, sailing, kayaking, and

wildlife viewing.i In just four South Florida coastal counties, recreational diving, fishing, and

ocean-watching activities generate $4.4 billion in local sales and almost $2 billion in local

income annuallyii and more than 2.9 million people visit the Florida Keys each year.iii During

the summer of 2000, beach activities in Los Angeles and Orange counties stimulated an 

estimated $1 billion in spending.iv The Hawaiian Islands and many U.S. island territories are

particularly dependent on tourism for their economic health. Hawaii alone attracts some 7

million tourists each year.v In 2001, over 8 million people took to the sea aboard cruise ships,

and approximately 135 million people visited the nation’s aquariums and zoos.vi,vii Although

golf and tennis are recognized as major U.S. industries, it is estimated that more Americans

participate in recreational fishing than in both of these sports combined.viii

i Leeworthy, V.R., and P.C. Wiley. Current Participation Patterns in Marine Recreation. Silver Spring, MD: National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2001.

ii Johns, G.M., et al. Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, 2001.

iii Leeworthy, V.R., and P. Vanasse. Economic Contribution of Recreating Visitors to the Florida Keys/Key West: Updates

for Years 1996-97 and 1997-98. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1999.

iv Hanemann, M., L. Pendleton, and D. Layton. Summary Report on the Beach Expenditure Module. Southern California

Beach Valuation Project. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2001.

v Cesar, H., et al. Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawaii: Final Report (FY 2001–2002). Hawaii Coral Reef

Initiative Research Program. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and University of Hawaii, 2002.

vi International Council of Cruise Lines. The Cruise Industry: A Partner in North America’s Economic Growth. Arlington,

VA, 2001. 

vii American Zoo and Aquarium Association. “The Collective Impact of America's Zoos and Aquariums.”

<www.aza.org/AboutAZA/CollectiveImpact1/> Accessed January 28, 2004. 

viii American Sportfishing Association. Sportfishing in America: Values of Our Traditional Pastime. Alexandria, VA, 2002.
152 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

The pattern of coastal growth—often in scattered and unplanned clusters of homes

and businesses—is also significant. Urban sprawl increases the need for infrastructure

such as roads, bridges, and sewers, degrading the coastal environment while making fragile or hazard-prone areas more accessible to development. Because of the connections

between coastal and upland areas, development and sprawl that occur deep within the

nation’s watersheds also affect coastal resources.

Strengthening Coastal Planning and Management

Multi-layered Decision Making 

A complex combination of individuals and institutions at all levels of government make

decisions that cumulatively affect the nation’s ocean and coastal areas. These institutional

processes determine where to build infrastructure, encourage commerce, extract natural

resources, dispose of wastes, and protect or restore environmental attributes. 

Many of the decisions that affect the nation’s coastal areas are made by local governments through land use planning, zoning, subdivision controls, and capital improvement

plans. Local decisions are shaped in turn by state policies and requirements. Some coastal

states have developed statewide goals and policies for transportation, land use, and natural resource protection, with a few states putting specific emphasis on coastal resources.

Recognizing that sprawling patterns of growth are not sustainable, several coastal states

have instituted programs intended to manage growth, including Maine, Oregon, Florida,

Washington, and Maryland. By applying a variety of land use planning tools, techniques,

and strategies, these programs attempt to steer growth toward existing population centers

and away from fragile natural areas (Box 9.2).

Existing federal, state, tribal, and local institutional processes have made substantial

progress in managing activities that affect the nation’s coastal resources. However, local

and state governments continue to face a number of obstacles in planning and managing

the cumulative impacts of growth, including: disincentives to long-term planning due to

the pressures of short political and business cycles; lack of shared values or political will;

inadequate information, including locally relevant socioeconomic indicators; difficulty in

addressing problems that cross multiple jurisdictions including upland areas; insufficient

resources dedicated to protecting coastal ecosystems; and multiple institutions at different

levels of government that address isolated aspects of connected problems. Improved policies for managing growth in coastal areas will be essential in protecting and restoring the

natural resources that sustain the character and economies of coastal communities.

Although most coastal management activities take place at state and local levels,

coastal decision making is also influenced by federal actions, including funding decisions

and standard setting. Of the many federal programs that provide guidance and support for

Box 9.2 The Smart Growth Movement

For more than a decade, there has been a call for smart growth, characterized by more

compact, land-conserving patterns of growth, through infill and reuse of building sites,

pedestrian-friendly and transit-oriented development, and protection of green space. For

example, in 1997, Maryland instituted a Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation

Initiative, which tried to direct growth to more environmentally suitable areas and away from

some of the state’s most ecologically and economically important landscapes. Under this initiative, state agencies limited funding for infrastructure outside of designated growth areas.

The Maryland experience provides one model of growth management for consideration by

other state and local governments.
C HAPTER 9: MANAGING COASTS AND THEIR WATERSHEDS 153

state and local decision making, some address the management of activities and resources

within designated geographic areas, while others address the management of specific

resources, such as fisheries or marine mammals. 

Federal Area-based Coastal Programs 

The major area-based coastal programs include the Coastal Zone Management Program,

National Estuarine Research Reserve System, and National Marine Sanctuary Program of

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); the National Estuary

Program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and the Coastal Program

and Coastal Barrier Resources System of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

(These programs and others are also summarized in Appendix D.) In addition to their

shared geographic focus, these programs are all implemented at the state and local level

and highlight the importance of science, research, education, and outreach in improving

the stewardship of ocean and coastal environments. 

Coastal Zone Management Program

The Stratton Commission’s 1969 report called for a national program to address development and environmental issues in coastal areas and to enhance the capacity of state and

local governments to manage activities that affect these areas.4 Three years after that

report’s release, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the federal

government’s principal tool for fostering comprehensive coastal management. The CZMA

established a unique partnership between federal and coastal state governments, the primary goal of which is to balance the conservation of the coastal environment with the

responsible development of economic and cultural interests. 

Administered by NOAA, the CZMA provides two incentives for coastal states to voluntarily develop and conduct coastal management programs: federal grants and federal

consistency authority. Federal consistency provisions require federal activities affecting

the land, water, or natural resources of a state’s coastal zone to be consistent with the

enforceable policies specified in that state’s approved coastal management program. 

(See Box 9.4 for an explanation of federal consistency.)

Currently, thirty-four of thirty-five coastal states and territories have coastal programs

in place, covering 99 percent of the nation’s marine and Great Lakes coastlines. The tools,

assistance, and resources provided by the CZMA have enabled states and territories to

increase their management capacity and improve decision making to enhance the condition

of their coastal areas. These programs facilitate public access to ocean and coastal areas,

protect people and property from coastal hazards, conserve critical natural resources, and

stimulate economic development by revitalizing urban waterfronts and promoting coastaldependent industries. The CZMA has also enhanced communication and coordination

between federal and state governments and between state and local governments. 

Under the CZMA, participating states are given the flexibility to design coastal management programs that address their individual priorities and the programs are approved

as long as they meet certain minimum national guidelines. This flexibility has been hailed

by many as the CZMA’s greatest virtue and by others as its most serious shortcoming. 

State-by-state implementation has resulted in wide variations in the strength and

scope of state coastal management programs. NOAA has few options to ensure that the

programs are meeting national guidelines other than withholding funding or withdrawing

program approval. No state program has ever been disapproved. The geographic boundaries of state coastal management programs also differ greatly. The CZMA defines the

coastal zone—the area subject to the enforceable policies of a state’s program—as stretching from the seaward boundary of state ocean waters (generally 3 nautical miles) to the

inland extent deemed necessary by each state to manage activities that affect its coastal

resources. Individual state discretion regarding the landward reach of its coastal zone has

The Coastal Zone

Management Act has

helped immensely

over the past 20

years, and I believe 

it still serves as the

model, but new 

information on policy 

setting and an influx

of financial resources

are needed. 

—Sarah Cooksey, Administrator, DelawareCoastal

Program, testimony to

the Commission, 

January 2002
154 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

resulted in major variations. For example, Florida, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Hawaii

include the entire state in their coastal zones, while the inland boundary of California’s

coastal management program varies from a few hundred feet in urban areas to several

miles in rural locales. 

The CZMA can be strengthened by developing strong, specific, measurable goals and

performance standards that reflect a growing understanding of ocean and coastal environments, the basic tenets of ecosystem-based management, and the need to manage growth

in regions under pressure from coastal development. Other elements of the CZMA also

need to be strengthened, including habitat restoration, community hazards planning and

management, ocean management, and special area management planning. A large portion

of federal support for the states should be linked to program performance, with additional

incentives offered to states that perform exceptionally well. In addition, a fallback mechanism is needed to ensure that national goals are realized when a state does not adequately

participate or perform. 

The landside boundaries of state coastal management programs also need to be reconsidered. At a minimum, each state should set the inland extent of its coastal zone based 

on the boundaries of coastal watersheds (discussed in Chapter 1 and Box 9.3). In establishing new management areas, it is necessary for state programs to consider additional

factors such as large or growing population centers, areas of considerable land use, and

particularly sensitive natural resources, such as wetlands. Social and natural resource

assessment and planning at the watershed scale should become a high priority in each

state’s program.

Funding for CZMA implementation remains a significant concern, having been

capped at $2 million per coastal state since 1992. This level hampers program implementation, limiting the states’ ability to effectively carry out important program functions or

expand to include coastal watersheds. 

Recommendation 9–1

Congress should reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to strengthen the

planning and coordination capabilities of coastal states and enable them to incorporate a

coastal watershed focus and more effectively manage growth. Amendments should include

requirements for resource assessments, the development of measurable goals and performance measures, improved program evaluations, incentives for good performance and disincentives for inaction, and expanded boundaries that include coastal watersheds. 

Specifically, CZMA amendments should address the following issues:

• resource assessments—State coastal management programs should provide for comprehensive periodic assessments of the state’s natural, cultural, and economic coastal

resources. These assessments will be critical in the development of broader regional

ecosystem assessments, as recommended in Chapter 5.

Box 9.3 What Is a Coastal Watershed?

Everyone in the United States lives in a watershed. A watershed is a geographic area in

which water flows on its way to a larger water body, such as a stream, river, estuary, lake,

or ocean. The nation’s coastal and ocean resources are affected not only by activities in

coastal areas but also by those in upland watersheds. 

A coastal watershed, as defined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, is that portion of a watershed that includes the upstream extent of tidal

influence. In the Great Lakes region, a coastal watershed includes the entire geographic area

that drains into one of the lakes.i

i National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Coastal Zone Boundary Review. National Summary: State

Characterization Reports. Silver Spring, MD, October 1992.
C HAPTER 9: MANAGING COASTS AND THEIR WATERSHEDS

• goals—State coastal management programs should develop measurable goals based on

coastal resource assessments that are consistent with national and regional goals. State

coastal programs should work with local governments, watershed groups, nongovernmental organizations, and other regional entities, including regional ocean councils, to

develop these goals. 

• performance measures—State coastal management programs should develop performance

measures to monitor their progress toward achieving national, regional, and state goals. 

• evaluations—State coastal management programs should continue to undergo periodic

performance evaluations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In

addition to the existing evaluation criteria, the performance measures developed by state

programs should also be reviewed. The public, representatives of watershed groups, and

applicable federal program representatives should participate in these program evaluations.

• incentives—Existing incentives for state participation—federal funding and federal 

consistency authority—should remain, but a substantial portion of the federal funding

received by each state should be based on performance. Incentives should be offered to

reward exceptional accomplishments, and disincentives should be applied to state coastal

management programs that are not making satisfactory progress in achieving program

goals.

• boundaries—Coastal states should extend the landward side of their coastal zone boundaries to encompass coastal watersheds. Mechanisms should also be established for coordinating with watershed management groups outside of a state’s designated coastal zone

boundary. 

Coastal Barrier Resources System

The Coastal Barrier Resources Act established the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources

System in 1982 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. Through this program, which is administered by USFWS, the federal

government discourages development on designated coastal barriers in the Atlantic and

Gulf coasts, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Great Lakes by restricting certain

federal 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. 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.

National Estuarine Research Reserve System 

The CZMA established the National Estuarine Sanctuaries Program in 1972 for the 

purpose of creating “natural field laboratories in which to study and gather data on the

natural and human processes occurring within the estuaries of the coastal zone.” That

program evolved into NOAA’s National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS),

which provides funds to states for acquiring estuarine areas and developing and operating

research facilities and educational and professional development programs. The NERRS

program currently includes twenty-six reserves. 

National Marine Sanctuary Program

In 1972, one hundred years after the first national park was created, a similar commitment

was made to preserving marine treasures by establishing the National Marine Sanctuary

Program within NOAA. Since then, thirteen national marine sanctuaries have been desig155
156 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

nated, representing a variety of ocean environments. The mission of the program is to

serve as the trustee for these areas and to conserve, protect, and enhance their biodiversity,

ecological integrity, and cultural legacy. Sanctuaries are designated for many objectives,

ranging from protecting the breeding and calving grounds of humpback whales to preserving the remains of historic shipwrecks. 

National Estuary Program 

Created by the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act, the National Estuary Program

(NEP) was established to improve the quality of estuaries of national importance. EPA

administers the program, and provides funds and technical assistance to local stakeholders

to develop plans for attaining or maintaining water quality in designated estuaries. The

program requires stakeholders to develop a comprehensive conservation and management

plan that includes measures for: protection of public water supplies; protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife populations; allowance for recreational activities in

and on the water; and control of point and nonpoint sources of pollution that supplements

existing pollution control measures. Currently, twenty-eight estuaries are included in the

program. In several cases, more than one state participates in a single NEP. In contrast to

the CZMA’s broad scope and focus on state and local government decisions throughout

the coastal zone, the NEP concentrates on bringing together stakeholders in particular

areas that are in or approaching a crisis situation.

The assessment and planning process used by the NEP holds promise for the future 

of ecosystem-based management. However, the low level of federal funding for the implementation of NEP plans limits their effectiveness, as do the intergovernmental obstacles

that arise when an estuary spans multiple states.

Coastal Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Through its Coastal Program, the USFWS undertakes habitat conservation efforts in bays,

estuaries, and watersheds along the U.S. coastline, including the Great Lakes. The program

targets funding to sixteen high-priority coastal ecosystems, providing assessment and

planning tools to identify priority sites for protection and restoration, conserving pristine

coastal habitats through voluntary conservation easements and locally initiated land

acquisition, and forming partnerships to restore degraded habitat.

Linking Area-based Programs

The area-based programs described above have made significant progress in managing

coastal resources in particular locations, working with communities and decision makers

in those areas, and fostering improved coordination between different levels of government. However, because these programs generally operate in isolation from one another,

they cannot ensure effective management of all ocean and coastal resources or achievement

of broad national goals. As NOAA is strengthened through the multi-phased approach

described in Chapter 7, consolidation of area-based coastal resource management programs

will result in more effective, unified strategies for managing these areas, an improved

understanding of the ocean and coastal environment, and a basis for moving toward an

ecosystem-based management approach.

Recommendation 9–2

Congress should consolidate area-based coastal management programs in a strengthened

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), capitalizing on the strengths 

of each program. At a minimum, this should include bringing together the Coastal Zone

Management and National Marine Sanctuary programs and the National Estuarine Research

Reserve System, currently administered by NOAA, and additional coastal programs administered by other agencies, including the National Estuary Program, the John H. Chafee Coastal

Barrier Resources System, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program.
C HAPTER 9: MANAGING COASTS AND THEIR WATERSHEDS

Other Relevant Federal Programs

In addition to the area-based programs discussed above, a number of other laws significantly

affect coastal resources, including the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water

Act, and Clean Air Act. Programs related to transportation, flood insurance, disaster relief,

wetlands permitting, dredging, beach nourishment, shoreline protection, and taxation also

exert a profound influence on the coast. While these laws and policies address specific

issues, and have each provided societal benefits, in many cases federal activities under

their purview have inadvertently led to degradation of coastal environments. 

For example, road construction can have negative impacts on coastal areas and

resources—including habitat destruction, increased runoff, and encouragement of 

inappropriate development—that could be mitigated if transportation infrastructure 

activities were implemented in the context of comprehensive, ecosystem-based goals and

plans. Similarly, Federal Emergency Management Agency hazards-related programs may

inadvertently encourage development in high-hazard, flood, and erosion areas (Chapter

10), and certain U.S. Army Corps of Engineers beach nourishment and shoreline 

protection programs can encourage growth in unsuitable areas (Chapters 11 and 12).

Regional coordination of federal agency activities, along with establishment of

regional ocean councils and regional ocean information programs, as recommended in

Chapter 5, would greatly improve federal project planning and implementation. Enhancing

relationships among federal agencies, state coastal resource managers, and all decision

makers would also help to ensure compatibility among the many activities that affect

ocean and coastal environments.

Recommendation 9–3

The National Ocean Council should recommend changes to federal funding and infrastructure programs to discourage inappropriate growth in fragile or hazard-prone coastal areas

and ensure consistency with national, regional, and state goals aimed at achieving economically and environmentally sustainable development. 

Linking Coastal and Watershed Management 

In recent years there has been a growing interest in watershed management. This approach

acknowledges the hydrologic connections between upstream and downstream areas,

including surface and groundwater interactions, and considers the cumulative impacts of

all activities that take place throughout a watershed.

The environmental and political characteristics of the nation’s watersheds vary tremendously. As a result, watershed management initiatives can differ widely in size and scope.

Many watershed groups are formed at the local level by community members concerned

about water quality or the health of fish and wildlife populations. Often, these groups

work to improve watershed health through partnerships among citizens, industry, interest

groups, and government. 

The value of a watershed approach was articulated by the National Research Council

in a 1999 report: “[w]atersheds as geographic areas are optimal organizing units for dealing

with the management of water and closely related resources, but the natural boundaries of

watersheds rarely coincide with political jurisdictions and thus they are less useful for

political, institutional, and funding purposes. Initiatives and organizations directed at

watershed management should be flexible to reflect the reality of these situations.”5

The benefits of a watershed focus have been recognized at state, regional, national, and

international levels. For example, Oregon has defined watershed groups in law and set up a

process for their legal recognition and funding. The New Jersey government includes a

Division of Watershed Management that provides coordinated technical, financial, and

157
158 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Box 9.4 Balancing Federal Ocean Activities with State Coastal Management

Programs: The Federal Consistency Tool

I

n the area of natural resource management, one of the more interesting, innovative, and

sometimes contentious features of the nation’s system of federalism is the relationship

between the federal government and coastal state governments with respect to the control

and shaping of ocean activities in federal waters. 

Historically, this relationship has taken on many hues and forms, but its policy and legal

aspects have been largely structured over the last three decades by the development of one

section of a single law, the so-called federal consistency provision (Section 307 of the Coastal

Zone Management Act). As noted earlier in this chapter, the promise of federal consistency

was one of two incentives (the other being grant money) Congress provided to encourage

state participation in this voluntary program. 

In very general terms, it is a promise that federal government actions that are reasonably

likely to affect the coastal resources of a state with an approved coastal management program will be consistent with the enforceable policies of that program. Under some circumstances, it is a limited waiver of federal authority in an area—offshore waters seaward of

state submerged lands—in which the federal government otherwise exercises full jurisdiction

over the management of living and nonliving resources.

The underlying principle of federal consistency represents a key feature of cooperative

federalism: the need for federal agencies to adequately consider state coastal management

programs by fostering early consultation, cooperation, and coordination before taking an

action that is likely to affect the land or water use or natural resources of such state’s coastal

zone. It facilitates significant input at the state and local level from those who are closest to

the issue and in a position to know the most about their coastal resources. 

The process, however, is not one-sided. For states to exercise federal consistency authority, they must submit and receive approval of their coastal management programs from the

Secretary of Commerce. Congress established the general criteria for approval of the programs, including a review by other federal agencies before the plans are officially authorized.

A core criterion for program approval is whether the management program adequately considers the national interest when planning for and managing the coastal zone, including the

siting of facilities (such as energy facilities) that are of greater than local significance. 

Once a state has received approval, federal consistency procedures are triggered. Under

current practice, states only review federal actions that have reasonably foreseeable coastal

effects. There is flexibility in the law to allow agreements between states and federal agencies that can streamline many aspects of program implementation. For example, there may

be understandings with respect to classes of activities that do not have coastal effects.

Otherwise, the decisions about such effects are made on a case-by-case basis. 

There have been disagreements between federal agencies and states on some coastal

issues, the more high profile ones largely in the area of offshore oil and gas development.

(For a further discussion of this issue, see Chapter 24.) Nevertheless, in general, the federal

consistency coordination process has improved federal-state relationships in ocean management. States and local governments have to consider national interests while making their

coastal management decisions and federal agencies are directed to adjust their decision 

making to address the enforceable policies of a state’s coastal management program. 

In the event of a disagreement between the state and a federal agency, the agency 

may proceed with its activity over the state’s objection, but it must show that it is meeting a

certain level of consistency. In a separate part of the federal consistency section, the coastal

activities of third party applicants for federal licenses or permits are required to be consistent

with the state’s program. If the state does not certify that the activities will be consistent, 

the federal agency shall not grant the license or permit and the proposed action may not go
C HAPTER 9: MANAGING COASTS AND THEIR WATERSHEDS

planning support for twenty watershed management areas within the state. New Jersey

also participates, along with Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New York, in the Delaware River

Basin Commission, a regional body authorized to manage activities within an area that

transcends political boundaries. The Chesapeake Bay Program, the California Bay-Delta

Authority (known as CALFED), and the Northwest Power Planning Council are other

notable examples of current initiatives that aim to address natural resource issues on a

watershed scale. Some existing bi-national watershed initiatives include the Great Lakes

Commission, Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, and the Gulf of Maine Council on the

Marine Environment.

Federal agencies have also started to adopt a watershed management focus. For example, beginning in the 1990s EPA began to reorient federal and state clean water programs

to address certain problems on a watershed basis rather than on a source-by-source or 

pollutant-by-pollutant basis. As part of that effort, EPA has developed extensive guidance

for use by states, territories, tribes, and the public concerning watershed management. 

Available information includes guiding principles for a watershed approach, innovative

funding mechanisms, intergovernmental coordination techniques, and development of

training and education materials. EPA also has developed an online Watershed Academy

that provides extensive support for watershed groups, including training courses, a catalog

of federal funding sources for water protection, a bibliography of technical references,

links to over a dozen state watershed management programs, facilitation techniques for

development of successful watershed management frameworks, and a compendium of

experiences and lessons learned from various watershed initiatives. EPA, the National

Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Tennessee

Valley Authority, and other federal agencies have also developed extensive guidance on

best management practices for use by public and private watershed managers and groups,

and the general public. 

Some federal grants are now being distributed on a watershed basis. EPA’s Targeted

Watershed Grant Program encourages community-based approaches to restore, preserve,

and protect the nation’s watersheds through competitive grants to watershed organizations. The Department of Agriculture has chosen high priority watersheds in which agricultural runoff is a major source of pollution as the basis for distributing funds under the

new Conservation Security Program’s environmental stewardship program.

As interest in watershed management continues to grow, so does the need for coordination of available information and funding in support of watershed initiatives. Information

currently available through individual agency programs would be more useful if it were

159

forward. An applicant can appeal such a decision to the Secretary of Commerce, who has certain specified grounds on which he or she can overturn the state’s finding of inconsistency. 

Today, after some thirty years of evolution in the practice and implementation of this

rather unusual intergovernmental process, federal agencies do not take the consistency standard lightly, as it is a fairly high threshold to meet. The result, according to National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, has been an outstanding level of cooperation and negotiation between states and federal agenciesi such that approximately 93–95 percent of the activities are approved.ii

i Kaiser, D., Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Personal Communication to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, February 17, 2004.

ii National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Coastal Zone Management Act Federal Consistency Regulations,

Preamble to Proposed Rule.” Federal Register 68, no. 112 (June 11, 2003): 34852.
160 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

consolidated into a central repository and given increased exposure through public outreach and education efforts. Agency funding can also be coordinated to ensure maximum

effectiveness. The National Ocean Council and regional ocean councils can play an important role in these coordination efforts.

Recommendation 9–4

Congress should amend the Coastal Zone Management Act, Clean Water Act, and other 

federal laws, where appropriate, to provide better financial, technical, and institutional 

support for watershed management initiatives. The National Ocean Council and regional

ocean councils should enhance support for coastal watershed initiatives by coordinating

agency programs, technical assistance, and funding and by overseeing development of an

accessible clearinghouse of information on watershed best management practices.

Linking Coastal and Offshore Management

As discussed in Chapter 6, the growing number of activities that take place in offshore

waters calls for a more comprehensive offshore management regime. While the focus of

this chapter is on coastal and watershed management, it is important to recognize the

strong relationship between the management of onshore and offshore resources. States

have long asserted their interests offshore, both by acting as the trustee for public

resources in and beneath state waters, and by exerting their responsibilities for activities

that take place in federal waters but affect state resources (principally through the CZMA

federal consistency provisions, described in Box 9.4). Several states, including Oregon,

California, and Hawaii, have developed comprehensive plans to guide ocean activities,

resolve conflicts, and anticipate new uses in their waters. Other states, including Florida,

Maine, Mississippi, and North Carolina have conducted extensive studies of ocean issues

affecting their states. In 2003, Massachusetts launched an ocean planning initiative.

Because there is no wall that separates state and federal waters, state planning and management of the waters under their jurisdiction is an important complement to the coordinated offshore management regime called for in Chapter 6.

Increasing Understanding of Coastal Ecosystems 

To improve the management of the nation’s oceans and coasts, decision makers at all levels will need to gain a better understanding of ecosystems, both how they function and

how they are affected by human activities and natural events. The establishment of

regional ocean information programs, as recommended in Chapter 5, is one important

vehicle for enabling decision makers to better communicate their information needs to the

scientific community and ensuring that new information is converted into useful products. Coastal and watershed management activities, and growing efforts to link these two

approaches, should provide the information necessary for the public to be responsible

stewards of the nation’s oceans, coasts, and watersheds. 
C HAPTER 9: MANAGING COASTS AND THEIR WATERSHEDS

References

1 Culliton, T.J. Population: Distribution, Density, and Growth. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, 1998. 

2 Marlowe, H. “Assessing the Economic Benefits of America’s Coastal Regions.” In Trends and Future Challenges for U.S.

National Ocean and Coastal Policy. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1999.

3 Beach, D. Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States. Arlington, VA: Pew

Oceans Commission, 2002. 

4 U.S. Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources. Panel Reports of the Commission on Marine Science,

Engineering, and Resources. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.

5 National Research Council. New Strategies for America’s Watersheds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.

161
162 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 10

GUARDING PEOPLE AND PROPERTY

AGAINST NATURAL HAZARDS

Rising populations and poorly planned development in coastal areas are increasing

the vulnerability of people and property to storms, hurricanes, flooding, shoreline

erosion, tornadoes, tsunamis, and earthquakes. In addition, climate change may

lead to more frequent storms and sea-level rise, both of which increase coastal

susceptibility. Not only can natural hazards have devastating impacts on 

people and property, but they may also have deleterious effects on the

environment, particularly sensitive habitats. 

To lessen the threat from natural hazards, the federal government

should coordinate the efforts of all coastal management agencies to

reduce inappropriate incentives created by federal infrastructure

investments. It should also improve a number of natural hazardsrelated activities implemented by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency, including hazards mitigation planning,

information collection and dissemination, and the National Flood

Insurance Program. 

Assessing the Growing Cost 

of Natural Hazards

The nation has experienced enormous and growing losses from 

natural hazards. Conservative estimates, including only direct

costs such as those for structural replacement and repair, put the nationwide losses from all natural hazards at more than $50 billion a year, though

some experts believe this figure represents only half or less of the true costs.1

More accurate figures for national losses due to natural hazards are unavailable

because the United States does not consistently collect and compile such data, let

alone focus on specific losses in coastal areas. Additionally, there are no estimates of the

costs associated with destruction of natural environments. Between 1967 and 1996, insurance payouts (which cover only a small portion of losses) rose steadily from $1 billion

between 1967 and 1971, to $61 billion between 1992 and 1996, roughly doubling every

five years (Figure 10.1).2 While stricter building codes, improved forecasts, and early

warning systems have helped save lives, deaths from natural hazards are expected to rise

along with development and population along the nation’s coasts.3 Climate change may

increase storms and sea-level rise, making the coastal zone even more vulnerable. 
C HAPTER 10: GUARDING PEOPLE AND PROPERTY AGAINST NATURAL HAZARDS

Improving Federal Management

of Hazards in Coastal Areas

Many federal agencies have explicit operational

responsibilities related to hazards management, while

numerous others provide technical information or

deliver disaster assistance. The nation’s lead agencies

for disaster response, recovery, mitigation, and planning are the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE). These agencies implement programs that

specifically target the reduction of risks from natural

hazards. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS) also have a significant

influence on natural hazards management. 

NOAA’s weather forecasting and ocean observing

functions are vital to hazards management. NOAA’s

National Weather Service plays a key role in collecting atmospheric weather and oceanic real-time data

for management, assessments, and predictions.

Through its implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Act, the agency also plays a

notable role in discouraging coastal development in areas at risk from natural hazards.

(Additional discussion of these roles, and recommendations for enhancing NOAA’s contributions, are found in Chapters 9 and 26.) The Coastal Barrier Resources Act administered

by USFWS (discussed in Chapter 9), also has significant implications for natural hazards

management. 

This chapter focuses on those federal programs that specifically target the reduction 

of losses of life and property due to natural hazards along the nation’s coasts. Among the

opportunities for improving federal natural hazards management, four stand out: amending federal infrastructure policies that encourage inappropriate development; augmenting

hazards information collection and dissemination; improving the National Flood Insurance

Program; and undertaking effective and universal hazards mitigation planning.

Changing Inappropriate Federal Incentives

The federal government has made substantial investments in infrastructure designed to reduce

human exposure to hazards, including flood control and coastal erosion projects. These

efforts often eliminate or conflict with the natural buffers that would otherwise help shield

communities. Furthermore, because such projects are not accompanied by strict restrictions

on subsequent construction, they may actually encourage further commercial and residential

development in hazard-prone areas (Box 10.2). In some cases, a federal infrastructure project

intended to reduce a hazard merely drives the problem to a nearby location, such as when

erosion control efforts lead to further coastal armoring up or down the coast. The cumulative

impact of such projects may be weakening the ecosystem’s natural resilience to hazards and

creating the potential for even greater losses to property, health, and natural resources.

Of course, the federal government is not the sole driver of infrastructure development

in coastal areas. State and local governments also build roads and bridges along and over

the water, underwrite wastewater treatment, and support water supply projects, all of

which have impacts on coastal development and vulnerability. 

The great majority of federal infrastructure programs are implemented by USACE,

whose hazards-related activities include flood control efforts such as dams, dikes, and 

levees, and coastal erosion projects such as groins, sea walls, revetments, and beach 

163

Figure 10.1 The Growing Cost of Natural Disasters

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

1967–71 1972–76 1977–81 1982–86 1987–91 1992–96

Insurance Payouts in 

Billions of Dollars

In the thirty years between 1967 and 1996, insurance companies 

have experienced a 6,000 percent increase in payouts to federal 

and private insurance holders for damages due to natural 

catastrophes.

Source: Consumer Federation of America. America’s Disastrous Disaster 

System. Washington, DC, January 1998.
164 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

nourishment. USACE also has responsibilities for dealing with disaster response efforts

such as construction of emergency infrastructure. 

Evolving public values that favor environmental protection, as well as a growing

understanding of the complex workings of natural systems, have propelled USACE to

adopt more environmentally conscious initiatives, including the pursuit of nonstructural

approaches to some flood control projects. However, such initiatives are not universally

embraced within the agency, by all stakeholders, or in Congress, and remain greatly outnumbered by traditional, construction-oriented USACE projects that may disrupt natural

hydrological and geomorphological processes, harm ecosystems, and create incentives for

additional human development in high-risk regions. 

USACE has also been the focus of debates about the cost-benefit analyses used to

review proposed projects. Some experts have suggested that these analyses are often

flawed by a reliance on incorrect assumptions and faulty methodologies. In 2001, the

National Research Council (NRC) began a comprehensive review of USACE programs 

and procedures. A 2002 NRC report recommended external review of all controversial 

or complex USACE civil works projects.4

Recommendation 10–1

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Program, with guidance from the National

Ocean Council, should ensure valid, peer-reviewed cost-benefit analyses of coastal projects,

provide greater transparency to the public, enforce requirements for mitigating the impacts

of coastal projects, and coordinate such projects with broader coastal planning efforts.

Improving Understanding 

The federal government plays an important role in acquiring complex hazards-related data

and translating them into information that states and communities can use to reduce their

vulnerability to natural disasters. A number of federal agencies and departments, including

NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

and the U.S. Department of Defense, are charged with increasing both basic understanding

and site-specific knowledge about natural hazards. These agencies’ principal contributions

include: developing and deploying new technologies for understanding land, ocean, and

atmospheric processes and their interactions; tracking and predicting hazards, particularly

meteorological hazards; assessing hazards risks; conducting post-disaster research; and

communicating this information to end users. These contributions have significantly

improved the quality and timeliness of weather-related warnings, increasing the lead time

for protective measures and evacuations. Implementation of the Integrated Ocean Observing

System (discussed in Chapter 26) would improve weather-related warnings and provide

Box 10.1 Hurricanes Wreak Havoc Along the Coast

I

n 1989, Hurricane Hugo hit the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico before coming ashore at

Charleston, South Carolina, causing twenty-six deaths in the United States and an estimated

$9.7 billion in damages. Just three years later, Hurricane Andrew struck southern Florida and

Louisiana, causing twenty-three deaths directly and dozens more indirectly. Andrew wrought

an estimated $35 billion in damages, making it the costliest hurricane in U.S. history. And in

1999, Hurricane Floyd, the deadliest of recent hurricanes, made landfall along the Mid-Atlantic

and northeastern United States, causing fifty-six deaths and an estimated $4.6 billion in

damage.i (All figures adjusted to 2000 dollars.)

i Jarrell, J.D., et al. The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Hurricanes from 1900 to 2000. NOAA

Technical Memorandum NWS TPC-1. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2001.
C HAPTER 10: GUARDING PEOPLE AND PROPERTY AGAINST NATURAL HAZARDS

additional predictive capabilities for tsunamis and for chemical and biological hazards,

such as sudden pollutant loadings, harmful algal blooms, and pathogens. 

FEMA, as the lead disaster management agency, collects, analyzes, and disseminates

hazards-related data. It is also responsible for assessing the effectiveness of its programs.

However, these efforts fall short of shaping an effective overall national policy and providing the information state and local decision makers and individuals need to fully understand their risks from coastal hazards. The absence of a standard, centralized data collection system that could produce accurate accounting for losses from natural hazards is only

one example. An inability to provide adequate, useful information at the local, state, and

regional levels can lead to incorrect estimates of risk, which then affect cost-benefit analyses

of proposed development and mitigation projects. Local land use decisions are frequently

made without information about cumulative impacts or the vulnerability of individuals

and groups in the community, and without an ability to judge the full impact of disasters

on humans, institutions, the economy, natural resources, and ecosystem services. This

lack of accurate information is likely to reinforce the tendency to underestimate risks from

natural hazards and delay taking action to prevent future problems. 

Flooding is the most costly of natural hazards, and maps produced by the National

Flood Insurance Program are the federal government’s primary tool for communicating

flood risks to communities and individuals.5 Most existing flood hazard maps are not 

georeferenced, limiting their usefulness for hazards planning. 

The combination of mounting federal and nonfederal disaster expenses, vigorous

advocacy by the insurance community, state and local governments, and others who rely

on flood maps prompted FEMA to design an ambitious map modernization program in

1997.6 The incorporation of FEMA into the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

165

Box 10.2 New Orleans at Risk 

Prior to 1965, New Orleans—a community that sits as much as 10 feet below sea level—had

suffered substantial losses of protective barrier islands and wetlands and developed an

elaborate system of flood control measures. After Hurricane Betsy struck in 1965, causing

more than $1 billion in damages,i hundreds of millions of dollars were spent to upgrade the

flood control system that now includes more than 520 miles of levees, 270 floodgates, 92

pumping stations, and thousands of miles of drainage canals.ii

While the new protections did reduce risks to people and property in developed areas,

they also encouraged additional development in flood-prone regions.iii Jefferson Parish and

the adjoining Orleans Parish ranked first and second among communities receiving repeat

payments for damage claims under the National Flood Insurance Program between 1978 and

1995. These two communities alone accounted for 20 percent of the properties with repeat

losses, at an average of nearly three claims per property, for a total of $308 million in claims.iv

New Orleans’ protective levees are designed to withstand only a moderate (Category 3)

hurricane storm surge. Were they to fail, the city and surrounding areas could suffer upward

of $25 billion in property losses and 25,000–100,000 deaths by drowning.v,vi

i Leatherman, S., and V. Burkett. “Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Disasters: Lessons from the East Coast and New Orleans.”

Natural Hazards Observer XXVI, no. 4 (March 2002). 

ii Burby, R.J. et al. “Unleashing the Power of Planning to Create Hazard-Resistant Communities.” Journal of the

American Planning Association 65 (Summer 1999): 247–58.

iii Ibid.

iv National Wildlife Federation. Higher Ground: A Report on Voluntary Property Buyouts in the Nation’s Floodplains.

Washington, DC, 1998. 

v Pielke, Jr., R.A., and C.H. Landsea. “Normalized Hurricane Damages in the United States: 1925–1995.” Presented at the

American Meteorological Society 22nd Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology. Fort Collins, CO, 

May 19–23, 1997.

vi Leatherman, S., and V. Burkett. “Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Disasters: Lessons from the East Coast and New Orleans.”

Natural Hazards Observer XXVI, no. 4 (March 2002). 
166 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

spurred Congress to provide substantial financial support to underwrite the effort beginning in fiscal year 2002. This program will create a digital base map, update and digitize

flood hazards information, and provide standard protocols that state and local governments and others can use to incorporate and relate information about other natural and

manmade hazards. Though FEMA’s map modernization effort is intended to target the

highest-risk communities first, the initial selection made in 2003 did not include any

coastal communities—despite their status as high-population, high-risk regions. This is

attributable to technical difficulties in mapping coastal flood hazards. FEMA’s plans call

for updating priority coastal community maps starting in fiscal year 2004 when such

obstacles are resolved.7

Although many communities are in a position to benefit from this opportunity, others

may be constrained by a lack of technical and financial resources and expertise. National

maps that reflect all hazards (for example, coastal erosion, localized stormwater drainage

flooding, potential flood control structure failures, and increased risk from development,

land subsidence, and sea-level rise) are needed to communicate the true vulnerability of a

community, its social and physical infrastructure, and the surrounding ecosystem. Because

relative sea level is rising in many coastal areas, it will be particularly important for maps

to reflect this to more accurately analyze the potential impacts of coastal hazards. Such

maps will also be essential in informing prospective purchasers of coastal property about

potential hazards. FEMA and other relevant agencies will need to work together to make

such comprehensive mapping a reality. 

Recommendation 10–2

The National Ocean Council should establish a task force of appropriate federal agencies and

state and local governments, with the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the lead,

to improve the collection and use of hazards-related data.

Under the oversight of the NOC’s Committee on Ocean Resource Management, the hazardsrelated data task force should develop a coordinated effort that includes the following functions:

• systematic collection, storage, analysis, and dissemination of data on post-disaster losses

and the cost of mitigation efforts.

• development and transmittal to communities of the information and tools they need to

understand the risks of hazards to their residents and their social, physical, economic, and

environmental infrastructures.

• cooperation with the Federal Geographic Data Committee and state and local governments to achieve comprehensive, digitized, georeferenced mapping and identification of

all natural hazards.

• development of adequate funding proposals for the National Flood Insurance Program

map modernization initiative, including a high-priority effort to update maps for highrisk coastal communities.

The Federal Geographic Data Committee, as well as other important issues related to

mapping and charting, are discussed in Chapter 25.

The National Flood Insurance Program

Enacted in 1968, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is the federal government’s primary tool for managing flood hazards through a combination of incentives and

regulation. In addition to the development of maps identifying flood-prone areas, the

NFIP provides (or helps private companies provide) flood insurance to owners of commercial and residential structures in communities that adopt appropriate construction

standards. Premiums and fees from property owners cover most program costs. Other

NFIP responsibilities include identifying flood hazards, assessing risks, and implementing

measures for reducing losses. While the NFIP is a national program, the majority of its
C HAPTER 10: GUARDING PEOPLE AND PROPERTY AGAINST NATURAL HAZARDS

policies, total coverage, and premium revenues are associated with coastal communities.

Without the NFIP, many of the more than 19,000 participating communities most

likely would not have had the incentive to develop active programs to manage flood risks.

Unlike private-sector insurers, the federal government can carry debt over the long term

and replenish funds depleted by catastrophic disasters over time. For this reason, the federal government is able to undertake the expense of mapping flood hazards nationally and

subsidize coverage for older buildings. FEMA estimates that NFIP building standards and

other floodplain management measures reduce flood losses by $1 billion per year.8

As impressive as these accomplishments are, concerns have been raised that the 

NFIP may inadvertently facilitate inappropriate coastal development and redevelopment.

While many factors weigh heavily in such decisions, including the market forces that

make real estate in coastal floodplains and estuarine areas so valuable, the availability of

flood insurance also plays a role. Determining the extent of this role is difficult because

the impacts of the NFIP have never been comprehensively evaluated. FEMA recently 

commissioned such an evaluation, with several reports expected to be issued, including 

a final comprehensive report scheduled for September 2005. This study will help inform

the National Ocean Council and may determine any further action. Nonetheless, three

aspects of the program—treatment of erosion hazards, coverage of repetitive losses, and

availability of insurance in undeveloped floodplain and erosion zones—are issues that

merit immediate attention.

Informing the Public about Erosion Risks

Property owners within 500 feet of the shoreline face as large a risk from erosion as from

flooding. Under current conditions, approximately one-quarter of all homes within 500 feet

of the coast will be lost to erosion in the next sixty years. Insurance rates in areas designated as coastal high-hazard zones would need to double over the next thirty to sixty years

to keep pace with these increasing erosion risks.9 Although FEMA has developed a plan for

undertaking erosion mapping and reflecting actual risks in future NFIP insurance rates, the

agency is awaiting congressional authorization to implement the plan. If erosion mapping

and rating are not carried out, higher premium rates will have to be spread across all policyholders, losing an important opportunity to discourage building in the riskiest areas. 

Repetitive-loss Properties

The NFIP requires that substantially damaged properties be removed or elevated. However,

local governments are responsible for determining whether a property is substantially

damaged and they are often reluctant to do so when a property owner does not have the

167

Homes built close to shore, like these in Nags Head, North Carolina, are frequently threatened by coastal

erosion and high storm surge.

Dave Gatley/FEMA News Photo
168 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

financial resources to move or elevate the home.10 Absent this designation, many of these

properties have been rebuilt in place, leading to repeated claims. Although only 2 percent

of NFIP covered properties have received repetitive-loss payments, they account for 40

percent of overall NFIP payments, many at cumulative totals exceeding the property’s

value. Although a national problem, between 1978 and 1995, Louisiana and Texas

accounted for $1.1 billion, or 40 percent of the $2.75 billion in total repetitive-loss claims

paid by the NFIP.11

Approximately 90 percent of repetitive-loss payments are for buildings that predate NFIP

maps.12 This demonstrates the effectiveness and success of NFIP building standards for new

construction in flood-prone areas, but also underscores the program’s lack of authority for

reducing the vulnerability of older buildings. Many property owners underestimate their risk,

resist investments in structural improvements that do not directly translate into higher home

prices, and then rely on federal disaster assistance as a fallback when floods occur. For some

properties, the most acceptable and economical solution for all concerned will be voluntary

buyouts at prices that allow property owners to relocate out of harm’s way.

Eliminating Incentives for Development in Floodplains and Eroding Areas

The NFIP was created both as a more desirable alternative to federal disaster relief in the

wake of flooding and as a tool to guide development away from flood prone areas through

state and local floodplain management. However, of the 6.6 million buildings located in the

100-year floodplains of participating communities, more than a third were built after the

NFIP maps were created and floodplain management requirements imposed.13 As one of

the federal government’s principal tools for influencing development in high-hazard areas,

the NFIP’s risk assessment, mitigation, and insurance components should be revamped to

better achieve the original goal of discouraging communities from building in harm’s way. 

Recommendation 10–3

The National Ocean Council should recommend changes in the National Flood Insurance

Program (NFIP) to reduce incentives for development in high-hazard areas.

Specifically, NFIP changes should:

• establish clear disincentives to building or rebuilding in coastal high-hazard zones by requiring property owners at risk of erosion to pay actuarially sound rates for insurance.

• enforce measures that reduce vulnerability to natural hazards, including assistance in

retrofitting older structures and buyout programs for susceptible structures with repetitive-loss histories.

• create enforceable mechanisms to direct development away from undeveloped floodplains and erosion zones. 

Hazards Mitigation Planning 

Hazards mitigation planning—the process of assessing potential hazards and evaluating

and identifying actions to reduce or eliminate vulnerabilities—has been required of states

for nearly two decades as a condition of receiving disaster relief and other FEMA funding.

However, the quality of those plans, and the degree to which they are based on a sound

process with adequate stakeholder involvement, vary widely. Major disaster losses in the

1990s led FEMA to increase its attention to hazards mitigation planning, establishing a

unit dedicated to that purpose in 1998. 

Congress also recognized that deficiencies in mitigation planning prevented the most

effective use of disaster assistance funds. Communities recovering from disasters receive

little guidance during the rebuilding process to improve their resilience to future disasters.

In the Disaster Mitigation Act, passed in 2000, Congress directed FEMA to impose more

stringent mitigation planning requirements on states. States that fail to meet FEMA’s new

criteria can be denied disaster assistance and some other types of funding, while states

The federal government should eliminate subsidies and

incentives for development and redevelopment in coastal

high hazard, flood

and erosion areas.

This is a matter of

prudent fiscal and

emergency management as much as

environmental 

protection.

—Jane Stahl, Deputy

Commissioner of Environmental Protection,

State of Connecticut, 

testimony to the 

Commission, July 2002
C HAPTER 10: GUARDING PEOPLE AND PROPERTY AGAINST NATURAL HAZARDS

that develop excellent mitigation plans are eligible to use a greater proportion of their 

disaster funding to implement further hazards mitigation projects. 

Effective hazards mitigation planning is fully consistent with watershed and ecosystembased management approaches because they all attempt to consider communities and the

effects of human activities within the broader environmental context. Effective watershed

management plans that include a hazards component can be used to satisfy FEMA’s mitigation planning requirements. The agency has also expressed a goal of integrating sustainable redevelopment into its program, recognizing the interdependence among economic

opportunity, community well-being, and protection of the natural environment. 

In 2002, FEMA issued regulations implementing enhanced mitigation planning standards, with compliance required for most state and local governments by October 2004.

However, many state and local governments are struggling to comply with the new criteria

because of severe fiscal constraints, technical difficulties, and relatively low levels of federal support. In addition to providing greater technical and financial assistance, it may be

appropriate to withhold other forms of hazards-related federal financial assistance until

mitigation plans are in place. For example, the U.S. Small Business Administration has

narrowed eligibility for its low-interest Pre-Disaster Mitigation Loan Program to communities with approved plans. 

Recommendation 10–4

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) should enhance technical assistance 

to state and local governments for developing or improving their hazard mitigation plans.

The National Ocean Council should identify opportunities for conditioning federal hazardsrelated financial and infrastructure support on completion of FEMA-approved state and local

hazards mitigation plans.

References

1 Mileti, D.S. Disasters by Design. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 1999. 

2 Consumer Federation of America. “America’s Disastrous Disaster System.”

<www.consumerfed.org/backpage/releases.html> Posted January 30, 1998; accessed October 22, 2003.

3 The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment. The Hidden Costs of Coastal Hazards.

Washington, DC, 2000.

4 National Research Council. Review Procedures for Water Resources Project Planning. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 2002.

5 U.S. General Accounting Office. Flood Insurance: Challenges Facing the National Flood Insurance Program. Testimony

before the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives. GAO–03–606T. Washington, DC, April 1, 2003.

6 Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration. National Flood Insurance Program: Program Description.

Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, August 1, 2002.

7 Sharrocks, F., and A. Lichtenfels, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation Division. Personal

Communication to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, July 21, 2003.

8 Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration. National Flood Insurance Program: Program Description.

Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency. August 1, 2002.

9 The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. Evaluation of Erosion Hazards.

Washington, DC, April 2000.

10 Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration. National Flood Insurance Program: Program Description.

Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, August 1, 2002.

11 National Wildlife Federation. Higher Ground: A Report on Voluntary Property Buyouts in the Nation’s Floodplains.

Washington, DC, 1998.

12 Burby, R.J. “Flood Insurance and Floodplain Management: The U.S. Experience.” Environmental Hazards 3, no. 3 (July 2002).

13 Ibid.

169
170 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 11

CONSERVING AND RESTORING

COASTAL HABITAT

Wetlands, estuaries, seagrass beds, mudflats, sand beaches, mangrove forests,

coral reefs... these are just some of the diverse habitats that make up the

ocean and coastal environment and provide invaluable benefits to humans and

marine life. Marine habitats face increasing pressures as activities within ocean

and coastal areas intensify. Coastal habitat conservation and restoration

should be integral to ocean and coastal management, as well as to the

management of activities within watersheds, and should be strengthened through the development of national, regional, and local goals,

the institution of a dedicated program for coastal and estuarine conservation, better coordination of federal habitat-related activities,

and improved research, monitoring, and assessment.

Assessing the Threats to Coastal Habitat

The diverse habitats that comprise the ocean and coastal 

environment provide tangible benefits such as buffering

coastal communities against the effects of storms, filtering pollutants from runoff, and providing a basis for booming recreation

and tourism industries. These habitats also provide spawning

grounds, nurseries, shelter, and food for marine life, including a 

disproportionate number of rare and endangered species.1

As more people come to the coast to live, work, and visit, coastal habitats face increasing pressures. Most human activities in coastal areas provide

distinct societal benefits, such as dredging rivers and harbors to facilitate navigation, converting forests and wetlands for agriculture and development, and building dams for flood control and hydropower. But these activities can also degrade

coastal habitats and compromise their ability to adapt to environmental changes.

Serious habitat degradation is evident in every region, state, territory, and community along the nation’s coastline. Since the early settlers arrived in the United States, the

nation has lost more than half of its wetlands—over 110 million acres.2 California has lost

91 percent of its wetlands since the 1780s.3 The Southeastern United States experienced a

loss of over 2.3 million acres of wetlands from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s.4 Significant

wetlands loss has also occurred in the Pacific Islands. For example, American Samoa has

lost about 25 percent of its wetlands to development, and much of the original extent of

wetlands in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands has been altered.5

Many mangrove forests, seagrass beds, and coral reefs have also fared poorly. Shallowwater reefs near urbanized coasts in the United States have been degraded by environmen-
C HAPTER 11: CONSERVING AND RESTORING COASTAL HABITAT

tal and human disturbances such as hurricanes, fishing activities, coastal development,

runoff, and sedimentation.6 More than 50 percent of the historical seagrass cover has been

lost in Tampa Bay, 76 percent in the Mississippi Sound, and 90 percent in Galveston Bay.

Extensive seagrass losses have also occurred in the Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, San

Francisco Bay, and Florida’s coastal waters.7 Climate change, rising global temperatures,

and sea-level rise place additional stresses on coastal habitats.

Because such a wide range of activities is affecting coastal habitats, an equally 

wide range of management tools will be needed to keep them healthy. Many of these

approaches—maintaining water quality, minimizing trash and other debris, managing

development—are discussed elsewhere. This chapter focuses on two types of activities

that can be undertaken by governmental and nongovernmental partners to protect the

coast: conservation and restoration. 

Conserving Coastal Habitat

Conserving valuable ocean and coastal areas not only protects significant habitat and

other natural resources, it also precludes the need to undertake costly and scientifically

uncertain restoration efforts after an area has been degraded or lost. Current conservation

needs, however, are not being met—a situation that will continue to worsen with increasing pressures on ocean and coastal environments and rising demands for coastal land. 

Habitat Conservation Programs

Millions of coastal acres have been designated for conservation by various levels of government, and the tools for implementing conservation programs are found in a multitude

of statutes. A number of federal programs aim to preserve the natural attributes of specific

areas while providing varying levels of access to the public for educational, recreational,

and commercial purposes. These include the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s)

National Parks and Seashores, National Wildlife Refuges, National Monuments, and

National Wilderness Areas; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s

(NOAA’s) National Marine Sanctuaries and National Estuarine Research Reserves; and 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) National Estuary Program. 

DOI’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) administers several programs that provide grants for the acquisition, restoration, and enhancement of coastal lands, including the

National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grants Program. NOAA carries out a number of

programs that aim to conserve valuable coastal lands, restore degraded habitat, and advance

the science of restoration technology. Several U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

forestry- and agriculture-related programs provide incentives for land protection, including

coastal land protection. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) conducts a variety of

environmental stewardship and restoration programs. And both USACE and EPA are

involved in conserving wetland habitats through the wetland permitting program under the

Clean Water Act. (Many of these programs and authorities are summarized in Appendix D.)

Coastal habitat conservation programs also exist at the state, territorial, tribal, and

local levels. For example, marine protected areas (discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6)

can be designated by different levels of government for a variety of reasons, including

habitat conservation. 

Regulatory and non-regulatory conservation techniques are also used as tools for

coastal conservation. Many local governments use a variety of planning and regulatory

tools and techniques, including zoning and land use planning. Other tools—including 

fee simple land acquisition, the purchase or donation of easements, tax incentives and 

disincentives, and tradable development rights—play a special role in enabling willing

landowners to limit future development on their land for conservation purposes. Land

171
172 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

acquisition and easements are often implemented through partnerships among governments, nongovernmental organizations such as land trusts, and the private sector. These

groups work together to leverage limited resources from several partners to fund projects

and ensure that areas acquired for conservation purposes are properly managed. As coastal

populations grow and demands on coastal lands intensify, the resources needed to make

such conservation partnerships work will continue to increase. 

Conservation is important to maintain critical habitats and the benefits they provide,

but it is also cost-effective, avoiding the much larger expense and scientific uncertainties

associated with attempting to restore habitats that have already been degraded or lost. 

Federal Funding for Habitat Conservation

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a major source of federal funding for federal,

state, and local conservation efforts, authorized to provide up to $900 million a year in

support of these projects. However, since the Fund’s inception in 1965, Congress has

appropriated less than half of the amount authorized.8 A number of agriculture and

forestry-related programs administered by USDA represent an even larger source of funds

for land conservation projects. Funding for agri-environmental programs is expected to

rise to a projected total of $38.6 billion over the next ten years.9 Several of these programs

include multi-year contracts with farmers and ranchers to retire and protect certain lands.

The Wetlands Reserve Program, Farmland Protection Program, and Grassland Reserve

Program, in particular, pay for permanent conservation easements on lands enrolled in

those programs. Another USDA program, the Forest Legacy Program, provides funds for

conservation easement purchases for forest lands threatened with development. Though

these funding sources are not specifically targeted for the conservation of coastal and

ocean resources, the funds can be used in those areas. Moreover, conservation of habitat

in upland watersheds that enhances water quality indirectly benefits coastal areas. 

In addition to the need to increase these programs’ focus on coastal habitat protection,

the critical nature of coastal habitats—and the alarming rate at which they are being

lost—requires more direct attention. Only a small fraction of federal spending on habitat

is dedicated to coastal efforts, although habitat conservation is one of the goals of the

Coastal Zone Management Act. To further that goal, in 2002, Congress appropriated

money for the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program to provide a dedicated

funding source to support coastal conservation partnerships among willing landowners,

but this Program has not been made permanent. 

Recommendation 11–1

Congress should amend the Coastal Zone Management Act to create a dedicated funding

program for coastal and estuarine land conservation. In addition, a larger share of U.S.

Department of Agriculture and other federal agency conservation programs should be

directed to coastal and estuarine lands. To guide these programs, each state should identify

priority coastal habitats and develop a plan for establishing partnerships among willing

landowners for conservation purposes, with participation from federal agency, local

government, nongovernmental, and private-sector partners. 

Restoring Coastal Habitat 

Once critical habitat has been lost, or the functioning of those areas diminished, restoration

is often needed. Habitat restoration efforts are proliferating in response to heightened 

public awareness of, and concern for, the health of the nation’s oceans and coasts. Several

large-scale efforts are underway to restore the nation’s unique ecological treasures, including coastal Louisiana, the Florida Everglades, the Chesapeake Bay, the San Francisco 

Bay-Delta, and the Great Lakes. The goals of these initiatives are extremely ambitious—
C HAPTER 11: CONSERVING AND RESTORING COASTAL HABITAT

reestablishing thousands of square miles of water flow and habitat to sustain healthy 

levels of fish and wildlife populations while maintaining water supply for human uses 

and allowing future development (Box 11.1). 

In addition to the large-scale, regional restoration efforts described above, there are

numerous smaller-scale projects that collectively make significant contributions to restoring the health of coastal environments. Examples of these efforts include local initiatives

to restore wetlands, bays, riverbanks, and streams in coastal communities. Because coastal

habitat restoration efforts are often costly and complicated, they require the participation

of a wide range of stakeholders to accomplish goals not achievable by any one party (Box

11.2). As a result, these projects often demonstrate the power of public–private partnerships, bringing together community members, government agencies, and businesses to

solve common problems. They also require substantial volunteer effort, emphasizing the

need for outreach and education among community members to enhance stewardship.

The Coastal America partnership, formed in 1991 through a memorandum of understanding signed by several federal departments and agencies, has had notable success in bringing together a wide range of participants to implement restoration projects throughout 

the nation. The partnership focuses on overcoming institutional barriers and inconsistent

federal agency jurisdictions and authorities to achieve mutual restoration goals. 

The success of individual coastal habitat restoration efforts in achieving larger ecosystem objectives can be enhanced through the development of comprehensive regional

restoration strategies. These strategies will vary according to the unique circumstances in

each region, but should also be part of an overarching national strategy that can enhance

the effectiveness of regional efforts and provide a basis for evaluating progress.

In 2000, the Estuary Restoration Act called for a national strategy to include the goal

of restoring one million acres of estuarine habitat by 2010. The Act established an interagency council to develop the strategy, create a comprehensive approach to estuarine habitat restoration efforts, foster coordination of federal and nonfederal activities, and administer a program for setting priorities and providing appropriate technical and financial

assistance. In 2002, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council—chaired by USACE and

made up of designees from NOAA, EPA, USFWS, and USDA—published its final strategy,

which encourages an ecosystem-based approach, including strengthening public–private

partnerships and applying innovative restoration technologies, monitoring capabilities,

and performance measurement tools.10

The establishment of the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council as a forum for federal

agency coordination and communication at the national level is a significant and positive

173

Coastal habitats provide essential breeding and nursery grounds for numerous marine and estuarine

species. They also afford many benefits for humans by safeguarding coastal communities against storms,

filtering anthropogenic pollutants, and providing varied recreation and tourism opportunities.

Photolink
174 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Box 11.1 Examples of Large-scale Coastal Habitat Restoration Efforts 

Large-scale restoration efforts are challenging in a number of ways. First, the success of

these efforts requires an understanding about how to recreate natural systems and restore

historical ecosystem functions, a field still in its infancy. Second, these efforts cross political

boundaries and affect a broad range of human activities, requiring support and intense

coordination among a wide range of governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders.

While some restoration projects have been successful, continued progress will depend on

sustained funding, government leadership and coordination, scientific research, and

stakeholder support. 

Coastal Louisiana

Nowhere is the problem of habitat loss more compelling than in coastal Louisiana, which

experiences about 80 percent of the total annual coastal land loss in the continental United

States.i From 1956 to 2000, an average of 34 square miles of Louisiana’s wetlands disappeared

into the sea every year (Figure 11.1). If this rate of loss continues, an estimated 700 additional

square miles of coastal wetlands will be lost over the next fifty years, threatening billions of

dollars worth of resources vital to the state’s—and the nation’s—economic well-being.ii

The devastating losses are the result of a number of converging factors, including both

human activities and natural processes. Chief among them are the dams, levees, and channels

developed along the Mississippi River and its tributaries, as well as a network of canals that

provide access to oil and gas well sites. These projects, which have supported nationally

important infrastructure, navigation routes, and energy supplies, have also resulted in a 

67 percent decrease in the supply of sediments to the coastal area and have disrupted the

natural flow of water that kept the wetlands healthy.iii Sea-level rise, coastal storms,

destruction of marsh plants by muskrat and nutria, and the subsidence of the region over

geologic time intensify the problem and put the state’s more than two million coastal

residents at increasing risk.

Land Loss 1932 to 2000

Louisiana Coastal Zone Boundary

Inset

Figure 11.1 Dramatic Coastal Land Loss in Louisiana

From 1932 to 2000, coastal Louisiana lost 1,900 square miles of land—an area roughly equivalent to the size of Delaware. 

An additional 700 square miles could potentially be lost over the next fifty years if no new restoration takes place, putting more 

than 2 million coastal residents at risk from floods and storms.

Source: U.S. Geological Survey. “Without Restoration, Coastal Land Loss to Continue.” News release. <www.nwrc.usgs.gov/releases/pr03_004.htm> 

(Accessed January 2004). Map Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Lafayette, LA.
C HAPTER 11: CONSERVING AND RESTORING COASTAL HABITAT 175

Restoration efforts have intensified since the passage of the Coastal Wetlands Planning,

Protection, and Restoration Act in 1990 (also known as the Breaux Act), which focused national

attention and significant federal funding on over one hundred conservation and restoration

projects. In 1998, a more comprehensive ecosystem-based plan to restore the natural processes

of the region’s coastal wetlands was jointly developed by the state of Louisiana and the federal

government.iv Additional studies are underway to determine the feasibility of sustaining

Louisiana’s coastal ecosystem. 

The Florida Everglades

Another extensive effort to restore a regional ecosystem dramatically altered by human

activities is taking place in the Florida Everglades, an unparalleled network of mangroves,

coastal marshes, seagrass beds, lakes, rivers, estuaries, and bays that once stretched from

Orlando to Florida Bay. A long history of water diversions, flood control projects, and

agricultural and urban development in South Florida has reduced the size of the Everglades

by half.v As a result, the region has experienced numerous environmental problems such as

nutrient enrichment, threatened or endangered species, pesticide contamination, mercury

buildup in plants and animals, widespread invasion by exotic species, increased algal blooms,

seagrass die off, and declines in fishery resources.vi

In 1992, Congress authorized a comprehensive review of the potential to restore the

Everglades ecosystem. This review resulted in the development of the Comprehensive

Everglades Restoration Plan, the largest such effort ever pursued based on the size of the

ecosystem and the nearly 200 individual projects being developed to implement the plan.vii

Many of these projects involve massive and expensive engineering and construction feats

designed to restore natural hydrological functions and water quality throughout the entire

region. 

Despite its immense size and scope, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 

is only one component of an initiative to restore the southern half of the state and the

nearshore waters of Florida. The larger effort is being headed by the South Florida Ecosystem

Task Force, which is charged with developing a strategy for coordinating hundreds of projects

carried out by several different federal, state, tribal, and local entities, universities, and other

stakeholder groups. The Task Force is made up of senior level officials from seven federal

agencies, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Miccosukee and Seminole

tribes, the South Florida Water Management District, the Florida Governor’s Office, and two

local governments.

i Congressional Research Service. Wetland Issues. Report #IB97014. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 2003.

ii U.S. Geological Survey. “Without Restoration, Coastal Land Loss to Continue.” News release.

<www.nwrc.usgs.gov/releases/pr03_004.htm> Accessed January 2004.

iii Ibid. 

iv Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and Restoration

Authority. Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana Department of Natural

Resources, 1998.

v Congressional Research Service. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration

Plan. Report #RS20702. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 2001.

vi McPherson, B.F., and R. Halley. The South Florida Environment: A Region under Stress. USGS Circular 1134.

Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey, 1996.

vii U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District and South Florida Water Management District. Central and

Southern Florida Comprehensive Review Study, Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement. April 1999.
176 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

step. There remains, however, a need for a federal coordinating forum with responsibilities

and membership that is broader than the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council—one that

can coordinate the development and implementation not only of estuarine habitat restoration efforts, but activities that affect all types of coastal habitat and include conservation

as well as restoration measures. This forum could also be responsible for fostering the

development and implementation of goals and priorities at the regional level. 

Improving Habitat Conservation and Restoration 

Currently the many entities that administer conservation and restoration activities operate

largely independently of one another, with no framework for assessing overall benefits in

an ecosystem-based context. The multitude of disjointed programs prohibits a comprehensive assessment of the progress of conservation and restoration efforts and makes it

difficult to ensure the most effective use of limited resources. 

Consistent local, state, regional, and national goals are vital for prioritizing conservation and restoration needs and orchestrating effective efforts at all levels. In particular,

these efforts should be assessed in a regional, ecosystem context. This will be aided by

improved regional coordination and the creation of regional ocean councils, as discussed

in Chapter 5. The regional ocean information programs, also discussed in Chapter 5, will

help meet the information needs essential to the success of these initiatives. Conserving

and restoring historical ecosystem functions are significant steps in sustaining the health

of the nation’s ocean and coastal resources. Over time, the regional ocean councils will

also help to improve the management of all activities that affect coastal habitats and the

well-being of coastal communities.

Recommendation 11–2

The regional ocean councils, working with state coastal management programs and other

governmental and nongovernmental entities, should assess regional needs and set goals and

priorities for ocean and coastal habitat conservation and restoration efforts that are consistent

with state and local goals. The National Ocean Council should develop national goals that are

consistent with regional, state, and local goals, and should ensure coordination among all

related federal activities.

An increased and dedicated funding source for coastal conservation activities is called

for earlier in the chapter. Similarly, restoration initiatives will require sufficient funding to

develop the best techniques, implement restoration activities, and track their success. In

addition to federal investments, innovative sources of funding can be identified through

partnerships with the private sector. 

Enhancing Information and Understanding

One of the most significant obstacles to conservation and restoration efforts is the lack of

adequate knowledge about the structure and functioning of coastal habitats and the relative effectiveness of restoration techniques. Furthermore, many individual efforts do not

benefit from the knowledge and positive experiences that do exist. Enhanced support for

ecosystem restoration science and applied research on effective restoration techniques is

needed, as is support for programs that educate practitioners on how to implement these

techniques. A better understanding of the connections between human activities and their

impacts on coastal habitats will lead to better management of coastal resources and a

strengthened stewardship ethic among all stakeholders and citizens. 
C HAPTER 11: CONSERVING AND RESTORING COASTAL HABITAT

Coordinated and comprehensive inventories and assessments are essential for identifying critical habitats, evaluating the causes of habitat loss and degradation, and setting

priorities for conservation and restoration efforts, thus enabling decision makers to focus

limited resources on the most pressing needs. The regional ecosystem assessments called

for in Chapter 5 will provide timely and comprehensive information on the status of

coastal habitats.

In addition to improved understanding and broad national assessments and inventories, the nation needs better ongoing monitoring. Currently, most federal funding available for conservation and restoration efforts can only be used for direct implementation,

not for the equally important tasks of monitoring the success of these efforts and further

advancing restoration science. 

Finally, conservation and restoration efforts must build on past successes to achieve

progress. Currently, there is no accessible nationwide system for sharing information,

including research results, planning processes, conservation and restoration techniques,

and funding opportunities. A broadened and redefined Estuary Habitat Restoration

Council could serve as a mechanism for this type of information sharing. Information pertinent to coastal habitat conservation and restoration efforts can also be shared through

the regional ocean councils and regional ocean information programs.

Recommendation 11–3

The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should enhance their restoration

science, monitoring, and assessment activities. Congress should amend relevant legislation to

allow greater discretion in using a portion of federal habitat conservation and restoration

funds for related research, monitoring, and assessments.

177

Box 11.2 A Community Habitat Restoration Effort: 

Friends of Heeia State Park

There are thousands of examples of local efforts in which concerned citizens, government

entities, business, and other stakeholders have helped restore coastal habitats valuable

to both native plant and animal species and to the culture of the local community. Friends 

of Heeia State Park, a nonprofit educational institution located on the Hawaiian Island of

Oahu, coordinates several community restoration activities each year during which local

volunteers help clean up beaches and streams, monitor water quality, and remove invasive

species. Recently, the group received a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

to conduct a project replacing non-native coastal plants, which were preventing adequate

filtering of waters from the watershed to the Heeia Bay, with native species. The project was

part of a larger effort to restore portions of the entire Heeia watershed that had become

degraded by nonpoint source pollution originating from various human activities. Thousands

of volunteers participated in the project.i

These and other local restoration efforts are vital components of the overall goal of

improving the health of coastal habitats nationwide. They also serve a valuable role in

promoting coastal stewardship by instilling a sense of ownership and responsibility

throughout the community. Improving communication and coordination among these

efforts, and enhancing the research efforts needed to determine the most effective

restoration strategies, will strengthen the ability of individual projects to contribute to 

the overall improvement of ocean and coastal health.

i U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “He’eia Coastal Restoration Project: Thousands of Volunteers Replace Alien

Plants with Native Species.” <www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319III/HI.htm> Accessed February 1, 2004.
178 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Protecting the Nation’s Wetlands: A Special Case

Coastal wetlands, including marshes, swamps, and bogs, are an important and integral

component of coastal habitat. USACE regulations define wetlands as those areas that are

inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient

to support vegetation that typically lives in saturated soils. Coastal watersheds currently

include about 30 percent of all wetlands in the lower forty-eight states, a total of approximately 27 million acres.11 Like other coastal habitats, wetlands provide a variety of valuable ecosystem services, such as improving water quality, providing natural flood control,

recharging groundwater, stabilizing shorelines, contributing to recreational value, and

serving as nursery areas for thousands of species of plants, fish, and other animals. 

The functions and values provided by wetlands have not always been recognized.

Prior to the 1970s, federal policies for agriculture, development, and insect control

encouraged the draining and filling of wetlands—referred to disparagingly at the time as

swamps. A 2001 National Research Council report found that, as a result, by the 1980s

the area of wetlands in the contiguous United States had decreased to approximately 53

percent of its extent one hundred years earlier.12

In response to this dramatic loss of wetlands, the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)

Program was formed in 1975 to collect information about remaining wetlands. To date,

approximately one-half of the United States is represented in the inventory, which includes all

wetlands and deepwater habitats, such as lakes, rivers, and streams as well as marshes, bogs,

and swamps. NWI data are used by Congress, all levels of government, academia, the private

sector, and nongovernmental organizations for a variety of purposes, including resource management, transportation planning, infrastructure siting, and conservation and restoration

planning. Despite these important applications, NWI data remain incomplete for much of the

nation and relatively inaccessible to many who could put the data to beneficial use. 

Recommendation 11–4

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should complete, digitize, and periodically update 

the National Wetlands Inventory. 

By the late 1980s, federal policies had shifted and the protection of wetlands became 

a national priority. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush acknowledged the importance 

of wetlands by establishing the goal of “no net loss of wetlands,” a goal that has been 

supported by subsequent administrations. As a result of these shifts in attitude and policy,

the rate of wetlands loss has decreased substantially, although there is some uncertainty as

to the extent of the decrease and the functional value of remaining wetlands compared to

their historic counterparts.13 Despite selected improvements, wetlands continue to be lost

due to subsidence, erosion, storms, and human activities, including the conversion of

such areas for other uses.

There is no single, comprehensive federal wetlands protection law. Instead, multiple federal statutes and programs provide protections in different forms, including the various conservation and restoration programs described earlier in this chapter. State, local, and tribal

wetlands programs add to the success—and the complexity—of wetlands protection efforts.

The Clean Water Act Section 404 program is the primary federal regulatory program

providing protection for the nation’s wetlands. The goal of the program is to avoid deliberate discharges of materials into wetlands, or to minimize discharges where they cannot be

avoided. The program requires permits for discharges of materials (such as dredged materials, or other soil or sand used as fill) into U.S. waters, although several major categories

of activities are generally exempted, including certain ongoing farming, ranching, and 

silviculture operations. When a permit is issued that will result in some wetlands loss,

compensatory mitigation is often required; that is, wetlands must be restored, enhanced,

preserved, or created elsewhere to replace the permitted loss of wetland acres and functions. 

Our state and the

nation are facing a

true emergency of

profound cost. The

wetlands loss represents more than just

the loss of land. It

represents the loss of

what sustains much

of the state’s economy, culture, and

national image.

—Jack C. Caldwell, 

Secretary, Louisiana

Department of Natural

Resources, testimony 

to the Commission,

March 2002
C HAPTER 11: CONSERVING AND RESTORING COASTAL HABITAT

Although it has shown some success in slowing the rate of wetlands loss, Section 404

does not constitute a comprehensive national wetlands management and protection program.

It does not address many kinds of activities that affect wetlands and its implementation has

been uneven; a large gap remains between the mitigation required in connection with permitted activities and that which has actually been achieved. Moreover, the navigation, flood control, and other civil works projects undertaken by the USACE itself may have impacts as great

as, or greater than, those of any permitted activity. Mitigation for some federal projects has

also fallen far short of what was originally approved. Finally, the Section 404 program has

generally failed to give sufficient consideration to the cumulative impacts associated with

issuing multiple individual permits, or conducting a variety of federal projects, in the same

geographic or watershed area. (Recommendations on improving the ability of USACE to

address the regional, cumulative impacts of its activities are provided in Chapter 12.) 

Other provisions of the Clean Water Act, such as those dealing with stormwater runoff

and certain types of pollution, also provide some measure of wetlands protection, but not

in the context of a coordinated wetlands management regime. As the nation recognizes

the interconnectedness of upland and downstream areas, considers entire watershed 

systems, and moves toward an ecosystem approach, comprehensive wetlands protection

should be considered as an integral part of ocean and coastal management.

Recommendation 11–5

The National Ocean Council should coordinate development of a comprehensive wetlands

protection framework that is linked to coastal habitat and watershed management efforts,

and should make specific recommendations for the integration of the Clean Water Act

Section 404 wetlands permitting process into that broader management approach.

References

1 Reid, W.V., and M.C. Trexler. Drowning the Natural Heritage: Climate Change and U.S. Coastal Biodiversity.

Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 1991.

2 Fretwell, J.D., J.S. Williams, and P.J. Redman. National Water Summary on Wetland Resources. USGS Water-Supply

Paper 2425. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey, 1996. 

3 Dahl, T.E. Wetlands Losses in the United States: 1780’s to 1980’s. Washington, DC, and Jamestown, ND: U.S.

Department of the Interior and Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, 1990. 

4 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Southeast

Wetlands: Status and Trends, Mid-1970s to Mid-1980s. Washington, DC, 1994. 

5 National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. State Enhancement Grant Assessments

and Strategies: Wetlands. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1999. 

6 Turgeon, D.D., et al. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States:

2002. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2002.

7 Bookman, C.A., T.J. Culliton, and M.A. Warren. “Trends in U.S. Coastal Regions, 1970–1998.” Addendum to the 

proceedings Trends and Future Challenges for U.S. National Ocean and Coastal Policy. Silver Spring, MD: National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1999. 

8 Congressional Research Service. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues. Report #97–792.

Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 2002.

9 Economic Research Service. ERS Analysis: Conservation Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2002. 

10 Estuary Habitat Restoration Council. “Final Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy.” Federal Register 67, no. 232

(December 3, 2002): 71942–49.

11 National Marine Fisheries Service. “Wetlands: What’s Happening with Coastal Wetlands?” 

<www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/wetlands4.htm> Accessed October 17, 2003. 

12 National Research Council. Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 2001.

13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Report on the Environment. EPA–260–R–02–006. Washington, DC, June 2003

179
180 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 12

MANAGING SEDIMENT

AND SHORELINES

The natural flow of sediment over land and through waterways is important for

sustaining coastal habitats and maintaining attractive beaches. However, excess or

contaminated sediment can destroy habitats, poison the food chain, and endanger lives. Too little sediment can also alter habitats and allow beaches to wash

away. Because navigational dredging, infrastructure projects, farming,

urban development, and many other necessary and beneficial human

activities can interfere with natural sediment processes, their impacts

should be understood and managed. A national strategy for managing sediment is needed to reduce harm to natural resources, address

ecological and economic needs, and achieve goals such as greater

beneficial uses of sediment from navigational dredging. Such a

strategy should manage sediments on a multi-project, regional

basis, and involve all relevant parties. The strategy should also 

foster improved methodologies for evaluating beneficial uses of

dredged material, along with additional research, monitoring,

assessment, and technology development to improve sediment

management.

Understanding the Dual Nature of Sediment

Sediment in ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes waters is composed of 

inorganic and organic particles created through erosion, decomposition of plants and animals, and human activities. Sediment may be carried

by wind or water from upland areas down to coastal areas, or may originate 

in the marine environment. Sediments along coastlines are transported by wind,

waves, and currents in dynamic processes that constantly build up and wear away

cliffs, beaches, sandbars, inlets, and other natural features. 

From a human perspective, sediment has a dual nature—desirable in some locations

and unwanted in others (Box 12.1). Sediment can be used to create or restore beaches and

to renew wetlands and other coastal habitats. Such activities are referred to as beneficial

uses. Undesirable sediment can cloud water and degrade wildlife habitat, form barriers to

navigation, and contaminate the food chain for marine plants, animals, and humans. 

Whether sediment is desirable or not, its location and movement can have large economic and ecological consequences. For example, excess sediment in shipping channels

may cost ports millions of dollars in delayed or limited ship access, while in other locations insufficient sediment deposits could result in the loss of valuable coastal wetlands.
C HAPTER 12: MANAGING S EDIMENT AND S HORELINES

The dual nature of sediment as both a threat and a resource to humans and the environment makes its management particularly challenging. To complicate matters further,

the natural processes that create, move, and deposit sediment operate on regional scales,

while management tends to focus on discrete locations—a single beach, wetland, or port.

In addition, the policies that affect sediment location, transport, and quality fall under the

jurisdiction of diverse programs within multiple agencies at all levels of government. This

complex governance approach makes it difficult to manage sediment at the appropriate

scale and in consonance, rather than in conflict, with natural processes. The prospect of

global climate changes further complicates matters. For example, predictions of increased

storm activity and changes in runoff patterns may adversely affect sediment delivery from

upland areas, accelerate shoreline erosion, and result in increased runoff of contaminated

sediments to coastal waters.

Reviewing Federal Roles in Sediment Management

The federal government’s role in managing sediment in the marine environment covers

five areas: navigation-related dredging; beneficial use of sediment; construction of infrastructure to reduce flooding and erosion hazards; management of contaminated sediment;

and basic and applied research into sediment processes. As with many ocean and coastal

issues, numerous federal agencies are involved.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) plays a large part in nearly all of these

areas and is the lead agency for all but contaminated sediment. The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) has oversight of ocean disposal of dredged material, and the

cleanup and disposal of contaminated sediment. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) administers the Coastal Zone Management Program, which

requires participating coastal states to have enforceable policies to protect ocean and

coastal resources, including policies that affect sediment management. NOAA’s National

Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service have responsibilities for living marine resources and habitat that also give

them a role in evaluating the impacts of proposed sediment projects undertaken or permitted by federal agencies. DOI’s Minerals Management Service identifies and authorizes

access to sand deposits in federal waters suitable for beach nourishment and wetlands

protection projects. The U.S. Geological Survey advances research on the sources, transport, impacts, disposal, beneficial use, and other aspects of sediment. USACE, NOAA, and

EPA also conduct related research efforts, and the National Science Foundation and Office

of Naval Research fund many relevant studies. 

181

Too much sediment 

can lead to...

• obstructed channels 

• overflowing rivers 

• smothered reefs 

• high turbidity that 

blocks sunlight

...while too little 

sediment can lead to...

• disappearing beaches 

• eroded riverbanks 

• wetlands losses

• altered river profiles

Sediment can also be 

used for...

• construction material

• beach nourishment

• wetland restoration

• replacement of

agricultural soil

Box 12.1 Sediment: Friend or Foe?

Sediment levels that are too high or too low can be detrimental to both natural

environments and man-made structures, including extreme cases where structures 

are lost due to beach and cliff erosion. But sediment such as sand and gravel can also 

be viewed as a valuable resource.
182 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Other federal programs have less direct, but no less important impacts on sediment.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service plays a central role in efforts to reduce agricultural soil erosion, much of which finds its way to estuaries and the ocean. USACE and DOI’s Bureau of Reclamation operate flood control, water

storage, and hydroelectric projects which retain, and occasionally release, large amounts

of sediment. Sediment also is addressed extensively through the nation’s regulation of

point and nonpoint sources of pollution, with EPA and NOAA as the principal federal

agencies involved.

Some activities that affect sediment, such as dredging and shoreline erosion control

projects, fall under specific laws, often implemented in isolation from each other. Other

activities are addressed under broader, less specific authorities. Even seemingly well

designed projects can sometimes create more problems than they solve, or encounter frustrating delays, because of poor communication among stakeholders, and confusion about

the many programs that remove, relocate, prevent, or

accelerate the transport of sediment. At this time,

there is no consistent mechanism to ensure that each

individual sediment-related project is considered in a

larger ecosystem-based context.

Altering Sediments through

Human Intervention

Changing Sediment Quantities

Many human interventions in sediment processes are

unintentional, occurring as a by-product of routine

economic activities that overload or deprive natural

systems of sediment. Activities such as forestry, agriculture, and urban development yield great benefits

to the nation, but also accelerate natural erosion.

Excess sediment suspended in the water column or

accumulated at the bottom of water bodies can create

problems for other industries, such as shipping, fishing, and tourism, and can harm aquatic life. 

Conversely, flood control, water supply, and

hydroelectric projects prevent the natural movement

of sediment, contributing to downstream erosion and

subsidence problems (Figure 12.1). As older components of this infrastructure become too costly to

maintain, or are rendered obsolete for structural or

economic reasons, disposing of the enormous quantities of trapped sediment will pose a new set of problems. Development in coastal communities can also

disrupt natural sediment movement, causing erosion

in some places and accretion in others. Such projects

may have unintended effects on neighboring jurisdictions, both upstream and downstream, that had no

role in the planning process.

Figure 12.1 Dams Impede Sediment 

Destined for the Coast 

To support California’s exponential population growth, over 

1,400 dams have been constructed across the state for a 

number of purposes, including water storage, irrigation, flood 

control, recreation, and hydroelectric power. However, dams 

constructed in coastal watersheds block the flow of sediments 

needed for natural beach replenishment. 

Source: California Department of Boating and Waterways. 

“California Beach Restoration Study.” 

<www.dbw.ca.gov/beachreport.htm> (Accessed May 2004).

■ Dam Location
C HAPTER 12: MANAGING S EDIMENT AND S HORELINES

Changing Sediment Quality

Over the last fifty years, lakes, rivers, and harbors have accumulated bottom sediment

contaminated with heavy metals (such as lead, copper, and arsenic) from mining and

industrial activities, as well as long-lived toxic chemicals (such as DDT, MTBE, PCBs, and

dioxin)(Box 12.2). Continued discharges from municipal waste and industrial plants, and

polluted runoff from agricultural and urban sources, perpetuate the problem, while newly

identified contaminants such as flame retardants are now being detected in ocean and

coastal sediments. Toxic chemicals from sediment can accumulate in marine plants and

animals, causing reproductive failure, impaired growth, disease, and death. They may also

pose health risks to humans who consume or come in contact with tainted marine products. 

Of the 12 billion cubic yards of sediment that comprise the top 2 inches underlying

U.S. waters, an estimated 10 percent is thought to be contaminated at levels that pose possible risks to marine life, wildlife, and humans.1 Of the 300 million cubic yards of sediment the USACE dredges annually to facilitate navigation, an estimated 5 to 10 percent is

contaminated.2 Once a portion of sediment becomes contaminated, it becomes a source of

further contamination downstream.

Currently, six laws and seven federal agencies are involved in the dredging or remediation

of contaminated sediment, depending on whether the material is to be removed, deposited, or

treated. Different sets of laws apply when navigational dredging or environmental cleanup is

the primary focus of activity. A 1997 National Research Council report concluded that this

patchwork of laws generally fails to manage contaminated sediment according to the risk it

poses to the environment, does not adequately weigh the costs and benefits of different solutions, and imposes lengthy and unnecessary delays in addressing problems.3

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) established the federal Superfund program to clean up the nation’s uncontrolled or

abandoned hazardous waste sites. At over one hundred locations, bottom sediments in

rivers and harbors are so contaminated they are designated as Superfund sites. The EPA

estimates that cleanup of the thirty most highly contaminated sites in rivers, lakes, and

coastal areas may cost hundreds of millions of dollars.4

The presence of contaminated sediment greatly complicates the management of

dredged material. For example, such sediment would be inappropriate for use in wetland

restoration or erosion control projects. Costs are also much higher for the safe and secure

disposal of these materials. The very process of dredging contaminated sediment increases

ecological and human health risks because some of the sediment inevitably becomes

resuspended and carried to new locations during removal. 

183

Box 12.2 The Legacy of Sediment Contamination

Long-term remedial response action is required at areas on EPA’s Superfund list, one of

which is Fox River and Green Bay, Wisconsin. From 1954 to 1971, PCBs were released

during the manufacture of carbonless copy paper by seven companies along the banks of the

river. The chemical releases left 11 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment in Fox River

and Green Bay. The EPA estimates that up to 70 percent of the PCBs entering Lake Michigan

via its tributaries come from the Fox River. This contamination has affected water quality,

recreation, and the health of people, fish, and birds. Elevated PCB concentrations in some

Lake Michigan fish have prompted health advisories. Native Americans in the area have been

particularly affected because of the importance of subsistence fishing to their community.i,ii

i Balas, M. “Fox River Cleanup Is Talk of the Town, But What About Restoration.” The Green Bay News-Chronicle.

October 22, 2003.

ii Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund Record of Decision

for Operable Units 3, 4, and 5. Madison, WI, and Washington, DC, June 2003.
184 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Developing Regional Strategies for Sediment Management

Sediments flow continuously downstream to the coast, on and offshore, and back and

forth along the coast. A project-by-project approach to sediment management can result

in expensive actions that may undermine the interests of other stakeholders. For example,

flood and erosion control structures, while temporarily protecting targeted locations,

interrupt the natural transport of sediment along the coast, preventing the accumulations

that create beaches and maintain wetlands, exacerbating coastal erosion, and potentially

threatening life, property, and coastal economies in other locations. Similarly, upstream

sediment diversions or contamination can have major impacts in estuaries and other

coastal areas. 

Coastal stakeholders have increasingly recognized the need to develop more proactive

and preventive strategies. However, their absence from broad watershed planning efforts—

where decisions about land use and water management could reduce excess and contaminated sediments at their source—makes such change difficult to realize. (A more detailed

discussion of watershed planning efforts appears in Chapter 9.) The nation needs both a

better understanding of the interactions between human activities and sediment flows,

and a better mechanism for involving all potentially affected parties. 

Moving toward an ecosystem-based management approach is a critical step. The 

new National Ocean Policy Framework outlined in Part II creates a structure for regional 

coordination and cooperation among the many parties affected by sediment. Participation

by federal, state, and local entities in watershed management efforts, along with key stakeholders such as coastal planners and port managers, is one way to diminish upland

sources of excess and contaminated sediment that harm the marine environment. 

Recommendation 12–1

The National Ocean Council should develop a national strategy for managing sediment on a

regional basis. The strategy should incorporate ecosystem-based principles, balancing ecological

and economic considerations.

In addition, the strategy should: 

• acknowledge adverse impacts on marine environments due to urban development, agriculture, dams, dredging, pollutant discharges, and other activities that affect sediment

flows or quality. 

• ensure involvement of port managers, coastal planners, land use planners, and other

stakeholders in watershed planning. 

• emphasize watershed management as a tool to address upstream land uses that affect

sediment input to rivers and coastal waters.

Regional sediment management will require coordination among diverse interests,

political jurisdictions, and levels of government to achieve environmental, social, and economic goals. For example, construction and restoration projects in coastal areas often face

long permitting and planning delays, which can substantially add to project costs and be

ecologically detrimental. A regional sediment planning process that identifies pre-approved

beneficial use sites through a collaborative stakeholder process could help expedite projects,

resulting in quicker realization of economic benefits to the region. 

A regional approach could also help prioritize projects. In considering beach nourishment proposals for two nearby sites, priority might be given to one of the sites if natural

sediment transport processes would result in secondary nourishment of the down-coast

site, doubling the impact of the investment. Regional sediment management could also

inform coastal land use planning and permitting decisions, moving new development or

post-disaster rebuilding away from erosion hot spots, as discussed in Chapter 10. 
C HAPTER 12: MANAGING S EDIMENT AND S HORELINES

One of the difficulties in undertaking a regional approach to managing sediment is

that the definition of a region may differ substantially among parties engaged in land use

planning, port management, coastal development, wetlands protection, or fishery management. To understand the sources and transport of sediment, a region might extend tens to

hundreds of miles up and down rivers and the coastline. Alternately, for management of

dredged material at a port, the region might be linked to the size of that port. Coastal 

erosion and living marine resources may define other scales. These definitions should be

reconciled to achieve effective sediment management in an appropriate regional context.

Moving Toward Regional Sediment Management at USACE

USACE’s traditional protocols for dredging and other sediment management projects 

consider the impacts of those projects individually and on short-term and local scales—

typically from one to thirty years, across areas of less than ten miles—despite widespread

recognition that coastal processes operate at regional scales with time frames of up to 250

years and geographic extents of dozens of miles from a project’s location.5 In many cases,

this disregard for the scale over which natural processes operate has resulted in projects

having unintended adverse impacts on nearby coastal resources, placing too much sediment in the wrong place or too little where it is needed. 

More recently, USACE, with support from Congress, has begun pursuing alternatives

to its project-by-project approach. For example, USACE created the Regional Sediment

Management Program based on general direction from Congress to develop long-term

strategies for disposing of dredged materials and to cooperate with states to develop 

comprehensive plans for coastal resource conservation. Under this program, USACE 

collaborates with states, communities, and other diverse stakeholders to develop plans 

to manage sediment across a region that encompasses multiple USACE dredging projects. 

To date, the Regional Sediment Management Program has undertaken six demonstration

projects around the country. Early results have yielded technology improvements, information sharing, and the building of a base of experience in more comprehensive management of construction activities affecting sediment. Nevertheless, scientific, technological,

and institutional hurdles remain to implementing truly regional sediment management.6

Recommendation 12–2

Congress should direct the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to adopt regional and

ecosystem-based management approaches in carrying out all of its sediment-related civil

works missions and should modify USACE authorities and processes as necessary to achieve

this goal. 

Weighing the Costs and Benefits of Dredging

Navigational Dredging

Widespread adoption of regional sediment management practices will help address many

problems. However, until such practices are common—and even once such frameworks

are in place—certain sediment activities merit special attention. Dredging for navigational

purposes is perhaps the most direct and prominent way humans affect sediments in marine

waters, and the federal government is in charge of dredging activities for this purpose.

Navigational dredging in ports and waterways seeks to remove accumulated sediment

that blocks or endangers vessels and prevents access by ships that continue to increase in

size and draft, requiring wider and deeper channels. An estimated 400 million cubic yards

185

[Dredging related]

navigation and environmental challenges

must be addressed

within the context of

rapidly increasing

population growth in

the coastal zone and

the resulting tensions

between residential,

recreational, and economic uses and the

need to preserve,

protect and restore

critically important

ecological resources. 

—Major General Robert

Griffin, Director of Civil

Works, U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, testimony

to the Commission,

October 2002
186 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

of sediment (300 by USACE and another 100 by private permittees) are dredged annually

to maintain and improve navigation.7 As the volume and value of goods transported by

water continues to grow, the importance of maintaining efficient, modern ports increases.

(Chapter 13 includes a broader discussion of port planning in the context of maritime

commerce and transportation.) All dredging, whether related to navigation or not, can

have negative impacts. These impacts may include habitat disturbance and the dispersion

of sediment—frequently contaminated—to new locations, with unintended impacts on

the ecosystem. 

One frequent complaint associated with dredging projects is the time involved from

conception to completion. Currently, the process of planning, permitting, and completing

a navigation channel improvement project (widening or deepening) can take more than

twenty years. Reasons for delay include inconsistent funding allocations and congressional

approvals, the complexity of the project review process, and scientific uncertainties. Such

lengthy time frames can be ecologically and economically detrimental to a region. Delayed

access to a port may reduce ship traffic and trade, and environmental impact statements

may become outdated. At the same time, certain projects may be legitimately questioned

by those who believe there are less costly or environmentally damaging alternatives. 

EPA and USACE are currently investigating mechanisms for improving the efficiency

of the planning and permitting process for management of dredged material. These efforts

should be encouraged. A streamlined process could help evaluate the necessity of a proposed dredging project, look for opportunities to improve sediment management, and set

priorities among projects. 

Box 12.3 Beach Nourishment: One Use for Dredged Sediment

Dredging of sediment does take place outside the navigation context, most notably for

use in beach nourishment to protect recreation, tourism, and beachfront property. Such

projects have been a source of great contention. Proponents champion beach nourishment as

essential to protecting life, property, and beach-dependent economies. Opponents decry it as

a costly taxpayer-subsidized activity that threatens coral reef and other ecosystems and creates

incentives for inappropriate development in coastal areas subject to storm, flooding, and

erosion hazards. Political representatives are often pressured to support beach nourishment

projects where eroding shorelines threaten the economic health and safety of a coastal

community.

However, as the National Research Council noted in a 1997 report, the process for

determining when, where, and how to use dredged sediment for beach nourishment suffers

from a number of deficiencies, including a lack of performance criteria, inadequate technical

and economic methodologies, outdated design standards, insufficient stakeholder involvement,

an inadequate understanding of the physical and biological mechanisms of beach and littoral

systems, and a failure to plan for the long term or in a regional context.i Because the high

costs of undertaking and maintaining these projects are borne in large measure by the public,

investments should target projects that will render the greatest benefit and where other

alternatives, such as moving development away from eroding areas, are not possible. Achieving

this goal will require a better understanding of sediment processes and a method for

considering beach nourishment proposals in a regional context.

i National Research Council. Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways: Cleanup Strategies and Technologies.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997.
C HAPTER 12: MANAGING S EDIMENT AND S HORELINES

Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material

Dredged material has long been used to create new land for commercial, residential, and

infrastructure developments, as well as to bolster beaches and barrier islands to protect

against storm and erosion hazards and enhance tourism and recreation (Box 12.3). Since

the 1970s, these beneficial uses of dredged material have also included environmental

enhancement, such as restoration of wetlands, creation of wildlife habitat, and improvement of fish habitat. Surprisingly, navigation-related dredged material does not find its

way into beneficial use projects as often as perhaps it should. This is due in part to sediment contamination, but also to USACE policies that favor disposal in open waters or 

in upland dump sites. These policies may be unnecessarily foregoing opportunities to 

support economic growth or environmental protection and may have serious unintentional consequences for aquatic ecosystems.

Techniques of Cost-Benefit Analysis 

Under current USACE policies, navigation-related dredged material is primarily viewed as

a waste stream and diversion for beneficial use is considered extraneous to the navigation

mission. For the federal government to cover the costs of a navigational dredging project,

USACE regulations require that the dredged material be disposed of in the “least costly,

environmentally acceptable manner consistent with engineering requirements established

for the project.” During its project evaluation process, USACE determines the least-costly

disposal method, designated as the Federal Standard, and decides on the appropriate 

cost-sharing structure with nonfederal partners. If the Federal Standard option is not

used, the nonfederal partners must assume a larger portion, sometimes over 50 percent, 

of the project costs. 

Because USACE cost-benefit methodologies tend to undervalue the benefits of projects

that use dredged material, while failing to account for the full costs, including environmental

and other nonmarket costs, of traditional disposal methods, the least-cost option generally

favors open-water disposal of dredged material. A more accurate system for selecting and

ranking projects would be based on a comparative net economic and environmental return

for the United States rather than a narrow cost-benefit analysis for a specific project.

Recognizing the advantages of beneficial-use projects may also justify spreading the costs

among a wider array of stakeholders. To check the USACE’s assumptions and methodologies, the analyses should be peer-reviewed, as called for in a recent National Research

Council report.8

Recommendation 12–3

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should ensure that its selection of the least-cost disposal

option for dredging projects reflects a more accurate accounting of the full range of

economic, environmental, and other relevant costs and benefits for options that reuse

dredged material, as well as for other disposal methods.

National and Regional Dredging Teams

Recognizing the benefits of improved sediment management, a number of ports have

developed long-term plans for managing dredged material, including the ports of Boston,

New York and New Jersey, Houston, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, and others.

These long-term plans were intended to avoid delays caused by new environmental testing

procedures, the determination that some dredged material was not suitable for ocean 

disposal, and the lack of disposal alternatives, all of which had added years to the

expected completion of some port expansion and navigational dredging projects. 

187
188 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Long-term planning efforts for managing dredged material can bring together federal

agencies, port authorities, state and local governments, natural resource agencies, public

interest groups, the maritime industry, and private citizens to forge agreements that,

among other factors, increase the likelihood of beneficial uses of dredged material. These

types of initiatives were encouraged by a 1994 Interagency Working Group report to the

Secretary of Transportation, The Dredging Process in the United States: An Action Plan for

Improvement. Three years after the Action Plan’s publication, a 1997 National Research

Council report echoed its findings and recommendations.9

The Action Plan concluded that early acknowledgment of environmental concerns

and effective public outreach could substantially reduce potential conflicts and delays.

Specific recommendations included: creation of a timely, efficient, and predictable regulatory process; support for port or regional scale planning by partnerships that involve the

federal government, port authorities, state and local governments, natural resource agencies, public interest groups, the maritime industry, and private citizens prior to seeking

project approval; involvement of dredged material managers in watershed planning to

emphasize the importance of reducing sediment loadings and contamination at their source;

and encouragement for the environmentally sound, beneficial use of dredged materials,

such as wetlands creation and beach nourishment. The Action Plan also emphasized the

need to continually integrate the best available science. 

In subsequent years, progress was made on some elements of the Action Plan, most

importantly the 1995 establishment of the National Dredging Team co-chaired by EPA and

USACE, but other elements lagged. In 2003, the National Dredging Team issued Dredged

Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade10 as a successor to the 1994 Action

Plan. The Action Agenda’s twenty-two recommendations focus on increasing beneficial

use of dredged material, using effective watershed planning to improve sediment management, strengthening and expanding the number of regional dredging teams, and improving

integration with water quality, coastal management, and fisheries management programs. 

Recommendation 12–4

The National Dredging Team should ensure vigorous and sustained implementation of the

recommendations contained in its Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the

Next Decade, moving toward more ecosystem-based approaches. Regional dredging teams,

working with regional ocean councils, should establish sediment management programs that

expand beyond single watersheds to larger regional ecosystems. 

Improving Understanding, Assessment, and Treatment

An enormous constraint to improved sediment management is a poor understanding of

sediment processes in the marine environment and a paucity of effective management

techniques. This is particularly true for contaminated sediment. 

Coordinated Strategy Needed

Numerous ongoing research programs exist to improve the nation’s understanding of 

sediments and sediment management techniques, but they are often fragmented, uncoordinated, and inadequately funded. Despite some scientific advances, these programs have

not produced the needed engineering models, innovative management techniques and

technologies, or comprehensive information about the source, movement, location, volume, quality, and appropriate use or disposal of sediment on a regional and national basis. 
C HAPTER 12: MANAGING S EDIMENT AND S HORELINES

The National Shoreline Management Study, a USACE initiative launched in 2002,

holds promise for yielding information to better coordinate and synthesize federal sediment

activities. The study is examining why, where, and to what extent U.S. shorelines erode or

accrete and will investigate other aspects of sediment management, such as economic and

environmental issues and the roles of stakeholders in shoreline management. The results

could help establish national priorities for shoreline management, but only if there is a

mechanism for translating those results into action. In addition to maintaining the National

Shoreline Management Study, which looks primarily at physical shoreline processes, USACE

should significantly expand support for research and monitoring of ecological and biological functions and processes. 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) plays an important role by collecting, analyzing,

interpreting, and disseminating data on sediment flows and chemistry independent of any

regulatory or operational concerns. Thus, USGS can be instrumental in providing a reliable scientific foundation for a new approach to managing sediments.

Recommendation 12–5

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, working with U.S. Department of the Interior agencies, the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, in consultation with state and local governments, should develop and implement a

strategy for improved assessments, monitoring, research, and technology development to

enhance sediment management. 

The enhanced sediment monitoring called for in Recommendation 12–5 is an integral

part of the national monitoring network described in Chapter 15. 

USACE’s role in major construction projects that significantly alter watersheds brings

with it an obligation to understand the potential impacts of these activities prior to their

implementation. Current project-by-project planning and funding, along with severely

limited discretionary funds for broader ecosystem research, have made this extremely 

difficult. Existing funding formulas also severely limit post-project monitoring, precluding

long-term analyses of project outcomes and adoption of adaptive management.

Recommendation 12–6

Congress should modify its current authorization and funding processes to require 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), or an appropriate third party, to monitor

outcomes from past USACE projects and assess the cumulative, regional impacts of USACE

activities within coastal watersheds and ecosystems. Such assessments should be peerreviewed consistent with recommendations from the National Research Council.

Contaminated Sediment

The characterization, containment, and treatment of contaminated sediment in marine

environments, whether through removal or treatment in place, continue to be technically

difficult and prohibitively expensive. Thus, the best defense against damage from contaminated sediment is to prevent its creation or escape. Unfortunately, because reductions

from upland point and nonpoint sources remain a major challenge, additional marine sites

will most likely continue to be affected.

Recent EPA and National Research Council reports recognize the difficult ecological

and economic problems associated with contaminated sediment management and stress

the importance of adopting an adaptive management approach to deal with such problems.11,12 Scientifically sound methods for identifying contaminated sediment and developing innovative technologies for source reduction, as well as improved dredging and

treatment of this material, are critical steps toward improving the economic and ecological

189
190 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

health of coastal areas. To be successful, these efforts will require new resources and effective regional planning. The contaminated sediment science plan, issued by EPA in draft

form in 2002 but never finalized, appears to provide a sound framework for identifying

and ranking the science and approaches needed for improved management of contaminated sediment, and for promoting improved coordination within EPA and among the

many other federal entities with contaminated sediment responsibilities.

Recommendation 12–7

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working with other appropriate entities, including

state and local governments, should build upon EPA’s 2002 draft contaminated sediments

science plan to develop and conduct coordinated strategies for assessment, monitoring, and

research to better understand how contaminated sediment is created and transported. The

strategies should also develop technologies for better prevention, safer dredging or onsite

treatment, and more effective post-recovery treatment of contaminated dredged material. 

References

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of

the United States. EPA–823–F–98–001. Washington, DC, 1998.

2 National Research Council. Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways: Cleanup Strategies and Technologies.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997. 

3 Ibid.

4 Evison, L. “Contaminated Sediment at Superfund Sites: What We Know So Far.” Presented at U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Workshop on Environmental Stability of Chemicals in

Sediment. San Diego, CA, April 2003.

5 Lawson, M., J. Rosati, and N.C. Kraus. Overview of Regional Coastal Sediment Processes and Controls. Coastal and

Hydraulics Engineering Technical Note CHETN–XIV–4. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Research and

Development Center, 2002. 

6 Martin, L.R. Regional Sediment Management: Background and Overview of Initial Implementation. Institute for

Water Resources Policy Studies Program. IWR Report 02–PS–2. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, July 2002.

7 Interagency Working Group on the Dredging Process. The Dredging Process in the United States: An Action Plan for

Improvement. A Report to the Secretary of Transportation. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

1994.

8 National Research Council. Adaptive Management for Water Resources Project Planning. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 2004.

9 National Research Council. Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways: Cleanup Strategies and Technologies.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997. 

10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade. 

EPA 842–B–04–002. Washington, D.C., 2003.

11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Draft Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste

Sites.” Federal Register 67 (December 3, 2002): 71964.

12 National Research Council. Bioavailability of Contaminants in Soils and Sediments: Process, Tools and Applications.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003.

192 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 13

SUPPORTING MARINE COMMERCE

AND TRANSPORTATION

Marine commerce and transportation are vital to the nation’s economy and security. The waterborne movement of cargo and passengers requires an efficient

marine transportation system that is smoothly connected to the nation’s inland

highway and rail infrastructure to meet current and future demands. In addition,

improving the nation’s marine transportation system depends on improved

interagency coordination, including between marine transportation and

other important ocean and coastal activities, enhanced emergency 

preparedness and security at the nation’s ports, and improved strategic planning to ensure that increased levels of marine commerce are

managed in the most effective, safe, secure, and environmentally

responsible manner possible.

Connecting People, Places, and Products

The U.S. marine transportation system is the nation’s link to

global commerce and an essential and growing component

of the national economy. The movement of manufacturing jobs

from the United States to overseas, the nation’s dependence on raw

materials from other countries, global competition to provide highquality goods at competitive prices, and consumer demand have

combined to increase the nation’s dependence on the import of foreign

materials and goods. At the same time, increasing affluence in foreign

nations, coupled with worldwide population growth, has stimulated international demand for U.S. agricultural and manufactured products. 

Value of the Marine Transportation System

The world’s oceans and inland waterways are the highways of choice for the global

movement of this vast international trade. As the world’s largest trading nation, the United

States imports and exports more merchandise than any other country (Table 13.1) and has

one of the most extensive marine transportation systems in the world.1 U.S. marine

import-export trade accounts for nearly 7 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product.2

Domestically, coastal and inland marine trade amounts to roughly one billion tons of

cargo, worth more than $220 billion a year.3

The U.S. marine transportation system is a complex public–private partnership with

many participants. It consists of state, territorial, local, and privately owned facilities 

managed, financed, and operated by federal, state, territorial, and local governments. 
C HAPTER 13: S UPPORTING MARINE COMMERCE AND TRANSPORTATION

The system is a highly complex and interconnected mix of waterways, ports and terminals,

water- and land-based intermodal connections, vessels, vehicles, equipment, personnel,

support service industries, and users. This system provides a number of services, including:

supporting the waterborne movement of foreign and domestic cargo; moving passengers and

vehicles through numerous ferry systems; serving recreational boating, commercial fishing

vessels, and cruise liners; and generating millions of jobs for Americans and for the nation’s

international trading partners. The U.S. marine transportation system also plays an important national security role as a point of entry for foreign shipments and a conduit for the

movement of military equipment, supplies, and personnel to and from overseas locations. 

Components of the Marine Transportation System

Each element of marine transportation is a complex system within itself and is closely

linked with all the other components. More detailed information about the U.S. marine

commerce and transportation sectors is provided in Appendix 5.

Ports

The nation’s marine, Great Lakes, and inland ports are critical components of the overall

transportation infrastructure (Figure 13.1). Their efficiency and capacity are essential to

U.S. importers, exporters, consumers, and domestic suppliers. The majority of U.S. international marine commerce flows through a relatively small number of ports that have the

capacity to accommodate large vessels. Out of a total of 326 ports nationwide, 10 of them

handle 85 percent of all containerized ship-borne cargo, with the ports of Los Angeles and

Long Beach accounting for nearly 40 percent of all such cargo.4 Ports in Hawaii, Alaska,

and the U.S. territories and commonwealths play a special role because they are the primary economically viable link for the movement of commodities to and from these areas. 

With international and domestic marine cargo projected to double over the next twenty

years, a key issue will be the ability of the nation’s intermodal transportation system—its

waterways, railways, highways, and airports—to move cargo into and out of U.S. ports

(Figure 13.2). Some of the nation’s larger ports are already facing significant obstacles to

moving cargo due to inadequate intermodal connections, particularly connections between

ports and highways. Complicating this situation is the potentially competing demands being

placed on the nation’s ports and waterways by passenger ferries, cruise liners, fishing vessels,

193

In 2000, the United States led the world in international trade, accounting for nearly 19 percent of total world imports and 

12 percent of total world exports of merchandise. 

Table 13.1 The Leading Role of the United States in International Trade

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation. “U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends 2003.“ <www.bts.gov/publications/

us_international_trade_and_freight_transportation_trends/2003/> (Accessed May 2004).

1 United States $781 12.3% 1 United States $1,258 18.9%

2 Germany $552 8.7% 2 Germany $503 7.5%

3 Japan $479 7.5% 3 Japan $380 5.7%

4 France $298 4.7% 4 United Kingdom $337 5.1%

5 United Kingdom $284 4.5% 5 France $305 4.6%

6 Canada $277 4.3% 6 Canada $245 3.7%

7 China $249 3.9% 7 Italy $236 3.5%

8 Italy $238 3.7% 8 China $225 3.4%

9 Netherlands $213 3.3% 9 Hong Kong $214 3.2%

10 Hong Kong $202 3.2% 10 Netherlands $198 3.0%

Rank in

2000 Exporters

Value

(Billions of 

U.S. dollars) Percent

Rank in

2000 Importers

Value

(Billions of 

U.S. dollars) Percent
194 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

and recreational boating. With the possible exception

of fishing vessels, all other marine sectors are expected

to continue to show significant growth.

Vessels

Ships entering and leaving U.S. ports include a mix of

foreign and U.S.-registered vessels, and a broad variety

of vessel types and sizes ranging from large container

ships, tankers, and bulk carriers, to medium-sized

barges, passenger ferries and cruise liners, and smaller

fishing and recreational boats. As the number and size

of vessels increase, additional pressures will be placed

on the nation’s ports and waterways. (For a discussion

of issues related to vessel safety and environmental

protection, see Chapter 16.)

The vast majority of international trade is carried

on foreign-registered and foreign-crewed vessels that

can be operated at considerably lower cost than U.S.-

registered vessels crewed by U.S. merchant mariners.

The top twenty international merchant fleet nations

operate more than 28,000 vessels worldwide. While

the United States is ranked fourteenth, its share of the

international fleet is only 454 vessels, or about 1 

percent of the total. In contrast, the domestic U.S.

marine fleet numbers more than 30,000 tugboats,

towboats, and barges.5 The domestic fleet is protected from foreign competition in U.S.

waters by the Merchant Marine Act, more commonly known as the Jones Act. 

As international marine commerce has grown, ships have grown in size to accommodate

increased amounts of cargo. The container ships of the 1960s could carry only a few hundred containers (commonly measured in 20-foot equivalent units, or TEUs). Today, 5,000

TEU vessels are quite common, and the largest container vessels can carry more than 8,000

TEUs, requiring navigation channels up to 50 feet deep. Bulk cargo ships are also increasing

in size. For example, ultra-large crude oil carriers, known as super tankers, are approaching

lengths of 1,500 feet and widths of 300 feet, requiring channels deeper than 90 feet.6

The U.S. marine transportation system also moves millions of passengers every year

on cruise liners and ferries. The cruise industry has experienced constant growth worldwide since 1980. Globally, there were more than nine million cruise passengers with a 

little more than 70 percent, or 6.4 million passengers, embarking from U.S. ports in 2002

(see Figure 16.1), and 176 U.S. and foreign flag cruise ships operated in the North

American cruise industry.7 This annual growth rate of just over 8 percent is expected to

increase as the demand for cruise vacations grows. 

The 168 U.S. passenger ferries, operating in thirty-five states, transported nearly ninety

million people for work, leisure, and other purposes in 1999.8 Continued population growth

in coastal metropolitan areas, coupled with increased vehicle traffic on the nation’s highway

systems, makes commuter passenger-vehicle ferries attractive transportation options for the

future in selected areas. The U.S. passenger ferry industry has shown consistent growth,

largely because coastal municipalities and states have invested in ferry systems to ease highway congestion. 

Shipbuilding and Repair

Shipbuilding in the United States has historically been considered a strategic industry, supporting both military and commercial interests. Despite this important domestic role, the

Figure 13.1 Ports Are the Primary Gateway 

for International Trade 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Water Air Truck Rail Pipeline Other

Contributions to 

U.S. International Trade

Mode of Transportation

In 2001, U.S. ports were major gateways for international trade. 

Waterborne commerce accounted for 78 percent of total U.S. 

international trade by weight (1,643 million tons) and 38 

percent by value ($718 billion).

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation. 

“U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends 2003.“ 

<www.bts.gov/publications/us_international_trade_and_freight_

transportation_trends/2003/> (Accessed May 2004).

■ Value ■ Weight
C HAPTER 13: S UPPORTING MARINE COMMERCE AND TRANSPORTATION

U.S. shipbuilding and repair industry is in serious decline. Employment is about 50 percent

of what it was in the early 1980s, and companies have had to consolidate to survive. 

Currently, the U.S. shipbuilding and repair industry consists of about 250 private companies and 5 publicly-owned and operated repair yards.9 In 2002, the United States had only 24

major commercial shipbuilding yards capable of building vessels over 122 meters in length,

and only nine of these were actively building ships.10 Combined, they accounted for only

about 1.5 percent of total world ship tonnage on order that year.11 Much of the U.S. commercial shipbuilding and repair industry works in niche markets, building and repairing midsized vessels including ferries, offshore oil and gas supply boats, research and patrol boats,

small to mid-size container ships, tugboats, towboats, barges, fishing boats, luxury yachts,

and U.S. military vessels. Although high operating costs prevent the U.S. shipbuilding and

repair industry from being competitive internationally, the Jones Act insulates the U.S. industry from foreign competition on contracts related to the U.S. domestic and military fleets. 

Navigational Aids

Aids to navigation—including buoys, warning lights, maps and charts, hydrographic and

environmental data, and communications, positioning, and control systems—are essential

to the protection of life and property and the enhancement of marine efficiency, especially

as the number of larger and faster vessels visiting U.S. ports increases. Particularly important are recent advances in highly accurate and dependable navigation technology that

have revolutionized safe marine passage, including harbor approaches and entrances, and

avoidance of shallow water, bottom obstacles, and other vessels. Today’s satellite-based

global positioning system enables a wide range of mariners to plot a course within a 

few yards of their actual position. In addition, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) has developed a suite of tools that promote safe and efficient 

navigation in major U.S. ports and harbors. These include navigation information products, such as georeferenced Electronic Navigational Charts, and real-time capabilities for

tides and currents, such as the Physical Oceanographic Real Time System. NOAA’s navigation products are especially useful to mariners in meeting real-time navigation requirements to avoid collisions and groundings and in determining the best delivery routes.

195

Network Flows (tons)

1 to 250,000 250,001 to 500,000 500,001 to 1,000,000 More than 1,000,000

Figure 13.2 Goods Traveling through U.S. Ports Are Transported Nationwide

Highways are major arteries for the flow of international freight throughout the United States. As seen in these two maps, the 

ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach and New York and New Jersey are hubs for the distribution and collection of truck cargo 

traveling throughout the nation.

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. “Freight Analysis Framework.” 

<www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/Ports%20and%20Border%20Crossings/By%20State.htm> (Accessed January 2004).

Los Angeles/Long Beach New York and New Jersey
196 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Harbors, Channels, and Waterways

The nation’s network of harbors, channels, and intracoastal and inland waterways is a vital

component of both the U.S. marine transportation system and the overall U.S. intermodal

infrastructure. In addition to providing corridors for international trade, this network

links U.S. inland ports with coastal and Great Lakes ports, enabling the waterborne movement of domestic cargo, much of which is destined for the international market.

Dredging harbors, channels, and waterways to maintain and increase water depth and

to widen and lengthen channels to accommodate wider and deeper-draft ships is critical

for the successful operation of the nation’s ports. In 2001, the federal government spent

$868 million on dredging projects to maintain and deepen the nation’s harbors and channels.12 (See Chapter 12 for a discussion of the complex issues associated with dredging

and other sediment management projects.)

Personnel

The U.S. marine transportation system requires a highly skilled and diverse workforce to

handle increasingly computerized equipment and vessels, sophisticated electronic navigational aids, and new port technology for the movement of cargo. The U.S. Merchant

Marine Academy, the six state-operated marine academies, and other marine education

and training facilities in the United States offer training that covers virtually all facets of

the U.S. marine transportation system, including at-sea ship operations, port management, marine business, facilities, and safety; and environmental engineering and protection. As the U.S. system becomes more complex, training requirements will increase. In

this area as in many others, the nation should be positioned to meet the demand for the

highly skilled workforce of the future. 

Positioning the U.S. Marine 

Transportation System for the Future

For the nation’s marine transportation system to meet current and future demands, 

ongoing maintenance, improvement, and expansion will be required. A key prerequisite

for a robust system is better coordination, planning, decision making, and allocation of

resources at the federal level. In particular, it will be essential to enhance the connections

between this system and other modes of transportation, such as highways, railways, and

airports. At the same time, in moving toward an ecosystem-based management approach,

planning for the movement of cargo and passengers should be coordinated with the management of many other ocean and coastal

uses and activities, and with efforts to

protect the marine environment. 

Environmentally sound management

of port operations is critical to the viability

of port areas as natural resources as well

as economic engines and to the integration

of ports into an ecosystem-based management approach. The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Green Ports

Program is an example of an existing

mechanism that incorporates environmental stewardship into port operation practices and that has been implemented by

numerous U.S. ports along the Pacific,

Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic, and Great Lakes

Trucks entering the Port of Long Beach, California

on a typical working day can lead to significant 

traffic congestion.

Steve Sykora, Port of Long Beach, CA
C HAPTER 13: S UPPORTING MARINE COMMERCE AND TRANSPORTATION

coasts. One issue that may have specific consequences for marine transportation is climate

change, whether gradual or abrupt, and the changes in environmental conditions that

might result, such as decreased polar ice coverage, increased frequency or intensity of

storms, and changes in sea-level. 

Federal Roles

Within the federal government, responsibility for marine commerce and transportation 

is spread among numerous agencies, primarily the U.S. Department of Transportation

(DOT), U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, and EPA. These agencies have many roles, including vessel traffic 

management, national security, marine safety, waterway maintenance, environmental 

protection, and customs. 

In 2004, a National Research Council (NRC) report concluded that federal responsibilities for the marine transportation system are highly dispersed, decentralized, poorly

coordinated, and do not correspond well with the structure and function of such system.13

Unlike the highway system, which is primarily the responsibility of DOT’s Federal

Highway Administration, and the U.S. aviation system, which is the responsibility of

DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration, the marine transportation system does not have 

a clearly defined lead federal agency. Statutory, regulatory, and policy differences among

federal agencies with roles in marine transportation lead to fragmentation, competition,

and in some cases, an inability to work collaboratively due to conflicting mandates. The

NRC report was based on an analytical framework that examined four key federal interests: safety, security, commerce, and environmental protection. Federal policy makers can

use this framework to identify critical needs within the system and target efforts to meet

those needs most efficiently.

National leadership and support will be needed to achieve better integration within

the federal government, better links with the rest of the nation’s transportation infrastructure, and coordination between marine transportation and other important ocean and

coastal uses and activities. The logical agency to assume this responsibility, as it does for

the highway, aviation, and railway systems, is DOT. 

Recommendation 13–1

Congress should designate the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as the lead federal

agency for planning and oversight of the marine transportation system and DOT should

submit regular reports to Congress on the condition and future needs of the system. The

National Ocean Council should identify overlapping functions in other federal agencies and

make recommendations concerning the advisability of transferring those functions to DOT. 

Even with one clearly mandated lead federal agency, coordination will be needed

among the federal and non-federal participants in the marine transportation system, given

the significance of domestic and international trade to the nation and the complexity of

the components that make up the system. In an effort to address this, eighteen federal

agencies with responsibilities for various aspects of the U.S. marine transportation system

(Box 13.1) signed a memorandum of understanding in 2000 that created the Interagency

Committee for the Marine Transportation System.14

The committee’s goal is to enhance information exchange among the member agencies;

its safety, security, and environmental subcommittees also serve as forums for the resolution of shared issues. However, the ability of the committee to engage in more substantive

policy or budgetary planning is very limited. To become more effective, the responsibility

and accountability of the committee will need to be elevated.

197
198 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 13–2

Congress should codify the Interagency Committee for the Marine Transportation System and

place it under the oversight of the National Ocean Council (NOC). 

Under the oversight of the NOC’s Committee on Ocean Resource Management, the

Interagency Committee for the Marine Transportation System should:

• be chaired by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

• improve coordination among all participants in the U.S. marine transportation system.

• promote the integration of marine transportation with other modes of transportation

and with other ocean and coastal uses and activities. 

• recommend strategies and plans for: better informing the public of the importance of

marine commerce and transportation; devising alternate funding scenarios to meet

short- and long-term demands on the marine transportation system; matching federal

revenues derived from marine transportation with funding needs to maintain and

improve the system; and delineating short- and long-term priorities.

Because marine transportation also involves many actors outside the federal government, the Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council was created to serve

as a forum for coordination among nonfederal participants in the marine transportation

system and a venue for providing input to the federal government on important national

issues (Box 13.2). This nonfederal advisory body can play a useful role as an advisor to

the National Ocean Council as well as to DOT, where its charter resides. It could also be

helpful in improving collaborations between coastal management programs and the transportation planning and priority setting process. 

Links to the National Transportation Infrastructure

An important step in allowing the U.S. marine transportation system to grow, while minimizing increased congestion, delays, and costs to U.S. businesses and consumers, is to

improve the movement of cargo into and out of ports. Existing intermodal connections

are inadequate to meet the expected increase in foreign and domestic trade. The nation’s

transportation infrastructure is largely an agglomeration of competing transportation

modes, each focusing on its own priorities. While this approach has produced an extensive infrastructure, a national strategy is needed to enhance the connections among these

modes, including the nation’s ports, and ensure greater overall effectiveness. 

Recommendation 13–3

The U.S. Department of Transportation should draft a new national freight transportation

strategy to support continued growth of the nation’s economy and international and

domestic trade. This strategy should improve the links between the marine transportation

system and other components of the transportation infrastructure, including highways,

railways, and airports. Based on the new strategy, investments of national transportation

funds should be directed toward planning and implementation of intermodal projects of

national significance.

In developing the national freight transportation strategy, DOT should emphasize

strategic planning with states, regions, and the public sector, as is currently being carried

out for the U.S. highway system.

The movement of cargo by inland and coastal waterways, known as short sea shipping, is an emerging mode of transporting cargo. Significant increases in short sea shipping between U.S. ports would help to alleviate highway and landside port congestion by

decreasing the volume of truck and railway cargo entering and leaving U.S. ports. It would

also serve to bolster the U.S. shipbuilding industry and the U.S. Merchant Marine as

demand increased for U.S. port-to-port conveyance. 
C HAPTER 13: S UPPORTING MARINE COMMERCE AND TRANSPORTATION

Recommendation 13–4

The U.S. Department of Transportation should conduct a thorough analysis and assessment of

the potential societal and economic benefits of increased short sea shipping. 

Information Needs

Planning for the future of the U.S. marine transportation system requires accurate and timely

information, including estimates of the volume of current and future cargo transportation, their

origins and destinations, and the capacity of the various transportation modes. Such information is essential to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the current system and the challenges and opportunities for improving its effectiveness. Transportation planners and coastal

managers also need better information to improve connections between marine and landside

transportation systems and to improve the overall management of the wide range of interrelated

ocean and coastal uses and activities that includes the marine transportation system. 

199

Box 13.2 Nonfederal Member Organizations of the Marine Transportation

System National Advisory Council

• American Association of Port Authorities

• American Great Lakes Ports Association

• American Maritime Congress

• American Pilots’ Association

• American Trucking Associations

• Association of Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations

• Boat Owners Association of the U.S.

(BOAT US)

• Chamber of Shipping of America

• Conference of Minority Transportation

Officials

• Inland Rivers, Ports and Terminals, Inc.

• International Longshore and 

Warehouse Union 

• International Longshoremen’s Association

• INTERTANKO

• Maritime Security Council

• MIT Center for Transportation Studies

• National Association of Regional Councils

• National Association of Waterfront

Employers

• National Governors Association

• National Industrial Transportation League

• National Mining Association

• National Waterways Conference

• North American Export Grain Assoc., Inc. 

• Pacific Maritime Association

• Passenger Vessel Association

• Shipbuilders Council of America

• The Ocean Conservancy

• U.S. Chamber of Commerce

• U.S. Exporters Competitive Maritime Council

• United States Maritime Alliance, Ltd.

(USMX)

• World Shipping Council

Box 13.1 Federal Members of the Interagency Committee 

for the Marine Transportation System

• Bureau of Export Administration

• Bureau of Transportation Statistics

• Federal Highway Administration

• Federal Railroad Administration

• Federal Transit Administration

• Maritime Administration

• Minerals Management Service

• National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

• Research and Special Programs

Administration

• St. Lawrence Seaway Development

Corporation

• U.S. Air Force

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• U.S. Coast Guard

• U.S. Customs Service

• U.S. Department of Agriculture

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• U.S. Navy 
200 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 13–5

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), working with other appropriate entities, should

establish a national data collection, research, and analysis program to provide a comprehensive

picture of freight flows in the United States and to enhance the performance of the nation’s

intermodal transportation system. DOT should periodically assess and prioritize the nation’s

future needs for ports and intermodal transportation capacity to fulfill the needs of the nation’s

expected future growth in marine commerce.

The freight information collection program should include: 

• economic models that project trade and traffic growth and determine the impacts of

growth on U.S. ports and waterways and the inland infrastructures connected to them.

• models and guides to identify bottlenecks and capacity shortfalls.

• consistent, nationally accepted definitions and protocols for measuring capacity.

• innovative trade and transportation data collection technology and research to fill critical

data gaps. 

• assessment of the social and economic ramifications of marine transportation

investments as compared to other transportation investments.

Emergency Preparedness

Natural disasters, labor disputes, terrorist attacks, ship collisions, spills of hazardous materials, and many other human and naturally caused events can disrupt the flow of marine

cargo and passenger services, causing severe economic and social ramifications nationally

and internationally. Diminished port capacity might also affect vital military operations. A

strategic scenario of a terrorist event conducted in 2002 demonstrated the potential for $60

billion in losses in the case of a twelve-day closure of all ports in the nation.15

Labor disputes can also present significant interruptions in port operations. A ten-day

lockout of workers at twenty-nine West Coast ports in October 2002 caused an estimated

$15.6 billion in losses to the national economy, and demonstrated the cascading consequences of a major port shutdown.16

Port Security 

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, a major challenge has emerged to increase

security at the nation’s ports, including enhanced control of the six million imported 

containers and many hazardous cargo tank ships that move through U.S. ports annually.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is coordinating extensive efforts to address

port security, including the development of a National Maritime Transportation Security

Plan, area-based security initiatives, and requirements for certain vessels and port facilities

to conduct security threat assessments, develop security plans, designate security officers,

perform drills, and take appropriate preventive measures. 

Ship Collisions and Groundings

Ship collisions, groundings, and other types of underwater obstructions in and near ports

can cause port closures, particularly when safe navigation is impeded. Cleanup operations

in response to spills associated with such incidents may complicate the restoration of 

traffic flow. Further constraining the ability to plan for and respond to such problems is

the lack of adequate salvage capabilities nationwide.

Natural Disasters

There are many historical examples of natural disasters—such as hurricanes, earthquakes,

tsunamis, and droughts—affecting safe navigation and port operations. A 1994 tropical rainfall in Houston, Texas, caused the closure of the Houston Ship Channel for several days due

to flooding, dangerous currents, pipeline breaks and fires, shoaling, and channel obstrucMarine transportation

remains a significant

source of vulnerability. More than 6 million containers enter

this country each

year. Only a very

small percentage, 

less than 2%, is ever

inspected in any

meaningful way. 

—Admiral James M. Loy,

Commandant, 

U.S. Coast Guard, 

testimony to the 

Commission, 

November 2001
C HAPTER 13: S UPPORTING MARINE COMMERCE AND TRANSPORTATION

tions. Similarly, in September 2003, Hurricane Isabel forced closures and limited operations

at major ports and shipping channels along the Mid-Atlantic coast over the period of a week. 

Escalating traffic flow combined with the increased potential for emergency port closures

call for enhanced emergency preparedness and improved contingency planning for U.S. ports.

Recommendation 13–6

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) should incorporate emergency preparedness

requirements in developing a national freight transportation strategy. Because this will

require input from many agencies and stakeholders, DOT should work closely with the 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ports, and

marine industries.

Emergency preparedness planning should focus on: 

• prevention of threats to national security and port operations.

• response and recovery practices, including assessments of available resources such as 

salvage and harbor clearance capacity and alternative port capacity.

• technological requirements for security screening, cargo movement and tracking, and

traffic management.

• research and development needs related to innovative technologies that can minimize

interruptions and security risks to port operations.

• identification of resources needed to implement prevention, response and recovery

strategies for the nation’s ports.

References

1 National Chamber Foundation. Trade and Transportation: A Study of North American Port and Intermodal Systems.

Washington, DC: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2003. 

2 Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council. U.S. Economic Growth and the Marine Transportation

System. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, December 18, 2000. 

3 The Transportation Institute. “Industry Profile.” <www.trans-inst.org/ind_profile.html> Accessed October 30, 2003. 

4 Bureau of Transportation Statistics. U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 2003.

5 Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Maritime Trade and Transportation, 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Transportation, 2002.

6 Hofstra University. “Tanker Size” <www.people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/appl5en/tankers.html> Accessed

December 10, 2003.

7 Business Research and Economics Advisors. The Contribution of the North American Cruise Industry to the U.S.

Economy in 2002. Arlington, VA: International Council of Cruise Lines, 2003.

8 Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Transportation, 2001.

9 U.S. Department of Commerce. National Security Assessment of the U.S. Shipbuilding and Repair Industry.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001.

10 Maritime Administration. Report of Survey of U.S. Shipbuilding and Repair Facilities. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 2003.

11 Ibid.

12 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “Corps Dredging Facts.” <iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/factcard/fc02/fcdidu1.htm> 

Accessed October 30, 2003.

13 National Research Council. The Marine Transportation System and the Federal Role. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 2004.

14 U.S. Department of Transportation. “Inter-agency Committee on the MTS.” <www.dot.gov/mts/> Accessed October 30, 2003.

15 Booz, Allen, Hamilton. Port Security War Game—Implications for U.S. Supply Chains. Washington, DC, 2003. 

16 Martin Associates. Impact of the West Coast Port Shutdown. Lancaster, PA: Pacific Maritime Association, March 10, 2003.

201

PART V

CLEAR WATERS AHEAD :

COASTAL AND OCEAN

WATER QUALITY

CHAPTER 14

ADDRESSING COASTAL WATER POLLUTION ....................................................204

CHAPTER 15

CREATING A NATIONAL MONITORING NETWORK .......................................226

CHAPTER 16

LIMITING VESSEL POLLUTION AND IMPROVING VESSEL SAFETY ......236

CHAPTER 17

PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF INVASIVE SPECIES .........................................252

CHAPTER 18

REDUCING MARINE DEBRIS.......................................................................................264
204 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 14

ADDRESSING COASTAL

WATER POLLUTION

Coastal waters are subject to cumulative impacts from a variety of pollutants—

from near and far, and from point, nonpoint, and airborne sources. For this 

reason, any solution must be founded on an ecosystem-based and watershed

management approach involving a broad range of agencies, programs, and

individuals. Solutions will also require a substantial financial investment and

will take time. Over the last few decades, great strides have been made 

in controlling water pollution from point sources, although further

improvements could be realized through increased funding, strengthened enforcement, and promotion of innovative approaches such as

market-based incentives. However, substantial enhancement of

coastal water quality will require significant reductions in nonpoint

source pollution—a technical and political challenge. Establishing

measurable pollution reduction goals for coastal areas is needed,

as is coordination of the many related agencies and programs to

effectively target the various laws, programs, funds, training, technical assistance, incentives, disincentives, and other management

tools to address nonpoint source pollution of coastal waters. 

Stopping the Degradation of Coastal Waters

Coastal waters are one of the nation’s greatest assets, yet they are

being bombarded with pollution from all directions. The heavy

concentration of activity in coastal areas, combined with pollutants flowing

from streams far inland and others carried through the air great distances from

their source, are the primary causes of nutrient enrichment, hypoxia, harmful

algal blooms, toxic contamination, sedimentation, and other problems that plague

coastal waters. Not only do degraded waters cause significant ecological damage, they

also lead to economic impacts due to beach closures, curtailed recreational activities, and

additional health care costs. Reducing water pollution will result in cleaner coastal waters,

healthy habitats that support aquatic life, and a suite of economic benefits. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 2002 National Water Quality

Inventory found that just over half of the estuarine areas assessed were polluted to the

extent that their use was compromised, either for aquatic life, drinking water, swimming,

boating, or fish consumption. The interagency 2004 Draft National Coastal Condition

Report II rated coastal waters along most of the continental United States as being in fair

condition, with poor conditions in the Northeast and Puerto Rico regions (Figure 14.1). 
C HAPTER 14: ADDRESSING COASTAL WATER POLLUTION

The protection of coastal waters will require managers to address a range of human

activities that generate pollution in many locations and a variety of pollutants following

different pathways. Management that is ecosystem-based and that considers entire watersheds will help guide this daunting task.

The complex array of laws, agencies, and programs that address water pollution, and

the number of parties involved, will require greatly enhanced coordination among federal

agencies, primarily EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

Greater coordination is also needed between the federal government and managers at the

state, territorial, tribal, and local levels, watershed groups, nongovernmental organizations, private stakeholders, and the academic and research communities. The case of

nutrient pollution, discussed in Box 14.1, illustrates many of the challenges involved in

improving coastal water quality.

Reducing Point Sources of Pollution

With strong public support, government and private sector actions over the past three

decades have made great strides in controlling water pollution from identifiable point

205

Figure 14.1 Report Card on Regional Coastal Conditions

The Environmental Protection Agency’s 2004 Draft National Coastal Condition Report II assessed six coastal regions of the 

United States, including Puerto Rico, based on monitoring data collected between 1997 and 2000. Based on five environmental 

indicators, EPA found that the overall condition of the nation’s estuaries is fair, with poor conditions in the Northeast Coast

and Puerto Rico regions and fair conditions in the Southeast Coast, Gulf Coast, Great Lakes, and West Coast regions. 

* Surveys completed but no indicator data available until the next report.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft National Coastal Condition Report II. EPA-620/R-03/002. Washington, DC, February 2004. 

Coastal Habitat

Water Quality

Sediment Quality

Benthic

Fish Tissue

Overall

Great Lakes

Coastal Habitat

Water Quality

Sediment Quality

Benthic

Fish Tissue

Overall

Northeast

Coastal Habitat

Water Quality

Sediment Quality

Benthic

Fish Tissue

Overall

Southeast

Coastal Habitat

Water Quality

Sediment Quality

Benthic

Fish Tissue

Overall

Gulf

Coastal Habitat

Water Quality

Sediment Quality

Benthic

Fish Tissue

Overall

West

Coastal Habitat

Water Quality

Sediment Quality

Benthic

Fish Tissue

Overall

National

Coastal Habitat

Water Quality

Sediment Quality

Benthic

Fish Tissue

Overall

Puerto Rico

Good Fair Poor

Scale of Ecological Health

*

*

West

Great Lakes

Northeast

Southeast

Gulf

Alaska* Hawaii* Puerto Rico
206 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Box 14.1 Nutrient Pollution in Coastal Waters

A2000 National Research Council report called nutrient pollution the most pervasive and

troubling pollution problem currently facing U.S. coastal waters.iAlthough nutrients

such as nitrogen and phosphorus are necessary to marine ecosystems in small quantities,

human activities on the coasts and inland areas have greatly increased the flow of nutrients,

in some cases to harmful levels (Figure 14.2). 

Nutrient pollution defies simple categorization

and is difficult to control because it can come from

point, nonpoint, and atmospheric sources, from near

and far. The main sources include runoff from agricultural land, animal feeding operations, and urban

areas, discharges from wastewater treatment plants,

and atmospheric deposition of chemicals released 

during fossil fuel combustion. Human activities have

approximately doubled the amount of reactive nitrogen cycling through the biosphere compared to preindustrial conditions, with most of this increase occurring during the last thirty years.ii The largest human

additions of nitrogen result from an increased use of

inorganic fertilizers.iii

Nutrient pollution leads to a host of ecological and

economic impacts including: fish kills due to oxygen

depletion; loss of important and sensitive coastal habitats, such as seagrasses; excessive and sometimes toxic

algal blooms; changes in marine biodiversity; increases

in incidents of human illness; and reductions in tourism.

The greatest impacts occur in estuaries and nearby

coastal regions. Nutrient pollution has been particularly

severe along the lower Atlantic Coast and in the Gulf of

Mexico. The infamous “dead zone” in the Gulf of

Mexico is an area of seasonal oxygen depletion caused

by nutrients draining from the Mississippi River Basin. 

Smaller dead zones are becoming increasingly

frequent in other areas, including Lake Erie. The

severity and extent of nutrient pollution are expected

to worsen in more than half of the nation’s estuaries

and coastal waters by 2020.iv Without concerted,

coordinated, and sustained action to reduce nitrogen

sources, nutrient pollution will be a continuing problem in the nation’s coastal waters.

Addressing such pollution will require prompt establishment of standards for nutrient loads,

including both nitrogen and phosphorus, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and

the states. 

i National Research Council. Clean Coastal Waters: Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000. 

ii Rabalais, N.N., and S.W. Nixon. “Preface: Nutrient Over-enrichment of the Coastal Zone.” Estuaries 25, no. 4B

(August 2002): 639.

iii National Research Council. Clean Coastal Waters: Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000. 

iv Bricker, S.B., et al. National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment: Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation’s

Estuaries. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, September 1999. 

Figure 14.2 Land-based Nutrients 

Can Cause Death on the Seafloor

When ocean water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients, 

from such sources as agricultural runoff and sewage outflows, 

these nutrients can stimulate the growth of phytoplankton. 

As the phytoplankton die and sink to the bottom, their 

decomposition consumes the dissolved oxygen in the water 

and sediments that other benthic organisms need to survive.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Coastal 

Condition Report. EPA620-R-01-005. Washington, DC, August 2001.

Atmospheric 

Deposition

Sewage 

effluent

Dead 

material 

settles

Shellfish and other 

benthic organisms 

unable to escape 

low oxygen 

conditions

The decompostion 

of excess organic 

matter resulting 

from the 

bloom consumes 

dissolved oxygen

Phytoplankton 

Bloom thrives 

on nutrients

Runoff
C HAPTER 14: ADDRESSING COASTAL WATER POLLUTION

sources, such as industrial facilities and wastewater treatment plants, whose discharges can

be monitored as they emerge from the end of a pipe. Even so, opportunities remain to 

further reduce point source impacts on U.S. coastal waters and improve compliance with

existing environmental requirements. 

Existing Management Tools

Point source pollution is primarily addressed through a few EPA programs, including the

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the Total Maximum Daily

Load (TMDL) Program, and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Over the past thirty years, the Clean Water Act, including its NPDES program, has led to

dramatic reductions of polluted effluents. EPA typically delegates administration of this

program to the states, and the state or EPA then regulates polluters by issuing permits that

reflect federal standards for discharges. If the regulatory agency determines that a particular

water body is not meeting water quality standards, permittees discharging to those waters

may be required to implement more stringent controls. 

The Total Maximum Daily Load Program

The TMDL program, which is carried out by states, territories, and authorized tribes with

oversight and technical assistance from EPA, establishes the maximum amount of a pollutant, from point and nonpoint sources, that can be present in a water body while still

meeting water quality standards. States must list waters that continue to exceed water

quality standards even after application of required levels of pollution control technology,

and then establish TMDLs for these listed water bodies. States are directed to develop a

TMDL for each pollutant of concern and then implement plans to achieve and maintain

those TMDLs by allocating reductions among all sources. EPA must review and approve

state lists and TMDLs. To include a margin of safety, states are required to take seasonal

variations into account. 

Clean Water State Revolving Funds

Under the Clean Water Act, the federal government has provided significant financial 

support for water quality infrastructure improvement. From 1970 to 1995, funding was

provided under the Federal Construction Grants Program to build wastewater treatment

plants and collection systems, without any requirement for repayment. In 1987, in a

major shift in policy, Congress established and began to target federal funding toward the

State Revolving Funds, in which the federal government provides capitalization grants for

a more self-sustaining, state-administered revolving loan fund (Figure 14.3). States are

required to provide 20 percent in matching funds. States decide which projects are the

highest priorities for funding, the borrowers repay the loans, and the program loans the

money again to other borrowers. States provide below-market interest rates and other

financial incentives to towns, counties, nonprofit organizations, farmers, and homeowners

for water quality improvement projects. The funds finance capital construction costs—not

operations and maintenance—and are mostly used to build or improve wastewater treatment plants and related sewer systems. 

This program is widely considered a cost-effective, long-term mechanism for meeting

infrastructure demands. From 1998 to 2002, the funds provided an average of $3.8 billion

per year for water quality improvement. Since the program’s inception, the federal government’s investment of $22.4 billion has resulted in a total of $43.5 billion being provided

for infrastructure projects.1 State Revolving Funds are crucial to restoring, maintaining,

and improving the nation’s water quality.

207
208 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Major Point Sources 

The major point sources of pollution to the nation’s waterways include wastewater treatment plants, sewer system overflows, septic systems, industrial facilities, and animal feeding operations. 

Stormwater, which is formally classified as a point source, is grouped with nonpoint

sources in this chapter. Stormwater differs considerably from most industrial or urban

point sources and, like other nonpoint sources, is driven primarily by precipitation.

Nevertheless, sewage and stormwater will need to be addressed together in making wastewater management decisions.

Wastewater Treatment Plants

Municipal wastewater comes primarily from individual households and from manufacturing and commercial activities. Wastewater entering a treatment plant may contain

organic pollutants, metals, nutrients, sediment, bacteria, viruses, and toxic substances.

Wastewater treatment plants have substantially met their original goal of removing most

pathogens, organic materials, and suspended solids; however, nutrients and many chemicals are not effectively removed through primary and secondary treatment processes. 

The effluent from treatment plants can be discharged directly into rivers, estuaries,

coastal waters, or the ocean. Even discharges into waters far upstream can have serious

impacts on the coast. 

Nutrient pollution has had a major impact on coastal waters, contributing to toxic

algal blooms, loss of seagrass habitat and coral reefs, and oxygen depletion. Unfortunately,

primary and secondary wastewater treatment have not been effective in adequately removing nitrogen and phosphorus. In many heavily developed areas, wastewater treatment is

unlikely to achieve nutrient-related standards and additional controls will be needed to

Figure 14.3 Changes in Funding for Water Pollution Controls

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Billions of Dollars

In the last thirty years, there has been a fundamental shift in the way the federal government 

funds the infrastructure for water pollution control in local communities. From 1970 to 1995, 

Congress, through EPA, provided $61.1 billion in direct grants to help build or upgrade wastewater 

treatment facilities. However, since 1988, the federal government has increasingly provided 

financial support for these types of projects by making capitalization grants to the State Revolving 

Funds, which provide low interest loans that are paid back into the fund to finance future projects. 

As of fiscal year 2004, the federal capitalization grants total about $22.4 billion, with state 

matching funds totaling about $4.5 billion.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Progress in Water Quality: An Evaluation of the National 

Investment in Municipal Wastewater Treatment. EPA-832-R-00-008. Washington, DC, June 2000.

■ Direct Grants ■ State Revolving Funds
C HAPTER 14: ADDRESSING COASTAL WATER POLLUTION

meet water quality goals. Decisions to require additional controls on wastewater treatment

plants will need to be linked to the TMDL analysis described above, with appropriate 

allocation of nutrient reductions among all point and nonpoint sources that contribute to

nutrient loads in the water body.

Advanced—or tertiary—treatment technologies, which can remove most nitrogen and

phosphorus from wastewater treatment plant discharges, cost approximately 25 percent

more than secondary treatment.2 These advanced technologies are being implemented in

regions where wastewater discharges are significant sources of nutrient pollution, such as

Tampa Bay and Chesapeake Bay. One recent success in developing and applying advanced

treatment was at a Stamford, Connecticut wastewater treatment plant where a novel biological nutrient process removed much of the nitrogen at very little cost.3

Ultimately, water conservation by users is the least expensive and most direct method

of minimizing wastewater. In some locations, water quality impacts may also be avoided

by re-using treated wastewater for beneficial purposes, such as maintaining landscaping or

watering golf courses. 

Primary and secondary wastewater treatment have been largely ineffective in removing many of the trace chemicals present in industrial and residential wastewater. These

chemicals—including pharmaceuticals, antibiotics, hormones, insecticides, fire retardants,

and detergents—are then discharged to surface waters. Although many of these substances

may break down in the environment over time, continuous loading may maintain concentrations above levels at which biological effects occur. Designed to produce biological

effects in humans, such compounds may also have unforeseen impacts on aquatic life. 

For example, the effluent from wastewater treatment plants has been shown to disrupt

endocrine functions in some aquatic organisms.4

The U.S. Geological Survey’s Toxic Substances Hydrology Program has recently completed the first comprehensive study on the distribution of these compounds in surface

waters of the United States. Significant concentrations of many commonly used chemicals,

including prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceuticals, have been detected in some

coastal and ocean waters.5 The national monitoring network called for in Chapter 15

should track the presence of newly-detected wastewater contaminants such as residues

from pharmaceuticals and antibiotics.

Recommendation 14–1

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), working with states, should require

advanced nutrient removal for wastewater treatment plant discharges that contribute to

degradation of nutrient-impaired waters as needed to attain water quality standards. EPA

should also determine the extent of the impact of chemicals in wastewater from residential

and industrial sources, including pharmaceuticals. 

In particular, EPA should:

• support research and demonstration projects for biological nutrient removal and other

innovative advanced treatment processes to eliminate nitrogen and phosphorus from

wastewater discharges.

• ensure that information about innovative advanced treatment processes and technologies

is widely disseminated.

• support development of technologies to reduce concentrations of pharmaceuticals, 

personal care product ingredients, and other biologically active contaminants in wastewater treatment plant discharges.

Sewer System Overflows

Combined sewer systems were designed to collect domestic sewage, industrial wastewater,

and rainwater runoff or snowmelt in the same pipes. While these systems provided

human health benefits at the time they were constructed, they have a major drawback:

209
210 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

when total water volumes exceed the system’s capacity, the overflow enters receiving

waters without treatment. Sanitary sewer systems, which are designed to transport only

domestic sewage and industrial wastewater, can also under some circumstances overflow,

discharging untreated wastewater. 

EPA estimates that at least 40,000 sewers overflow every year, discharging wastewater

directly into rivers, estuaries, and oceans. In addition to causing human health problems

and closures of beaches and shellfishing areas, human sewage may be a contributing factor in the decline of coral reefs.6 Major new construction will be required to control sewer

system overflows. 

Septic Systems

About 25 percent of the U.S. population is served by residential septic systems and about

33 percent of new homes use these systems.7 If not properly managed, septic systems can

become a significant source of coastal pollution, particularly pathogens and nutrients.

Septic systems can contaminate aquifers and coastal waters either by direct overflow from

improperly operating systems or by migration of pollutants through groundwater to surface waters. The threat can be severe in places like Florida and Hawaii, especially if the

ground is highly permeable and the water table close to the surface. Government policies

and subtle socioeconomic factors may be encouraging new development that relies on

septic systems rather than centralized wastewater treatment, even in locations where population density would support centralization. To protect coastal waters, it is important to

ensure that existing and new septic systems are properly designed, located, constructed,

maintained, and inspected. 

Recommendation 14–2

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), working with states, should increase technical and financial assistance to help communities improve the permitting, design, installation,

operation, and maintenance of septic systems and other on-site treatment facilities. State and

local governments, with assistance from EPA, should adopt and enforce more effective building codes and zoning ordinances for septic systems and should improve public education

about the benefits of regular maintenance. 

Industrial Facilities 

While some industrial plants are connected to wastewater treatment plants, others discharge directly into receiving waters. Discharges to wastewater treatment plants must

comply with certain pretreatment requirements established by the facility operator. Direct

discharges must have a NPDES permit which establishes limits on pollutants in the effluent. Initially, permits are based on the use of best available technology. However, in cases

where the use of best available technology is insufficient to meet water quality standards,

further action may be required. 

Although the NPDES program and pretreatment requirements have made significant

progress in abating industrial sources of pollution, these sources remain a significant

cause of environmental degradation in some areas. Industrial discharges can contain

nutrients, mercury, lead, sulfur, oils, corrosives, and other toxic chemicals. Another group

of contaminants entering coastal waters from industrial sources is polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs), used mainly for insulating heavy electrical equipment. Although these

compounds are no longer manufactured and new uses are severely restricted, improper

disposal and continued use of older PCB-containing products persist. In many cases, discharges from factories and power plants are also warmer than surrounding waters, resulting in thermal pollution that can disrupt local ecosystems. Industrial facilities also contribute to atmospheric deposition, discussed later in this chapter. 
C HAPTER 14: ADDRESSING COASTAL WATER POLLUTION

Animal Feeding Operations

Many animal feeding operations (for example, for beef cattle, hogs, or poultry) are located

in coastal areas or in upstream areas that flow into coastal waters; these businesses have

become major contributors to coastal water pollution. Along the East Coast, many feeding

operations are concentrated in the coastal plain, which is home to an economically important and ecologically sensitive network of wetlands, rivers, estuaries, and coastline. 

In the United States, there are approximately 238,000 confined animal feeding operations, which produce an estimated 500 million tons of manure every year—more than 3

times the amount of sewage produced by humans.8 The animal manure generates discharges of solids and liquid effluent to groundwater and surface waters. Ammonia and

other gases also volatilize from manure in storage facilities or on fields, resulting in atmospheric transport and deposition of pollutants. Pollutants originating at animal feeding

operations include nutrients, ammonia, pathogens, hydrogen sulfide, methane, hormones,

pesticides, and antibiotics. 

Although some discharges from animal feeding operations resemble dispersed nonpoint sources of pollution, the larger concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are

defined and regulated as point sources under the NPDES program of the Clean Water Act.

EPA issued new effluent guidelines and permitting regulations for CAFOs in December

2002. Under these new regulations, all CAFOs (about 18,500 nationwide) will be required

to obtain NPDES permits from EPA or a state by 2006. These regulations are expected to

greatly reduce the amount of nutrients and sediment entering coastal waters.9,10 States that

have appropriate legal authority may impose requirements in addition to those in the EPA

CAFO regulations, such as regulating operations that are not large enough to be regulated

under the EPA regulations, requiring increased monitoring and reporting, and requiring

animal processors to be co-permittees along with their contractors who raise the animals.

Recommendation 14–3

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) should support research on the removal of nutrients from animal wastes that may

pollute water bodies and on the impact of pharmaceuticals and other contaminants on water

quality. EPA and USDA should also develop improved best management practices that retain

nutrients and pathogens from animal waste on agricultural lands. Where necessary to meet

water quality standards, states should issue regulatory controls on concentrated animal feeding operations in addition to those required by EPA. 

Improving the Control of Point Sources

To control point source pollution effectively, the nation will need to maintain a long-term

commitment to investments in infrastructure, improve the enforcement of water pollution

standards, and promote market-based incentives and other innovative approaches.

The Need for Long-term Infrastructure Investments

The gap between existing and needed funding for wastewater and drinking water

improvements is large, and serious adverse human health and environmental effects are

likely if the challenges presented by an aging public infrastructure are not addressed.

Capital spending for public wastewater treatment infrastructure is currently about $13 

billion per year, and annual operations and maintenance costs are around $17 billion. 

EPA estimates that, over the next twenty years, the total additional investment needed for

wastewater treatment infrastructure could exceed $270 billion, and for drinking water

infrastructure could reach almost $265 billion. Sewer system overflows will be particularly

costly to correct.11 These costs for infrastructure improvements are in addition to the

211
212 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

almost $1 billion per year required to close the widening national funding gap between

the resources states have and the funding they need to fully implement water quality 

programs under the Clean Water Act.12

Given expected shortfalls in funding for wastewater-related construction, dramatic

increases will be needed in the State Revolving Funds. Improving coastal water quality

will require long-term financial investments by federal, state, and local governments, as

well as by ratepayers. 

Recommendation 14–4

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), working with state and local governments

and other stakeholders, should develop and periodically review a comprehensive long-term

plan to maintain and upgrade the nation’s aging and inadequate wastewater and drinking

water infrastructure, anticipating demands for increased capacity to serve growing populations, correction of sewer overflows, and more stringent treatment in the coming decades. 

To implement this plan, Congress should significantly increase the Clean Water and Drinking

Water State Revolving Funds.

Promoting Market-based Incentives

One powerful incentive-based approach to reducing water pollution in many watersheds

is EPA’s water pollutant trading policy. Under this policy, a source can be reduced beyond

required levels, creating a credit that can then be sold to another source discharging the

same pollutant to the same body of water. EPA has had a water pollutant trading policy in

place since the 1990s, primarily for use among wastewater treatment plants. 

EPA’s trading policy takes a very cautious approach to considering trades of any toxic

pollutant. Also, EPA does not support any trading that would result in locally high concentrations of pollutants exceeding water quality standards. For example, any trading of

credits for total nitrogen will need to be designed to avoid excessive concentrations of

ammonia in any location.

Recommendation 14–5

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working with states, should experiment with tradable credits for nutrients and sediment as a water pollution management tool and evaluate

the ongoing effectiveness of such programs in reducing water pollution.

Improving Enforcement

Many major point source facilities are exceeding water pollution permit limits. A significant number of serious offenders are exceeding pollution limits for toxic substances and

many violators have been subject to only light penalties or no enforcement at all. In view

of this, there is a strong need for improved oversight of states’ permitting and enforcement

programs and for more funds and personnel at the state level to properly implement and

enforce the NPDES program. 

Recommendation 14–6

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working with states, should modernize the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System’s monitoring and information management system and

strengthen the program’s enforcement to achieve greater compliance with permits.

Increasing the Focus on Nonpoint Sources of Pollution

While considerable progress has been made in reducing point sources of pollution, further

progress toward improved coastal water quality will require significant reductions in nonpoint source pollution. This pollution arises when rainfall and snowmelt carry contami-
C HAPTER 14: ADDRESSING COASTAL WATER POLLUTION

nants over land, into streams and groundwater, and

down to coastal waters. Nonpoint source pollutants

include: fertilizers and pesticides from rural farms

and urban lawns; bacteria and viruses from livestock

and pet waste; sediments from improperly managed

construction sites and timber harvesting; oil and

chemicals flowing over streets, parking lots, and

industrial facilities; and a variety of pollutants being

blown along airborne pathways. Ninety percent of

impaired water bodies do not meet water quality

standards at least in part because of nonpoint source

pollution (Figure 14.4).

Existing Management Tools

Decreasing polluted runoff from agricultural, urban,

and construction sites will be a significant challenge.

Numerous federal agency programs address nonpoint

sources of pollution, and some of the most important

programs are discussed briefly here. (Appendix D

includes additional program information.) 

The Total Maximum Daily Load Program

As discussed earlier in this chapter, the TMDL program establishes the maximum amount

of a pollutant that can be present in a water body while still meeting the water quality standards. Because control of point sources has already received so much attention, the TMDL

program is shifting its focus to controlling nonpoint sources. As a first step, the program

requires states to identify water bodies that are not meeting water quality standards even

after all point sources have installed their required pollution control technologies.

Although the TMDL program has been criticized as lacking effective compliance mechanisms for nonpoint source pollution, the program does provide valuable quantitative information on pollution amounts and impacts within a watershed. This information can be used

to generate greater public awareness and support for water quality initiatives and to identify

the most effective use of funds, such as those available through agricultural conservation

programs, to address nonpoint sources within a particular watershed. While TMDLs specify

limits for individual pollutants, EPA has been working with states and watershed managers

to consider the impacts of multiple pollutants in a larger watershed management context,

consistent with comprehensive ecosystem-based management initiatives.

Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act

Research two decades ago demonstrated a high correlation between swimming-related illnesses, such as gastroenteritis, and the presence of bacteria in the water. Congress enacted

the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000 (BEACH Act) to

address this problem. The BEACH Act amended the Clean Water Act to require states to

set appropriate water quality standards for coastal recreational waters and authorized EPA

to award grants to eligible states, territories, tribes, and local governments in support of

programs to test and monitor such waters. EPA awarded approximately $10 million annually to eligible entities starting in 2002. However, compliance has not been uniform and

not all affected states and territories have adopted the criteria for pathogens required by

the BEACH Act. Full implementation of the statute will result in cleaner waters and better

public awareness about coastal water quality. 

213

Figure 14.4 Controlling Nonpoint Source 

Pollution Is Key to Cleaner Waters 

47% 43%

10%

Nonpoint source pollution is a factor in 90 percent of all 

incidents where water quality is determined to be below the 

standards set for specific activities, such as recreation, water 

supply, aquatic life, or agriculture.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Water Act Section 

303(d) Lists: Overview of TMDL Program. Washington, DC, 1998. 

Combination

of Point and

Nonpoint 

Sources Nonpoint

Sources

Only

Point Sources Only
214 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

National Nonpoint Source Pollution Program 

Under the National Nonpoint Source Pollution Program, established under Section 319 of

the Clean Water Act, EPA provides matching grants to states to develop and implement

statewide programs for managing nonpoint sources. Grants may be used for a wide range

of activities, including technical and financial assistance, education and training, monitoring, watershed planning, technology transfer, demonstration projects, and state and local

regulatory programs. 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, and specify control measures. States must also develop a program that sets

forth the best management practices necessary to remedy the problems.

Coastal Zone Management Act

One of the hallmarks of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) is that it requires

each participating coastal state to incorporate the requirements of the Clean Water Act

into the state’s coastal management program. This provision has proved to be very useful

in coordinating these separate federal programs at the state level. 

In addition, the 1990 amendments to the CZMA created a program specifically to

address nonpoint sources of coastal pollution. Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act

Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) requires all states with a federally-approved

coastal management program to develop a plan that includes enforceable management

measures to control nonpoint sources affecting coastal waters. Administration of this 

program is assigned to both EPA and NOAA to combine their experiences with the Clean

Water Act and Coastal Zone Management Act programs. The nonpoint source pollution

control program created by Section 6217 relies on implementation of best management

practices, compiled by EPA. Of the states eligible to participate in the coastal management

program, approximately half have received final approval of their coastal nonpoint programs and half have received conditional approval.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Programs

Agricultural conservation programs have been growing in importance, scope, and funding. In 2002, Congress dramatically increased funding for these programs, dwarfing the

resources of the EPA and NOAA nonpoint programs. The agricultural conservation programs generally involve cash payments to farmers to implement conservation and best

management practices on productive farm and ranch lands, retirement of land through

permanent or long-term easements, and conservation and restoration of wetlands and

grasslands. These programs present an opportunity to decrease nonpoint source pollution

and improve aquatic habitats and natural resources—the challenge will be to ensure that

the programs are targeted to maximize their benefits. 

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program—the largest agricultural conservation program—will receive approximately $5.8 billion in funding through fiscal year

2007. This program offers financial and technical assistance to help eligible participants

install or implement structural and management practices on eligible agricultural land.

Farmers engaged in livestock or agricultural production on eligible land may participate

in this program. 

Another important USDA program is the Conservation Security Program, which 

will provide financial and technical assistance to implement stewardship measures. This

program is anticipated to have its first signup in the summer of 2004 in eighteen high risk

watersheds. It has the potential to improve water quality by encouraging conservation on

land in active production and rewarding farmers who have been good stewards. 
C HAPTER 14: ADDRESSING COASTAL WATER POLLUTION

Major Nonpoint Sources

The majority of the diffuse pollution entering rivers, estuaries, coastal waters, and ultimately the oceans is from agricultural and stormwater runoff. Stormwater discharges were

mentioned in connection with municipal wastewater pollution because they are technically

classified as point sources. However, they behave quite differently from industrial or urban

wastewater discharges, and like other nonpoint sources, are driven primarily by precipitation. Thus, they are discussed again here in conjunction with other nonpoint sources. 

Agricultural Sources

There are more than 368 million acres of crop land in the United States.13 Agricultural

activities can be a significant source of nonpoint pollution in rivers, lakes, and estuaries

and a major contributor to groundwater contamination and wetlands degradation. Soil disturbance, irrigation, and application of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, and animal wastes

to crop fields can lead to excess sediment, nutrients, pathogens, and salts in coastal waters. 

Excessive sedimentation decreases water clarity, smothers fish spawning areas and

coral reefs, and carries pollutants into water bodies. (A more complete discussion of sediment management is provided in Chapter 12.) But arguably the most significant impact

from agricultural activities is the transport of nutrients, primarily nitrogen and phosphorous, into coastal waters (Box 14.2). 

USDA is a very important participant in the nonpoint source management process

because of the funding it can provide to address agricultural sources. The state conservationist in each state, an employee of USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, is a

key player in allocating these funds. State- and county-level committees make recommendations to the state conservationist about best management practices to be rewarded and

the appropriate level of cost sharing. There are concerns that funds may still go to farmers

and ranchers who follow harmful practices, and that many deserving recipients do not

receive adequate financial or technical assistance. The USDA Farm Service Agency, the

USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service’s Land Grant

University System partnership, and farmers themselves also need to be more actively

involved in broader watershed and coastal ecosystem-based management efforts so their

actions can be coordinated with the many others that affect coastal water quality. 

Recommendation 14–7

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) should align its conservation programs and funding

with other programs aimed at reducing nonpoint source pollution, such as those of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

In particular, USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service should:

• require that its state conservationists coordinate with representatives of federal and

state water quality agencies and state coastal management agencies, and participate 

in watershed and coastal management planning processes, to ensure that funding for

agricultural conservation programs complements and advances other federal and state

management programs.

• provide enhanced technical assistance in the field to better support growing agricultural

conservation programs.

Urban and Suburban Stormwater Runoff

Stormwater runoff poses another serious threat to U.S. coastal waters. Housing developments, shopping centers, and roads have been built in areas once covered by natural vegetation and wetlands. These developments have increased impervious surfaces, decreased

the land available to absorb rain and snow, accelerated runoff into streams, and altered the

hydrology of coastal watersheds. Many areas have lost billions of gallons of drinking water

due to reductions in groundwater recharge.14

215
216 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Stormwater picks up a variety of substances on its way to coastal waters, including

oil, chemicals, heavy metals, pesticides, trash, and pet waste. These pollutants alter the

water chemistry and can harm ecosystems. As water runs across impervious surfaces, its

temperature becomes elevated, accelerating the growth of algae and harming fish and

other aquatic life that have specific water temperature tolerance limits. Larger volumes of

water rushing into streams also erode streambanks, streambeds, and the surrounding land,

transporting excess sediment that can damage coastal habitat, harm aquatic life, and

reduce light penetration into the water column.

It is estimated that aquatic ecosystem health becomes seriously impaired when more

than 10 percent of the watershed is covered by impervious surfaces.15 Impervious surfaces

cover 25–60 percent of the area in medium-density residential areas, and can exceed 90

Box 14.2 The Impact of Farm Nutrients on the Marine Environment

Every year, an area in the Gulf of Mexico covering up to 12,000 square miles at its largest

extent, becomes a dead zone.i Nitrogen fertilizers from farms far inland wash into streams

and other water bodies and ultimately flow into the Gulf. These nutrients cause excess algal

growth, depleting oxygen in the Gulf’s bottom waters to levels too low to support fish, crustaceans, and many other forms of marine life. 

Between about 1960 and 1985, the use of nitrogen fertilizers within the Mississippi River

Basin watershed increased exponentially. The main contributors to the Gulf’s dead zone are

located along the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, in southern Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio (Figure

14.5). These states have the greatest acreage of artificially drained soil, the highest percentage of total land

in agriculture (largely row crops of corn and soybeans),

and the highest use of nitrogen fertilizers in the

nation. The region has abundant precipitation in most

years, but the soils have poor internal drainage.

Because corn and soybeans require well-drained warm

soil for optimum early season growth, many farmers

have installed subsurface tile (now, usually perforated

plastic pipe) drain systems to remove water from the

soil. The tile drains short-circuit the natural drainage

pattern and effectively flush nitrates out of the soil

and into streams and rivers.ii On average, streams

draining from Iowa and Illinois contribute about 35

percent of the nitrogen discharged from the Mississippi

River to the Gulf of Mexico.iii Before humans converted

the region to row crop agriculture, much of the nitrate

would have been removed by wetlands and ponds or

taken up by prairie grasses. 

i Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. Integrated

Assessment of Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico.

Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council, 2000. 

ii Keeney, D.R. “Reducing Nonpoint Nitrogen to Acceptable Levels

with Emphasis on the Upper Mississippi River Basin.” Estuaries 25,

no. 4b (August 2002): pp. 862-868, 864.

iii Goolsby, D.A., et al. Flux and Sources of Nutrients in the Mississippi–

Atchafalaya River Basin: Topic 3 Report for the Integrated Assessment

of Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program

Decision Analysis Series No. 17. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, 1999.

Arkansas River

Illinois River

Mississippi River

Missouri River

Ohio River

Platte River

Red River

Tennessee River

Yellowstone River

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Figure 14.5 Thirty States Contribute to the 

“Dead Zone” in the Gulf of Mexico

The Mississippi River Basin is the largest in North America, 

draining an area of 1.24 million square miles, or about 41 

percent of the continental United States. Polluted waters from 

the basin flow into the Gulf of Mexico, affecting coastal areas. 

Increased nutrients have resulted in a low-oxygen zone 

(known as the “dead zone”) off the Louisiana coast. 

Source: Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. Integrated 

Assessment of Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Washington, 

DC: National Science and Technology Council, 2000. 

New Orleans

1

2

5

4

6

7

3

8

9

■ Mississippi River Basin

■ Extent of the 1999 dead zone
C HAPTER 14: ADDRESSING COASTAL WATER POLLUTION

percent at strip malls or other commercial sites.16 An inch of rain on a 1-acre natural

meadow would typically produce 218 cubic feet of runoff. The same rainstorm over a 

1-acre paved parking lot would produce 3,450 cubic feet of runoff, 16 times more than the

natural meadow.17

Stormwater-related problems impose measurable economic costs. Drinking water

sources can become polluted and excess sediment can increase dredging costs for navigational purposes. Poor stormwater management may increase flooding, causing property

damage from flash floods and leading to higher insurance rates. Stormwater is also a

source of bacterial contamination, leading to increased disease incidence, thousands of

beach closures in the United States each year, and loss of revenues from coastal tourism

and sport fishing.18 Millions of dollars are spent on treating the symptoms of stormwater

pollution but much less is spent on efforts to control its causes.

Improving the Control of Nonpoint Sources

The nation has a number of opportunities to reduce the impacts of nonpoint sources of

pollution on coastal waters. These include coordination of federal nonpoint programs so

they are mutually supportive, more targeted and aggressive use of the State Revolving

Funds, broader implementation of incentives and disincentives, and improved monitoring

to assess compliance and overall progress. (Improved monitoring is described in Chapter

15.) State and local governments also have important roles to play in land use planning

and stormwater management decisions. 

In addition to these mechanisms to address nonpoint source pollution, regulatory

controls such as the TMDL program have made progress in meeting state water quality

standards. State water quality agencies have a major role in establishing water quality

standards and in developing TMDLs where necessary to address impaired water bodies

and allocate necessary reductions among point and nonpoint sources. EPA reports that

there are 28,739 impaired water bodies in the United States. Within those bodies, there

are 53,049 distinct impairments (e.g., pathogens, metals, nutrients) for which 10,313

TMDLs have been developed and approved.19 States have made significant progress in

developing TMDLs during the last several years although much work remains to be done.

Aligning Federal Nonpoint Programs and Goals

The management of nonpoint source pollution in coastal areas includes a mix of planning

requirements, state actions, direct funding incentives, and grant programs to encourage

standard setting and implementation. Some programs are directed by EPA; one is jointly

directed by NOAA and EPA; USDA and USACE both have programs with substantial

217

As natural vegetation and wetlands are paved over to create parking lots, sidewalks, and housing developments, stormwater runoff is greatly increased. Unlike natural terrain, water flows quickly off these

impervious surfaces into rivers, estuaries, and coastal waters, bringing with it higher concentrations of

environmental contaminants.

USCOP File PhotoUSCOP File Photo
218 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

impacts; and state and local governments play major roles. Currently, there is no mechanism to ensure that the diverse programs are effective, are being adequately coordinated,

and are working toward common goals. Addressing nonpoint source pollution will require

mechanisms at both the national and regional levels to develop goals and coordinate

efforts in both coastal and inland watersheds to meet those goals. These goals should

build on water quality standards developed by states under the Clean Water Act. 

Recommendation 14–8

The National Ocean Council (NOC), working with states, should establish reduction of nonpoint source pollution in coastal watersheds as a national goal, with a particular focus on

impaired watersheds. The NOC should then set specific, measurable objectives to meet

human health- and ecosystem-based water quality standards. The NOC should ensure that all

federal nonpoint source pollution programs are coordinated to attain those objectives. 

Coordination among agencies, however, will not be enough. Some combination of

incentives and enforcement techniques will be needed to ensure progress. States must

have enforceable policies, similar to those called for in the CZARA Section 6217 nonpoint

source pollution control program. However, states also need funding and incentives to

reward those that adopt proactive nonpoint source control programs, such as are provided

under the Clean Water Act Section 319 program. Both programs have positive attributes

that, if strengthened and perhaps combined, could more effectively address nonpoint

source pollution. 

For example, under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, states that make satisfactory

progress toward fulfilling their plans to implement nonpoint source controls are eligible

for federal grants—an effective incentive. However, Section 319 does not direct states to

actually require or enforce best management practices or any other mandatory controls in

their management plans. 

In the CZARA Section 6217 nonpoint source pollution control program, the emphasis

to date has been on developing approvable, enforceable state programs, with less focus on

implementation. If a state fails to submit an adequate CZARA plan to EPA and NOAA, or

fails to implement an approved plan, the only recourse for EPA and NOAA is to withhold

Clean Water Act and CZMA grant funds, including the very funds that could help address

nonpoint pollution problems. To avoid this counterproductive result—and encourage

states to continue to participate in the CZMA program, of which CZARA is one part—

EPA and NOAA have postponed deadlines for submission of an approvable CZARA plan.

Another significant limitation to the CZARA program has been inadequate federal assistance to states in preparing and implementing their plans.

Recommendation 14–9

The National Ocean Council should strengthen efforts to address nonpoint source pollution

by evaluating the nonpoint source pollution control programs established under Section 6217

of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments and under Section 319 of the Clean

Water Act and making recommendations to Congress for improvements to these programs,

including their possible consolidation. 

Improvements to the programs should:

• require enforceable best management practices and other management measures

throughout the United States, with increased federal support for states to develop and

implement those practices and measures. 

• eliminate counterproductive financial disincentives. 

• enhance cooperation and coordination between federal and state water quality and

coastal management agencies. 
C HAPTER 14: ADDRESSING COASTAL WATER POLLUTION

Expanding Uses of State Revolving Funds

Currently, the State Revolving Funds are primarily used for addressing municipal point

source pollution, but they can also be tapped to address nonpoint sources by funding

watershed-based activities, including control of agricultural and urban runoff. However,

because of the already large gap between existing wastewater infrastructure needs and

available funds, State Revolving Funds would need to be substantially supplemented 

(as called for in Recommendation 14–4) to meet additional nonpoint source demands. 

Creating Incentives to Reduce Agricultural Runoff

Because of the many individuals involved, and their geographic and socioeconomic 

diversity, an incentive-based strategy may be a good approach for reducing pollution from

agricultural sources. A number of agricultural conservation programs (some of which are

described above) provide incentives to farmers and ranchers to set aside areas of land,

purchase better equipment, and employ best management practices.

Several additional forms of incentives could encourage farmers and ranchers to 

follow practices that would reduce nonpoint source pollution. Some examples include 

the following:

• Congress and USDA could develop incentives to reward farmers and ranchers by 

providing special services or technology for good performers.

• Congress could enact tax incentives for farmers and ranchers who implement best

management practices that reduce nutrient and soil runoff, as specified by EPA, 

USDA or others.

• Congress and USDA could establish insurance programs for agricultural producers

who apply fertilizer at or below the agronomic rates recommended by the local Land

Grant University to compensate the producers if crop yields decrease as a result. 

• Federal farm aid could be tied to implementation of best management practices to

reduce nonpoint source pollution. 

Efforts to reduce nonpoint source pollution through incentives are already underway.

For example, the Sand County Foundation launched a pilot program to test market-based

incentives for reducing nitrogen discharges from agricultural lands in targeted watersheds

in the Upper Midwest and to gauge farmers’ receptiveness to such incentives. 

Other kinds of market-based programs would allow farmers to create nutrient credits

by changing cropping practices or implementing best management practices, as specified

by EPA, USDA, or others. These credits could then be sold to a wastewater treatment plant

or other nutrient source discharging to the same water body to offset some of its own

nutrient outflow and help meet water quality limits. 

Authorizing Federal Agencies to Impose Disincentives

While the use of incentives has many benefits, there are times when the federal government

has an obligation to take action if a state is failing to protect water quality. Existing nonpoint source programs do not include the necessary federal authority to do so. In the end,

if a state continues to fail in controlling nonpoint source pollution, the federal government

should be able to step in to protect the public resource. In addition to invoking regulatory

authority, the federal government may also have to apply appropriate financial disincentives.

Reasonable disincentives might include withholding federal funds for programs that contribute to degradation of water quality, such as federal highway construction, agricultural

subsidy programs, or USACE development projects in watersheds that are already impaired.

Funding for federal programs that promote water quality should be maintained to encourage

continued progress, including the CZARA Section 6217 and EPA Section 319 programs.

Federal regulatory action and financial disincentives to protect water quality should

only be invoked if a state chronically fails to make meaningful progress toward controlling

nonpoint sources, similar to the precedent established for similar situations under the

219
220 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Clean Air Act. In other words, the federal government should only assume the lead to

address nonpoint source pollution when all else fails. It is important for federal regulatory

authority and financial disincentives to be phased in over time and be predictable and

clearly communicated. Additionally, the standards for triggering federal financial disincentives or regulatory involvement need to be designed with care and consider mitigating 

circumstances, such as whether the failure to attain water quality standards in a state is

due to water quality problems that originate in upstream states. 

Recommendation 14–10

To ensure protection of coastal resources nationwide, Congress should provide authority

under the Clean Water Act and other applicable laws for federal agencies to establish

enforceable management measures for nonpoint sources of pollution and impose financial

disincentives related to programs that result in water quality degradation if a state persistently fails to make meaningful progress toward meeting water quality standards on its own. 

Monitoring to Assess Compliance

After best management practices are employed and incentive programs are underway,

ongoing monitoring will be essential to determine whether these efforts have been effective. (A detailed discussion of monitoring is provided in Chapter 15.)

Thinking about Land Use

Land use decisions dramatically affect the health of coastal waters. When the siting and

design of new development considers potential impacts and balances them with socioeconomic factors, measurable improvements can be made. In addition to its positive impacts

on water quality, low-impact development can bring economic advantages. For example,

developers are often able to realize additional profits and quicker sales on units that are

adjacent to a landscaped stormwater control structure such as a constructed wetland. 

Unfortunately, local zoning ordinances and building codes can also pose significant

barriers to low-impact development. For example, ordinances that control the design of

curbs, gutters, and streets can significantly affect stormwater runoff—for better or for

worse. Not only do some local zoning ordinances and building codes erect barriers to lowimpact development, but some states and local governments do not even have codes and

ordinances to require land use planning and decision making. 

Greater public awareness of the connection between land use and water quality will

help move decision makers in the right direction. One program that provides education

on the effects of planning, zoning, and land use on water quality is Project NEMO—

Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials. Project NEMO is a University of Connecticut

program supported by many different partners including EPA, NOAA, USDA, the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as a

myriad of state and local governments and organizations. The national NEMO network,

adapted from the Connecticut original, now numbers 34 projects in 32 states. While this

program has had successes, it reaches only a small fraction of the tens of thousands of 

relevant decision makers across the nation. 

Another program that provides education and training to coastal managers and decision makers is the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) Coastal Training

Program. This program, developed in partnership with Sea Grant, state coastal management agencies, and other federal, state, and local organizations, provides scientific information and skill-building opportunities to individuals who are responsible for making

decisions that affect coastal resources. It targets a range of audiences, including land use

planners, elected officials, and regulators, and focuses on a number of issues, including

water quality.

Much of our nonpoint

source pollution today

is the result of past

activities. However,

many of our biggest

future challenges lie

in preventing new

problems that are

resulting from the

continued development

and growth of our

coastal communities.

—Robert Wayland III,

Director, Office of 

Wetlands, Oceans, and

Watersheds, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, testimony to 

the Commission, 

November 2001
C HAPTER 14: ADDRESSING COASTAL WATER POLLUTION

Recommendation 14–11

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

and other appropriate entities should increase assistance and outreach to provide decision makers with the knowledge and tools needed to make sound land use decisions that protect coastal

water quality. State and local governments should adopt or revise existing codes and ordinances

to require land use planning and decision making to carefully consider the individual and

cumulative impacts of development on water quality, including effects on stormwater runoff.

Managing Stormwater Runoff

EPA regulates three types of stormwater discharge sites under the Clean Water Act NPDES

program: municipal separate storm-sewer systems; industrial facilities; and construction

sites. These discharges require permits and require that the discharger develop a stormwater pollution prevention plan specifying which best management practices will be used.

Since 1990, Clean Water Act regulations, known as the Phase I rule, have required

cities and municipalities of 100,000 or more residents, ten categories of industrial activity,

and construction projects disturbing five acres or more to obtain NPDES stormwater permits. In 1999, EPA released the Phase II rule, under which NPDES permits will be needed

by communities with a population greater than 10,000 or a density higher than 1,000 

people per square mile, and by construction sites that disrupt one to five acres of land.

The Phase II rule became effective in March 2003. 

The primary method for controlling stormwater runoff is the application of best 

management practices. Structural best management practices are measures—such as 

constructing detention basins, wet ponds, or wetlands—that help control the quantity and

quality of stormwater. Nonstructural best management practices are generally preventive

actions that rely on behavioral changes, such as modifying the use of fertilizers, sweeping

streets, and educating the public. EPA and the American Society of Civil Engineers have

jointly developed a national database of stormwater best management practices as a tool

for local stormwater designers and planners. 

While best management practices can be effective, these tools may not be sufficient on

their own. In urban areas, construction activities still contribute significantly to sediment

loadings and, where impervious surfaces are prevalent, stormwater flows directly into surface waters and sewer systems. A comprehensive approach will be required to minimize

disturbance to the natural hydrology, minimize water flow over surfaces, and maintain

water quality. Rigorous monitoring will also be needed to determine whether water quality

standards are being achieved and to allow management approaches to be modified as

needed to reach desired water quality goals. Effective implementation of EPA’s NPDES

Phase II stormwater control program will require additional personnel to carry out the

needed oversight and enforcement. 

Recommendation 14–12

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), working with state and local governments,

should strengthen implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Phase I and II stormwater programs. 

Improvements should include: 

• local codes or ordinances that are designed to achieve the management goals for a 

particular watershed and require use of EPA-approved best management practices. 

• monitoring to determine whether goals and state water quality standards are being met

and to identify ongoing problems.

• an adaptive management approach to ensure that efforts are effective and that best

management practices are modified as needed.

• improved public education.

• increased enforcement of legal requirements and personnel sufficient to implement

stormwater management programs.

221
222 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Collaboration at the Watershed Scale

As discussed in Chapter 9, watersheds are often the appropriate geographic unit for

addressing water-related problems because they acknowledge upstream and downstream

connections and consider the cumulative impacts of activities taking place in the watershed. These features are particularly important in addressing nonpoint source pollution. 

Collaborative watershed groups have had significant successes in addressing nonpoint

source pollution. These groups bring together stakeholders reflecting the diverse interests

that may be represented in a watershed: agriculture, timber, and industry; sport and commercial fishing interests; recreational users and tourism-related businesses; environmental

and citizen groups; and local, state, tribal, and federal governments. While such public/

private sector collaborations can complement more traditional water pollution control

strategies, they are often hampered by limited financial resources, institutional instability,

and lack of technical expertise. Another limitation is that, because watersheds cross political boundaries, controlling authorities and programs may be different in different parts of

the watershed.

Addressing nonpoint source pollution on a watershed basis makes good sense for environmental, financial, social, and administrative reasons. In addition, regional ocean councils can play an important role in helping to support the collaborative efforts of watershed

groups. Collaborative watershed approaches can build a sense of community, reduce conflicts, increase commitment to the actions necessary to meet common goals and ultimately

improve the likelihood of sustaining long-term water quality improvements. 

As recommended in Chapter 9, Congress should amend appropriate legislation to 

provide better support for watershed management initiatives. The National Ocean Council

can play a role in improving the effectiveness of federal support for watershed initiatives

by coordinating agency management and technical assistance for watershed groups, overseeing development of an accessible clearinghouse of information on watershed best management practices, and coordinating the distribution of federal grants and program funds

in support of coastal watershed initiatives. 

International Efforts

Nonpoint source pollution is an important, and increasingly visible, international issue.

The health, well-being and, in some cases, the very survival of coastal populations around

the world depend upon the viability of coastal and marine systems. Nonpoint source 

pollution threatens the health of these systems and the important economic activities,

such as fishing and tourism, that they support. Public health is also adversely affected

through contamination of seafood, direct contact, such as through bathing, and the use 

of seawater in desalination and food-processing plants. 

Ongoing efforts to reduce nonpoint source pollution internationally include the United

Nations Environment Program’s (UNEP’s) establishment of fourteen regional seas programs

worldwide as part of the 1995 Global Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine

Environment from Land-Based Sources (GPA). Many nations, including the United States,

are moving forward with initiatives to implement the GPA. However, broader application

of GPA measures will depend on increased foreign technical assistance and funding. The

U.S. Agency for International Development, NOAA, and EPA provide limited technical

and training assistance through UNEP for nations where sewage treatment, monitoring,

research, and law enforcement capacity are insufficient. (For a listing of ocean-related

international agreements, see Table 29.1.)

As part of the GPA, UNEP launched the Hilltops to Oceans initiative (H2O) at the 2002

World Summit on Sustainable Development. Overall objectives of H20 include facilitating

international recognition of the links between fresh-water and marine environments, and
C HAPTER 14: ADDRESSING COASTAL WATER POLLUTION

assisting in the implementation of actions needed to reduce, remediate, and prevent pollution and degradation of the coastal and marine environment. 

The United States is particularly involved in the coordination, integration, and management of marine pollution programs in the wider Caribbean region, including programs

for addressing upstream sources and protecting wetlands, mangrove swamps, coral reefs,

and offshore areas. At the 2002 Summit, the United States launched the White Water to

Blue Water initiative with a coalition of partners that includes the United Kingdom,

France, Canada, the Netherlands, Caribbean island governments, nongovernmental

organizations, and the private sector. The ultimate goal of the initiative is to improve the

capabilities of all coastal nations to manage watershed and coastal ecosystems for sustainable development. Participants hope that success in implementing the pilot phase in the

Caribbean will encourage other regions in Africa and the South Pacific to follow suit.

Addressing Atmospheric 

Sources of Pollution

Atmospheric deposition of pollutants can also harm

water quality, aquatic resources, and human health.

Atmospheric deposition accounts for between 10 and

50 percent of the nitrogen entering estuaries along

the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico.20,21 Major

atmospheric pollutants include nutrients, metals

such as lead and mercury, pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins, furans, and persistent

toxic substances. Certain persistent toxins, such as

DDT and PCBs, have even been measured in remote

locations, such as the Arctic and Antarctic, demonstrating the extent of dispersal of pollutants by the

atmosphere. Atmospheric deposition is also a significant source of pollution in the Great Lakes; as much

as 90 percent of some toxic chemicals entering the

Great Lakes are believed to be the result of atmospheric deposition.22 Sources of atmospheric deposition are quite varied and include agriculture, incineration, coal-fired power plants, industrial facilities,

and motor vehicles, as well as natural sources such 

as forest fires, lightning, and volcanoes.

Improving Control of Atmospheric Sources

Addressing atmospheric deposition requires controlling multiple sources within a particular water body’s

airshed, defined as the geographic area responsible for

75 percent of the air pollutants that reach that body of

water (Figure 14.6). The airshed can be ten, twenty,

or even several hundred times larger than the area 

of the watershed. To add to the complexity, different

pollutants exhibit different physical and chemical

behaviors in the atmosphere, so the airshed of a 

particular body of water may vary depending on the

pollutant of interest. 

223

Watersheds (shaded areas) and corresponding airsheds (circles)

The atmospheric area affecting water quality within a watershed may be ten to several hundred times larger than the 

watershed itself. As shown here for oxidized nitrogen contributions along the East Coast, the extent of the calculated airsheds 

illustrates the states, regions, and nations that must coordinate 

in order to effectively manage atmospheric contributions to 

water quality.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

<www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/airdep/air1.html> (Accessed January 2004).

Figure 14.6 Looking Skyward: 

Accounting for Airshed Deposition

■ Naragansett Bay 

■ Chesapeake Bay 

■ Pamlico Bay 

■ Tampa Bay 

■ Mobile Bay 

■ Lake Pontchartrain
224 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

The federal government is taking some positive steps to address atmospheric deposition. For example, in 2001, EPA developed the Air-Water Interface Work Plan, which

identifies over 20 actions that EPA will take over the next several years to reduce atmospheric deposition of pollutants—including nitrogen compounds and toxics—into water

bodies nationally, using the authorities of both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water

Act.23 The plan is based in large part on a number of existing Clean Air Act regulatory

programs that have not been fully implemented, including, for example: the maximum

achievable control technology (MACT) standards for emissions of toxic pollutants from

sources, such as industrial facilities and coal-fired power plants; the nitrogen oxides

(NOx) reductions under the Acid Rain program for power plants; a separate program to

reduce NOx emissions to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards; and controls

on automobiles, trucks, vessels, and other mobile sources that will reduce emissions of

both NOx and toxics.

Recommendation 14–13

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working with states, should develop and implement

national and regional strategies to reduce the sources and impacts of atmospheric deposition

to water bodies, building upon plans such as the EPA Air-Water Interface Work Plan. 

Control of atmospheric deposition is currently hampered by relatively poor data on

sources, atmospheric transport routes, and sites where pollutants are ultimately deposited.

While several monitoring programs exist, relatively few are in coastal areas. Reducing

atmospheric deposition would be greatly aided by better data, analysis, and information

on emission sources, fate and transport, and related environmental and human health

consequences. (A further discussion of monitoring needs is provided in Chapter 15.)

Because of the potential range of atmospheric transport of pollutants, widespread

international cooperation will also be needed.24 For example, atmospheric deposition of

mercury will require concerted international action in addition to domestic measures.

Mercury contamination in fish is a human health concern because of potential neurotoxic

effects, particularly for pregnant women and children, and depending on the location, 

it can come from a wide variety of sources. 

Recent studies have demonstrated that air pollution from human activities in Asia 

can be carried across the Pacific Ocean by prevailing mid-latitude winds, with potentially

significant impacts on the concentration and number of air pollutants in North American

coastal areas. This impact is likely to increase along with the growth of Asian economies.

EPA, in conjunction with a number of research organizations, is currently conducting a

modeling study of intercontinental pollution transport from Asia and its potential effects

on regional air quality. In the Caribbean, studies are also underway to assess impacts in a

number of areas, from human health to coral reef health, caused by hundreds of millions

of tons of dust carried through the air from Africa each year.25

International action to control contamination by persistent organic compounds and

other pollutants is carried out under multilateral treaties such as the Stockholm Convention

on Persistent Organic Pollutants and the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air

Pollution, as well as bilateral agreements between the United States and Canada and

Mexico. Additional international agreements may be needed to address specific issues,

such as mercury. 

Recommendation 14–14

The United States should work with other nations to develop and implement international

solutions to better address the sources and impacts of transboundary atmospheric deposition,

and to initiate needed research programs. 
C HAPTER 14: ADDRESSING COASTAL WATER POLLUTION

References

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Clean Water State Revolving Fund.”

<www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/index.htm> Accessed May 30, 2003. 

2 National Research Council. Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993.

3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “National Estuary Program Successes.” <www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/success.htm> Accessed October 27, 2003. 

4 Harries, J.E., et al. “A Survey of Estrogenic Activity in United Kingdom Inland Waters.” Environmental Toxicology and

Chemistry 15 (1996): 1993–2002.

5 Atkinson, S., M.J. Atkinson, and A.M. Tarrant. “Estrogens from Sewage in Coastal Marine Environments.”

Environmental Health Perspectives 111, no. 4 (2003): 531–35. 

6 Potera, C. “Is Sewage Destroying Coral?” Environmental Health Perspectives 111, no. 4 (April 2003): A207.

7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Voluntary National Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Clustered

(Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems. EPA 832–B–03–001. Washington, DC, March 2003.

8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and

Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs): Final Rule.”

Federal Register 68 (February 12, 2003): 7175 et seq.

9 Ibid., 7176, 7239. 

10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA and Agriculture Working Together to Improve America’s Waters.”

<www.epa.gov/epahome/headline_121602.htm> Posted December 16, 2002; accessed October 27, 2003.

11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis. EPA

816–R–02–020. Washington, DC, September 2002.

12 EPA–State Task Force. State Water Quality Management Resource Analysis: Interim Report on Results. Washington,

DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 2002.

13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture, Pointer No. 6.

EPA 841–F–96–004F. Washington, DC, 1996.

14 American Rivers, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Smart Growth America. Paving Our Way to Water

Shortages: How Sprawl Aggravates the Effects of Drought. Washington, DC, 2002.

15 Holland, A.F., et al. “Linkages between Tidal Creek Ecosystems and the Landscape and Demographic Attributes of

Their Watersheds.” Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 298, no.2 (January 2004): 151–78. 

16 Natural Resources Defense Council. “The Causes of Urban Stormwater Pollution.” In Stormwater Strategies.

Washington, DC, 1999.

17 Schueler, T.R. Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection. Washington, DC: Metropolitan Washington Council of

Governments, 1995.

18 Chasis, S., and M. Dorfman. Testing the Waters: A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches. Washington, DC:

Natural Resources Defense Council, 2000.

19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Total Maximum Daily Loads. National Section 303(d) List Fact Sheet.” 

<oaspub.epa.gov/waters/national_rept.control> Accessed June 16, 2004.

20 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. 

21 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.

22 Great Lakes Information Network. “Atmospheric Deposition in the Great Lakes Region.” 

<www.great-lakes.net/envt/air-land/airdep.html> Accessed October 28, 2003.

23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Air-Water Interface Work Plan.” January 18, 2001.

<www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t3/reports/combined.pdf> Accessed June 15, 2004.

24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “International Issues & U.S. Air Quality.” 

<www.epa.gov/airtrends/international.html> Accessed June 4, 2004.

25 Garrison, G. “Caribbean Coral-Reef Ecologist Studies Dust from the African Sahel.” USGS Coral Reef Studies, 

News Archive, March 2002. <coralreefs.wr.usgs.gov/archive0302.html> Accessed June 4, 2004.

225
226 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 15

CREATING A NATIONAL

MONITORING NETWORK

Ongoing monitoring is essential to assess the health of ocean and coastal 

ecosystems and detect changes over time. More than any other measure, 

monitoring provides accountability for management actions. The nation needs 

a coordinated, comprehensive monitoring network that can provide the 

information necessary for managers to make informed decisions, adapt 

their actions as needed, and assure effective stewardship of ocean and

coastal resources. In developing such a network, the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, and other agencies as appropriate,

should coordinate and expand their efforts to ensure adequate

monitoring in coastal areas and the upland regions that affect them.

Input from states, territories, tribes, counties, and communities—

where much of the monitoring will be conducted—is also essential.

In addition, because of the inherent overlap among inland,

coastal, and open-ocean monitoring and observing, the national

monitoring network should be closely linked with the Integrated

Ocean Observing System and, ultimately, incorporated into a broad

Earth observing system. 

Recognizing the Value of Monitoring

The nation’s coasts suffer from thousands of beach closures a year, oxygen depletion, nutrient enrichment, toxic contamination, sedimentation, harmful algal blooms, habitat degradation, invasions by exotic species,

and many other problems. Yet, a comprehensive network to monitor these changes

and their causes, facilitate estimates of their economic impact, and measure the success of management efforts, is lacking. Long-term status and trends monitoring is critical

to assess and reduce the impacts of human activities on coastal waters. Increased monitoring is needed not only along the nation’s coasts, but also inland from where pollutants

make their way downstream, ultimately impacting coastal waters. A national monitoring

network will be needed to provide information not only on water quality, but also on

other measures of aquatic ecosystem health, such as sediment loadings, biological conditions, and water flow (Box 15.1). 

A national monitoring network is also essential to support the move toward an

ecosystem-based management approach that considers human activities, their benefits,

and their potential impacts within the context of the broader biological and physical envi-
C HAPTER 15: CREATING A NATIONAL MONITORING NETWORK

ronment. While current monitoring helps track specific substances, it has been less effective in helping understand how various ecosystem components interact and change over

the long term. The data and resulting information products collected from a national

monitoring network, combined with broader assessment and observation efforts, will be

the key to implementing truly effective and adaptive ecosystem-based management. 

Monitoring information will be of direct benefit to many people including managers,

fishermen, scientists, water providers, and others. Formulating management actions based

on better monitoring will ultimately improve beach quality, allowing the public to enjoy

trips to the beach with fewer disappointments due to beach closures. Monitoring information will be particularly helpful to coastal managers who need to understand the scope of

the problems before they can effectively respond. After responding, monitoring information will also help assess the effectiveness of the selected management approaches. 

There are currently a number of disparate monitoring efforts and questions have been

raised about the comparability and accuracy of information produced by these programs

and the practical value of the information to stakeholders. Baseline information at the

scale, resolution, and frequency necessary to manage is generally lacking.

Federal and state agencies around the country will need to work closely together to

achieve a fully effective national system. Designing and implementing an effective monitoring network will require input and coordination among federal and state agencies, as well as

academic and research institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and volunteer groups. 

Monitoring at the Federal Level

A number of monitoring programs are currently conducted by federal agencies, state governments, research institutions and academia, nongovernmental organizations, and individual volunteers. Existing monitoring programs vary in many respects, including sam227

Box 15.1 Ocean and Coastal Monitoring Needs

L ong-term environmental monitoring is essential to determine baselines, measure change,

and assess overall ecosystem health. Throughout this report, enhanced monitoring is

called for to improve the management and protection of marine resources, as well as to 

protect human health. The creation of a national monitoring network that encompasses 

not only coastal waters, but also upstream watersheds, will allow the nation to track critical

factors such as those listed below.

In close coordination with coastal and ocean observing systems, the national monitoring

network should help document:

• Concentrations of industrial, municipal, and agricultural contaminants.

• Conditions of natural, cultural, and economic resources in coastal areas.

• Quantity, quality, and timing of stormwater flows.

• Presence of pathogens and chemical toxins in organisms, including fish and seafood 

consumed by humans.

• Rates, locations, and composition of atmospheric deposition.

• Impacts of flooding, coastal hazards, and sea-level rise.

• Status of coastal habitats to support conservation and restoration efforts.

• Impacts on ecosystem and human health from pollution.

• Introductions and spread of invasive species.

• Impacts of offshore activities.

• Performance of marine protected areas.

• Sources and quantities of marine debris.

• Extent, productivity, and functioning of coral communities.
228 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

pling design and intensity, parameters tested, analytical methodology, data management

protocols, and funding. Even when the same properties are measured, different data management protocols may make the integration of that information difficult.1 Consequently,

while a number of monitoring programs exist, they are not designed to support a comprehensive and coordinated national monitoring network. To make matters worse, budget

constraints have resulted in significant reductions in monitoring of coastal areas. 

Responsibility for monitoring and assessing natural resources is divided among a

number of agencies whose activities are focused on achieving specific programmatic

objectives or agency missions. 

Federal Programs

The primary federal agencies involved in monitoring include the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also conduct some limited monitoring.

The mission of NOAA’s National Status and Trends Program is to determine the status

of, and detect changes in, the environmental quality of the nation’s estuarine and coastal

waters. The program conducts long-term monitoring of contaminants and other environmental conditions at approximately 350 sites. In addition, since 1995, NOAA’s National

Estuarine Research Reserve System has operated the System-wide Monitoring Program

dedicated to the collection of long-term environmental information in support of local

coastal management. The primary goal of this monitoring program is to develop quantitative measurements of short-term variability and long-term changes in water quality, biotic

diversity, and land-cover characteristics of estuarine ecosystems. The program supports

coastal zone management through collection of real-time and near real-time data, standardized national data management and quality assurance and quality control procedures,

and long-term information collection for a suite of water quality and weather parameters.

NOAA also assists coastal states in monitoring harmful algal blooms by partnering with

regional management and scientific institutions through the Monitoring and Event

Response for Harmful Algal Blooms (MERHAB) program. MERHAB-sponsored projects

enhance existing water and shellfish monitoring programs by applying new technologies

that allow for proactive detection of coastal harmful algal bloom events. 

USGS operates the National Streamflow Information Program, a network of some

7,000 stream gages nationwide. About 6,000 of these stations are linked to an Earth satellite-based communications system. The majority of the stream-gaging stations are jointly

funded in partnerships with more than 800 state, local, and tribal governments or other

federal agencies.2 The data are available in real time to conduct water resource projects

and for NOAA’s National Weather Service to forecast floods. Streamflow data are needed at

many sites on a daily basis for forecasting flow extremes, assessing current water availability, and managing water quality and quantity. In addition, USGS conducts long-term water

quality and quantity monitoring through the National Stream Quality Accounting Network

at fixed locations on large rivers around the country. USGS also operates the National

Water Quality Assessment, which uses a regional focus to study status and trends in water,

sediment, and biota in forty-two major river basins and aquifer systems. This effort has

made considerable progress toward assessing current water quality conditions and longterm trends.3 In addition, USGS’s Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends

Program conducts monitoring of effects of water quality on biota of large rivers. The

Contaminant Biology Program develops biomarkers and other tools that can be used

within monitoring programs for measuring exposure and effects. This program also 

conducts studies to determine the effects of emerging contaminants. 
C HAPTER 15: CREATING A NATIONAL MONITORING NETWORK

EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program aims to develop the tools

and science needed for a state-based statistical monitoring framework to determine trends

in the condition of all the nation’s aquatic ecosystems. This program uses a probabilistic

sampling design that relies on data from many sites of similar habitat type as the best estimate for overall condition of that habitat. A variety of information is collected through

this program, including water column parameters, sediment chemistry and toxicity, and

measurements of benthic communities. EPA also conducts monitoring through its

National Estuary Program. As National Estuary Program sites were created, they included

an extensive characterization phase and an estuary-specific monitoring plan. Although

most continue monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of their implementation efforts,

there is no program-wide monitoring strategy. Finally, EPA is authorized to support 

microbiological testing and monitoring of coastal recreational waters through the Beaches

Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act, which was designed to reduce the risk

of disease to users of the nation’s coastal recreational waters. 

Several agencies monitor atmospheric deposition, the process by which chemicals in

the air are deposited onto the Earth’s surface in wet and dry forms, contributing significantly to coastal water pollution. The National Atmospheric Deposition Program, a cooperative effort of many different groups, measures deposition of a number of pollutants at

more than 200 sites. The Mercury Deposition Network, one component of this program,

measures mercury levels in wet deposition. EPA’s Clean Air Status and Trends Network

also measures dry deposition at about eighty sites. In addition, the Interagency Monitoring

of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) is a cooperative measurement effort to aid

the creation of federal and state implementation plans for visibility in 156 national parks

and wilderness areas. 

Shortcomings in Federal Programs

Notwithstanding the many programs described above, their combined efforts do not add

up to a comprehensive, coordinated national monitoring network. One severe limitation

of current efforts is the lack of monitoring in coastal waters.

National monitoring has been greatly reduced, particularly in coastal areas, due to

funding cuts at USGS and many partner agencies. The USGS National Streamflow Information Program has eliminated a number of stream gages, including long-term gages that

are critical for studying climate change. To fully realize its potential, the stream-gaging

network will need to be modernized and gaps in coverage filled. Funding cuts have also

affected USGS’s water quality monitoring programs, resulting in reductions in the number

of sampling sites and sampling frequency. USGS’s National Water Quality Assessment’s

coverage has been reduced in recent years, leaving out much of the coastal region. A 2001

National Research Council report concluded that while this program has downsized in a

logical manner, it cannot continue this trend and still be considered a national program

for assessing water quality.4 

Budget constraints have also affected the National Stream Quality Accounting

Network. At its peak in 1978, this program included 520 fixed-station sampling sites on

moderate and large rivers, which provided monthly estimates of flow rates, suspended

sediment, nutrients, trace metals, indicator bacteria, and phytoplankton. About 140 of 

the sites were located in areas helpful to estimating the input of water and materials to

estuaries.5 Currently, this program focuses only on monitoring the water quality of the

nation’s largest rivers—the Mississippi, Columbia, Colorado, Rio Grande, and Yukon—

with a total of only thirty-two stations. Most coastal regions are left out of the monitoring

network altogether (Figure 15.1).

229
230 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

NOAA’s National Status and Trends Program is limited by the number of sites sampled

per state and the lack of full representation of estuarine habitats in those states. The program samples mollusks for contaminants only every other year, and even less frequently

for sediments.

Of the more than 200 sites in the National Atmospheric Deposition Program, very few

are located in coastal areas. Less than 20 percent of sites in the Atmospheric Integrated

Research and Monitoring Network, a sub-network of the National Atmospheric Deposition

Program, are located in coastal areas. 

Much of the monitoring in the United States is conducted by states, territories, nongovernmental organizations, and volunteers. There is considerable variation in the ways

states select monitoring sites, the kinds of tests they perform, the methods they use to

determine causes and sources of pollution, and the analytical approaches they choose to

evaluate water quality. As a result, reports on the quality of a particular water body often

differ on either side of a state line. These disparities diminish the usefulness of state monitoring programs for regional or national assessments. To be fully effective, monitoring

data collected by state, territorial, tribal, and local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and volunteers will need to be coordinated with the national monitoring network.

Promoting Interagency Coordination 

Several interagency initiatives have been proposed for achieving a more coordinated 

monitoring strategy. The Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality was

established in 1992 to review national monitoring activities and to develop an integrated

national monitoring strategy. Chaired by EPA, with USGS as vice chair, the Task Force 

recommended, among other proposals, the development of closer working relationships

among organizations that monitor and use water information and the development of

comparable technical methods.6

The National Water Quality Monitoring Council was formed in 1997 as the successor

to the Task Force, with the mandate to implement its strategy. Jointly chaired by EPA and

USGS, the Council is composed of thirty-five representatives from federal, state, tribal,

Figure 15.1 Watershed Monitoring Has Been Reduced Near the Coasts

15.1 A. The National Stream Quality Accounting Network 

program was created in 1974 to develop baseline water 

chemistry data for the nation. Although the network started 

with over 500 sampling stations, by 1994 the program had 

been reduced to approximately 275 stations throughout the 

United States. (Not shown are the 13 stations in Alaska, 8 in 

Hawaii, 6 in Puerto Rico, and 1 in Guam.)

15.1 B. Today, the program consists of only 32 stations 

focused on the nation’s five major river basins, leaving 

almost the entire coastal region unmonitored.

● NASQAN 

Monitoring 

Station

● NASQAN 

Monitoring 

Station

Source: U.S. Geological Survey. <water.usgs.gov/nasqan/progdocs/index.html> (Accessed January 2004).

1974–1994 2002
C HAPTER 15: CREATING A NATIONAL MONITORING NETWORK

local, and municipal governments, watershed groups, academia, and the private sector.

The Council serves as the major national forum for the coordination of consistent and 

scientifically defensible federal and state water quality monitoring methods and strategies.

Its focus has been on fresh water monitoring, but many of the methods it has developed

could also be applied to marine environments.

The National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Environment and

Natural Resources has also promoted an initiative to integrate and coordinate environmental monitoring efforts. From this initiative came the 1997 report, Integrating the

Nation’s Environmental Monitoring and Research Networks and Programs: A Proposed

Framework. The framework is designed to produce the necessary scientific data and 

information to produce integrated environmental assessments. 

The Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy Workgroup was formed in 1999 with

representatives from federal, state, tribal, and nongovernmental organizations. NOAA,

EPA, USGS, and USDA led the development of the Workgroup’s Coastal Research and

Monitoring Strategy, published in 2000, which called for addressing problems of coastal

water quality and coastal resources by replacing single-issue, single-agency, single-discipline

problem solving with a coordinated, multi-agency, interdisciplinary approach. 

While these interagency initiatives are moving in the right direction, they have not

resulted in the comprehensive and coordinated national monitoring network resource

managers need, particularly in coastal areas. Significant obstacles include a lack of: focus

on the coast; participation by agencies with relevant responsibilities; follow-through; and

commitment at the highest levels of government.

Ensuring Comprehensive, Coordinated Coverage

The nation’s coastal margin is the most densely populated and developed region of the

nation, and its waters have been significantly degraded by pollution. Yet, in recent years,

due largely to lack of funding, monitoring has been extremely sparse along the coasts.

Much remains unknown about the status of coastal environments, and increased monitoring will be required to make informed management decisions about this economically and

ecologically valuable region. A long-term, comprehensive monitoring network can establish a baseline to facilitate the analysis of ecosystem change. It would also create an information base to allow managers to understand whether their strategies were effective in

meeting their goals. While expanded monitoring will be needed, it will also be important

to disseminate and use the substantial data that have already been collected. 

The connections between coastal and upstream waters dictate that any monitoring

network must be national in scope, with flexibility to allow for regional differences. For

example, geographically isolated islands must be accommodated to allow for differences

in scale, climate, temperature regimes, and limited fresh-water resources, compared to

many mainland areas. 

Despite decades of monitoring by many agencies, the nation still lacks a coordinated

national network. It will be necessary to coordinate and strengthen federal monitoring

efforts and then use a partnership effort among state, local, territorial, tribal, and federal

agencies, as well as academic and research institutions, marine labs, nongovernmental

organizations, and volunteer groups where appropriate. States will need to be active partners in this effort through a coordinated monitoring strategy that builds on and takes

advantage of work already underway by states and federal agencies. 

Because of the inherent overlap between inland, coastal, and open-ocean monitoring

and observing, the national monitoring network should be closely linked with the

Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS; discussed in detail in Chapter 26) and ultimately with a broad Earth observing system. The national monitoring network will provide the capability to observe, analyze, and forecast natural and human-induced changes

231
232 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

that affect watershed, estuarine, and coastal ecosystems. The IOOS will provide the nation

with similar information for the coasts and open-ocean environments. Because these systems will overlap in coastal areas, they should be closely coordinated to ensure compatibility of information. At some point, the national monitoring network and the IOOS

should both become components of a true Earth observing system that links land, air, and

water around the globe. 

Because the land, air, and sea are all interconnected, increased monitoring of atmospheric deposition will be critical to any monitoring network. Monitoring atmospheric

deposition in coastal areas is particularly important because these areas receive significant

input of toxics and nutrients.

Recommendation 15–1

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, working with states and other appropriate entities, should

develop a national monitoring network that coordinates and expands existing efforts, including

monitoring of atmospheric deposition. The network should be built on a federally funded backbone of critical stations and measurements to assess long-term trends and conditions, with

additional stations or measurements as needed to address regional characteristics or problems. 

Recommendation 15–2

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should ensure that the national monitoring network includes adequate coverage in both coastal areas and the upland areas that

affect them, and that the network is linked to the Integrated Ocean Observing System, to be

incorporated eventually into a comprehensive Earth observing system.

Creating an Effective Monitoring Network

In addition to coordinating and expanding current efforts, an effective national monitoring

network should have specific goals and objectives that reflect user needs and are helpful

in assessing the effectiveness of management approaches. The overall system design

should determine what and where to monitor, including the definition of a set of core

variables. Technical expertise is needed to standardize procedures and establish quality

control, data management, and reporting protocols. It is important for the national monitoring network to be periodically assessed and modified as necessary. Most important, the

data collected through the national monitoring network should be useful to managers and

stakeholders in evaluating management measures, determining best management practices,

and making continual improvements in reaching ecosystem goals. 

System Goals and Objectives

The national monitoring network should set clear, specific goals and objectives that reflect

national, state, regional, territorial, tribal, and local needs. The goals and objectives

should be geared toward the assessment of management approaches, including best management practices, and be based on pressing management issues. Successful monitoring

should target issues that policy makers, scientists, managers, and the public consider

important, providing a basis for possible management actions. Thus, in designing a coordinated national monitoring network, input will be needed from all of these sectors. However,

attempts to be everything to everybody will result in an unfocused and ultimately unsuccessful program. Monitoring results should support adaptive management, allowing 

decision makers to support approaches that demonstrate measurable success in attaining

ecosystem goals and revise practices that are falling short of achieving those goals. 

Not only will the

monitoring of ocean

water quality protect

the health of the

beachgoing public, 

it will provide an

important tool in

measuring water

quality problems and

will raise awareness

about this important

issue for coastal

ecosystem health.

—Christopher J. Evans,

Executive Director,

Surfrider Foundation,

testimony to the 

Commission, June 2002
C HAPTER 15: CREATING A NATIONAL MONITORING NETWORK

System Design

Sampling protocols are central to the design of an effective national monitoring network.

Because regular sampling of all areas for all contaminants would be unacceptably costly,

only a subset of locations can be monitored. The network’s designers need to determine

what, where, and how often to sample, examining existing monitoring systems at the 

federal, state, territorial, tribal, local, and private levels to determine gaps. Designers must

agree on a set of core variables to be measured at every station, with flexibility for stakeholders to measure additional variables to meet regional and local needs. Along with core

variables, determining consistent national indicators will allow decision makers to assess

ecosystem health and conduct long-term evaluations. Some efforts have been made to

establish a set of national indicators. For example, in 2002, the H. John Heinz III Center

for Science, Economics, and the Environment issued The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems,

which described national indicators that provide a very broad perspective on national

trends and conditions. 

To be effective, it is critical for a national monitoring network to incorporate various

types of measurements, including a broad-scale census of fundamental properties, issueand resource-specific surveys, and intensive monitoring at higher resolution to support

the scientific study of ecosystem processes. The network should include both effectsbased monitoring, which measures the current condition of the environment, and stressororiented monitoring, which measures parameters that are known or suspected to be associated with a decline in environmental health. In addition, it is desirable for the network

to combine probabilistic sampling, which allows for statistically valid assessments of environmental conditions in monitored and unmonitored areas, with fixed-station sampling,

in which specific areas are repeatedly sampled over an extended period of time.

Probabilistic sampling is beneficial because it allows reliable general conclusions to be

made about a site or a region. Fixed-station sampling also has its advantages because 

sampling one area repeatedly allows for long-term trend analyses. Because both of these

sampling methods are beneficial in different ways, an ideal monitoring network would

combine the two approaches. 

Technical Coordination

The monitoring system needs to include standardized procedures and techniques. In some

cases, new measurement technologies will be needed, for example with respect to monitoring beach water quality or assessing the sources of pathogens affecting beaches. Quality

assurance and quality control guidelines should be established so that management

approaches can be assessed on comparable terms. Data management protocols should be

established and uniform data storage formats specified so information can be broadly 

disseminated and easily accessed and understood by agency personnel, the scientific and

management communities, and the general public.

Periodic Review and Modification

The monitoring network’s design will need to be evaluated periodically to make sure it is

measuring variables that are useful for assessing the health of an ecosystem, to add new

variables when necessary, and to make any other changes that would improve its operation. While establishing and standardizing a core set of measurements is important, it is

also critical to review this core set periodically to ensure that new substances are added as

needed. As new chemicals are detected in the environment and wildlife, their toxicological significance should be assessed and they should be considered as possible additions to

the suite of routinely monitored compounds (Box 15.2). 

233
234 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Design Based on User Input

The national monitoring network will require not only federal coordination, but also significant input from state, territorial, tribal, and local governments, as well as academic and

research institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and volunteer monitoring groups.

The monitoring network should be designed with regional needs in mind, in a way that

answers the questions of greatest interest to the end users. To maximize the value of monitoring information, users should be fully included from the start in designing the network.

The regional ocean information programs, discussed in Chapter 5, are appropriate entities

to provide the monitoring network with input concerning regional information needs. 

Recommendation 15–3

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, working with states and other appropriate entities, should

ensure that the national monitoring network has clear goals, specifies core variables and an

appropriate sampling framework, and is periodically reviewed and updated. These agencies

should also work with the regional ocean information programs to determine regional and

local information needs. 

Specifically, the national monitoring network should include the following elements:

• clearly defined goals that fulfill user needs and provide measures of management success.

• a core set of variables to be measured at all sites, with regional flexibility to measure

additional variables where needed.

• an overall system design that determines where, how, and when to monitor and includes

a mix of time and space scales, probabilistic and fixed stations, and stressor- and effectsoriented measurements.

• technical coordination that establishes standard procedures and techniques.

• periodic review of the monitoring network, with modifications as necessary to ensure

that useful goals are being met in a cost-effective way.

Box 15.2 Keeping Up With New Contaminants

I

n recent years, a number of studies have demonstrated the presence of contaminants that

had not previously been measured in the environment. These include many commonly-used

compounds such as insecticides, pharmaceuticals, antibiotics, hormones, fire retardants, detergents, and other industrial chemicals that are produced in high volumes and can be introduced

to the environment during their production, use, or disposal. They have likely been present in

the environment since they entered commerce, but the technologies for their detection have

only recently become widely available. 

Analytical techniques rarely permit the detection of every chemical within an

environmental sample. Therefore, monitoring efforts typically look for compounds from a

pre-selected list. In the 1970s, EPA established a list of 129 priority pollutants (there are

currently 126) that were chosen out of thousands of candidates based on their presumed

prevalence in surface waters and their ability to be analyzed. This list still remains the

standard for environmental assessments, although it ignores many highly relevant chemicals.

Some of the recently-detected compounds are long-lived and can accumulate to high

concentrations in the environment, wildlife, and humans. They have also become widely

dispersed, spreading even to distant Arctic areas. Most of these compounds have only recently

been considered as environmental contaminants, so information on their toxicology is still

lacking. As analytical technologies improve and new contaminants continue to be found, it

will be important to understand the presence and toxicologic significance of these compounds

in the environment and to update the list of priority pollutants to include such compounds.
C HAPTER 15: CREATING A NATIONAL MONITORING NETWORK

Making Data Accessible and Useful

A coordinated national monitoring network will produce an enormous amount of data.

However, for these data to be helpful, they must be processed and converted into timely

information products that are useful and accessible to a broad community of decision

makers, the public, and other potential end users. These information products should take

full advantage of previously collected monitoring data, as well as data from a variety of

other sources. 

Monitoring data, whether newly collected or mined from old sources, should become

part of a broad national environmental data management system. Such a system can combine data from many sources, including the IOOS (as discussed in Chapter 26), to create

information products. The process of receiving, managing, and translating data is

described in greater detail in Chapter 28; it will be key to merging monitoring and IOOS

data to create seamless products across the land/ocean interface. 

References

1 Keeley, D., et al. “More Effectively Using Our Observing, Monitoring, Research and Education Infrastructure.”

Presentation to California and the World Ocean Conference. Santa Barbara, CA, October 2002. 

2 U.S. Geological Survey. “National Streamflow Information Program.” <water.usgs.gov/nsip/recent.html> 

Accessed January 20, 2004.

3 U.S. Geological Survey. “The National Water-Quality Assessment Program: Entering a New Decade of Investigations.”

USGS Fact Sheet 071–01. Washington, DC, 2001.

4 National Research Council. Opportunities to Improve the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Assessment

Program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001.

5 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “State of the Coast.”

<www.oceanservice.noaa.gov/websites/retiredsites/snpp_sotc_retired.html> Accessed January 20, 2004. 

6 U.S. Geological Survey. “The Strategy for Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the United States—Summary.”

<water.usgs.gov/wicp/Summary.html> Accessed January 20, 2004.

235
236 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 16

LIMITING VESSEL POLLUTION

AND IMPROVING VESSEL SAFETY

Vessel activities create significant benefits, but they also present risks to people

and the environment that need to be effectively addressed. Limiting pollution,

improving safety, and addressing potential security threats associated with vessel

operations depend on responsible owners and operators, conscientious crews,

enforceable national and international standards, and development of new

technologies and management approaches. There is also a need for heightened awareness and better real-time information about the full array of

offshore activities to ensure safety, security, and environmental quality. 

Assessing the Benefits and 

Risks of Vessel Activities 

Commercial and recreational vessel activities contribute 

substantially to the U.S. economy. Ships carry more than 

95 percent of the nation’s overseas cargo1 and 9 to 15 percent of

its domestic freight.2,3 The U.S. cruise industry and its passengers generated almost $12 billion in annual spending in 2002,4

and recreational boaters spend an estimated $30 billion a year.5

However, as with all industries, the many benefits derived from vessel operations are accompanied by safety and environmental risks

that require effective government oversight. A 1995 U.S. Coast Guard

study identified human error as the cause of approximately 80 percent

of all maritime casualties.6 Recent events—such as an oil spill from a

barge in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts that caused significant economic

and environmental damage and a Staten Island, New York ferry accident that

resulted in multiple fatalities—demonstrate that protecting the environment

and enhancing safety require continued focus and vigilance. 

It is worth noting that many of the pollutants associated with vessels also have

land-based sources. In fact, 80 percent of all ocean pollution originates from land-based

activities, including many of the types of pollution commonly associated with vessel activities.7 For example, spills due to shipborne oil transportation, including spills from

tankers, account for only about 9 percent of the human input of petroleum into North

American waters.8 Nevertheless, the existence of other sources does not diminish the

importance of finding better ways to reduce vessel pollution.

Improving commercial vessel safety, security, and environmental protection is an

international concern. Foreign flag vessels, subject primarily to the jurisdiction and control of other governments, carry more than 90 percent of international commercial freight

entering and departing the United States9 and account for 95 percent of passenger ships
C HAPTER 16: LIMITING VESSEL POLLUTION AND I MPROVING VESSEL SAFETY

and 75 percent of cargo ships operating in U.S. waters.10 Consequently, it is critical for the

United States to participate in worldwide efforts to manage vessel operations. The principal forum for developing international regulations and guidelines on vessel safety, security,

and environmental protection is the United Nations International Maritime Organization

(IMO). The IMO consists of 164 member nations, including the United States, whose

combined fleets represent more than 98 percent of world vessel tonnage.11

Strengthening Vessel Safety, Security, 

and Environmental Compliance

Vessel owners and operators and government agencies responsible for oversight of vessel

operations share responsibility for continued improvement in vessel safety, security, and

environmental compliance. Improvements to date have been based on a combination of

voluntary and regulatory measures, including a broad array of guidelines and mandatory

regimes for domestic and international operations. Over the past few years, attention has

been focused on better implementation, oversight, and enforcement of existing requirements. 

The success of all these efforts will depend on a broad domestic and international

framework with several components. A key factor is a strong voluntary commitment on

the part of vessel owners and operators to build a culture that incorporates safety, security,

and environmental protection as important and valued aspects of everyday vessel operations.

Another important component is an international commitment to effective oversight and

enforcement, both by those with primary responsibility for vessel operations and by

receiving ports.

A Culture of Compliance and Safety

Voluntary partnerships between U.S. government agencies and vessel owners and operators are an important, non-regulatory means of promoting vessel safety and encouraging

compliance with environmental regulations. For example, the Coast Guard’s Prevention

Through People program focuses on the human component of vessel operations to identify risks and develop solutions to common problems, emphasizing the industry’s lead role

in safety management. 

Such partnerships have been credited for reductions in vessel accidents and oil spills.

However, the process of building a culture of safety also requires a strong commitment

within industry. Safety and environmental plans should be effectively incorporated into

routine vessel operations, including investments in improved workplace safety and training. Also important are reliable means of measuring the success of these initiatives, as

reflected in crew and company performance, including extensive use of third-party audits.

The Coast Guard has developed incentives that reward companies and vessels that have

excellent performance records. The most effective incentives are those that facilitate cargo

delivery or other vessel operations, such as reduced government oversight or inspections,

which translate directly into lower operational costs. 

Recommendation 16–1

The U.S. Coast Guard should encourage industry partners engaged in vessel management to

develop stronger voluntary measures, particularly those that reward crew member contributions, as part of a continuing, long-term effort to build a culture of safety, security, and environmental compliance in routine vessel operations. 

Despite these positive developments, effective oversight and enforcement will remain

critical to improved safety and environmental protection. While most vessel owners and

operators comply with international and domestic requirements to develop safety manage237
238 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

ment plans, the evidence of continuing accidents, criminal prosecutions for falsifying 

documents, and intentional violation of environmental protection laws indicate that some

owners and operators are not effectively implementing these plans. Coast Guard experience has found that performance-based inspections, focusing on demonstrations of crew

competencies and incorporation of vessel safety management plans into daily operations,

provide the best means of evaluating the effectiveness of implementation efforts.

Effective oversight and enforcement also play an important role in identifying and taking action against the small percentage of owners, estimated to control 10 to 15 percent of

the world fleet, that cause significant environmental damage by disregarding or intentionally violating safety and environmental regulations.12 Thorough inspections and enforcement operations and appropriate penalties can help discourage such illegal conduct.

Vessel oversight and enforcement took on a dramatic new dimension after the terrorist

attacks in September 2001, when a series of new security requirements were developed to

address vulnerabilities in the U.S. marine transportation system. In 2002, Congress enacted

the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA), establishing a comprehensive approach

to maritime security, and the IMO adopted a broad new security regime for international

shipping, which entered into force in July 2004. These initiatives are part of a broader

homeland security strategy that places a series of new demands on Coast Guard resources.

Concern has been expressed in Congress and elsewhere about the impact of increased

security responsibilities on other Coast Guard missions. U.S. General Accounting Office

(GAO) reports have documented a decline in resources in a number of other mission

areas, including marine safety and environmental protection, since September 2001, and

have called upon the Coast Guard to develop a comprehensive, balanced resource utilization strategy.13,14

A 2004 report by the National Research Council identified four key national interests

related to the marine transportation system: ensuring marine safety; protecting the marine

environment; facilitating commerce; and providing for national security.15 In planning for

future resource needs and allocation, it will be important to ensure that sufficient resources

are available to meet new security demands without diminishing the resources necessary

to sustain and strengthen marine safety and environmental compliance. For example, 

performance-based vessel inspections, while the most effective means of verifying compliance, are resource intensive. These inspections have played a critical role in identifying

and correcting potential problems, and in assessing the effectiveness of overall efforts to

improve safety and environmental compliance. 

Recommendation 16–2

The U.S. Coast Guard should carry out sustained and strengthened performance-based inspections as a key component of vigorous enforcement of marine safety and environmental protection laws. Coast Guard activities in these areas should be coordinated with new demands

for vessel security inspections and other security requirements.

Flag State Oversight and Enforcement 

Government responsibility for oversight and enforcement is vested primarily in the flag

state, the nation in which a vessel is registered and whose flag the vessel flies. Flag states

are responsible for ensuring their vessels’ compliance with applicable safety, security, and

environmental standards, and for verifying the accuracy of documents and certificates

issued under their authority. This responsibility requires flag states to have the necessary

domestic laws, administrative infrastructure, and qualified personnel in place to oversee

vessel inspections, ensure crew competency, investigate vessel accidents, and take appropriate regulatory and enforcement actions. 
C HAPTER 16: LIMITING VESSEL POLLUTION AND I MPROVING VESSEL SAFETY

Although many flag states take their responsibilities seriously and are active participants

within the IMO, some lack the willingness or capacity to adequately oversee and enforce

international requirements. In many instances, flag states rely heavily on independent

organizations, such as classification societies, for technical expertise and guidance concerning these responsibilities. These organizations may be designated to exercise authority

on behalf of a flag state, in which case they are referred to as “responsible organizations.”

Many of these organizations are highly professional and competent, but not all adhere to

high standards of performance. 

Some flag states, known as open registries, allow ship owners to register vessels and

fly their flag without any genuine link between the nationality of the owner and the flag

state. A few open registries have little interest in the duties of a flag state, other than to

collect registration fees. These flag states become havens for owners of substandard vessels

seeking to avoid meaningful oversight. The ability to rapidly change vessel registry from

one flag state to another makes it easy for irresponsible owners to avoid effective flag state

controls over their operations.

Over the past decade, the IMO has developed guidelines to improve flag state oversight

and enforcement including a self-assessment program. However, less than one-third of

IMO member nations have participated in the program, and a consistently low number 

of flag states submit mandatory reports to the IMO on actions taken to control pollution

violations.16 An IMO research study completed in 2001 also found an unexpectedly high

incidence of fraudulent crew certification documents, with over 80 percent of those surveyed having detected forged certificates in the last five years.17

Mounting international security concerns have made effective flag state oversight and

control even more urgent. Recently approved IMO security initiatives require flag states to

enforce comprehensive new security measures for vessels flying their flag, including the

implementation of vessel security plans, development of detailed and regularly updated

vessel histories, and verification of vessel and crew security documentation.

The IMO also recently approved the establishment and development of a voluntary

Model Audit Scheme to assess how effectively member states are implementing and

enforcing convention standards and to provide feedback on audit results. The IMO has

been working on a code that clearly enumerates flag state, port state, and coastal state

responsibilities. The G-8 nations (the United States, France, Russia, the United Kingdom,

Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada) and representatives from the European Union agreed to

work together to accelerate the introduction of these IMO initiatives and expand technical

cooperation programs to assist flag states in meeting their international obligations.18

Recommendation 16–3

The United States should work with other nations to accelerate efforts at the International

Maritime Organization to enhance flag state oversight and enforcement. 

These efforts should include implementation of:

• a code outlining flag state responsibilities and obligations.

• a voluntary audit regime, to be followed by adoption of a mandatory external audit

regime for evaluating flag state performance.

• measures to ensure that responsible organizations, acting on behalf of flag states, meet

established performance standards.

• increased technical assistance, where appropriate, for flag states that participate in selfassessments and audits. 

239

We have seen over

and over again how

old, out-of-date ships 

flying flags of 

convenience have

caused untold 

damage to the

world’s oceans.

—Richard McCreary,

Group President, Halter

Marine, Inc., testimony

to the Commission,

March 2002
240 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Port State Control 

Nations have the authority to ensure that foreign flag vessels visiting their ports are in

compliance with applicable international and domestic requirements. This verification

process, exercised through port state control programs, has taken on added significance

given the failure of some vessel owners and flag states to effectively exercise their oversight responsibilities. 

U.S. Port State Control 

The Coast Guard currently carries out a port state control program that allocates limited

inspection resources to the highest-risk vessels, based on an assessment of the vessel

owner, flag state, classification society, performance history, and vessel type. The assessment

also considers whether the flag state is a party to important international conventions. In

2002, over 7,000 vessels from 81 flag states made more than 53,000 port calls in the

United States. The Coast Guard conducted 10,518 inspections, leading to the detention 

of 179 vessels for serious violations.19

The Coast Guard’s QUALSHIP 21 program rewards foreign flag vessels that have

attained particularly high levels of compliance with international safety and environmental requirements by reducing their Coast Guard inspections. This can expedite port calls

and reduce costs. The Coast Guard is currently working to develop additional incentives

for QUALSHIP 21 vessels. 

The Coast Guard’s annual reports on port state control identify a small number of flag

states whose vessels have consistently poor records, with repeated detentions for major

safety and environmental compliance violations.20 Beginning in 2004, the U.S. port state

control program will be expanded to include comprehensive vessel security inspections

that will provide additional information on flag state performance. 

Poor oversight by flag states places greater burdens on Coast Guard resources; the

higher the potential risk presented by a vessel, the greater the need to assign resources to

address that risk. More stringent action against irresponsible flag states may encourage

vessel owners to register with flag states that have better oversight regimes and performance records, and reduce the burden on port state resources. One potential option would

be to deny port entry to vessels registered with flag states, or under control of owners and

operators, who demonstrate a repeated, material failure to enforce applicable security,

safety, or environmental protection requirements.

International Port State Control

Port state control programs around the world can become more effective by sharing 

information on successful program management practices, and by sharing information on

vessel histories and inspections. An international memorandum of understanding, signed

by the Coast Guard, established EQUASIS, an independent, nonprofit database designed

to provide global access to impartial information on individual vessels to help reduce 

substandard shipping. This database can be accessed free of charge by anyone, including

port states and vessel operators. Although the Coast Guard actively participates in development of EQUASIS policy, and provides and uses information in the database, an appropriate funding mechanism is needed to allow regular U.S. support for this important 

information-sharing effort. 

Recommendation 16–4

The U.S. Coast Guard, working with other nations, should establish a permanent mechanism

to strengthen and harmonize port state control programs under the auspices of the

International Maritime Organization. To assist port states, the Coast Guard should also 

support efforts to enhance an international vessel information database. 
C HAPTER 16: LIMITING VESSEL POLLUTION AND I MPROVING VESSEL SAFETY

Reducing Vessel Pollution

Strengthening commitments to environmental protection, flag state oversight, and port state control will

help prevent and reduce the impacts of vessel pollution. However, effective reduction of vessel pollution

will also require the development of new control

measures. Of particular concern are vessel waste discharges containing pathogens and nutrients, air emissions, and oil releases. (The role of vessels in the

spread of invasive species is addressed in Chapter 17.)

Waste Stream Discharges 

Every day, vessels ranging from large cruise ships to

small recreational boats discharge wastes into coastal

waters. The waste streams from recreational vessels

primarily contain sewage, while cruise ships discharge both sewage and toxic substances. These

wastes, if not properly disposed of and treated, can

be a significant source of pathogens and nutrients

with the potential to threaten human health and

damage shellfish beds, coral reefs, and other aquatic

life. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), the amount of bacterial pollution in

the discharge of untreated sewage from just one

recreational boat is equivalent to the amount in the

treated sewage of 10,000 people during a similar

time period.21

The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of

untreated sewage in U.S. internal waters and within

three miles of the coast. It also allows individual

states to ask EPA to establish special no-discharge

zones within which the discharge of even treated

sewage is prohibited. The Clean Water Act also

directs EPA and the Coast Guard to establish discharge and design standards for onboard

toilets, referred to technically as marine sanitation devices (MSDs).

Concerns about the impacts of vessel waste and the effectiveness of Clean Water Act

controls increased in the 1990s, along with the increase in cruise ships and recreational

vessels. An Alaskan study conducted in 2000 found that most cruise ship MSDs failed to

treat sewage to levels necessary to meet federal standards, despite claims by the manufacturers. Earlier that year, cruise lines had voluntarily adopted additional restrictions on the

discharge of wastewater in Alaskan waters in response to growing concerns about potential wastewater impacts.22

Decreasing the detrimental effects of these discharges will require a number of actions,

including modifications to current statutes and regulations to strengthen standards,

improved public outreach and education, and additional research to better understand

waste stream impacts. 

Cruise Ships

The cruise industry has grown rapidly since the 1980s. By the end of 2002, 176 vessels

were operating in the North American cruise industry, and U.S. ports handled 6.5 million

cruise embarkations, an increase of over 10 percent from 2001.23 While perhaps slowing

241

Commercial and recreational vessels can be the source of many 

pollutants in the marine environment including waste discharges,

air pollution, and chemical and oil spills. While large spills can lead

to environmental catastrophes, smaller spills, like this one from a

capsized vessel in the Port of Albany, can also have serious impacts

on local ecosystems.

Mike Lutz, U.S. Coast Guard Photo Library
242 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

somewhat over the next several years,

double-digit growth is predicted to continue in the near term.24 This is causing

increased concern about the environmental impact of waste discharges from

cruise ships. The United States accounts

for about 70 percent of global cruise

embarkations; thus, a large portion of

cruise ship operations occur in or near

U.S. waters (Figure 16.1).25

Cruise ships can carry as many as

5,000 passengers and crew, generating

large amounts of wastewater, including

blackwater (sewage), graywater (drainage

from dishwashers, showers, laundry,

baths, and washbasins), and hazardous

substances. Estimates indicate that a 

single cruise ship can generate from

140,000 to 210,000 gallons of blackwater

and a million gallons of graywater per

week.26,27 Of particular concern are the

cumulative environmental impacts

caused when cruise ships repeatedly visit

the same environmentally sensitive areas. 

Between 1993 and 1998, eighty-seven

illegal discharge cases were brought

against cruise lines in the United States, resulting in significant civil and criminal penalties.28

While the number of confirmed cases gradually declined during that period, new cases leading to additional civil and criminal penalties have continued over the past several years.

Industry efforts to address this problem have included the voluntary adoption of comprehensive management plans for handling cruise ship wastes, participation in research partnerships

with government and other public and private stakeholders to investigate the impacts of

cruise ship pollution, and significant investments in new technologies to reduce environmental impacts. The cruise industry has also signed memoranda of understanding with individual

states concerning management and oversight of cruise ship waste disposal programs.

In response to particular concerns about the impacts of cruise ship discharges in

Alaska, a new federal statutory regime applicable only to Alaskan waters was developed 

in 2000, followed by a state statutory regime in 2001. These laws included wastewater 

discharge standards and provisions for sampling, testing, recordkeeping, and inspections,

as well as flexibility to encourage voluntary application of innovative wastewater treatment technologies and methods. However, no comprehensive wastewater management

regime is in place for all large passenger vessels operating in U.S. waters. 

A new regime is needed that provides clear, uniform requirements for controlling the

discharge of wastewater from large passenger vessels, as well as consistent interpretation

and enforcement of those requirements. The benefits of the Alaskan approach should be

extended to other sensitive ocean and coastal areas that experience significant cruise ship

traffic. Any new regulatory regime should be science-based and incorporate new findings,

such as those from recent EPA studies on the dilution and dispersal of discharges from

vessels while underway,29 and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation assessments of advanced wastewater treatment systems and cruise ship wastewater impacts.30

Effective enforcement will require that vessels maintain accurate records to allow the regulated community and enforcement officials to track the treatment and discharge of wastes. 

Figure 16.1 Most Cruise Ship Travel 

Originates in U.S. Waters

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1999 2000 2001 2002

Millions of Passengers

Passengers boarding cruise ships at U.S. ports 

account for over 70 percent of global passengers. Due to the growth of U.S. cruise ship 

operations, appropriate treatment and disposal 

of wastewater discharges from these ships will 

continue to be a concern for maintaining water 

quality and preventing harm to marine organisms. 

Source: Business Research & Economics Advisors. The 

Contribution of the North American Cruise Industry to 

the U.S. Economy in 2002. Exton, PA: International 

Council of Cruise Lines, August 2003. 

■ U.S. Embarkations ■ Global Passengers
C HAPTER 16: LIMITING VESSEL POLLUTION AND I MPROVING VESSEL SAFETY

Recommendation 16–5

Congress should establish a new statutory regime for managing wastewater discharges from

large passenger vessels that applies throughout the United States.

This regime should include: 

• uniform discharge standards and waste management procedures. 

• thorough recordkeeping requirements to track the waste management process.

• required sampling, testing, and monitoring by vessel operators using uniform protocols.

• flexibility and incentives to encourage industry investment in innovative treatment 

technologies.

Recreational Vessels

Millions of recreational boats also discharge significant volumes of waste to coastal waters.

Many recreational boaters rely on MSDs to treat waste before discharge or store waste

until it can be pumped out at land-based facilities. MSD performance and design standards,

however, have not been updated since the mid-1970s and do not account for new technology or the operational life of an MSD system. As a result, many MSDs currently used on

recreational vessels do not provide adequate environmental protection, particularly with

respect to pathogen discharges. 

Recommendation 16–6

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should revise the Clean Water Act marine sanitation

device (MSD) regulations to require that new MSDs meet significantly more stringent pathogen

standards. Manufacturers should be required to warranty that new MSDs will meet these

standards for a specific time period.

Waste Pumpout Facilities 

Pumpout facilities are essential for handling waste from boats equipped with holding

tanks. The combined use of holding tanks and transfer to shore-side pumpout facilities 

is currently the most effective way to address the impacts of recreational vessel wastes,

particularly nutrients. For many recreational boaters, holding tanks are also the most cost

effective and reasonable form of MSD. When a no discharge zone has been established, 

the use of pumpout facilities is often the only option available for recreational vessels that

do not, or for safety reasons should not, venture offshore beyond state waters.

EPA is responsible for determining whether adequate pumpout facilities are available

to recreational boaters before approving most state no-discharge zones. In addition, the

Clean Vessel Act provides funding to states, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS), to purchase and install sewage pumpout stations and portable toilet waste

dump stations, and to provide environmental education to boaters. Despite these programs,

the current shortfall in adequate pumpout facilities makes it virtually impossible for

boaters to comply with prohibitions against the discharge of untreated waste in some

coastal areas. 

Additional measures have been suggested to increase the number of pumpout facilities. Marina permits issued under federal or state law could include provisions requiring

pumpout facilities, and voluntary installation and use of pumpout facilities could be

encouraged as part of community education and outreach programs. States may also

award grants to construct these facilities. An effective program requires sufficient oversight to ensure that existing pumpout facilities remain operational and readily accessible

to recreational boaters. Education and outreach programs, as well as incentive programs,

could also be used to encourage voluntary upgrading of MSDs. 

243
244 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 16–7

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should conduct a thorough assessment,

including field inspections, to verify the availability and accessibility of functioning pumpout

facilities in existing no-discharge zones and prior to the approval of any new no-discharge

zones. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA, working with states, should coordinate

their efforts to increase the availability of adequate, accessible, and operational pumpout

facilities, particularly in no discharge zones. 

Air Emissions

Commercial Vessels 

Most large commercial ships are powered by marine diesel engines that use fuels containing high concentrations of contaminants.31 These engines have high emissions on a per

engine basis and contribute to high ozone and particulate matter levels in many coastal

and port areas.32 A study of global impacts from large vessel air emissions indicates that

approximately 80 percent of vessel air emissions occur within 200 miles of the coast, 

and that a major part of these emissions are concentrated in a few areas in the Northern

Hemisphere, primarily along the east and west coasts of the United States, in the North

Pacific, and in northern Europe.33 International and domestic marine trade is predicted to

more than double in the next twenty years, reinforcing the need to expeditiously develop

and implement measures to abate vessel-generated air pollution.34

International initiatives to curb emissions from very large vessel engines have focused

on IMO development of a new Annex to the International Convention for the Prevention

of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). (For a listing of significant ocean-related international agreements, see Table 29.1.) Annex VI, which is scheduled to enter into force in

May 2005, establishes limits on nitrogen oxide emissions and addresses the sulfur content

of fuel, ozone-depleting substances, volatile organic compounds from refueling, and shipboard incineration. Annex VI also allows nations to establish Sulfur Oxide Emission

Control Areas and efforts are already underway to seek this designation for certain

European waters. 

Recommendation 16–8

The United States should ratify MARPOL Annex VI and work for International Maritime

Organization (IMO) adoption of even stricter air emission standards that reflect advances in

marine engine technology, availability of cleaner fuels, and improved operational practices.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working with other appropriate entities, should

use Annex VI criteria and guidelines to evaluate U.S. ocean and coastal areas with impaired air

quality, and seek IMO designation of appropriate areas as Sulfur Oxide Emission Control Areas.

In May 2004, EPA announced two new initiatives as part of its ongoing Clean Diesel

Program. These regulatory measures are designed to improve air quality through a combination of emission controls and cleaner fuels. Cleaner fuel standards will reduce the sulfur

content of diesel fuel from its currently uncontrolled level of approximately 3,000 parts per

million to 500 parts per million in 2007, and to 15 parts per million by 2012 for fuel used

in marine engines. EPA is also proposing stricter emission standards for all new commercial, recreational, and auxiliary marine diesel engines except the very large Category 3

engines used for propulsion on sea-going vessels, which are subject to separate regulations.

The new standards could apply to designated marine engines by 2011. Implementation of

these regulations, which are designed to complement each other, should result in significant reductions in harmful emissions. EPA estimates that full implementation of these two

regulatory initiatives will result in particulate matter reductions of 95 percent, nitrogen

oxides reductions of 90 percent, and the virtual elimination of sulfur oxides from marine

engines that meet the new standards. 
C HAPTER 16: LIMITING VESSEL POLLUTION AND I MPROVING VESSEL SAFETY

Voluntary actions can provide a useful complement to regulatory measures in reducing vessel air emissions, although they often involve increased costs to vessel owners and

operators. New engine types that consume less fuel and emit less pollution are voluntarily

being installed and evaluated. Some vessel owners and operators are currently replacing

high-sulfur fuels with more expensive, low-sulfur fuels. Economic incentives can encourage such actions by helping to offset the costs. Several incentives were suggested during

the development of EPA’s large marine engine emission regulations. At the state and port

levels, these include differentiated port fees based on a vessel’s environmental profile,

matching grant programs, and the greater use of shore power where it is determined to be

safe, cost-effective, and environmentally advantageous. Future possibilities include market-based measures such as pollution credit trading programs, including trading between

fixed and mobile sources.35 Europe is also considering market-based measures to reduce

emissions, such as relating port fees to vessel emission levels, linking fuel taxes with fuel

quality, and developing emission trading mechanisms.

Recommendation 16–9

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working with other appropriate entities, should

investigate and implement incentive-based measures that could lead to measurable voluntary

reductions in vessel air emissions. 

Recreational Vessels 

At the other end of the spectrum, the millions of smaller recreational boats with gasolinefueled, spark-ignition engines may contribute more than 10 percent of total hydrocarbon

emissions in some areas of the nation,36 contributing to ozone formation and associated

health problems. EPA has issued regulations under the Clean Air Act to reduce these

emissions by requiring the use of significantly improved two-stroke engine designs or 

substitution with four-stroke engines, either of which will significantly reduce air emissions. EPA estimates that by 2025, after the new engines are in widespread use and the 

old engines have been largely retired, there will be a 75 percent reduction in hydrocarbon

emissions from recreational vessels.37 Environmental benefits could be achieved even

more rapidly if incentives were provided for boat owners to retire old engines ahead of

schedule.

EPA can also work with state government, recreational boating associations, and marinas to expand education and outreach programs that urge recreational boaters to properly

maintain engines and fuel systems to optimize combustion and to replace old two-stroke

engines more rapidly.

Oil Releases 

Vessels can release oil into the marine environment in a variety of ways, including accidental spills of oil and fuel, release of oil during normal engine operations, and intentional

discharges. Two recent devastating spills off the coast of Europe involving older singlehull tankers—the Erika in 1999 and the Prestige in 2002—clearly demonstrate the challenges presented as ship operators and government agencies work to prevent future spills.

Single-Hull Vessel Phase-outs 

One of the major initiatives developed to prevent oil spills is the phase-out of single-hull

tankers and barges and their replacement by double-hull vessels. In December 2003, IMO

adopted amendments to MARPOL, scheduled to enter into force in 2005, that accelerate

international phase-out schedules for single-hull tankers and introduce a ban on carriage

of heavy oils by certain single-hull tankers. The IMO provisions reflect similar actions that

entered into force in the European Union in October 2003.

245
246 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Prior to recent international actions, concerns had been raised in the United States

about sufficient oil carriage capacity, as regulations under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA)

required phase-outs of single-hulls. (The international phase-out schedule differs in 

certain respects from the schedule under OPA.) A 2000 GAO report analyzed domestic

capacity in the U.S. fleet and determined that the industry had sufficient capacity in the

near term, but that future capacity was less clear and merited regular examination.38 As

the European and IMO initiatives took shape, additional concerns were raised about their

impacts, including the limitations on carriage of heavy oils and the possible diversion of

single-hull tankers from the European to U.S. trade. Building on recommendations in the

GAO report, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Coast Guard need to

continue to assess issues related to the phase-out of single-hull vessels. The assessments

should address the capacity to meet U.S. demand for double-hull vessels and include evaluations of the impacts of recent MARPOL amendments. 

Aging Infrastructure

While vessel spills are the leading source of oil releases associated with the oil transportation industry, there is also growing concern about the threats posed by aging pipelines and

other oil transportation facilities.39 Reflecting these concerns, Congress and the Department

of Transportation’s Office of Pipeline Safety have introduced new statutory and management

measures designed to improve pipeline safety. The most effective long-term approach to

protection of the marine environment from transportation-related oil spills is a comprehensive, risk-based assessment of potential threats, prioritization of responses, and a coordinated plan of action among agencies responsible for different segments of the oil transportation industry.

Recommendation 16–10

The U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, and Minerals Management Service, in consultation with states, should conduct a riskbased analysis of all oil transportation systems that identifies and prioritizes sources of greatest risk. Based on that analysis, the agencies should develop a comprehensive, long-term plan

for action to reduce overall spill risks and the threat of significant spills. 

Pollution Prevention and Response

U.S. efforts to reduce oil spills from vessels have been very successful, largely due to

requirements established by OPA, and initiatives by industry working with the Coast

Guard and other agencies (Figure 16.2). Following the enactment of OPA in 1990, oil

released through vessel spills in the United States dropped by more than 60 percent, from

over 14 gallons per million shipped between 1983 and 1990 to 5 gallons per million

between 1991 and 1998.40

While barge spills have also declined dramatically in the last decade, a 2002 National

Research Council report indicated that between 1990 and 1999 the amount of oil released

into U.S. waters from barge spills, particularly from spills of heavy distillates, exceeded

spills from other vessel sources, including tankers.41

Sunken and abandoned vessels also pose environmental dangers. These wrecks may still

contain significant amounts of oil or other hazardous substances and represent an increasing

threat of gradual or sudden releases to the environment as the vessels age and deteriorate.

When a spill does occur, the United States has a well-developed National Response

System (NRS) to manage threats from oil discharges, hazardous chemical releases, and

other toxic spills. The NRS includes: a National Response Team made up of sixteen federal

agencies; Regional Response Teams, with federal, state, and territorial representatives; area

committees; and local emergency planning committees under supervision of their state

emergency response commissions. National, regional, and area contingency plans provide

an organizational structure, develop policy guidance, and coordinate federal, state, and
C HAPTER 16: LIMITING VESSEL POLLUTION AND I MPROVING VESSEL SAFETY

local responses to discharges and threats of discharges. Federal on-scene coordinators

manage response resources and efforts during an incident. 

The need remains for continued vigilance, dedication of resources, prioritization of

threats, and development of additional preventive actions to reduce the number and

impacts of oil spills in U.S. waters.

Places of Refuge

A place of refuge is the term given to a port or protected coastal area that can accommodate

ships in distress and help prevent or mitigate the impact of spills. In 2001, the Castor, a

fully laden tanker that had developed a structural problem in the Mediterranean, was

forced to remain at sea for thirty-five days until it was finally allowed into sheltered waters

for cargo transfer and repairs. Many believe that the catastrophic impacts of the 2002

Prestige oil spill off the coast of Spain may have been avoided or significantly reduced if

the distressed vessel had been allowed into sheltered waters to transfer its cargo, rather

than being towed farther out to sea. 

In December 2003, the IMO approved new guidelines on places of refuge for distressed

ships when human life is not threatened. The guidelines are based on the premise that the

best way to prevent damage from the progressive deterioration of a vessel is to transfer its

cargo and fuel, and that this is best accomplished in a place of refuge. The guidelines provide a framework for assessing individual cases and taking appropriate action. However,

recognizing that the potential economic and environmental consequences of bringing a distressed vessel to the coast are likely to attract political involvement, the guidelines also recommend actions to facilitate communication and decision making during the time of crisis. 

Additional work is needed in the United States to create an effective process within

the National Response System for responding to vessels seeking refuge. While this will be

difficult, the nation cannot afford to wait until an incident like the Prestige disaster is

underway before seeking good solutions. A series of government and industry forums

have identified many issues to be addressed, among them: establishing a single point of

contact for ship-to-shore communications; identifying available salvage, lightering, and

technical resources in local areas; identifying the responsible decision makers at federal,

247

Figure 16.2 The Oil Pollution Act Curbs Spills in U.S. Waters Thousands of Gallons

Number of Spills 

Greater than 100 Gallons

While the number of oil spills has decreased steadily since the early 1970s, the volume of oil spilled 

fluctuated significantly between 1973 and 1990. However, following the EXXON Valdez spill in 

1989 and the resulting passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the amount of oil released into the 

environment has been significantly reduced.

Source: Environmental Research Consulting, Cortlandt Manor, NY.

0

2,800

5,600

8,400

11,200

14,000

100

200

300

400

500

600

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

■ Volume of Oil Spilled - Number of Spills
248 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

state, and port levels; resolving financial protection, liability, and compensation issues;

and deciding whether potential places of refuge should be designated in advance. There is

a broad consensus that contingency plans should: allow for consistent implementation at

the national, regional, and port levels; provide specific direction on how to receive and act

upon requests for assistance in a timely and coordinated manner; and establish clear lines

of authority and responsibility for deciding whether to grant a ship’s request for refuge.

Recommendation 16–11

The U.S. Coast Guard, working with the spill response and marine salvage communities,

should develop comprehensive policy guidance and contingency plans for places of refuge in

the United States. The plans should clearly delineate decision-making authorities and responsibilities and provide for coordinated and timely assessments and responses to vessels seeking a

place of refuge. 

Oil from Recreational Vessels

The millions of recreational vessels and personal watercraft with two-stroke outboard

motors are estimated to be a substantial source of petroleum contamination in U.S. waters,

although the true magnitude of the problem remains unclear. The National Research

Council has estimated that two-stroke outboard motors may release anywhere between

0.6 and 2.5 million gallons of oil and gasoline into U.S. coastal waters every year.42

Petroleum products also spill into coastal waters when boaters are refueling. 

Most of the approximately ten million gasoline-fueled recreational motorboats and

personal watercraft have older two-stroke engines that will continue to discharge air and

water pollutants until they are retired. Actions to reduce air pollutants from recreational

vessel engines (discussed above), including upgrades for two-stroke engines, replacement

with four-stroke engines, owner incentives, and general boater education, will also reduce

discharges of oil, gasoline, and fuel additives. 

Innovative programs can also help to reduce the impacts of other types of oil releases

resulting from small vessel operations. For example, the state of Texas, participating ports,

the private sector, and local governments, have constructed fixed and mobile bilge water

reclamation facilities for commercial fishing vessels and recreational vessels to use for disposal of oily bilge water. The service is provided at no cost to the vessel owners and the oil

is recycled. The program, started in 1996, is rapidly expanding and is reported to have

collected over 500,000 gallons of used oil and more than 600,000 gallons of contaminated

water.43 The federal government can encourage such innovative programs by collecting

and disseminating information on successful efforts and providing partial support. 

Recommendation 16–12

The National Ocean Council should coordinate federal agency efforts to reduce the release of

air and oil pollutants from small vessel operations through a combination of outreach and

education, development of incentives to encourage early replacement of older two-stroke

engines, and support for innovative pilot programs at the federal, state, and local levels. 

Increasing Knowledge to Guide Change

A common theme in any pollution prevention strategy is the need to acquire a better

understanding of the impacts of various forms of pollution and the potential for new control technologies. Research can help identify the degree of harm represented by different

human activities and can assist in prioritizing limited resources to address the most significant threats. Research must also be at the heart of any science-based approach toward
C HAPTER 16: LIMITING VESSEL POLLUTION AND I MPROVING VESSEL SAFETY

developing new regulatory and non-regulatory measures to control vessel pollution.

Useful research directions include investigations of: 

• Processes that govern the transport of pollutants in the marine environment.

• Small passenger vessel practices, including the impacts of stationary discharges. 

• Disposal options for concentrated sludge resulting from advanced sewage treatment

on large passenger vessels. 

• Cumulative impacts of commercial and recreational vessel pollution on particularly

sensitive areas, such as coastal areas with low tidal exchange and coral reef systems.

• Impacts of vessel air emissions, particularly in ports and inland waterways where the

surrounding area is already having difficulty meeting air quality standards. 

These examples represent only a small fraction of the research that is needed to

increase the understanding of, and the ability to respond to, potential threats to the

marine environment from vessel pollution. 

Recommendation 16–13

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

U.S. Coast Guard, and other appropriate entities should support a vigorous, coordinated

research program on the fates and impacts of vessel pollution. Research results should be

used to guide management priorities, develop new control technologies, determine best

management practices, and create more effective regulatory regimes as needed.

Improving Awareness of Ocean Activities

Vessel safety and environmental protection depend not only on appropriate operation 

of each vessel, but on the safe movement and management of all vessel traffic. Effective

vessel traffic management takes place within the larger context of other coastal and ocean

uses and requires accommodation between those uses and navigation. 

The rapidly increasing variety and number of offshore uses, and the potential for 

conflicts between competing interests operating in the same area, will increase the need

for information concerning the nature and extent of offshore activities. In today’s highly

interdependent world, efforts to ensure national security, maintain environmental quality,

and manage the use of marine resources will require unprecedented awareness of activities, trends, conditions, and anomalies in the maritime domain, including those that may

require some intervention. 

The Coast Guard, which has a leading role in developing increased maritime domain

awareness, defines it as “the effective understanding of anything in the marine environment that could adversely affect America’s security, safety, economy, or environment.”44

For the Coast Guard, maritime domain awareness applies to a broad range of maritime

activities, including security, search and rescue efforts, fisheries enforcement, drug interdiction, illegal human migration, marine safety, and environmental protection. 

While much of the recent effort to increase maritime domain awareness has grown

out of concerns for national security, heightened by the September 11, 2001 terrorist

attacks, the information gained will benefit a variety of other national interests. For

instance, the expanded use of the Automated Identification System not only tracks and

identifies vessels for security purposes, but provides information to assist safe navigation

and help reduce the risk of accidents that could adversely impact the marine environment.

The information can also help identify areas of vessel congestion or potential conflicts

with other uses, thus serving as a valuable management tool.

The development of greater maritime domain awareness coincides with efforts to

develop more comprehensive, ecosystem-based management approaches for ocean and

249
250 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

coastal activities. Close coordination of these efforts will help ensure that the information

products developed through maritime awareness can be integrated into other monitoring

and observing networks to support a broad variety of management needs. 

Recommendation 16–14

In developing and implementing maritime domain awareness initiatives, the U.S. Coast 

Guard should work with the National Ocean Council to ensure that, in addition to their 

other intended purposes, these initiatives provide effective support for ocean and coastal

management needs.

References

1 U.S. Department of Transportation. An Assessment of the Marine Transportation System: A Report to Congress.

Washington, DC, September 1999.

2 National Chamber Foundation. Trade and Transportation: A Study of North American Port and Intermodal Systems.

Washington, DC: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, March 2003.

3 The American Waterways Operators. “Value to the Nation.” <www.americanwaterways.com> Accessed December 1, 2003.

4 Business Research and Economic Advisors. The Contribution of the North American Cruise Industry to the U.S.

Economy in 2002. Exton, PA: International Council of Cruise Lines, August 2003.

5 National Marine Manufacturers Association. “Facts and Figures.” <www.nmma.org> Accessed December 1, 2003.

6 U.S. Coast Guard. Prevention Through People Quality Action Team Report. Washington, DC, 1995.

7 United Nations Environment Program. Pollution from the Land: The Threat to Our Seas. New York, NY: United

Nations, 2003.

8 National Research Council. Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003. 

9 “Vessel Operations Under “Flags of Convenience” and National Security Implications.” Statement of Rear Admiral

Paul J. Pluta, U.S. Coast Guard, before the House Armed Services Committee. June 13, 2003.

10 U.S. Coast Guard. “Origins of the Port State Control Program.” <www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/pscweb/origins> 

Posted July 25, 2003; accessed December 1, 2003.

11 O’Neill, W. “IMO–30 Years of Change, 30 years of Progress.” Maritime Policy and Management 30 (January/March

2003): 1–4.

12 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Cost Savings Stemming from Non-compliance with

International Environmental Regulations in the Maritime Sector. Paris, France, 2003.

13 U.S. General Accounting Office. Coast Guard: Strategy Needed for Setting and Monitoring Levels of Effort for All

Missions. GAO–03–155. Washington, DC, November 2002.

14 U.S. General Accounting Office. Coast Guard: Comprehensive Blueprint Needed to Balance and Monitor Resource Use

and Measure Performance for All Missions. GAO–03–544T. Washington, DC, March 2003. 

15 Transportation Research Board. The Marine Transportation System and the Federal Role: Measuring Performance,

Targeting Improvement. Special Report 279. Washington, DC: The National Academies, 2004. 

16 Subcommittee on Flag State Implementation. Report to the Maritime Safety Committee and the Marine

Environmental Protection Committee. FSI 11/23. London, UK: International Maritime Organization, May 6, 2003. 

17 Seafarers International Research Center. A Study on Fraudulent Practices Associated with Certificates of Competency

and Endorsements. Wales, UK: Cardiff University, January 2001.

18 International Information Programs. Marine Environment and Tanker Safety: A G–8 Action Plan. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of State, June 2, 2003.

19 U.S. Coast Guard. Port State Control in the United States: Annual Report 2002. Washington, DC, April 2003. 

20 Ibid.

21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Using Your Head to Help Protect Our Aquatic Resources. EPA 842–F–00–002.

Washington, DC, April 2001. 

22 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative, Part 2 Report (June 1, 2000, to 

July 1, 2001). Juneau, AK, 2001.

23 Business Research and Economic Advisors. The Contribution of the North American Cruise Industry to the U.S.

Economy in 2002. Exton, PA: International Council of Cruise Lines, August 2003.

24 Ibid.
C HAPTER 16: LIMITING VESSEL POLLUTION AND I MPROVING VESSEL SAFETY

25 Ibid.

26 Center for Environmental Leadership in Business. A Shifting Tide: Environmental Challenges and Cruise Industry

Responses—An Interim Response. Eds. J.E. Sweeting and S.L. Wayne. Washington, DC: Conservation International,

2003.

27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cruise Ship White Paper. Washington, DC, August 2000.

28 U.S. General Accounting Office. Progress Made to Reduce Marine Pollution by Cruise Ships, but Important Issues

Remain. GAO/RECD–00–48. Washington, DC, February 2000.

29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cruise Ship Plume Tracking Survey Report. EPA842–R–02–001. Washington, DC,

September 2002.

30 Alaskan Department of Environmental Conservation. Assessment of Cruise Ship and Ferry Wastewater Impacts in

Alaska. February 9, 2004.

31 Corbett, J.J., and P. Fischbeck. “Emissions from Ships.” Science 278, no. 5339 (October 1997).

32 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Summary and Analysis of Comments: Control of Emissions from New Marine

Compression-Ignition Engines at or above 30 Liters per Cylinder. EPA420–R–03–003. Washington, DC, January 2003.

33 Marintek, Econ Center for Economic Analysis, Carnegie Mellon, and Det Norske Veritas. Study of Greenhouse Gas

Emissions from Ships. Trondheim, Norway 2000.

34 U.S. Department of Transportation. An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System: A Report to Congress.

Washington, DC, September 1999.

35 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Summary and Analysis of Comments: Control of Emissions from New Marine

Compression-Ignition Engines at or above 30 Liters per Cylinder. EPA420–R–03–003. Washington, DC, January 2003.

36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Nonroad Engines, Equipment and Vehicles: Emission Standards for New

Gasoline Marine Engines. EPA 420–F–96–012. Washington, DC, August 1996. 

37 Ibid. 

38 U.S. General Accounting Office. Maritime Industry: As U.S. Single-Hull Oil Vessels Are Eliminated, Few Double-Hull

Vessels May Replace Them. GAO/RCED–00–08. Washington, DC, April 2000. 

39 National Research Council. Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003.

40 Statement of Admiral James M. Loy, U.S. Coast Guard, before the House Subcommittee on Marine Transportation and

the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. March 24, 1999. 

41 National Research Council. Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003.

42 Ibid.

43 Office of the Governor, State of Texas. Special Addendum to the Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy,

Governors’ Comments on the Preliminary Report. Attachment 1: General Land Office Comments. 2004.

44 U.S. Coast Guard. Maritime Strategy for Homeland Security. Washington, DC, December 2002.

251
252 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 17

PREVENTING THE SPREAD

OF INVASIVE SPECIES

T he introduction of invasive species into marine and Great Lakes ecosystems costs

the nation millions, or possibly billions of dollars a year in economic and ecological

damage. A major source of aquatic nuisance species is the discharge of ballast

water from ocean-going ships. Numerous federal agencies are involved in

efforts to prevent the introduction of such species and many laws and 

regulations have been developed to combat the problem, but more needs

to be done to reduce this threat. Preventing introductions of invasive

species or limiting their impact, will require streamlined programs and

increased coordination among agencies, establishment and enforcement of domestic and international ballast water management 

standards, an educated public, and adequate funding.

Acknowledging the Problem

The introduction of invasive species into ports, coastal areas,

and watersheds has damaged marine ecosystems around the

world, costing millions of dollars in remediation, monitoring, and

ecosystem damage. Invasive species are considered one of the

greatest threats to coastal environments,1 and can contribute substantially to altering the abundance, diversity, and distribution of

many native species.2 Although not every non-native species becomes

an invader (Box 17.1), the sudden availability of new habitat and

absence of its natural predators can lead to runaway growth that pushes

out other species. Unlike many forms of pollution that degrade over time,

invasive species can persist, increase, and spread. 

The cost to the U.S. economy of terrestrial and aquatic invasive species has

been difficult to determine. Of the few studies that exist, one estimates the damages

at $137 billion a year.3 Of the more than $600 million spent in 2000 to address this

problem, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) received approximately 90 percent

for predominantly land-based efforts,4 while less than 1 percent was dedicated to combating aquatic invasive species.5 Yet the sea lamprey has decimated a Great Lakes fishery, and

aquatic plants, such as hydrilla and water chestnut, have significantly disrupted navigation. One infectious oyster disease, commonly known as MSX and most likely introduced

through the experimental release of a Japanese oyster to Delaware Bay in the 1950s,6 has

devastated populations of native oysters along the East Coast. 
C HAPTER 17: PREVENTING THE S PREAD OF I NVASIVE S PECIES

The history of the European green crab in the United States illustrates the trajectory

of many invasive species. Native to the coasts of the North and Baltic seas, the green crab

has been introduced to new environments through ballast water discharge, use as fishing

bait, and packaging of live seafood. The green crab was first seen in San Francisco Bay in

1989, and has now become widespread on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. A number

of ecosystems invaded by this small crab have been significantly altered. It competes with

native fish and bird species for food and may also pose a threat to Dungeness crab, clam,

and oyster fisheries. 

The problem of invasive species may be exacerbated by climate change. Warming

temperatures can alter aquatic habitats and species distributions, making native populations more susceptible to invasion.

Assessing Existing Approaches

More than a decade has passed since the first legislation was enacted to combat invasive

species, yet unwanted organisms continue to enter the United States where they can cause

economic and ecological havoc. Invasive species policies are not keeping pace with the

problem primarily because of inadequate funding, a lack of coordination among federal

agencies, redundant programs, and outdated technologies.

Federal Statutes

The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA), as amended

in 1996 by the National Invasive Species Act, is the primary federal law dealing with

aquatic invasive species and ballast water management. NANPCA established the Aquatic

Nuisance Species Task Force, which includes representatives from the relevant federal

agencies and thirteen nonfederal stakeholders. Co-chaired by the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),

the Task Force is responsible for facilitating cooperation and coordination among federal,

regional, and state agencies. The legislation also addresses research, prevention, species

control, monitoring, and information dissemination. 

The Task Force encourages states to develop plans for managing invasive species, and

NANPCA provides the appropriate federal agencies with authority to issue regulations to

carry out their responsibilities under the law. To comply with NANPCA, the U.S. Coast

253

Box 17.1 What Is an Invasive Species?

I

n this report, the meaning of non-native species is the same as the definition of nonindigenous species provided in the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act

(NANPCA), as amended by the National Invasive Species Act:

“[A] nonindigenous species means any species or other viable biological material that

enters an ecosystem beyond its historic range, including any such organism transferred from

one country into another.”

The term aquatic invasive species as used in this report is based on the definition of

aquatic nuisance species provided in NANPCA:

“[An] aquatic nuisance species [is] a nonindigenous species that threatens the diversity or

abundance of native species or the ecological stability of infested waters, or commercial,

agricultural, aquacultural, or recreational activities dependent on such waters.”

Thus invasive species are a particularly harmful subset of all non-native species

introduced into new environments.
254 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Guard has established regulations and guidelines to address introductions of non-native

species through the uptake and discharge of ballast water from ships.

Resource allocation for managing invasive species varies widely among federal, state,

and local agencies. While NANPCA authorizes federal funding to help states implement

their approved Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plans, the appropriation has historically been substantially less than the authorization and has not been effective in motivating states to complete management plans. Since 1996, when this provision was included

in NANPCA, only fourteen states have established plans (Figure 17.1).

NANPCA also encourages the formation of regional panels, which operate under

goals outlined in the Act. The panels develop priorities and working groups to explore

invasive species issues applicable to their areas and make recommendations for regional

action. Six regional panels have been established (Figure 17.2). 

The National Invasive Species Council, consisting of ten federal departments and

agencies, was established by executive order in February 1999 to provide national leadership on managing terrestrial and aquatic invasive species. In 2001, the Council produced

a management plan with significant input from a nonfederal advisory committee.7

The Lacey Act allows the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) to regulate the importation of animals found to be injurious to wildlife. However, the Act is more often used to

Figure 17.1 Great Lakes States Take Lead in Implementing 

Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plans

St. Croix Natural Scenic Riverway 

Interstate Management Plan Lake Champlain Basin 

Interstate Management Plan

■ States with approved plans

■ States with plans under 

development

■ States without plans

● Interstate plans

The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force encourages states to develop management plans for 

detecting and monitoring aquatic invasive species, educating the public, and encouraging 

collaborative mitigation efforts. Of the fourteen states that currently have plans approved by the 

Task Force, six border the Great Lakes. And while other coastal states such as California, Texas, 

Louisiana, and Florida are developing plans, the majority of East Coast states are not currently 

pursuing aquatic nuisance species management plans. 

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA.

Alaska Hawaii Puerto Rico
C HAPTER 17: PREVENTING THE S PREAD OF I NVASIVE S PECIES

respond to an existing invasive species problem than to promote proactive approaches for

preventing their introduction. 

The Plant Protection Act and animal quarantine laws authorize the USDA’s Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service to prohibit certain plants and animals from entering

the United States, and to require inspection, treatment, quarantine, or other mitigation

measures. The Service can pre-clear shipments of certain organisms by requiring inspection and quarantine in the country of origin. 

State and Federal Programs

NOAA’s National Sea Grant College Program, in cooperation with USFWS and the Aquatic

Nuisance Species Task Force, coordinates and funds aquatic invasive species research, outreach, and education, and administers a research and development program in ballast

water management technology. Other NOAA programs address shellfish diseases and

threats to essential fish habitat, including the control and removal of invasive species. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has several programs that address 

the interactions between invasive species and federal navigation routes, including the

255

Western (est. 1997) Great Lakes (est. 1991)

Gulf of Mexico (est. 1999)

Mid-Atlantic

(est. 2003)

Northeast 

(est. 2001)

Mississippi River Basin (est. 2002)

Figure 17.2 Addressing Aquatic Invasive Species Regionally

Created under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, six overlapping regional panels work 

to limit the introduction, spread, and impacts of aquatic invasive species in their waters. 

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA.
256 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Aquatic Plant Control Program, the Zebra Mussel Program, and the Removal of Aquatic

Growth Program. USACE is also authorized to implement a 50/50 federal cost share with

state and local governments for managing invasive species in navigable waterways not

under federal control. 

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act gives the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory authority over the use of chemicals to combat invasive species. EPA may require an environmental assessment for invasive species control

activities if these chemicals are involved. And DOI’s National Wildlife Refuge System 

program reviews strategies and recommends pilot projects involving invasive species.

In addition to these federal programs, much of the actual monitoring, management,

and control of invasive species falls under regional and state jurisdiction. The Great Lakes

Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, convened in 1991 with membership representing the

eight Great Lakes states, federal and regional agencies, tribal authorities, local communities, and user groups, continues its leadership role as a regional panel, supporting initiatives to prevent, detect, and respond to invasive species. Some states, such as California,

have laws that address the illegal transport of certain species, the control of infected, 

diseased, or parasitized aquatic species, and the marine aquariums pet trade. 

Identifying Major Pathways for Introduction

of Non-native Species 

The discharge of ballast water is considered a primary pathway for introduction of nonnative species. Other ship-related sources, such as sea chests (openings in ship hulls used

when pumping water), ships’ hulls, anchors, navigational buoys, drilling platforms, and

floating marine debris, are also important. Other pathways include intentional and unintentional human introductions of fish and shellfish, and illegally released organisms from

the aquaculture, aquarium, horticulture, and pet industries. There is also increasing concern that expanding trade through exotic pet dealers, including on the Internet, is 

exacerbating the invasive species problem, including the introduction of new diseases.8

Although not all non-native species become invasive (threatening native species, the larger

ecosystem, or commercial, agricultural, or recreational activities) their potentially devastating effects call for significant measures to restrict introduction as much as possible. 

Ballast Water 

Ships carry ballast water to aid in stability, trim (or balance), and structural integrity. An

estimated 7,000 species are carried in ships’ ballast tanks around the world.9 While most of

them perish during the voyage, even a few survivors can be enough to establish a reproductive population when discharged into a waterway. Under certain conditions, non-native

species can compete with native species and become pests in their new environment. 

Currently, ships entering U.S. waters with no ballast on board are exempt from some

management requirements. However, even seemingly empty ballast tanks often contain

residual water and sediments that can release non-native species to receiving waters when

the ships take on and discharge water during a coastal or Great Lakes passage. 

Intercontinental voyages are not the only way to introduce non-native species through

ballast water discharge. The spread of non-native species from one port to another within

U.S. waters is of increasing concern on the East and West coasts. Unfortunately, the Coast

Guard’s jurisdiction is limited to vessels entering U.S. waters from outside the exclusive

economic zone (EEZ). Recently enacted law in California authorizes state authorities to

order ballast water discharge in certain areas outside state waters prior to docking at

California ports. Other coastal states are also considering taking action. 
C HAPTER 17: PREVENTING THE S PREAD OF I NVASIVE S PECIES

Global Trade in Marine Organisms 

Human releases of living marine resources serve as another pathway for the introduction

of non-native species. Live fish and shellfish importers, aquaculture facilities (discussed in

Chapter 22), and retail pet stores routinely transport, raise, and sell non-native species in

the course of business. Along the way, specimens can escape, be disposed of in an unsafe

manner, or unknowingly serve as a vector for the introduction of other organisms. Live

worms and other bait, packing material, seaweed, and seawater used to transport living

organisms may also introduce non-native species into new environments.10

Making Prevention the First Line of Defense

Recognizing the economic and biological harm caused by invasive species, and acknowledging the difficulty of eradicating a species once it is established, aggressive steps should

be taken to prevent such introductions. 

Ballast Water Management

Exchanging ballast water in the middle of the ocean to

reduce the risk of transferring organisms from one

ecosystem to another is the primary management tool

currently available for ships to control the introduction

of invasive species, although this approach is not helpful in controlling domestic port-to-port contamination.

The Coast Guard began implementing ballast

water management regulations in 1993 and mandated ballast water exchange for vessels bound for

the Great Lakes. However, the lack of similar requirements across the nation led several states, including

California, Oregon, and Washington, to also make

ballast water exchange mandatory for ships entering

their state waters. As a result, ships entering U.S.

waters have to contend with different requirements

depending on their port of entry. To strengthen invasive species management, the Coast

Guard has issued regulations mandating ballast water exchange by vessels entering the

United States from outside the EEZ. 

However, new technologies may also provide alternatives to mid-ocean ballast water

exchange by finding ways to eliminate stowaway species in ballast water. To encourage

development, testing, and adoption of these technologies, the Coast Guard is establishing

an enforceable treatment standard and a shipboard testing program. This approach will

establish a required level of protection against the spread of non-native species and speed

progress toward an ultimate goal of preventing all introductions of organisms, including

bacteria and viruses. 

Recommendation 17–1

The U.S. Coast Guard’s national ballast water management program should include a number

of important elements: uniform, mandatory national standards which incorporate sound science

in the development of biologically meaningful and enforceable ballast water treatment; a

process for revising the standard to incorporate new technologies; full consultation with the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, both during and after the program’s development;

and an interagency review, through the National Ocean Council, of the policy for ships that

declare they have no ballast on board.

257

Invasive species alter marine habitats and can interfere with fishing,

aquaculture, recreation, and other coastal and offshore activities.

This sea squirt, native to Europe but seen here in California, reproduces rapidly and has no natural predators in this country.

Coastal and Marine Geology Program, USGS
258 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Investments in new treatment technologies, including technologies to minimize the

uptake of sediments in ships’ ballast tanks, will help avoid the high cost of eradicating or

managing invasive species. Although NANPCA directed DOI and NOAA, in cooperation

with the Coast Guard, to conduct projects that demonstrate technologies and practices for

preventing introductions through ballast water, this program has been chronically underfunded. The current limited program supports some technology development, but is

unable to demonstrate the real-world effectiveness of these technologies for treating ballast water. To ensure ongoing improvements, government and industry will need to work

together to develop and test innovative treatment technologies that are environmentally

and economically viable.

Recommendation 17–2

The National Ocean Council should commission a credible, independent, scientific review of

existing U.S. ballast water management research and demonstration programs and make 

recommendations for improvements. 

The review should consider the following issues:

• how federally funded research and demonstration programs can best promote technology

development, support on-board ship testing, and move technologies from research to

commercial use. 

• what the best role is for industry and how industry can be engaged in onboard testing of

experimental ballast water management technologies. 

• what kind of peer review process is needed for scientific oversight of technology development, selection of demonstration projects, and testing of experimental treatment systems.

• what is an adequate funding level for a successful ballast water research and 

demonstration program.

Controlling Other Pathways 

Ballast water is a clearly identifiable source that can be managed through traditional 

regulatory means, but other sources of invasive species, such as the shellfish importing,

aquaculture, aquarium, horticulture, and pet industries, are far more diffuse and less

amenable to federal controls. Preventing introductions through these pathways will

require a mix of federal and state legislation, and public education.

Public education is a vital component of a prevention strategy. Individuals must

understand that their actions can have major, potentially irreversible, economic and 

ecological consequences. Increasing the public’s awareness, and suggesting actions that

boaters, gardeners, scuba divers, fisherman, pet owners, and others can take to reduce

introductions, can help prevent the spread of invasive species.

Currently, a number of unconnected education and outreach programs exist—generally focusing on individual species—but a more coordinated, national plan is needed. As

international markets continue to open and Internet use grows, access to the purchase and

importation of non-native animals and plants from all over the globe is likely to increase.

Some industry representatives have expressed concern that efforts to prevent introductions of non-native species may interfere with the flow of free trade. The need to protect

public health and ecosystems will have to be balanced against these interests.

Recommendation 17–3

The U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, the Interior, and Homeland Security should

more actively employ existing legal authorities to prohibit imports of known or potentially

invasive species. The National Ocean Council should recommend any changes to such legal

authorities that might result in more effective prevention efforts. 
C HAPTER 17: PREVENTING THE S PREAD OF I NVASIVE S PECIES

Recommendation 17–4

The National Ocean Council, working with the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the

National Invasive Species Council, should coordinate public education and outreach efforts on

aquatic invasive species, with the aim of increasing public awareness about the importance of

prevention. 

The education and outreach effort should be pursued on several fronts:

• connect local, regional, and national outreach and education efforts, including recommendations from the U.S. Invasive Species Management Plan and programs initiated by

industries that deal with non-native species. 

• provide the public, importers and sellers, pet store and restaurant owners, divers, and

others with information about the harm caused by invasive species and safer methods of

shipping, owning, and disposing of non-native species. 

• require the aquaculture, horticulture, pet, and aquarium industries to clearly inform 

customers of the potential hazards of releasing non-native species.

Accelerating Detection and Response

Only the most draconian prevention strategy could hope to eliminate all introductions 

of non-native species and thus prevent even the possibility of a problem. Yet no effective

mechanism is in place for detecting and rapidly responding to new aquatic invasive

species. Currently, both states and regional panels are encouraged to develop detection

and rapid response plans; however jurisdictional questions and limited resources have

hindered development and implementation of such plans. 

Of the approximately $149 million in federal funding spent in 2000 for invasive

species rapid response, the U.S. General Accounting Office estimates that USDA spent

about $126 million on threats to crops and livestock.11 In contrast, DOI and NOAA

together spend about $600,000 annually on responses to threats from aquatic invasive

species. The inadequacy of this funding level becomes even more obvious when the costs

of a single eradication effort are considered. 

In June 2000, Caulerpa taxifolia, dubbed a “killer algae,” was discovered near a storm

drain in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon in southern California. Efforts to eradicate the algae,

primarily by injections of chlorine under tarps placed over the infested areas, were overseen by the Southern California Caulerpa Action Team. The initial eradication effort cost

$500,000, with another $500,000 allocated for surveys and treatment of remaining infestations. The eradication efforts will not be deemed successful until five years pass, during

which an average of more than $1 million per year will be spent for periodic surveying

and spot treatments.12

Other examples abound. Control of the invasive zebra mussel, an organism first 

introduced through ballast water discharge, cost municipalities and industries almost 

$70 million a year between 1989 and 1995.13 Over the next ten years, the zebra mussel

invasion will cost an estimated additional $3.1 billion, including costs to industry, recreation, and fisheries. Florida’s ongoing cost of managing the invasive hydrilla plant is more

than $17 million a year.14

Recommendation 17–5

The National Invasive Species Council and the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, working

with other appropriate entities, should establish and implement a national plan for early detection of invasive species and a well-publicized system for prompt notification and rapid response. 

The plan should: 

• provide risk assessments for potentially invasive species, including possible pathways of

introduction.

259

We must increase

efforts to prevent

species invasions,

exterminate and control populations that

become established,

and limit their spread

via waterways that

connect watersheds.

Just as extinction of

species is forever, 

so too is the establishment of these

invaders.

—William F. Hartwig,

Director, Region 3, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service,

testimony to the Commission, September 2002
260 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

• conduct a comprehensive national biological survey and monitoring program for early

detection, building upon recent progress in this area by academia, the U.S. Geological

Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.

• determine the threshold needed to trigger a rapid response and develop environmentally sound rapid-response, eradication, and control actions.

• designate resources for implementing surveys and eradication programs.

• develop partnerships among government and industry to fund and implement 

response actions.

Improving the Control of Invasive Species 

As biological invasions continue, there is a pressing need to improve the control of invasive

species by reducing the overlaps and redundancies caused by the involvement of multiple

agencies with insufficient interagency coordination. More than twenty federal entities,

under ten departments or independent agencies, have some responsibility for invasive

species management.

Coordinated Action

The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the National Invasive Species Council have

made a start in coordinating federal agencies and states. Yet different priorities among the

agencies constrain full cooperation in funding and implementing invasive species programs.

The ability to establish cross-agency goals is limited, and neither the Task Force nor the

Council has established clear performance-oriented objectives in their work plans. 

Management of invasive species is particularly complicated because the initial source

of the non-native species, the path of introduction, and the resulting ecological and 

economic impacts may be quite far removed from each other. This increases the need for

close coordination among different jurisdictions. Although national standards are impor-

• U.S. Department of Agriculture

Agriculture Research Service

Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service

Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service

Economic Research Service

Farm Service Agency

Forest Service

Natural Resources Conservation Service

• U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

• U.S. Department of Defense

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• U.S. Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Coast Guard 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

• U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Geological Survey

Minerals Management Service

National Park Service

Office of Insular Affairs

• National Science Foundation

• Smithsonian Institution

• U.S. Department of State

• U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration 

• U.S. Department of the Treasury

Box 17.2 Federal Departments and Agencies with 

Roles in Invasive Species Management
C HAPTER 17: PREVENTING THE S PREAD OF I NVASIVE S PECIES 261

tant for ballast water, coordinated regional or state actions may be more appropriate for

other pathways. The Task Force promotes the development of state plans, but has had

only marginal success in bringing resources to the regional panels and local authorities for

implementation. 

While most management plans focus on unintentional introductions, a noticeable gap

in regulatory authority exists in the area of intentional introductions of non-native species

for commercial purposes. A recent example is the controversial proposal to introduce a

Chinese oyster (Crassostrea ariakensis) into the Chesapeake Bay to replace the vanishing

native oyster and revive the moribund oyster industry there. A 2003 National Research

Council report concluded that a rigorous, consistent risk assessment protocol will be

needed to evaluate such proposals, but there is currently no authority or mechanism for

conducting such assessments.15

Clearer policies will also be necessary as the aquaculture industry expands. Voluntary

self-regulation by participants in the aquaculture industry is likely to be ineffective because

the costs of control are relatively high, it is difficult to trace an invasive species to a specific source, and the negative consequences of an introduction are felt by those outside the

industry. (The need for a marine aquaculture regulatory regime is discussed in Chapter 22.)

Recommendation 17–6

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should review and streamline the current proliferation of

programs for managing aquatic invasive species in marine environments, and should coordinate

federal, regional, and state efforts. Consolidated plans should be implemented to develop risk

assessment and management approaches for intentional and unintentional species introductions that minimize the potential of invasions at the lowest cost. 

Specifically, the NOC should:

• review the effectiveness of existing programs and legal authorities and clarify the lines 

of responsibility and enforcement authority, including responsibility for intentional introductions of non-native species.

• develop long-term goals and measures for evaluating effective performance. 

• estimate funding needs to prevent the introduction of invasive species, including support

for regional and state programs. 

• determine whether, in the long term, a single agency should be charged with preventing

the entry of, monitoring, and containing invasive species in coastal and marine waters.

International Partnerships 

The movement of invasive species is clearly a global concern, and successful programs

will require strong international cooperation and coordination. In 2004, the International

Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted the International Convention for the Control and

Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, designed to control the spread of

invasive species carried in ships’ ballast water. The convention contains requirements for

ballast water management, but also allows countries to establish additional, more stringent national or regional standards. The implications of this new convention for U.S. 

ballast water policy are currently under discussion. The United States should continue 

to pursue national legislative and regulatory remedies to limit ballast water introductions

into the Great Lakes and U.S. coastal waters, while recognizing that international solutions

provide the best long-term strategy for addressing the global threat presented by ships’

ballast water.

The United States can work with its closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico, to

develop a North American strategy, craft regional invasive species management programs,

and encourage key commercial sectors to develop voluntary codes of conduct and other

self-regulatory mechanisms. Based on national and regional experiences, the United States

can then promote international progress through appropriate conventions and treaties.
262 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 17–7

The United States should take a leading role in the global effort to control the spread of

aquatic invasive species by working internationally to develop treaties, agreements, and 

policies to minimize the introduction and establishment of such species.

Research Needs

The study of aquatic invasive species in marine environments is a relatively new research

area. Although invasive species have dramatically changed ecosystem structures, threatened native species, and caused hundreds of millions of dollars in economic damage, little

is understood about how or why certain species become invasive, what pathways of introduction are most important, and whether certain factors make an ecosystem more susceptible to invasions. Currently, U.S. investment in research on invasive species, monitoring

to detect invasions, and development of new techniques for identification and eradication

falls far short of the economic cost to the nation caused by this problem. Enhanced monitoring to detect invasive species should be part of the national monitoring network

described in Chapter 15. 

Recommendation 17–8

The National Ocean Council should coordinate the development and implementation of an

interagency plan for research and monitoring to understand and prevent the spread of

aquatic invasive species. The results should be used to improve management decisions and

avoid future economic losses. 

New research and monitoring efforts should focus on: 

• gathering baseline taxonomic information and strengthening taxonomic skills; performing quantitative assessments of ecosystems; identifying invasive pathogens and vectors of

introduction; and determining how invasive species disrupt ecosystem functions. 

• understanding the human dimensions behind species introductions, including human

behavior, decision making, and economics.

• developing new options for minimizing invasions, including innovative technologies, and

translating these findings into practical policy options for decision makers.

References

1 National Research Council. Understanding Marine Biodiversity: A Research Agenda for the Nation. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 1995.

2 Carlton, J.T. “Invasive Species and Biodiversity Management.” In The Scale and Ecological Consequences of Biological

Invasions in the World’s Oceans. ed. O.T. Sandlund, P.J. Schei, and A. Viken. 195—212. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer

Academic Publishers, 1999.

3 Pimentel, D., et al. “Environmental and Economic Costs of Nonindigenous Species in the United States.” Bioscience 50,

no. 1 (2000): 53–65.

4 U.S. General Accounting Office. Invasive Species: Clearer Focus and Greater Commitment Needed to Effectively

Manage the Problem. Report GAO-03-1. Washington, DC, 2002.

5 Naylor, R.L., S.L. Williams, and D.R. Strong. “Aquaculture: A Gateway for Exotic Species.” Science 269 (2001): 1655–56.

6 Burreson, E.M., N.A. Stokes, and C.S. Friedman. “Increased Virulence in an Introduced Pathogen: Haplosporidium 

nelsoni (MSX) in the Eastern Oyster Crassostrea virginica.” Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 12 (2000): 1–8.

7 National Invasive Species Council. Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge. National Invasive Species Council

Management Plan. 2001. 

8 Lodge, D.M. “Biological Hazards Ahead.” New York Times, June 19, 2003.

9 International Maritime Organization. “Global Ballast Water Management Programme—The Problem.”

<globallast.imo.org/index> Accessed October 1, 2003.
C HAPTER 17: PREVENTING THE S PREAD OF I NVASIVE S PECIES

10 U.S. General Accounting Office. Invasive Species: Obstacles Hinder Federal Rapid Response to Growing Threat.

Report GAO–01–724. Washington, DC, July 2001.

11 Ibid.

12 Anderson, L.W.J., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Weed Science Program. Personal

communication to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. July 21, 2003.

13 U.S. General Accounting Office. Invasive Species: Obstacles Hinder Federal Rapid Response to Growing Threat. 

Report GAO–01–724. Washington, DC: July 2001.

14 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Invasive Plant Management. Status of the Aquatic Plant

Management Program in Florida Public Waters: Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2001–2002. Tallahassee, FL, 2003.

15 National Research Council. Non-native Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003.

263
264 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 18

REDUCING MARINE DEBRIS

The trash and other waste that drifts around the global ocean and washes up on

the nation’s shores pose a serious threat to fishery resources, wildlife, and habitat,

as well as human health and safety. Marine debris is difficult to address because it

comes from a wide variety of sources, both on and off the shore. While marine

debris is a global problem requiring international cooperation, many of its

negative impacts are experienced at the local level and require local

involvement. Because of its role as the nation’s lead ocean agency, 

re-establishing a marine debris program within the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration would help address its broad range

of issues, as would better coordination at all scales—international,

national, state, and local. Greater commitment to public education

and outreach, partnerships with local governments, communities,

and industry, and enhanced research, monitoring, and source identification will also help reduce marine debris.

Assessing the Sources and 

Consequences of Marine Debris

Most trash has the potential to become marine debris; cigarette 

filters, plastic bags, bottles, cans, and straws can all be found

scattered along beaches and in the oceans. Marine debris degrades

slowly and is buoyant, often traveling for thousands of miles in ocean

currents. Approximately 80 percent of debris is washed off the land,

blown by winds, or intentionally dumped from shore, while 20 percent

comes from vessels and offshore platforms.1

Shoreline and recreational activities were sources of the majority of debris

found during the 2002 International Coastal Cleanup (Figure 18.1).2 Litter associated with cigarette smoking was the second largest source. Ocean-based activities,

including cruise ship operations, commercial fishing, recreational boating, commercial

shipping, military vessel operations, and offshore oil drilling, were also a significant

source of debris. Cargo lost overboard from freighters poses another concern. Large containers have broken open and released their contents—including everything from sneakers to computer monitors—into the ocean. 

Another growing concern is that plastic materials, accumulating in the ocean over

decades, are breaking down into microscopic particles that are now washing up on

beaches, floating in coastal and ocean waters, and settling in sediment. A single one-liter

soda bottle could break down into enough fragments to put one fragment on every mile of
C HAPTER 18: REDUCING MARINE DEBRIS

beach in the entire world.3 A study done in the North

Pacific found plastic particles in the stomachs of

eight of eleven seabird species caught as bycatch.4

Not only can these tiny plastic particles be ingested

by marine life but, as they float around, they can also

accumulate toxic chemicals, including DDT and

PCBs. Plastic particles have been found to concentrate such chemicals to one million times the levels

found in the water itself.5

Marine debris poses a serious threat to wildlife,

habitat, and human health and safety. Marine debris

threatens wildlife primarily through entanglement

and ingestion. A 1997 study found that at least 267

species have been affected by marine debris worldwide, including 86 percent of all sea turtle species, 

44 percent of all seabird species, and 43 percent of 

all marine mammal species, as well as numerous fish

and crustaceans.6 Entanglement can wound animals,

impair their mobility, or strangle them. Birds, sea turtles, and marine mammals can swallow debris such as

resin pellets, convenience food packaging, and plastic

bags, which interfere with their ability to eat, breathe,

and swim. Sea turtles often ingest floating plastic

bags, mistaking them for jellyfish. “Ghost fishing”—

entanglement of fish and marine mammals in lost

fishing gear—represents a serious threat to marine

life, including endangered species such as Hawaiian

monk seals and North Atlantic right whales. 

Coral reefs, seagrass beds, and other fragile coastal habitats have been harmed by trash

in the oceans. Derelict fishing gear, pushed by wind and waves, can become snagged on

coral reefs and other structures. This global problem is particularly evident in the Northwest

Hawaiian Islands, which include 69 percent of all U.S. coral reefs by area. Floating debris

can also transport non-native, potentially invasive species over long distances.

Marine debris also has significant consequences for people. Broken glass and medical

waste on beaches, as well as ropes and lines dangling in the ocean, pose threats to beachgoers, boaters, and divers. Debris can damage boats and strand their occupants when 

propellers become entangled on lines, or engines stall when plastic bags are sucked into

intake pipes. Beach closures and swimming advisories due to marine debris can have

direct economic impacts by reducing coastal tourism. For example, New Jersey lost an

estimated $2 billion in tourist revenue as a result of debris washing ashore in the 1987

and 1988 beach seasons. The state has chosen to invest $1.5 million annually in beach

cleanup to avoid similar losses in the future.7

Addressing Marine Debris Nationally

Existing Programs

Efforts to reduce marine debris must take place at all levels, from international to local.

Internationally, marine debris is addressed by Annex V of the International Convention

for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), which prohibits all overboard disposal of plastics and limits other discharges based on the material and the vessel’s location

and distance from shore. The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by

265

Figure 18.1 Trash at the Beach Comes 

from Many Sources

Medical/

Personal 

Hygiene

1%

Smokingrelated 

Activities

Shoreline and 

Recreational 

Activities

Dumpingrelated 

Activities

2.3%

Ocean/

Waterway 

Activities

30.6% 57.9%

8.2%

In 2002, more than 8.2 million pounds of debris were collected 

and analyzed as part of a worldwide beach cleanup effort. 

The largest source of marine debris was from land-based 

human activities; shoreline and recreational activities alone 

contributed almost 58 percent of the number of items 

collected. Over 1 million cigarette butts, 444,000 food 

wrappers or containers, 220,000 bottles, 190,000 plastic bags, 

32,000 pieces of fishing line, and 8,000 tires were collected.

Source: The Ocean Conservancy. The 2002 International Coastal 

Cleanup. Washington, DC, 2003. 
266 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (known as the London Convention) is another

international agreement that addresses the problems of marine debris. (For a listing of

ocean-related international agreements, see Table 29.1.)

Domestically, a number of federal laws focus on marine debris, including the Act to

Prevent Pollution from Ships (which prohibits the disposal of all garbage within 3 nautical miles of the coast and enforces Annex V of MARPOL), the Marine Plastic Pollution

Research and Control Act, the Clean Water Act, Title I of the Marine Protection,

Research, and Sanctuaries Act (commonly referred to as the Ocean Dumping Act), the

Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act, and the Shore Protection

Act. (Appendix D includes a summary of ocean-related federal laws.) Some states also

have their own laws to address marine debris. Other states have made substantial

progress through voluntary programs. 

Reductions in marine debris have been the focus of a number of agency initiatives 

and volunteer efforts, ranging from local adopt-a-beach programs to international beach

cleanups. The Ocean Conservancy, a nonprofit ocean advocacy group, coordinates the

annual International Coastal Cleanup campaign with support and funding from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and private and corporate foundations. The oneday event takes place in September, with volunteers from all over the world collecting

trash along the coasts and in the oceans. Since its inception in 1986, the campaign’s 

original 2,800 volunteers have grown to almost 392,000 in 2002. 

From 1986 to 2002, the International Coastal Cleanup removed 89 million pounds 

of debris from more than 130,000 miles of shoreline. Starting in 1995, more than 108,000

divers also collected 2.2 million pounds of trash in over 3,900 miles of underwater habitat.8

The program is effective not only because of the visibility it receives as the largest singleday volunteer event for the marine environment, but also because of the amount of data

collected during the event. Debris collection results are posted by source, calling attention

to the activities that create the most debris with the hope of improving prevention. 

The vast data collection potential demonstrated during International Coastal Cleanup

events led to development of the National Marine Debris Monitoring Program, implemented

by The Ocean Conservancy with EPA funding. This program is designed to systematically

assess the success of Annex V of MARPOL by identifying sources and trends of marine

debris. Volunteers at 180 randomly selected study sites along the U.S. coast collect and

submit monthly information on the incidence of 30 specific marine debris items.

EPA and The Ocean Conservancy also created the Storm Drain Sentries program in

response to research indicating that storm drains are significant sources of marine pollution.

This program raises public awareness of the consequences of dumping trash and other

pollutants into sewer systems. Volunteers stencil educational messages on, and collect

information on the types of contaminants found around, storm drains. 

The Coral Reef Ecosystem Investigation is a multi-agency program, headed by the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to assess, monitor, and mitigate the impact of marine debris on coral reef ecosystems of the U.S. Pacific Islands. The

Coral Reef Ecosystem Investigation began as a pilot study in 1996, primarily to remove

fishing gear in and around Hawaiian monk seal habitat. Since then, the program has

grown to involve a number of federal, state, local, nongovernmental, and private partners

in the large-scale removal of marine debris, including derelict fishing gear.

NOAA’s Role 

Concerns about marine debris came to public attention during the 1980s, with mounting

evidence of entanglement and other harm to marine mammals, sea turtles, birds, and fish,

as well as images of medical waste and other trash washing up on beaches. In 1985,

Congress appropriated $l million in funding for the development of a comprehensive

marine debris research and management program (which became the Marine Entanglement
C HAPTER 18: REDUCING MARINE DEBRIS

Research Program), directed by NOAA in consultation with the U.S. Marine Mammal

Commission. In 1995, a report by the National Research Council called for a long-term

program to monitor the flux of plastics to the oceans and noted that NOAA would be best

suited to lead such a monitoring effort.9 Despite this recommendation—and the ongoing

problem of marine debris—the Marine Entanglement Research Program ended in 1996. 

Although EPA has some programs to address marine debris (described above), the

problem is also closely related to NOAA’s mission and management responsibilities,

including fisheries, marine mammals, endangered marine species, beach and shoreline

management, and coral reefs. While NOAA currently addresses matters related to debris

in the marine environment in connection with other activities, there is a need to coordinate, strengthen, and increase the visibility of such efforts within NOAA by creating a

clear, centralized marine debris program within the agency.

Recommendation 18–1

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should establish a marine debris 

management program that expands on and complements the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency’s program in this area. The NOAA program should be closely coordinated with EPA’s

activities, as well as with the significant efforts conducted by private citizens, state, local, and

nongovernmental organizations.

In keeping with its mission, it would be logical for NOAA’s marine debris program to

focus on reducing derelict fishing gear, addressing entanglement of marine life, and preventing debris from harming coral reefs while EPA’s efforts continue to address beach and

river cleanups. Also, because most of the debris that makes its way to the coasts and

oceans comes from land, it makes sense for EPA to continue its national education efforts.

Regardless of how the responsibilities are divided, the two programs should be closely

coordinated so that gaps are filled and duplication is avoided. 

Expanding Marine Debris Efforts 

A marine debris program within NOAA will help bring greater attention to this problem.

Efforts at both NOAA and EPA will need to focus on education and outreach, working with

communities and industry, and improving source identification, monitoring, and research. 

Education and Outreach

Reducing marine debris will require preventing litter from entering the marine environment in the first place by pursuing a long-term public education campaign. While existing

education and cleanup initiatives have made a substantial contribution to improving the

ocean environment, the volumes of trash that continue to appear on beaches and in the

oceans indicate that many people and communities have not yet changed their behavior.

While some consider their actions to be negligible when compared with those of large-scale

polluters, the cumulative impact of continuous, small-scale insults can be significant.

What’s more, actions far inland can have impacts on distant coastal and marine waters.

Because comprehensive monitoring and enforcement of individual behavior would be

impractical and undesirable, people need the knowledge, training, and motivation to 

voluntarily change their behavior. (Public education and outreach opportunities are

addressed in greater detail in Chapter 8.) 

In addition to educating the general public, marine debris education campaigns can

target the tourism industry, packaging companies, local government officials, recreational

boaters, and commercial fishermen. For example, it is important to educate both commercial fishermen and recreational boaters who take items out to sea with them to ensure that

they are returning to shore with their plastic and other trash. As the National Marine

Fisheries Service conducts dockside inspections, there is an opportunity to deliver educa267

The message has to

come out to people

that they share

responsibility for 

the [marine debris]

problem. They have

to appreciate what

the impacts are, and

that basically they—

by polluting, by littering—are contributing.

—Suzanne E. Schwartz,

Director, Oceans & Coastal

Protection Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection

Agency, testimony to the

Commission, May 2002 
268 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

tional materials on marine debris to fishermen. Similarly, as the U.S. Coast Guard and the

Coast Guard Auxiliary conduct recreational boating programs, they could distribute educational materials and remind recreational boaters to properly dispose of their trash. Many

nongovernmental organizations whose membership is comprised of fishermen or boaters

could also educate their members about the marine debris issue. 

Working with Communities

Cigarette filters, food wrappers, caps, and lids accounted for nearly half of all debris collected in the 2002 International Coastal Cleanup. For the past thirteen years, cigarette filters have been the most commonly found debris item.10 It is apparent that implementation

and enforcement of local anti-litter regulations have been inadequate. 

Not only is trash left on beaches and shores, allowing it to wash into the oceans, litter

is also washed off streets and parking lots, and through storm drains far inland. People

generally have not made the connection between actions taken far from the coast and

their impacts on the shore and ocean areas. 

While public education can send the message not to litter, active management of debris

entering and exiting sewer systems can also be improved by adding controls for local sewer

systems, such as screens and netting, and making catch-basin modifications. Floatable 

controls can help reduce or eliminate solid waste emitted from sewer systems. Placing 

sufficient trash receptacles throughout communities can also make it easier for people to

dispose of the materials that might otherwise end up in the marine environment.

Working with Industry 

Cooperation with industry, especially companies whose products are ending up on the

shores and in the oceans, presents another opportunity to reduce marine debris. Industry

efforts to reduce the overall amount of packaging being produced and to develop more

environmentally friendly materials can help. Because plastics comprise about 60 percent

of the trash found on beaches11 and about 90 percent of the debris found floating in the

water,12 industry support for reducing plastic trash and encouraging greater recycling rates

could reduce the amount of litter reaching the coasts and oceans. Fishing gear manufacturers can also play a role in educating vessel owners and crews about the impacts of

derelict gear. 

Many companies are already supporting marine debris cleanup and education efforts.

The Coca-Cola Company, Dow Plastics, and Philip Morris are all examples of companies

that have helped sponsor the International Coastal Cleanup. Morton Salt, the maker of

products used by many commercial shrimp boats to treat their catches at sea, took action

after blue plastic bags with the Morton Salt label started washing up on Gulf of Mexico

beaches. Since the company started printing reminders like “Stow It, Don’t Throw It” on

the bags, fewer Morton Salt bags have been reported as washing up on shores. 

In addition, the offshore petroleum industry, working in concert with the Minerals

Management Service, has instituted marine debris education training for personnel working on offshore platforms, mobile drilling rigs, and other facilities in the Gulf of Mexico.

This initiative requires the posting of marine debris reminder signs and the mandatory

viewing by all personnel of a film demonstrating proper waste disposal practices and the

impacts of marine debris on the ocean. 

Source Identification, Monitoring, and Research Efforts 

The implementation of effective control measures is currently hampered by a lack of 

consistent monitoring and identification of sources of debris. A 1995 National Research

Council report found that most available data are obtained from beach surveys, with relatively

little information on debris that ends up in the sea or on the seabed.13 Collection of such data

would require a systematic, international effort. Information about the behavior of debris in

the marine environment and its ecological effects is even scarcer. These effects cannot be
C HAPTER 18: REDUCING MARINE DEBRIS

established simply on the basis of available surveys, due primarily to the absence of a common framework for data collection, centralized data analysis, and information exchange.

Once a framework and suitable information protocols are in place, these data should be

linked with the national Integrated Ocean Observing System (discussed in Chapter 26).

Recommendation 18–2

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency should coordinate and implement expanded marine debris control efforts, including:

enforcement of existing laws; public outreach and education; partnerships with local governments, community groups, and industry; monitoring and identification; and research.

Interagency Coordination

The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 established an interagency

marine debris coordinating committee with membership comprised of senior officials

from NOAA, EPA, the Coast Guard, and the U.S. Navy. The committee was charged with

furthering public outreach, education, and information sharing efforts. However, Congress

allowed the committee to lapse in 1998, and it has not been re-established. 

Although strengthening NOAA’s work on marine debris through establishment of an

office within the agency is an important step, an interagency committee under the

National Ocean Council will still be needed to unite all appropriate federal agencies on

this issue. Such a committee could support existing marine debris efforts by agencies and

nongovernmental organizations.

Recommendation 18–3

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should re-establish an interagency marine debris committee,

co-chaired by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, and placed under the oversight of the NOC’s Committee on Ocean

Resource Management. 

Reducing Derelict Fishing Gear

One source of marine debris that requires special attention is derelict fishing gear, composed of both whole and large sections of nets, as well as discarded fishing line and plastic

parts associated with traps and nets (Box 18.1). Whether intentionally discarded or unintentionally lost during storms or fishing operations, derelict fishing gear poses serious

threats around the world, entrapping marine life, destroying coral reefs and other habitat,

and even posing danger to humans. Currently, almost all of the fishing nets used outside

of subsistence fisheries are made of synthetic fibers that are highly resistant to degradation.14 Although derelict fishing gear is a global problem, currently no international

treaties or plans of action address it. 

Recommendation 18–4

The U.S. Department of State and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, working with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and other appropriate entities, should develop a detailed plan of action to address derelict fishing gear around the

world, to be implemented within large multi-national regions.

One approach taken by the National Marine Fisheries Service domestically is to

require that all gear be marked to make it easier to identify the fishery of origin. Better

enforcement of these rules, and international cooperation to require the marking of nonU.S. fishing gear, would help identify the fisheries that pose the largest problems of lost

gear and entanglement. 

269

In the past four years

alone, federal, state,

and non-governmental

partnerships have

hauled over 150 tons

of nets and line off

reefs in State waters

in the Northwestern

Hawaiian Islands. 

—Gilbert ColomaAgaran, Chairperson,

Board of Land and 

Natural Resources,

Hawaii, testimony to 

the Commission, 

May 2002
270 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Ultimately, a strong public-private partnership will be needed to prevent, remove, and

dispose of derelict fishing gear. Appropriate education and incentives can minimize the

practice of throwing unwanted nets overboard and encourage all boaters to bring abandoned gear back to shore if possible. Other options include: assessing fees on net sales and

imports to pay for their recovery; attaching locator devices to gear; providing incentives to

industries that are developing biodegradable fishing gear; requiring sizeable deposits on

nets when they are purchased; increasing gear recycling and reuse; and providing compensation to those who bring discarded gear back to shore. 

Recommendation 18–5

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should work with all interested 

parties, governmental and private, to implement incentives or other effective programs for

prevention, removal, and safe disposal of derelict fishing gear. 

Ensuring Adequate Facilities for 

Disposal of Garbage from Ships 

Annex V of MARPOL contains several provisions that address marine debris. Under its

requirement for port reception facilities, ports in member nations must be prepared to

receive garbage from ships. Unfortunately, many ports still do not provide adequate facilities for this purpose. 

Another provision of Annex V allows Special Areas of the ocean to be designated

where a higher level of protection is required than in other areas. Such Special Areas have

been designated in many parts of the world, including areas of the Mediterranean, Baltic,

Black, Red, and North Seas, the Antarctic, and the Wider Caribbean region, which includes

the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. For a Special Area to receive extra protection,

adequate port reception facilities must be in place to receive ship wastes. However, some

important Special Areas, such as the Wider Caribbean region, are not yet eligible for

increased protection because of inadequate facilities. 

Recommendation 18–6

The U.S. Department of State should increase efforts internationally to ensure that there are

adequate port reception facilities available for disposal of garbage from ships, particularly in

Special Areas designated under Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention

of Pollution from Ships.

Box 18.1 Abandoned Fishing Nets Catch a Wave to Hawaii

The two most prevalent types of nets recovered in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands (measured by weight) are trawling nets and monofilament gill nets, despite the fact that no

commercial trawl or gillnet fisheries exist in the area.i The nets are carried to the islands via

ocean currents from domestic and foreign fisheries in the North Pacific. Finding a solution to

the problem of derelict fishing nets and other gear will require international cooperation.

i U.S. Department of State. Promotion of Implementation and Enforcement of MARPOL 73/78 and Related Codes.

MARPOL Annex V and Marine Debris. London, England: International Maritime Organization, 2001. 
C HAPTER 18: REDUCING MARINE DEBRIS

References

1 U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Navy. Turning to the Sea: America’s Ocean Future. Washington, DC,

September 1999.

2 The Ocean Conservancy. 2002 International Coastal Cleanup. Washington, DC, 2003.

3 Moore, C. “A Comparison of Neustonic Plastic and Zooplankton Abundance in Southern California’s Coastal Waters

and Elsewhere in the North Pacific.” Presentation to California and the World Ocean Conference. Santa Barbara, CA,

October 2002.

4 Blight, L.K., and A.E. Burger. “Occurrence of Plastic Particles in Seabirds from the Eastern North Pacific.” Marine

Pollution Bulletin 34 (1997): 323-25.

5 Moore, C. “A Comparison of Neustonic Plastic and Zooplankton Abundance in Southern California’s Coastal Waters

and Elsewhere in the North Pacific.” Presentation to California and the World Ocean Conference. Santa Barbara, CA,

October 2002.

6 Laist, D.W. “Impacts of Marine Debris: Entanglement of Marine Life in Marine Debris, Including a Comprehensive List

of Species with Entanglement and Ingestion Records.” In Marine Debris: Sources, Impacts and Solutions, eds. J.M. Coe

and D.B. Rogers. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 1997.

7 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Perspectives on Marine Environmental Quality.” In Year of the

Ocean Discussion Papers. Washington, DC, 1998. 

8 The Ocean Conservancy. 2002 International Coastal Cleanup. Washington, DC, 2003. 

9 National Research Council. Clean Ships, Clean Ports, Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995.

10 The Ocean Conservancy. 2002 International Coastal Cleanup. Washington, DC, 2003. 

11 U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Navy. Turning to the Sea: America’s Ocean Future. Washington, DC,

September 1999.

12 United Nations Environment Programme, Global Programme of Action Coordination Office; Swedish Environmental

Protection Agency; and United Nations International Maritime Organization. “Marine Litter—What & Where?”

<www.marine-litter.gpa.unep.org/facts/what-where.htm> Accessed November 2, 2003.

13 National Research Council. Clean Ships, Clean Ports, Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995.

14 U.S. Department of State. Promotion of Implementation and Enforcement of MARPOL 73/78 and Related Codes.

MARPOL Annex V and Marine Debris. London, England: International Maritime Organization, 2001. 

271

PART VI

OCEAN VALUE AND VITALITY:

ENHANCING THE USE AND

PROTECTION OF OCEAN

RESOURCES

CHAPTER 19 

ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES...................................................................274

CHAPTER 20

PROTECTING MARINE MAMMALS AND

ENDANGERED MARINE SPECIES ..............................................................................306

CHAPTER 21

PRESERVING CORAL REEFS AND

OTHER CORAL COMMUNITIES ..................................................................................320

CHAPTER 22

SETTING A COURSE FOR

SUSTAINABLE MARINE AQUACULTURE................................................................330

CHAPTER 23

CONNECTING THE OCEANS AND

HUMAN HEALTH................................................................................................................338

CHAPTER 24

MANAGING OFFSHORE ENERGY AND

OTHER MINERAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................352
274 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 19

ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE

FISHERIES

The current fishery management regime’s emphasis on local participation, coupling

of science and management, and regional flexibility is laudable. Nevertheless, the

last thirty years have witnessed overexploitation of many fish stocks, degradation

of habitats, and negative consequences for too many ecosystems and fishing

communities. To ensure the long-term sustainability of U.S. fisheries, maximize social and economic benefits, and reinforce the principle that living

marine resources are held in public trust for the benefit of all U.S. 

citizens, fishery management must be improved. While ultimately 

the management of fisheries should move toward a more ecosystembased approach, specific reforms can produce some immediate

improvements. These include increasing the role of science by 

separating allocation and assessment, better integration of 

ecosystem science, data collection, and processing with management and enforcement, and exploring the use of dedicated access

privileges. Finally, improved regional coordination and planning

will help put fishery management in the broader context of ocean

and coastal management. 

Contemplating Thirty Years 

of Fishery Management

When the Stratton Commission report was released in 1969, marine

fisheries were largely unregulated and coastal states had primary

responsibility for fishery management. The U.S. fishing industry was behind

much of the world both in harvesting fish and technical sophistication. Distant

fishing nations, such as Japan, Spain, and what was then the Soviet Union, dominated harvests on the coasts of North America, fishing just outside the 3 nautical mile

limit of U.S. territorial waters. 

But fishery harvests around the world were increasing in the 1960s, and many people

believed they would continue to increase indefinitely. The Stratton Commission predicted

that enhanced technology and intensified exploitation of new species could eventually

increase worldwide landings from 60 million metric tons in 1966 to 440–550 million

tons.1 That Commission saw fisheries as an area of immense opportunity, and called for
C HAPTER 19: ACHIEVING S USTAINABLE FISHERIES

the expansion of U.S. fishing capability. Unfortunately, events over the next few decades

showed these predictions to be overly optimistic.

In 1970, landings of Peruvian anchoveta, the largest fishery in the world, fell by 

10 million metric tons in one year—at the time, roughly 10 percent of world fishery landings.2 Although El Niño conditions in the Pacific Ocean are often cited as the cause, many

scientists believe the collapse was exacerbated by excessive fishing effort. The following

two decades also saw the North Atlantic cod fishery drastically decline; in the 1990s,

Canada completely shut down its cod fishery. Instead of being able to expand worldwide

fish landings by eight to ten times, as predicted by the Stratton Commission, it now

appears that fish landings were already at or near their peak in the late 1960s.

In 1976, Congress approved the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (hereinafter, the Act or the Magnuson–Stevens Act) to manage and assert

U.S. control over fishery resources within 200 nautical miles of the coast, later designated

as the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Eight Regional Fishery Management Councils

(RFMCs or Councils) were created to develop management plans for fisheries in federal

waters. The Act required regional plans to be consistent with broad national guidelines,

such as the prevention of overfishing and the requirement to use the best available science,

but otherwise granted considerable flexibility to the RFMCs. The Act’s supporters mistakenly assumed that once foreign fishing fleets were removed from U.S. waters, major fishery management problems would be over.

In subsequent years, the domestic fishing industry rushed to enlarge its capacity to catch

fish. New technologies were developed while programs such as the Capital Construction

Fund and Fishing Vessel Obligation Guarantee Program provided incentives for U.S. fishermen to upgrade or buy new vessels. This led to an unprecedented and unforeseen

expansion of U.S. commercial fishing power.

Recreational fishing has experienced similar growth. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation is a comprehensive assessment of recreational angling, estimating numbers of anglers and expenditures

directly related to such fishing. The survey indicates that there are some 9 million saltwater anglers in the United States and that, since 1965, direct expenditures have increased

from $3 billion to $8.4 billion.3,4 The increased popularity of recreational fishing is further

documented by a 2002 NMFS survey showing that the number of fishing trips per year

increased by over 20 percent from 1996 to 2000.5 Another study by a recreational fishing

group estimated that in 2002, there were 9.1 million saltwater recreational fishermen supporting 300,000 jobs. Expanding upon the USFWS survey, this study estimated not only

direct expenditures but also the value of the jobs supported by recreational fishermen, and

concluded that recreational angling is valued at over $20 billion.6

Most of the abundant stocks available to be caught by American fleets were in the

North Pacific. In other areas, fish stocks—although still viable—had already been depleted

by foreign fleets. The regional flexibility that had been seen as a great strength of the new

law now showed its downside as some RFMCs set unsustainable harvest levels, leading to

the collapse or near-collapse of several important fisheries.

Another unforeseen and unfortunate consequence of the new management regime

was the development of an adversarial relationship between fishermen and government

scientists and managers. Because assessments indicated that many stocks were already

depleted, scientists urged reductions in catches. Many fishermen however, having made

substantial capital investments in boats and gear, resisted these findings and instead raised

doubts about the credibility of the assessments. The RFMCs frequently made decisions

that supported the fishermen by downplaying scientific advice and increasing catch limits.

As a result, in most regions, stocks continued to decline throughout the 1980s.

275
276 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Contention grew, and the 1990s were characterized by a dramatic increase in litigation (Figure 19.1),

increased crisis-driven decision making, management

through court orders, and congressional intervention.

As of January 2002, more than 110 lawsuits were

pending against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS). And between 1990 and 2000, the

National Research Council conducted ten studies

aimed at resolving disputes in fishery management.

On a more positive note, the 1990s also witnessed

some signs of recovery. Atlantic striped bass were

declared recovered in 1995, many New England

groundfish species began to come back, and summer

flounder stocks in the Mid-Atlantic started to increase.

A 2002 study by the National Academy of Public

Administration concluded that the U.S. fishery management system was in disarray and recommended

that the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy explore

the need for major changes in the fishery management

system.7 While amendments to the Magnuson–Stevens

Act have helped reverse fishery declines, additional changes will be necessary to manage

fisheries in a sustainable manner over the long term.

Building Sustainable Fisheries Based on Sound Science

The Value of Science for Wise Management

Accurate, reliable science is critical to the successful management of fisheries. Two kinds

of data are collected to support fishery science. Fishery-dependent data are collected as part

of normal fishing activities and include recreational and commercial catch and landings

records, dealer reports, and onboard observer data. Observers on fishing vessels provide a

variety of useful fishery-dependent data concerning harvest methods and the bycatch of

fish and prohibited species, such as turtles and marine mammals. Fishery-independent data

are collected outside of normal fishing activities, typically through scientifically-designed

surveys conducted by specialized research vessels.

Using available data as input, computer models produce stock assessments that estimate the size and characteristics of a certain fish population. Based on these assessments,

and an understanding of the biology of that species, scientists can then predict the effects

of different levels of fishing intensity on the population. Fishery managers must then

determine how, when, where, and—most importantly—how many fish may be caught.

Although fishery data collection and stock assessment models can always be improved,

a lack of adequate scientific information has not been the main culprit in most instances of

overfishing. The Mid-Atlantic and New England RFMCs, which managed fourteen of the

thirty-three stocks that experienced overfishing in 2001, have some of the best scientific

support in the world. A 2002 National Research Council report concluded that the problem

in most cases of overfishing was that the RFMCs disregarded or downplayed valid scientific

information when setting harvest guidelines.8 Neither NMFS nor the Secretary of

Commerce used their authority to prevent the RFMCs from taking such actions.

Figure 19.1 Fishery Litigation 

Grows as Interests Clash

0

5

10

15

20

25

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Number of New Cases

From 1993 to 2001, the number of new lawsuits brought 

against NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service increased 

eightfold. Many cases involved disputes about the validity of 

stock assessments and resulting catch limits. 

Source: National Academy of Public Administration. Courts, Congress, and 

Constituencies: Managing Fisheries by Default. Washington, DC, July 2002. 
C HAPTER 19: ACHIEVING S USTAINABLE FISHERIES

The Magnuson–Stevens Act requires each RFMC to establish and maintain a scientific

and statistical committee (SSC) to provide “the best scientific information available” and

assist in the development of fishery management plans. However, the Act does not require

the RFMCs to follow the advice of the SSCs. Social, economic, and political considerations

have often led the Councils to downplay the best available scientific information, resulting

in overfishing and the slow recovery of overfished stocks. In addition, the selection of SSC

members is generally up to each RFMC. No process is in place for ensuring that SSC

members have the proper scientific credentials and are free from conflicts of interest.

Although some Councils do assemble highly respected SSCs and follow their advice, 

the public and the fishing community should be confident this is the case in all regions.

Recommendation 19–1

Congress should amend the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

(MSFCMA) and related statutes to require Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs)

and interstate fisheries commissions to rely on their Scientific and Statistical Committees

(SSCs), incorporating SSC findings and advice into the decision-making process. In keeping

with this stronger role, SSC members should meet more stringent scientific and conflict of

interest requirements, and receive compensation.

To ensure a strengthened SSC, MSFCMA amendments should require the following:

• each RFMC should nominate candidates for service on its SSC. Nominees should be 

scientists with strong technical credentials and experience, selected from federal, state,

or tribal governments or academia. Private sector scientists who are technically qualified

may also be nominated if they meet the conflict of interest requirements, although the

SSC should not be constituted as a representational body.

• the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should evaluate the 

qualifications and potential conflicts of interest of SSC nominees through an independent

review process designed by a credible, scientific organization. Ultimately, SSC appointments

should be approved by the NOAA Administrator.

• SSC members should serve for fixed terms to allow for rotation and addition of new

members over time.

• like RFMC members, participants in the SSC (or their home institutions) should be 

compensated for time spent on RFMC business.

While the SSC is a scientific panel, it will be important for them to hear from other

stakeholders, particularly in areas where resident expertise may be directly relevant to the

development of scientific recommendations. Diverse perspectives can be helpful in developing the scientific basis for management.

Separating Scientific and Management Decisions

One of the strengths of the U.S. fishery management system is its flexibility in allowing

different regions to determine who can fish, as well as how, where, and when. These are

called allocation decisions. But the question of how many fish can be sustainably harvested

(the assessment decisions) should be insulated from political pressures.

Because of their knowledge of the fisheries and communities in their region, RFMC

members are best suited to make decisions about allocation of the available harvest and

other issues related to the operations of regional fisheries. However, scientific decisions

are more appropriately made by the SSCs created to support the RFMCs. Scientific decisions include stock assessments and determinations of allowable biological catch—the

maximum amount of fish that can be harvested without adversely affecting recruitment or

other key biological components of the fish population.

277
278 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

While determining allowable biological catch is a scientific question, it must be

informed and guided by long-term objectives set by managers for both the fishery and the

ecosystem. The role of scientific information should be as strong as possible in fishery

management and subject to the least possible political influence.

For this reason, many fishery managers and analysts have recommended separating

scientific assessment decisions from the more political allocation decisions. While not

required by law, some RFMCs have already taken this step. For example, the North Pacific

council has a history of setting harvest levels at or below the level recommended by its

SSC. Many policy makers believe this practice is largely responsible for the successful

management of the fisheries in that region.

Recommendation 19–2

Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs) should supply Regional Fishery Management

Councils with the scientific advice necessary to make fishery management decisions. Such

information could include reports on stock status and health, socioeconomic impacts of management measures, sustainability of fishing practices, and habitat status. In particular, the SSCs

should determine allowable biological catch based on the best scientific information available.

Recommendation 19–3

Each Regional Fishery Management Council (RFMC) should set harvest limits at or below the

allowable biological catch determined by its Scientific and Statistical Committee. The RFMCs

should begin immediately to follow this practice, which should be codified by Congress in

amendments to the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

The Need for Independent Review

Independent review is the hallmark of the scientific process, providing assurance that

appropriate procedures for data collection and analysis have been used. Typically such

reviews are conducted by scientists with expertise similar to those who have done the

work; thus the process is called peer review.

Many of those affected by RFMC decisions have questioned the adequacy of the scientific information on which those decisions were based. Although scientific findings are

always easier to accept when they bring good news, the lack of a standardized, independent, and transparent review process in all regions has added to the level of distrust. Many

of the RFMCs and interstate commissions with management responsibilities currently

apply the peer review process sporadically. The North Pacific, New England and Mid-Atlantic

regions have long-standing peer review programs. Other RFMCs use an external peer

review process only when results are expected to be controversial. In some cases where

scientific information is reviewed, the reviewers have not been viewed as independent, 

a critical feature of the process.

The National Research Council (NRC) has conducted a number of reviews of NMFS

science. However, the NRC cannot be called upon to review every scientific decision, 

particularly stock assessments, at the rate they are generated for the RFMCs. An interesting model for external scientific review is the Center for Independent Experts that was

established by NMFS in 1998 to conduct reviews of fishery-related science. Although

NMFS pays for its operation, the Center is currently based at the University of Miami and

is completely insulated from NMFS once it initiates a peer review. Although the Center’s

experts have examined a number of controversial topics, their reviews have so far been

less subject to challenge than internal NMFS peer reviews.
C HAPTER 19: ACHIEVING S USTAINABLE FISHERIES

Recommendation 19–4

The National Marine Fisheries Service, working with the Regional Fishery Management

Councils and the interstate fisheries commissions, should develop a process for independent

review of the scientific information relied on by Scientific and Statistical Committees.

The process should include three distinct procedures:

• a standard annual review by regional scientists to certify that the correct data and 

models are being used.

• an enhanced review to evaluate the models and assessment procedures. To ensure that

these reviews are independent, a significant proportion of the reviewers should come

from outside the region and be selected by a group such as the Center for Independent

Experts. These types of reviews should be conducted on a three- to five-year cycle, or as

needed, to help ensure that the latest methods and approaches are being used.

• an expedited review to be used when results are extremely controversial or when the

normal review process would be too slow. In these cases, all reviewers should be selected

by a group such as the Center for Independent Experts.

As these review procedures become a regular part of the fishery management process,

NMFS, the RFMCs, and states should be able to develop routine quality assurance steps

and standards to be applied to all stock assessments and other scientific decision making.

A certification procedure for stock assessment scientists will help ensure implementation

of uniform standards. In addition, regular reviews can be a valuable source of ideas for

modifications to data collection programs, modeling techniques, and other elements of

the stock assessment process, and can help guide NMFS research in these areas.

Using Default Measures to Ensure Progress

The difficult process of establishing allowable biological catch, and then determining allocations based on that figure, can result in lengthy delays in developing or revising fishery

management plans. The Magnuson–Stevens Act does not require RFMCs to submit a new

or revised plan to NOAA on any specific schedule. As a result, Council delays can lead to

a fishery having no management measures in place or relying on outdated, inadequate plans.

When that happens, the RFMCs are not penalized; instead, the adverse consequences are all

borne by the fishery resource. There are two possible sources of delay: SSC difficulties in

reaching agreement on allowable biological catch, and RFMC delays in submitting management plans to NOAA for approval.

The science behind stock assessments is complex and constantly evolving. By nature

and training, many scientists are reluctant to declare a definitive numerical conclusion in

the face of inevitable uncertainty. And yet, decisions must be made. By joining an SSC, 

scientists must accept the necessity of giving the best advice possible within a real-world

timeframe.

Delays in formulating management plans within the RFMC can be more intractable

than reaching scientific consensus. Under the current system, RFMCs can simply avoid

difficult decisions by postponing development of plans. While the Councils cannot be

sued for their slowness, NMFS can be. In fact, an increasing number of lawsuits are

prompted by delays in management actions, particularly for plans to end overfishing.

The very possibility of extended delays puts pressure on NMFS to recommend approval

of inadequate management plans. Based on a recommendation from NMFS, the Secretary

of Commerce may approve, partly reject, or fully reject a plan, but may not amend it. 

As part of its recommendation, NMFS is aware that rejection of a plan could result in no

conservation measures being in place until the RFMC agrees on a revised plan—a process

that could take many months.

279
280 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Although the Secretary of Commerce can legally choose to develop a fishery management plan within the agency instead of waiting for a RFMC to do so, this is almost always

impractical. Since Congress clearly desired the Councils to have the lead in fishery management, the Secretary can either enter into a protracted, contentious, and politicized

process to develop a departmental plan, or continue to wait for the RFMC to act. Under

either scenario, the resource may remain unprotected for an extended period of time.

Indecision on the part of SSCs or RFMCs, for whatever cause, should not delay measures to ensure the long-term health and economic viability of a fishery. By setting clear

deadlines for action, and activating established default measures if a deadline is missed,

the roles of the different entities can be maintained without sacrificing the resource.

Recommendation 19–5

Each Regional Fishery Management Council should set a deadline for its Scientific and

Statistical Committee (SSC) to determine allowable biological catch. If the SSC does not meet

that deadline, the National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Science Director should set the

allowable biological catch for that fishery.

Recommendation 19–6

Once allowable biological catch is determined, whether by the Scientific and Statistical

Committee or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Regional Science Director, the

Regional Fishery Management Council should propose a fishery management plan in time

for adequate review and approval by NMFS. If the plan is not in place in a timely fashion,

NMFS should suspend all fishing on that stock until it is able to review the adequacy of the

management plan.

Both of these recommendations will require that NMFS review its procedures and make

any changes necessary to ensure timely reviews of, and responses to, RFMC proposed actions.

Making Research Relevant

As noted above, independent reviews have generally concluded that NMFS stock assessment

programs are technically sound and highly credible. However, improvements could be made

to better serve the RFMCs’ information needs, support recreational fisheries, and expand

opportunities for cooperative research to involve scientists and fishermen in joint projects.

RFMC Input on Research Priorities

RFMC members need access to reliable information to do their jobs. The NMFS science

program has done well in providing biological information to manage single species.

However, the research program is less well-positioned to answer many other pressing

questions. Generally, questions that involve interactions among fisheries, habitat, and

other protected species, as well as social science and economic questions, have received

less attention than traditional stock assessment science and fishery biology.9,10 The move

toward ecosystem-based management, including considerations such as essential fish

habitat, highlights these shortcomings. As the agency charged with responsibility for federal fishery management, NMFS should ensure that its research agenda supports the information needs of the RFMCs.

Recommendation 19–7

The Regional Fishery Management Councils and their Scientific and Statistical Committees

should develop an annual, prioritized list of management information needs and provide it

to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS should incorporate these needs to the

maximum extent possible in designing its research, analysis, and data collection programs.
C HAPTER 19: ACHIEVING S USTAINABLE FISHERIES

The lists of RFMC information needs will also be of great value to the regional ocean

information programs, discussed in Chapter 5, which would be responsible for meeting

regional management information needs. Fishery research and data requirements should

also be included as an integral part of planning for the Integrated Ocean Observing

System, discussed in Chapter 26.

Data Needs for Recreational Fisheries

Recreational fishing is an important part of the culture and economy of many coastal communities and, of course, impacts fishery resources in a number of ways. On the beneficial

side, in addition to recreational angling’s contribution of direct expenditures and jobs to

the economy, noted above, the increasing number of catch-and-release programs has 

been associated with helping some stocks recover. Further, the Ethical Angler program, 

a voluntary code developed with cooperation between NMFS and constituent groups, 

promotes a stewardship ethic among recreational fishermen on behalf of the entire marine

environment. On the other hand, saltwater anglers can contribute significantly to the

overall mortality of certain stocks. For example, in 2001, they landed over 19 million

pounds of striped bass on the East Coast, three times the amount caught by the commercial sector.11

Despite the economic and ecological impacts of recreational fishing, much less data

are collected in this area than for commercial fisheries. The NMFS Marine Recreational

Fisheries Statistics Survey, the primary recreational data collection program, is accomplished

using two methods: an intercept survey, where fishermen are interviewed at coastal fishing

ports; and a random telephone survey of all coastal households. Telephone survey results

could be greatly improved if the sample of individuals called could be drawn from a list of

licensed recreational fishermen rather than sampling all coastal households. This would

require coastal states and the federal government to require some sort of licensing mechanism for saltwater anglers.

In addition to the NMFS survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Survey

of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation has been produced about every

five years since 1955, and serves as another valuable and consistent source of data on

recreational angling in the ocean and Great Lakes.

Although the existing survey methodology is adequate for the long-term tracking of

recreational fishing trends, it has proven less useful for in-season management. For example, on the East Coast, the lack of in-season tracking of catches by recreational fishermen

has led to the chronic overharvesting of summer flounder.12 Due to the increasing popularity of marine recreational fishing, and its growing proportion of the total catch in some

fisheries, it will be critical to collect timely data in this sector to allow for sustainable

management of fisheries.

Recommendation 19–8

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), working with states and interstate fisheries

commissions, should require that all saltwater anglers obtain licenses to improve in-season

data collection on recreational fishing. NMFS should review existing saltwater angler licensing

programs to determine which approaches best facilitate the collection of data. Based on this

review, existing programs should be modified as needed and used wherever possible, developing new programs only if necessary. Priority should be given to fisheries in which recreational fishing is responsible for a large part of the catch, or in which recreational fishermen

regularly exceed their allocated quota.

The Value of Cooperative Research

Involving fishermen in the research process, referred to as cooperative research, is a promising approach that can produce benefits for the fishermen, the scientists, and ultimately

the management process. Underutilized fishing vessels can provide cost-effective research

281

Fishery management

plans and regulations

must be based on 

reliable catch statistics,

but current recreational catch statistics

are often viewed

with suspicion.

—Gilbert Radonski,

Recreational Fishing

Alliance, testimony to

the Commission, 

January 2002
282 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

platforms to expand the scope of data gathering and create an additional source of income

for fishing communities waiting for stocks to recover. Fishing vessels are usually significantly less expensive to operate than traditional research vessels, while still suitable for

many types of research. Scientists can also benefit from the knowledge and experience

gained by fishermen during years at sea. Cooperative research programs also provide an

appropriate mechanism to incorporate traditional indigenous or tribal knowledge into

useful information for managers.

Increased interaction and rapport between fishermen and fishery scientists are additional benefits of cooperative research. In many regions of the country, fishermen are

skeptical of the science and analysis used to support fishery management. Until the 1990s,

scientists rarely included fishermen in either the design or data collection phases of their

research. This has fed the perception in fishing communities that scientists do not understand fishing and do not value the experiences of fishermen. Greater involvement of fishermen in research programs appears to have been successful in reversing this perception

and promoting better understanding between fishermen and scientists.

In 1977, when NMFS stock assessments indicated that bowhead whales off Alaska’s

North Slope were at extremely low levels, the International Whaling Commission proposed a ban on all whaling, including that done for subsistence. The indigenous whaling

community, convinced that the assessment had under-counted whales, provided NMFS

scientists with additional information on whale locations and migration patterns based on

traditional knowledge. The scientists revised their survey protocols to incorporate this

new information, determined that they had in fact underestimated the whale population,

and allowed the subsistence harvest to continue.

Similarly, in 1999, initial estimates indicated that Atlantic monkfish were severely

overfished and a management plan was created to curtail fishing and rebuild the stock.

When fishermen contended that the NMFS survey was missing significant stocks of

monkfish in deeper waters, NMFS initiated a cooperative research program to investigate.

The results indicated that monkfish were indeed present in significant numbers in deeper

waters, allowing managers to reduce the severity of catch restrictions.

In both of these examples, anecdotal or traditional information was not unconditionally accepted. Instead, scientists used data from fishermen as the basis for further investigation. Scientists can benefit from the experience of fishermen by incorporating their suggestions into the design of research programs. At the same time, fishermen need to realize

that informal information can only be used in decision making after it has been tested and

verified according to a methodical, scientific process.

Cooperative research has the potential to be applied quite broadly. Although fisheryspecific research, in particular, experiments with new or modified gear types, is the most

obvious application, others should be considered. RFMC lists of information needs, called

for in Recommendation 19–7, will be helpful in selecting other topics for cooperative

research. Many of NOAA’s oceanographic, economic, and social science research programs

could also take advantage of cooperative research opportunities.

Recommendation 19–9

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should create an expanded,

regionally-based cooperative research program that coordinates and funds collaborative

projects between scientists and commercial, tribal, and recreational fishermen. NOAA should

develop a process for external evaluation and ranking of all cooperative research proposals

to ensure the most worthwhile projects are funded, the most capable performers are undertaking the research, and the information produced is both scientifically credible and useful

to managers.
C HAPTER 19: ACHIEVING S USTAINABLE FISHERIES

Although the background and recommendations in the previous section focused 

primarily on improvements to marine fishery management through the RFMC system, 

the concepts apply equally well to Great Lakes fisheries. The Great Lakes Fisheries

Commission should ensure that there are similarly strong linkages between scientific 

findings and the management decisions under their jurisdiction.

Strengthening Fishery Governance

Clarifying Fishery Management Authority and Jurisdiction

In 1976, the Magnuson–Stevens Act greatly expanded the federal government’s marine

fishery management jurisdiction from the seaward boundary of state waters out to 200

nautical miles from the coast. Known as the Fisheries Conservation Zone, this newly created area was later subsumed into the EEZ. In general, marine fishery management jurisdiction is divided among the states, three interstate fisheries commissions, eight RFMCs,

and the federal government. Each of these entities plays a valuable role in managing our

nation’s fisheries.

The RFMCs develop management plans for fisheries within their portion of the EEZ

(Figure 19.2). Based on advisory group recommendations, NMFS develops and implements plans for highly migratory species (including tuna, swordfish, billfish, and sharks)

283

Figure 19.2 U.S. Fisheries Are Managed at the Regional Level

Eight regional fishery councils manage the harvest of living marine resources. The councils are 

responsible for developing sustainable domestic fisheries and linking the fishing communities more 

directly to the management process. Several states, illustrated with vertical lines, belong to more 

than one council. For example, Oregon and Washington are members of both the Pacific Council 

and the North Pacific Council.

New 

England 

Council

Mid-Atlantic 

Council

South Atlantic 

Council

Caribbean 

Council

Gulf of 

Mexico 

Council

North 

Pacific 

Council

Pacific 

Council

Western Pacific Council

Inset not to scale
284 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

within the EEZ in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and

Caribbean regions. In the Pacific, the RFMCs or

states include highly migratory species in their management plans.

Each coastal state has authority over fisheries that

occur only in that state’s waters, while interstate fisheries commissions can develop management plans for

fisheries that occur primarily in state waters but also

cross the boundaries of many states (Figure 19.3).

Interstate Fisheries Commissions

For most of their history, the Atlantic States and Gulf

States Marine Fisheries Commissions provided

forums for assembling interstate catch statistics and

designing fishery management plans to conserve and

sustain fish stocks. State compliance with these plans

was voluntary. The Gulf States Commission’s plans

remain voluntary, but the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries

Cooperative Management Act of 1994 authorized the

Secretary of Commerce to close fisheries that the

Atlantic States Commission determined are out of

compliance with its management plan. The Pacific

States Marine Fisheries Commission is primarily a

research coordination agency that provides a forum

for discussing interstate fishery issues.

The Great Lakes Fishery Commission, established

by agreement between Canada and the United States

in 1955, develops coordinated research programs and

recommends measures to maximize productivity of

Great Lakes fisheries. The Commission coordinates the actions of state, tribal, federal, and

Canadian management bodies through a joint strategic management plan, using a process

of consensus decision making. It also oversees a program to eradicate or minimize sea

lamprey populations in the Great Lakes.

Recommendation 19–10

Congress should develop new statutory authority, similar to the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries

Cooperative Management Act, to support and empower the Gulf States and Pacific States

Fisheries Management Commissions. All interstate management plans should adhere to the

national standards in the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and

the federal guidelines implementing these standards. States should participate in the development of the guidelines to ensure they are applicable to interstate plans.

Clarifying Lead Authorities for Joint Planning Purposes

Dividing the natural world into neat management units is never easy, and fish populations

are no exception. Although a few fish species remain in one area for most of their lives,

others are highly mobile and cross federal, state, and interstate boundaries. The lack of

effective mechanisms for coordination and cooperation among the many fishery management entities exacerbates the problem of managing transboundary stocks.

The existing jurisdictional structure requires the development of joint plans, primarily

in the Atlantic, by two or more RFMCs, and by the states and RFMCs. In most cases, each

entity in the joint planning process has equivalent authority. This joint planning process

has generally been inefficient. Joint plans take longer to approve and amend, causing

delays in needed conservation measures. In addition, the varied jurisdictions create 

Figure 19.3 Migratory Fish Require 

Coordination Across Multiple Jurisdictions

■ Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission

■ Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission

■ Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

■ Great Lakes Fishery Commission (also includes Canada)

The four interstate marine fishery commissions are critical to 

managing and conserving migratory fish that traverse the 

jurisdictional waters of multiple states. Pennsylvania and 

New York are members of both the Atlantic States and 

Great Lakes Commissions.

Alaska Hawaii Puerto Rico
C HAPTER 19: ACHIEVING S USTAINABLE FISHERIES

confusion for fishermen and the public about who is in charge of management and

enforcement. Changes are needed to reduce the jurisdictional confusion in marine fishery

management and improve cooperation among the states, interstate commissions, RFMCs,

and the federal government.

Recommendation 19–11

Where a fish stock crosses administrative boundaries, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration should ensure that a single state, Regional Fishery Management Council (RFMC),

interstate marine fisheries commission, or NOAA itself is designated as the lead authority.

In general:

• for interjurisdictional fisheries that occur primarily in state waters, the state (if only one

state is involved), or the relevant interstate fisheries commission, should take the lead

within both state and federal waters.

• for fisheries that involve two or more RFMCs, NOAA should designate the lead.

• for fisheries that have substantial activities in both state and federal waters, the relevant

authorities should determine a lead; if they are unable to agree within a reasonable time

period (not more than six months), NOAA should designate the lead.

• jurisdiction for highly migratory species should remain in its current configuration.

• any other disputes regarding jurisdiction should be resolved by NOAA.

Improving the Regional Fishery Management Councils

Building on Success

Much of the criticism of fishery management has been directed at the RFMCs. Every

Council, except those in the North Pacific and Western Pacific, has jurisdiction over

stocks that are being overfished, and all oversee stocks that have been overfished in the

past. The North Pacific RFMC appears to be working well in most facets of its management responsibility. Of the eighty-two stocks under its jurisdiction with sufficient information to assess, none was classified as overfished in 2001 and only two stocks are at 

levels of abundance that indicate past overfishing. For the remaining seven RFMCs, of the

147 stocks with sufficient information to assess, 33 (22 percent) were being overfished in

2001, and 50 are at levels of abundance that indicate past overfishing.13

Despite this mixed record, several aspects of the existing RFMC system echo the major

themes outlined in this report: a regional approach to management based on geographicallydefined ecosystems; a management process that requires local participation; and the incorporation of science-based, peer-reviewed information in the development of management

plans. The following recommendations seek to strengthen the management process for all

RFMCs, while maintaining the positive features of the system and building on the successes

some have achieved.

Broadening RFMC Membership

The Magnuson–Stevens Act states that the Secretary of Commerce must “to the extent

practicable, ensure a fair and balanced apportionment...of the active participants” on the

RFMCs. However, the Secretary can only choose RFMC members from the slate of candidates forwarded by the governors. The governors themselves are under no legal obligation

to put forth a fair and balanced slate of candidates. Under the Act, their only obligation is

to ensure that each candidate is “knowledgeable regarding the conservation and management, or the commercial or recreational harvest, of the fishery resources of the geographical area concerned.” This loophole has resulted in uneven representation on some RFMCs.

The governors are not required to recommend candidates from outside the fish harvesting industry, such as consumer groups, academia, subsistence fishermen, or environmental organizations, although these perspectives could help achieve a more balanced

management regime. As it stands, the fishing industry representatives, who make up the

285
286 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

majority of RFMC members, may tend to favor economic interests over the long-term 

sustainability of the stocks. The relatively narrow representation on RFMCs may also fuel

legal challenges to fishery management plans based on allegations of conflict of interest—

although it should be noted that industry groups challenge fishery management decisions

as frequently as public interest groups.

Amendments are needed to ensure that RFMC membership is balanced among competing user groups and other interested parties, and that fishery management plans reflect

a broad, long-term view of the public’s interests. Identifying the best mix will require

knowledge of the federal fishery management process and an understanding of other factors affecting ocean ecosystems. This expertise resides in the NOAA Administrator, not

the Secretary of Commerce, who is currently responsible for appointing RFMC members.

Recommendation 19–12

Congress should amend the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

to require governors to submit a broad slate of candidates for each vacancy of an appointed

Regional Fishery Management Council seat. The slate should include at least two representatives each from the commercial fishing industry, the recreational fishing sector, and the general public.

Recommendation 19–13

Congress should give the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

responsibility for appointing Regional Fishery Management Council (RFMC) members, with the

goal of creating RFMCs that are knowledgeable, fair, and reflect a broad range of interests.

Training New RFMC Members

Fishery management demands expertise in biology, economics, public policy, and other

disciplines. Although RFMC members are required to be knowledgeable about the fishery

resources in their region, very few come into the process with resource management experience or scientific training. As Julie Morris, a member of the Gulf of Mexico council, said

in testimony before the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (Appendix 2), “When I first

began working with marine fisheries, the concept of ‘spawning potential ratios’ was difficult to understand. Now, after six months, I’m still struggling to understand the concepts

of optimum yield, biomass at maximum sustainable yield, minimum stock size threshold,

and how they all fit together to determine the allowable catch.”

NMFS offers a training course for new RFMC members, but they are not required to

attend—and many do not. Friction between NMFS and some RFMC members has added to

skepticism about the value of this training. As a result, Council members often make important decisions affecting fishermen, fishing communities, and fishery resources without an

adequate understanding of all relevant scientific, economic, social, and legal information.

Recommendation 19–14

Congress should amend the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

to require that all newly appointed Regional Fishery Management Council (RFMC) members

complete a training course within six months of their appointment. The National Marine

Fisheries Service should contract with an external organization to develop and implement this

training course. After six months, a new member who has not completed the training should

continue to participate in RFMC meetings, but should not be allowed to vote.

The training course should:

• be open to current RFMC members and other participants in the process as 

space permits.

• cover a variety of topics including: fishery science and basic stock assessment methods;

social science and fishery economics; tribal treaty rights; the legal requirements of the

Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the National
C HAPTER 19: ACHIEVING S USTAINABLE FISHERIES

Environmental Policy Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and other relevant laws or

regulations; conflict of interest policies for RFMC members; and the public process

involved in developing fishery management plans.

Ending the Race for Fish

U.S. fishery management has historically made use of access systems—whether open or

limited—that promote an unsustainable “race for the fish.” This approach has produced

serious resource conservation problems in many U.S. fisheries and must be changed.

Traditional Management Approaches

Until the end of the 20th century, most U.S. fisheries allowed access to anyone who wanted

to fish. There were few, if any, limits other than the usually nominal cost of a permit and

possession of the necessary fishing gear. In profitable fisheries, this led to ever-increasing

numbers of entrants, with ever-increasing pressure being put on the fishery resource.

Recognizing the dangers posed by overfishing, managers began to regulate fishermen

by placing controls either on input or output. Input controls include such measures as

closing access to fisheries by limiting permits, specifying allowable types and amounts of

gear and methods, and limiting available fishing areas or seasons. Output controls include

setting total allowable catch (the amount of fish that may be taken by the entire fleet per

fishing season), bycatch limits (numbers of non-targeted species captured), and trip or

bag limits for individual fishermen.

These management techniques create incentives for fishermen to develop better gear

or to devise new methods that allow them to catch more fish, and to do so faster than

other fishermen, before any overall limit is reached. They provide no incentive for individual fishermen to conserve fish, because any fish not caught is likely to be taken by someone else. This race for fish created an unfortunate cat-and-mouse chase.

In response to each new measure designed to limit fishing effort, fishermen developed

new fishing methods that, although legal, undermined the goal of reaching sustainable

harvest levels. This prompted managers to promulgate more restrictive measures and fishermen to develop more ingenious methods to work around them. For example, if managers limited the length of the boat, fishermen increased its width to hold more catch. If

managers then limited the width, fishermen installed bigger motors to allow them to get

back and forth from fishing grounds faster. If managers limited engine horsepower, fishermen used secondary boats to offload their catch while they kept on fishing.

One input control many managers turned to was limiting fishing days for each fisherman,

or for an entire fleet. In response, many fishermen found ways to increase their fishing effort

during the shorter season. In New England, the multispecies groundfish fishery shrank from

a year-round fishery to less than a hundred days at sea per fisherman, with recent proposals

for even shorter seasons. In the historically year-round halibut/sablefish fishery in the Gulf of

Alaska, the fishing season dwindled to less than a week by the early 1990s.

In addition to conservation concerns, the race for fish can create safety problems.

Faced with a sharply curtailed amount of time in which to harvest, fishermen often feel

compelled to operate in unsafe weather conditions while loading their boats to capacity

and beyond.

The constant race for fish, and the increasingly adversarial relationship between 

fishermen and managers, created intense pressures. Fishermen fished harder for smaller

returns and managers hesitated to further reduce catch limits, fearing political and economic consequences. These pressures have been identified by many as a contributing 

factor in the decline of several fish stocks, notably the New England groundfish fishery.14

For reasons of tradition or culture, most managers hesitated to limit the number of new

287
288 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

entrants to a fishery. However, the ineffectiveness of other controls eventually did lead

managers in some fisheries to control access, for example, by limiting the number of available permits.

Dedicated Access Privileges

To solve the problems described above, managers began exploring the use of dedicated

access privileges (Box 19.1), a novel form of output control whereby an individual fisherman, community, or other entity is granted the privilege to catch a specified portion of the

total allowable catch. With this assurance in place, there would no longer be an incentive

for fishermen to fish harder and faster because each could only catch his or her share of

the total. The incentive would then be to catch the full share at a low cost and sell the best

quality fish at the highest obtainable price.

There are several different types of dedicated access privileges:

• Individual fishing quotas (IFQs) allow each eligible fisherman to catch a specified 

portion of the total allowable catch. When the assigned portions can be sold or 

transferred to other fishermen, they are called individual transferable quotas (ITQs).

• Community quotas grant a specified portion of the allowable catch to a community.

The community then decides how to allocate the catch. For example, the Community

Development Quota Program in Alaska granted remote villages a portion of the total

allowable catch to enhance fishery-based economic development.

• Cooperatives split all or part of the available quota among various fishing and processing entities within a fishery via contractual agreements.

• Geographically based programs give an individual or group dedicated access to the fish

within a specific area of the ocean.

Many other variations and combinations of dedicated access privileges are possible.

Dedicated access programs can provide substantial benefits in addition to ending the race

for fish. Consumers benefit because fresh, rather than frozen, fish are available for most of

the year. Many believe that these programs will enhance safety because fishermen will no

longer have to go out in bad weather and the U.S. Coast Guard will not be overwhelmed by

thousands of fishermen operating in small areas or during a compressed season. Fishermen

can develop better long-range business plans because they can more accurately anticipate

their annual catch and are less likely to over-invest in boats and gear. They can also fish

more carefully, minimizing gear loss and bycatch of protected and other non-targeted

species. Finally, these programs allow fishermen and managers to work cooperatively.

Currently, seven U.S. fisheries grant some form of dedicated access privileges: the surf

clam/ocean quahog fishery in the Mid-Atlantic (ITQ); the wreckfish fishery in the South

Atlantic (ITQ); the halibut/sablefish fishery in the North Pacific (ITQ); the Pacific whiting

fishery (co-op); the Bering Sea pollock fishery in the North Pacific (co-op); Alaska’s

Community Development Quota program (community quota); and the Chignik salmon

fishery (co-op). Many other countries, including New Zealand, Australia, and Iceland, rely

heavily on dedicated access regimes for fishery management.

But dedicated access regimes are not without potential drawbacks. After the ITQ program began in the Mid-Atlantic surf clam/ocean quahog fishery, fleet size shrank from 128

vessels to 59 vessels in two years because many fishermen decided to sell their share of

the harvest to outside investors. By 1995, very few owner-operators were left in the fishery,

and the largest holders of fishing quotas were a bank and an accounting firm. To many

observers, this turned working fishermen into the equivalent of sharecroppers for absentee landlords.15

Based largely on that experience, many fishermen, especially in New England, opposed

any effort to explore ITQs. Some RFMC members also questioned the enforceability of

We now enjoy fresh

Pacific halibut ten

months of the year 

as a result of the

institution of the 

individual tradable

quota program,

instead of having

fresh halibut for two

weeks a year and

freezer dried junk

halibut for the rest 

of the year.

—Dr. Susan Hanna,

Department of Agricultural and Resources 

Economics, Oregon State

University, testimony 

to the Commission, 

June 2002
C HAPTER 19: ACHIEVING S USTAINABLE FISHERIES

dedicated access privileges in multispecies fisheries with large numbers of participants or

many ports of landing. Public interest groups also expressed concerns, although for very

different reasons. They felt that granting fishermen exclusive access to harvest, buy, or sell

a portion of the overall catch appeared to create an individual property right to a public

resource, although all existing dedicated access programs in the United States clearly state

that granting an individual access to a portion of the catch does not confer a right to any

fish before it is harvested.

In response to such concerns, the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson–Stevens Act

created a moratorium on further development of IFQ programs, pending consideration by

the National Academy of Sciences. The resulting National Research Council study concluded that IFQ programs are in fact a promising management option that RFMCs should

consider.16 Examples of carefully designed dedicated access programs in the United States

and elsewhere show that it is possible to overcome most of the concerns raised about

them. During the development of the Alaska halibut/sablefish dedicated access program,

questions were raised about the socioeconomic impacts of individual fishing quotas on

communities. As a result, the North Pacific RFMC customized the program to account for

vessel size and type, placed a one percent cap on the share of quota any one person or

entity could control, and prohibited absentee ownership to ensure quotas would remain in

the hands of working fishermen. Halibut and sablefish fishermen, previously skeptical, are

now among the program’s biggest supporters. This illustrates the value of taking potential

socioeconomic ramifications and other stakeholder concerns into account during the

design phase of any dedicated access program.

Even though the Magnuson–Stevens Act moratorium on individual fishing quotas has

expired and the National Research Council study endorsed this as a viable approach, most

RFMCs will remain unwilling to spend time and effort developing dedicated access programs until they are sure Congress will not overrule them.

289

Box 19.1 Dedicated Access Privileges: A Better Description

I

n this chapter, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommends steps to end the race for

fish through the use of “dedicated access privileges.” While this term is not new, it is not

yet in wide use. More commonly used are the terms “rights-based management,” “individual

transferable quotas” (ITQs) or “individual fishing quotas” (IFQs). None is satisfactory as a 

general term.

“Rights-based management” implies granting an individual the “right” to fish. However,

with the exception of certain tribes, U.S. fishermen do not have inalienable rights to fish

because the fishery resources of the United States belong to all people of the United States.

Under current law, fishermen are granted a privilege to fish, subject to certain conditions.

Because this privilege can be taken away, it is not a right.

The second two terms, ITQs and IFQs, are too narrow for general application. Both terms

describe specific kinds of dedicated access privileges. Their general use has caused confusion,

creating the impression that ITQs or IFQs are the only tools that can end the race for fish. In

many areas, particularly along the East Coast, the term ITQ has a negative connotation as the

result of events in the surf clam/ocean quahog ITQ program. In addition, both terms imply

that individual fishermen own a share of a public resource.

The term dedicated access privileges is preferable for several reasons. First, it highlights

the fact that fishing is a privilege, not a right. Second, it is an umbrella term that includes

access privileges assigned to individuals (ITQs, IFQs, individual gear quotas), as well as to

groups or communities (community development quotas, cooperatives, area-based quotas,

community-based quotas). Finally, it reflects the fact that the dedicated privilege being

granted is access to the fish, rather than the fish themselves.
290 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 19–15

Congress should amend the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act to affirm that fishery managers are authorized to institute dedicated access privileges.

Congress should direct the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue national guidelines 

for dedicated access privileges that allow for regional flexibility in implementation. Every

federal, interstate, and state fishery management entity should consider the potential 

benefits of adopting such programs.

At a minimum, the national guidelines should require dedicated access programs to:

• specify the biological, social, and economic goals of the plan; recipient groups designated

for the initial quota shares; and data collection protocols.

• provide for periodic reviews of the plan to determine progress in meeting goals.

• assign quota shares for a limited period of time to reduce confusion concerning public

ownership of living marine resources, allow managers flexibility to manage fisheries

adaptively, and provide stability to fishermen for investment decisions.

• mandate fees for exclusive access based on a percentage of quota shares held. These user

fees should be used to support ecosystem-based management. Fee waivers, reductions,

or phase-in schedules should be allowed until a fishery is declared recovered or fishermen’s profits increase.

• include measures, such as community-based quota shares or quota share ownership caps,

to lessen the potential harm to fishing communities during the transition to dedicated

access privileges.

• be adopted only after adequate public discussion and close consultation with all affected

stakeholders, to ensure community acceptance of a dedicated access plan prior to final

Regional Fishery Management Council approval.

Reducing Overcapitalization of Fishing Fleets

As discussed above, the race for fish pushes fishermen to invest more and more capital 

to buy bigger, faster boats and new gear, and hire additional labor. These investments are

perceived as essential to stay alive in the race for fewer and fewer fish, not necessarily to

make the business more efficient. The inevitable result is economic decline, with more

vessels pursuing a shrinking resource. If managers respond by further lowering the total

allowable catch, costs rise even more while average revenues drop.

Over the past three decades, federal programs to subsidize the purchase or upgrade of

fishing vessels have resulted in U.S. fishing capacity that far exceeds the available catch.

For example, the Capital Construction Fund allows fishermen to create tax-free accounts

to repair or construct vessels, and the Fishing Vessel Obligation Guarantee Program provides long-term credit for fishing vessels and related facilities. The challenge now goes

beyond removing subsidies and incentives that promote overcapitalization; it will also

take a sustained effort to reduce the excess capacity already in place.

Past capacity reduction efforts, such as the New England groundfish buyout program

in the early 1990s, have been effective at removing capacity from the fleet. However, their

initial success was undermined when new fishermen and boats were allowed to replace

those that had been retired. A new federal program, the Fishing Capacity Reduction

Program, has been criticized as being too bureaucratic and slow.

Two types of management regimes can ensure that a capacity reduction program has

lasting results: (1) dedicated access programs which, by definition, limit overall effort in a

fishery; and (2) restrictive regimes that freeze the number of active fishermen and prohibit

any changes to fishing methods or gear until a fishery has been declared recovered. The

second option would be difficult to enforce and could meet with strong resistance from

fishermen and managers. Yet steps must be taken to end the inefficient and counter-productive over-investment in fishing vessels and gear.
C HAPTER 19: ACHIEVING S USTAINABLE FISHERIES

Recommendation 19–16

Congress should repeal all programs that encourage overcapitalization of fishing fleets,

including the Fisheries Finance Program (formerly the Fishing Vessel Obligation Guarantee

Program) and those sections of the Capital Construction Fund that apply to fisheries. The

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should take appropriate steps 

to permanently reduce fishing capacity to sustainable levels.

The following actions will assist in reducing overcapitalization in fisheries:

• to the maximum extent practicable, capacity reduction programs should be funded by

those who profit from them—the fishermen remaining in the fishery.

• federal contributions to capacity reduction programs should only be made where 

additional effort is prohibited from entering the fishery. The highest priority for public

funding of capacity reduction should be given to fisheries that grant dedicated access

privileges to participants.

• NOAA should monitor capacity reduction programs to determine whether they are 

meeting their objectives and to ensure that vessels removed from U.S. fisheries do not

contribute to overcapitalization in other nations.

• fishermen should be allowed to transfer existing Capital Construction Fund accounts into

Individual Retirement Accounts or other appropriate financial instruments that do not

promote overcapitalization.

Improving Fishery Enforcement

Enforcement of fishing restrictions is essential to allow fishery resources to be economically harvested and protected for future generations. However, increasing pressures on

agencies hinder effective enforcement and delay the evolution of fishery management

plans toward a more ecosystem-based approach. For example, area closures put greater

demands on enforcement agencies that must patrol larger, more widely dispersed areas.

Redirection of existing enforcement resources for homeland security and the reduction of

state personnel due to budget cuts also hamper fisheries enforcement. If this gap between

needs and resources is to be narrowed, the agencies tasked with enforcing fishery management plans must apply resources and technology in innovative ways, such as through

enhanced vessel monitoring technologies, expanded cooperation between enforcement

agencies, and strengthened public education and outreach.

Fishery Enforcement Mechanisms

The two federal agencies with primary roles in enforcing marine fishery regulations are

the Coast Guard and NMFS. Under the authority of the Magnuson–Stevens Act, these

agencies enforce conservation and management plans for federally-regulated fishery

resources in the 200 nautical mile EEZ. The Coast Guard also enforces applicable international agreements in waters beyond the U.S. EEZ.

The Coast Guard employs personnel, vessels, aircraft, communications, and support

systems to maintain a law enforcement presence in the EEZ and on the high seas. Agents

from NMFS’ Office of Law Enforcement conduct dockside inspections, investigate civil

and criminal violations, seize illegal property and contraband, and seek to prevent unlawful trafficking in marine wildlife products. State and tribal enforcement personnel enforce

fishery plans in their own waters and federal plans if there is a cooperative agreement.

Both the Coast Guard and NMFS enforcement representatives participate in the

RFMC process. The Coast Guard and NMFS also cooperate with state enforcement 

agencies to pool limited assets and reduce duplication of effort.

291
292 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Enforcement Partnerships

New partnerships and enhanced cooperation are 

basic elements of the Coast Guard and NMFS fishery

enforcement strategic plans. Cooperative enforcement

agreements among federal, state, tribal, interstate, and

international organizations will be essential as ecosystem-based or area-based management becomes more

prevalent and the Coast Guard assumes additional

homeland security responsibilities.

Cooperative Enforcement Programs

One of the most successful existing partnership 

programs is the Cooperative Enforcement Program

between NMFS and state agencies. In this program,

state enforcement officers are deputized to enforce

state and federal fishery management plans for commercial and recreational fisheries. Through Joint

Enforcement Agreements (JEAs), NMFS provides 

federal funds for state involvement which are then

matched by the states, providing an opportunity to

enlarge the overall pool of enforcement resources.

JEAs have also led to significant progress in creating

uniform enforcement databases, identifying regional and local fishery enforcement priorities, and extending coordination to other areas, such as investigations.

Twenty-three coastal states and territories have entered into JEA partnerships with

NMFS. From 1998 to 2000, following implementation of the JEA with South Carolina,

state patrol officers logged over 1,095 hours conducting federal enforcement from the

edge of state waters to 70 nautical miles offshore. Their patrols uncovered 172 cases of

fisheries violations in the EEZ or on vessels returning from the EEZ, as well as many 

additional cases of boating safety and permit violations.17 JEAs are particularly effective

because state agents are familiar with local waters, know when and where enforcement

infractions are likely to occur, and provide opportunities for significant public outreach

and education.

Although not currently a signatory to these cooperative NMFS–state agreements,

Coast Guard participation would be valuable, particularly during the development of

enforcement plans and priorities, and would help assure commitment of Coast Guard

resources to joint enforcement efforts.

Despite the JEA program’s advantages in leveraging resources and enhancing cooperation, its federal funding was reduced from approximately $15 million in fiscal year 2001 to

$7 million in the fiscal year 2002 and 2003 budgets. The reduced federal funding led to

smaller state matching appropriations and, ultimately, a reduction in enforcement personnel.

Recommendation 19–17

The National Marine Fisheries Service should expand its use of Joint Enforcement Agreements

to implement cooperative fisheries enforcement programs with state agencies. The U.S. Coast

Guard should also be included as an important participant in such agreements.

Cooperative Federal Enforcement

There are also significant opportunities to strengthen cooperation at the federal level

between NMFS and the Coast Guard. Currently, each agency has its own strategic plan,

goals, and objectives for enforcement of federal fishery laws. At the regional and local 

An officer measures the opening of a Turtle Excluder Device to

ensure that it meets federal guidelines. Dockside inspections like

this help ensure compliance with a variety of fishery regulations. 

NOAA Photo Library
C HAPTER 19: ACHIEVING S USTAINABLE FISHERIES

levels, the degree of cooperation is uneven and can vary considerably over time, even

within the same geographic area.

At the national level, a jointly developed strategic plan for federal fishery enforcement

can provide a framework for prioritizing common goals and identifying cooperative

enforcement policies. At the regional level, existing agency training centers can be given a

broader role as forums for NMFS, Coast Guard, and state enforcement personnel to share

information specific to a particular fishery, and to identify opportunities for more effective

resource utilization. At the regional and local levels, a stronger and more consistent

process can be developed for joint planning and implementation of fishery enforcement

operations. Strengthening the national, regional, and local frameworks should lead to 

better resource utilization and enforcement.

Recommendation 19–18

The National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Coast Guard should strengthen cooperative enforcement efforts at the national level by developing a unified strategic plan for fishery enforcement that includes significantly increased joint training, and at the regional and

local levels, by developing a stronger and more consistent process for sharing information

and coordinating enforcement.

Technology for Enforcement

Vessel Monitoring System

Vessel monitoring is now an accepted part of fishery management worldwide and is endorsed

by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s Code of Conduct for Responsible

Fisheries. Since its initial implementation in 1988, the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) has

dramatically increased the effectiveness of limited fishery enforcement resources.

Ships equipped with VMS transmit accurate Global Positioning System data via 

satellite to monitoring centers ashore. This information identifies specific vessels and 

their precise locations. When fully implemented, the system can also provide information

useful to law enforcement, maritime security, safety efforts, environmental protection, and

resource management.

VMS can be configured for two-way communications to enable vessels to receive 

pertinent safety and enforcement information from observing parties onshore, such as

weather alerts and safety broadcasts for vessels in potentially hazardous circumstances. 

In emergencies, the Coast Guard can pinpoint the location of a stricken vessel and communicate directly with it and other boats in the area through two-way VMS links. Twoway VMS allows fishermen to be in constant contact with other fishermen, enforcement

personnel, and fleet operators. Because their position can be verified, fishermen can remain

on scene longer prior to fishery closures, rather than having to depart the area as is often

currently required. The extension of VMS monitoring to state fisheries could also be useful, particularly for vessels wanting to operate legally in state waters adjacent to closed

federal waters.

Beyond the benefits to fishermen and the potential benefits to scientific research

through the transmission of near real-time data, two-way VMS is a useful system for

enforcement and management personnel. Enforcement personnel can protect resources 

by preventing potential fishery violations, and VMS can save the Coast Guard and NMFS

time and money spent in enforcement actions. The system provides the Coast Guard and

NMFS a broader awareness of ships as they approach restricted areas, enabling the agencies to inform a fishing vessel that it is about to enter a protected area. Sensors can also be

added to fishing gear, allowing VMS to indicate when a vessel is actively fishing. Managers

can also use VMS system capabilities for daily catch and effort information used in quota

management, and can gather other data, such as temperature, depth, and salinity, to

inform broader fishery management planning decisions.

293
294 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

The cost of VMS for fishing vessel owners is small relative to its many benefits. VMS

equipment with two-way communications capabilities is available at a modest cost of 

several thousand dollars. Some current NMFS programs offer limited reimbursement for

initial equipment purchase. In addition to the one-time installation costs, there are continuing, although modest, costs associated with data transmission.

Recommendation 19–19

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), working with the Regional Fishery Management

Councils (RFMCs), the U.S. Coast Guard, and other appropriate entities, should maximize the

use of the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) for fishery-related activities. VMS with two-way

communication capability and other features that assist personnel in monitoring and

responding to potential violations should be required over time for all commercial fishing

vessels receiving permits under federal fishery plans, including party and charter boats that

carry recreational fishermen. NMFS and RFMCs, working with state representatives, should

also identify state fisheries that could significantly benefit from VMS implementation.

Integrating VMS into a Data Collection and Dissemination System

Although NMFS is currently overseeing the development of the VMS fishery enforcement

infrastructure nationwide, VMS data are also being incorporated into a larger monitoring

system that extends beyond fishery enforcement concerns. VMS data will be part of a 

multipurpose data collection and dissemination system that includes other Coast Guard

data sources and provides a comprehensive picture of many offshore activities. The larger

Coast Guard data system will support a variety of missions, such as maritime security,

safety, search and rescue, law enforcement, and environmental protection, as discussed 

in Chapter 16. The Coast Guard and NMFS will need to cooperate to establish uniform

national policies and technical requirements for VMS information, while providing for

regional flexibility.

Recommendation 19–20

The U.S. Coast Guard should manage the integration of a fishery Vessel Monitoring System

(VMS) database into the larger maritime operations database and should work with the

National Marine Fisheries Service to ensure effective use of VMS data for monitoring and

enforcement.

Using New Technologies for More Effective Enforcement

VMS presents just one of many opportunities to use technology for more effective enforcement. Fixed radars on platforms have been used successfully in particularly sensitive environmental areas close to shore, and satellites present additional opportunities for offshore

monitoring. The advantage of these monitoring systems is that they identify vessel traffic

and activity in a particular area so that enforcement resources can be sent to investigate

only when circumstances warrant. Directed enforcement efforts are less costly than general enforcement patrols. Enforcement planning at all levels should include a continuing

focus on identifying and funding new and emerging technologies that provide for more

successful and cost-effective use of enforcement resources.

Improving Enforceability as Part of the Management Process

Clear, easily enforceable regulations are critical to the success of fishery management 

policies. A management regime that is—or is perceived by the public to be—impossible or

exceptionally hard to enforce is unlikely to succeed. Of course, some management regimes

are more difficult or costly to enforce than others. In particular, area closures with boundaries that are difficult to detect at sea are problematic and provide tenuous grounds for
C HAPTER 19: ACHIEVING S USTAINABLE FISHERIES

legal action. Enforcement difficulties are also generated by gear restrictions that require

fishermen to haul out their gear for boarding officers to examine. As part of their effort to

ensure sustainable fisheries, the RFMCs should pay particular attention to enforceability

when drafting management plans.

Moving Toward an Ecosystem-based Management Approach

In keeping with the overarching theme of this report, fishery managers should begin to

move toward a more ecosystem-based management approach. This will provide direct

benefits to the ecosystem and create a better mechanism for addressing apparent conflicts

between socioeconomic and biological goals.

Linking Fisheries Management with other Regional Concerns

Several measures now in place have begun the transition to a more ecosystem-based

approach to fishery management. Such an approach requires that we look beyond fisheries

to consider interactions with other resources and activities.

The fishery regions were originally defined roughly along the lines of Large Marine

Ecosystems and thus have the geographic reach necessary to encompass ecosystem concerns.

In addition, all RFMCs have multispecies management plans that force the Councils to

look broadly at the ecosystem they manage. Despite these positive efforts, most RFMC

multispecies fishery management plans now focus only on species assemblages that are

commercially important, or those taken by particular types of gear. Little attention is given

to species that, while commercially insignificant, are still important to the functioning 

of an ecosystem. New ecosystem-based measures are needed, such as studies of system

components and interrelationships, assessment and ranking of dangers, and development

of comprehensive management plans. These should carefully consider the relationship

between fishery management measures and management of other sectors, including protected species, pollution control, and habitat conservation and restoration.

Fishery managers have also used marine protected areas to either promote stock

recovery or, in some circumstances, prevent damage to special habitats. In addition,

marine protected areas established for other purposes have benefited many fisheries. 

The initial steps in designing marine protected areas need to be improved. (For further

discussion of marine protected areas, see Chapter 6.)

In some respects, the job of the RFMCs will change little with the move toward

ecosystem-based management. The Councils will retain broad responsibilities for managing fish populations and fishing activities, bearing in mind the interests of fishing communities. However, they will also need to interact regularly with other regional, state, and

local entities with related responsibilities. For example, if an RFMC implements a scientifically sound fishery management plan, but the stock continues to decline due to other 

factors such as pollution, the problem could be raised at the regional level (as described in

Chapter 5) with managers responsible for pollution control. On the other hand, if coastal

managers develop a regulatory plan that could affect fisheries, they should be working

with the RFMCs to understand the fishery-specific implications. There also should be

changes in the way that management measures are evaluated to comply with NEPA. As

regions implement an ecosystem-based management approach, environmental impact

assessments should be based on a shared knowledge of the ecosystem across the planning

entities. Rather than having the RFMC, NMFS, EPA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

all prepare separate environmental impact statements, without sharing information on

cumulative impacts, these analyses need to be combined to reduce duplication and improve

the quality of ecosystem evaluations. (Further discussion on the development of regional

ecosystem assessments is found in Chapter 5.)

295

Conventional fisheries

management fails to

consider the importance of habitat, 

prey species, and the

targeted species’ role

in the greater marine

ecosystem. As the

number of overexploited fish populations continues to rise

in this country, we

must look to a more

comprehensive form

of management as

the solution.

—Cynthia Sartou, 

Executive Director, Gulf

Restoration Network,

testimony to the Commission, March 2002
296 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Ecosystem-based management will also bring changes to the RFMC process. As mentioned elsewhere in this chapter, fishery management plans have traditionally focused on

single stocks, or at most, groupings of stocks that are commercially important. Managers

usually set biomass or mortality rate goals, with little consideration of other characteristics of the stock, and even less of broader ecosystem concerns. With the move toward an

ecosystem-based management approach, this will change.

Several recent reports have described the profound impacts that fishing industry 

activities can have on marine ecosystems, such as reducing the average size of individuals

within a single stock or removing a high percentage of large predators like tuna and billfish.18 By targeting some species and not others, fishermen can affect the balance and

structure of entire ecosystems. In the Gulf of Maine, some scientists believe that the multispecies fishery has contributed to a re-structuring of that ecosystem from one dominated

by groundfish to one dominated by dogfish and skates. In addition, fishing may affect the

availability of prey for populations not considered in fishery management plans until

recently, such as shorebirds and sea birds. Fishery managers need to take such impacts

into account in developing management plans and amendments.

In addition to the impacts of fishing on ecosystems, managers are also beginning to

recognize the impacts of large scale environmental phenomena on fish populations. The

El Niño Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation have already been linked

to declines in specific stocks and broader changes in species composition, known as

regime shifts. The long-term impacts of climate variability and global climate change on

fisheries and related ecosystems remain poorly understood. But existing knowledge is sufficient to suggest that fishery managers should begin to take such impacts into account in

developing management plans.

An ecosystem-based management approach will also allow managers to better consider the

impacts of their plans on fishermen and the communities in which they live. Unfortunately,

there is only a paltry amount of social and economic information about fishermen and fishing communities. It is important to collect such data so managers can better understand

the overall effects of the measures they take and the plans they approve. The more managers know about the social and economic factors influencing fishing behavior, the more

success they will have in designing regulations that have the intended effect.

The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson–Stevens Act specifically recognize the need

to consider the impact of fishery management measures on fishing communities. Although

NMFS has started to enhance its ability to describe and predict such impacts, further

improvements in collecting and interpreting socioeconomic data are needed. To this end,

the legal barriers that now exist to collecting some economic information from fishermen

and processors should be reconsidered.

The move toward an ecosystem-based management approach will also allow the

human and biological components of fisheries to be brought together through consideration and adoption of ecosystem goals and objectives. As discussed in Chapter 3, goal setting is an important, but difficult part of ecosystem-based management. As in any system

with multiple, competing objectives, it will not be possible to meet every one.

In fisheries, the competition is usually between helping overfished stocks recover and

preserving the short-term economic health of traditional fishing communities. Both goals

are desirable, but the measures required to achieve them often appear to be in conflict.

Yet, long-term economic health depends on healthy fish stocks. This may require a temporary reduction in fishing effort, with related short-term economic impacts. The challenge

is to devise a formula that rebuilds stocks at a reasonable rate without causing unacceptable economic hardships.

Scientists can help predict how quickly a stock will be replenished at different harvest

levels, but there is no scientific basis for actually deciding what the appropriate rate of

rebuilding should be. That is a judgment call, requiring managers to weigh the benefits 

of quickly restoring fish stocks to healthy and sustainable levels against the interim eco-
C HAPTER 19: ACHIEVING S USTAINABLE FISHERIES

nomic costs to the fishermen and communities involved. The task is complicated by the

fact that even short-term hardships can drive fishermen permanently out of business.

Ironically, the resultant pressure to go slow has sometimes led to continued overfishing,

and longer-term socioeconomic harm. An ecosystem-based management regime inevitably

requires tough choices, but it will provide a comprehensive context within which those

choices may be made.

The RFMCs need to participate in a collaborative process to share their concerns and

help shape regional goals and management plans. Because of their experience in dealing

with diverse constituents and multiple objectives, the Councils will be extremely helpful

in developing a comprehensive ecosystem-based management approach in the regions.

In addition to integrating fishery issues into an overall regional perspective, the principles of ecosystem-based management can guide NMFS and the RFMCs in implementing two

difficult provisions of the Magnuson–Stevens Act related to essential fish habitat and bycatch.

Essential Fish Habitat

As discussed in Chapter 11, maintaining healthy, functioning habitats is an essential 

element of an ecosystem-based management approach. The 1996 amendments to the

Magnuson–Stevens Act included measures designed specifically to protect habitats important to managed species. Essential fish habitat (EFH) is defined in the Act as “those waters

necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, or growth to maturity” and the RFMCs are

required to “describe and identify essential fish habitat” for each fishery. However, it is not

easy to determine which habitats are required by fish. With scant legislative guidance and

little scientific information available on habitat requirements, RFMCs tended to be broad

in their designations.

For example, in the case of Atlantic halibut, the New England RFMC designated the

entire Gulf of Maine and almost all of Georges Bank as essential. The North Pacific council designated almost the entire EEZ below the Arctic Circle as essential for one species or

another. But when everything is special, nothing is. The current methods have resulted in

the designation of so much habitat that the original purpose of identifying areas that

deserve focused attention has been lost.

Perhaps in recognition of this, NMFS designated a subset of EFH called “habitat areas

of particular concern.” These areas were defined in 2002 NMFS regulations as “discrete

areas within essential fish habitat that either play especially important ecological roles in

the life cycles of federally managed fish species or are especially vulnerable to degradation

from fishing or other human activities.” Less than one percent of the area initially designated as EFH has been further characterized as habitat areas of particular concern.

Two alternate approaches for determining critical habitat attempt to improve on the

current one. Both look at habitat from an ecosystem perspective, instead of trying to identify habitat necessary for the survival of an individual species. The first approach uses the

abundance of juveniles of several commercially important species as indicators of habitat

preference.19 It then uses a statistical method to locate the smallest total area that contains

a sufficient amount of preferred habitat for all species of concern. The second approach

expands on the first by attempting to link species distribution with specific habitat types.20

Of course, the identification of important habitats is only the first step. Rather than

focusing solely on protecting these habitats from fisheries impacts, NOAA should identify

the full range of threats and work with other agencies, as well as with developers, local

and state zoning officials, and others, to create management plans that address all the

activities posing serious risks to marine habitats. Ultimately, the process for designating

and managing EFH should result in the protection of major fish species during vulnerable

stages of their life history, while minimizing disruption to the fishing industry or other

offshore uses. Like other resource management programs, any approach to protecting EFH

needs to be enforceable and reasonably simple to implement.

297
298 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 19–21

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) should change the designation of essential fish

habitat from a species-by-species to a multispecies approach and, ultimately, to an ecosystembased approach. The approach should draw upon existing efforts to identify important habitats and locate optimum-sized areas to protect vulnerable life-history stages of commercially

and recreationally important species. NMFS should work with other management entities to

protect essential fish habitat when such areas fall outside their jurisdiction.

This effort should include:

• well-documented, science-based analytical methods.

• consideration of ecologically valuable species that are not necessarily commercially

important.

• an extensive research and development program to refine existing analytical 

methods and develop additional means to identify habitats critical to sustainability and

biodiversity goals.

Reducing Bycatch

The unintentional catch of non-targeted species by recreational and commercial fishermen,

known as bycatch, is a major economic and ecological problem. One of the national standards of the Magnuson–Stevens Act states that fishery management plans should minimize bycatch to the greatest extent practicable. Reducing bycatch is a goal that everyone

can support: for fishermen, bycatch decreases efficiency and costs money; for the environmental community and many others, bycatch is viewed as wasteful and harmful to the

ecosystem; and, in the case of endangered species, bycatch can threaten a population’s survival. Nevertheless, the total elimination of bycatch from a fishery is probably impossible,

and too great a focus on bycatch could inhibit progress on other issues more important to

ecosystem functioning.

The first requirement for addressing bycatch is better information. Existing fish stock

assessments attempt to account for all sources of mortality for commercially targeted

species; however, estimates of impacts on non-target species are lacking. An ecosystembased management approach will require that mortality to all components of the system

be estimated. The recently developed bycatch sampling program under the Atlantic

Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program, developed in a cooperative effort among states,

the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and NMFS, is a positive step in this

direction.

Bycatch in domestic fisheries is only part of the problem. International fisheries are

responsible for the bycatch of many species, including endangered sea turtles in pelagic

longline fisheries, and many species of whales (see Chapter 20). However, a complete

assessment of bycatch in international fleets is not possible due to very limited data.

There are various ways to gather information on bycatch: self-reporting by fishermen;

port sampling; remote electronic monitoring using video cameras; and at-sea or shoreside

observer programs. Of these options, use of observers is usually the most expensive;

deployment of one observer usually costs from $700–$1,000 a day. The overall annual

cost for monitoring an entire fishery will depend on the number of vessels in the fishery,

the level of observer coverage needed, and the objectives for the monitoring.

To fully catalog all bycatch in every fishery, an observer would need to be present on

every fishing boat at all times—a prohibitively expensive proposition. Instead, bycatch

monitoring should be based on statistically significant sampling using a combination of

information gathered by fishermen, electronic monitoring, and a selected number of

observers. There are certain situations, however, in which a high level of observer coverage may be warranted, for example, in protecting highly endangered species, such as

North Atlantic right whales or sea turtles, where the death of just a few animals can have 

The 350,000,000

pounds [of bycatch

from the Alaskan

groundfish fishery] is

made up of at least

1,000 different

species. Each of the

species is an integral

part of the ocean 

system, either as a

strand in the food

web or shelter for

other species.

—Dorothy Childers, 

Executive Director, Alaska

Marine Conservation

Council, testimony to 

the Commission, 

August 2002
C HAPTER 19: ACHIEVING S USTAINABLE FISHERIES

a significant impact on survival of the species. NMFS can also experiment with time

restrictions and area closures to reduce bycatch in certain circumstances. A variety of pilot

projects can help determine the effectiveness of different methods and the costs involved.

NMFS, in cooperation with the RFMCs, has initiated a National Bycatch Strategy that

moves in the right direction.21 The Strategy calls for the development of regional implementation plans to reduce bycatch of commercially important species. As ecosystem-based

management evolves, those implementing the Strategy will need to look more broadly at

overall ecosystem impacts.

Recommendation 19–22

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Regional Fishery Management Councils, states,

and interstate fisheries commissions, should develop regional bycatch reduction plans that

address the broad ecosystem impacts of bycatch for areas under their jurisdiction. Implementation

of these plans will require NMFS to collect data on bycatch of all species captured by commercial and recreational fishermen, not only of commercially important species. The selective use

of observers should remain an important component of these efforts.

Although reducing the overall extent of bycatch is important, the need to reduce mortality, particularly for endangered species, is critical to ensuring species survival. Fisheries

bycatch is a leading cause of mortality for marine mammals and for endangered species,

such as sea turtles and albatross, especially in international fisheries (see Chapter 20).

Research on gear types and fishing methods that reduce mortality has shown considerable

progress.

The use of “circle hooks” appears promising for reducing bycatch mortality of sea 

turtles. In the case of seabirds, recent experiments in Alaska on the use of streamers,

underwater chutes, and other minor changes to gear deployment in the longline fishery,

almost completely eliminated seabird bycatch. These experiments can be expanded to

include different areas, different gear, and different species of seabirds. Conservation 

engineering research also shows promise in reducing the impacts of fishing on habitat.

Recommendation 19–23

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) should expand its program in conservation 

engineering to help reduce the impacts of fishing on ecosystems. The program should give

high priority to finding ways to reduce bycatch in fisheries that interact with endangered

species. As gear and fishing methods are shown to be effective, NMFS should promote their

rapid implementation in U.S. fisheries and work with the U.S. Department of State to 

promote their international adoption.

Managing International Fisheries

The Status of International Fisheries

Intensive exploitation of fish populations at the international level is jeopardizing global

marine life and the marine environment. An estimated seven out of ten fish stocks worldwide are being exploited at or beyond the level of sustainability.22 Not unlike the U.S. situation, factors contributing to the rapid depletion of global fish stocks include:

• The open-access nature of high seas fisheries.

• Excess fishing capacity, with global investments annually exceeding revenues by $14.5

to $54 billion.23,24

• Widespread illegal practices, and difficulties in enforcing the law.

• Ever more sophisticated fishing technology and gear.

299
300 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

• Major government subsidies aimed at building up national fishing industries.

• Bycatch of non-target species.

• High levels of discards, reaching approximately 20 percent of the total catch.25

• Fishing practices that degrade habitat.

• Inadequate understanding of how marine ecosystems function.

• Lack of monitoring data and poor statistics.

The Law of the Sea Framework

As noted in Chapter 2, the traditional freedom of the high seas was based on a belief that

the ocean’s bounty was inexhaustible and that humans would never be in a position to

exploit much of it. As ocean resources grew in importance, and its vastness was conquered,

these attitudes changed. In 1976, the United States asserted jurisdiction over fishery resources

within 200 nautical miles from its shores. In 1982, the United Nations Convention on the

Law of the Sea (LOS Convention) created EEZs extending generally out to 200 nautical

miles from the shores of all coastal states and authorizing national regulation of living (and

nonliving) marine resources in areas that were formerly the high seas.

However, many fisheries, such as highly migratory species like tuna, extend beyond a

single country’s EEZ. In the absence of international cooperation and some form of international governance, the community of nations

could witness the classic “tragedy of the commons,”

leading to the potentially irreversible overexploitation of living marine resources.

International management challenges are exacerbated by the fact that the regulation of fishing on the

high seas has traditionally been left to the nation

under which a vessel is registered (referred to as the

flag state). As discussed in Chapter 16, flag state

enforcement is extremely uneven and vessel owners

can seek less stringent regulations and enforcement

simply by reflagging their vessels.

International Fishery 

Conservation Agreements

In the 1990s, the international community, working

mainly through the United Nations Food and

Agriculture Organization’s (FAO’s) Committee on

Fisheries, began to address deficiencies in international fishery management, with the United States

playing a lead role. Two global agreements were

reached that are binding on signatories: the FAO

Compliance Agreement and the Fish Stocks

Agreement. The FAO also adopted a number of voluntary measures that provide guidance to nations on

managing fisheries. (For a listing of ocean-related

international agreements, see Table 29.1.) Although

they do not have the force of law, nonbinding instruments can influence national practices and customs,

provide nations with flexibility in implementation,

and make headway in the face of scientific or economic uncertainty.

International cooperation is essential to preserve large migratory

species, such as the tuna shown here, that are harvested over a 

wide geographic range.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization 
C HAPTER 19: ACHIEVING S USTAINABLE FISHERIES

In addition to global and multilateral agreements, the United States also has a long 

history of developing bilateral agreements to manage shared stocks. In particular, the

Pacific Salmon Treaty has helped Canada and the United States coordinate management 

of Pacific Coast salmon stocks. Other examples of successful regional approaches include

the International Pacific Halibut Commission, the Yukon River Treaty, and the Convention

on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and

Central Pacific Ocean. These and similar bilateral agreements will require ongoing review,

modification, and enforcement if the stocks of concern are to remain sustainably managed.

The FAO Compliance Agreement

In 1993, the FAO adopted the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International

Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, known as

the FAO Compliance Agreement. This agreement requires each participating flag state to:

• Ensure that vessels flying its flag do not undermine international conservation measures.

• Limit the right to harvest fish to those vessels it has affirmatively authorized.

• Maintain a register of such authorized fishing vessels.

• Monitor catches and make such information available to the FAO.

The United States ratified the FAO Compliance Agreement in 1995, and it came into

force in 2003, when a sufficient number of nations had signed.

The Fish Stocks Agreement

At the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (also known

as the Earth Summit), the nations of the world recognized that the LOS Convention’s

appeal for international cooperation on straddling stocks and highly migratory species did

not adequately address the global crisis in fisheries. The result was the 1995 United

Nations 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 Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (known as the

Fish Stocks Agreement).

The Fish Stocks Agreement authorizes non-flag states to engage in compliance and

enforcement activities for fishery violations on the high seas, including boarding, inspecting,

and bringing a vessel to port. It also allows port states to inspect documents, catch, and fishing gear on fishing vessels and to prohibit landings if a high seas catch has been taken in a

manner that undermines regional or global conservation and management measures.

The Fish Stocks Agreement adopts a precautionary approach as the fundamental standard for managing shared fisheries and calls upon nations to agree on efficient and expeditious decision-making procedures within regional organizations. The United States was a

leader in negotiating the Fish Stocks Agreement and in 1996 became the third nation to

ratify it. The Agreement finally came into force in late 2001, although several major fishing nations, including Japan, Poland, and South Korea, have not yet ratified it.

Recommendation 19–24

The U.S. Department of State, working with other appropriate entities, should encourage all

countries to ratify the Fish Stocks Agreement and the United Nations Food and Agriculture

Organization’s Compliance Agreement. In particular, the United States should condition other

nations’ access to fishing resources within the U.S. exclusive economic zone on their ratification of these agreements. The United States and other signatory nations should also develop

additional incentives to encourage all nations to ratify and enforce these agreements.

The effective management and conservation of global marine species, and the enforcement

of international treaties, require a combination of domestic, bilateral, regional, and international approaches. Although regulation of fisheries on the high seas is conducted within

301
302 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

broad regions of the seas, the existing regional fishery organizations are generally weak.

They lack adequate financial resources or enforcement capabilities, and allow member

states to opt out of individual management measures they dislike.

The United States is a member of more than a dozen regional fishery commissions

and related organizations concerned with straddling stocks or high seas living marine

resources. These organizations undertake fishery research, adopt measures to conserve

and manage the fisheries under their mandate, and attempt to reduce and regulate

bycatch. They also develop policies for the conservation, sustainable use, and ecosystembased management of living marine resources.

The work of regional fishery organizations must be paid for by their members. The

cost of U.S. participation is set at roughly $20 million annually, although in fiscal year

2003, Congress did not appropriate the amount requested.

Recommendation 19–25

The U.S. Department of State, working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, should review and update regional and bilateral fishery agreements to which

the United States is a party, to ensure full incorporation of the latest science and harmonize

those agreements with the Fish Stocks Agreement. The United States should fulfill existing

international fishery management obligations, including full funding of U.S. commitments.

Non-binding International Documents

The FAO has adopted a number of voluntary, nonbinding instruments, beginning in 1995

with the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (the Code). While acknowledging the

diversity of national and cultural traditions, the Code sets out principles and standards for

responsible practices in fisheries and aquaculture. Its purposes are to promote conservation 

of biodiversity, ecosystem-based management, and sustainable use of living marine resources.

More specifically, the Code calls for the use of the best scientific information, application of

traditional knowledge where possible, adoption of ecosystem-based and precautionary

approaches, effective flag state control, and participation in regional organizations.

More recently, FAO has adopted a number of International Plans of Action that elaborate on the Code and address weaknesses in existing regulatory schemes involving such

issues as the bycatch of seabirds and sharks. The International Plan of Action on illegal,

unreported, and unregulated fishing, although emphasizing flag state responsibility, also

calls upon regional organizations to play a role in monitoring, surveillance, and deployment of observers, and urges port state control. These International Plans of Action can be

best implemented through corresponding national plans of action.

NOAA’s fishery and technical experts helped develop criteria for defining overcapacity

in marine fisheries that have been adopted by FAO and accepted as worldwide standards.

Nevertheless, progress has been slow in persuading many nations to implement capacity

reduction measures.

There is no existing interagency body positioned to review and make recommendations for U.S. actions on international fishery issues. However, an international committee

under the National Ocean Council, as recommended in Chapter 29 (see Recommendation

29–3), would be ideally suited to fill this void.

Recommendation 19–26

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, working with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of State, should design a national plan of action for 

the United States that implements, and is consistent with, the International Plans of Action

adopted by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and its 1995 Code of

Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. This national plan should stress the importance of reducing

bycatch of endangered species and marine mammals.
C HAPTER 19: ACHIEVING S USTAINABLE FISHERIES

Recommendation 19–27

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should initiate a discussion on effective international

implementation of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s Code of Conduct

for Responsible Fisheries and other Plans of Action.

In particular, the NOC’s international committee should suggest methods to encourage

nations to:

• join relevant regional fishery management organizations.

• implement and enforce regional agreements to which they are bound.

• collect and report the data necessary to manage fish stocks sustainably and to reduce

fishery impacts on habitats and protected species.

• reduce or eliminate illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing by ships flying their flag.

• reduce fishing fleet capacity, particularly on the high seas.

• reduce bycatch of non-targeted species, in particular endangered populations such as sea

turtles and marine mammals, via the use of innovative gear and management methods

such as onboard observer programs.

The NOC’s international committee could consider the value of incentives for cooperating nations, such as greater access to U.S. markets, bilateral aid, debt forgiveness, subsidies, or preferential loans, as well as disincentives for countries that do not implement

these agreements.

International Fisheries and Trade

Intentional and unintentional harm to marine mammals and endangered species remain

major problems at the global level. Large populations of sea turtles, dolphins, sharks, and

seabirds are unintentionally caught in the fishing gear used by swordfish, shrimp, and tuna

fishermen. And the global trade in deliberately captured endangered species continues.

In the 1990s, the United States attempted to employ trade sanctions to combat damaging harvesting practices. Such sanctions can be very effective when the nation imposing

them is a major importing market. In response to a recent U.S. initiative, but amid considerable dispute, the FAO established an informal consultative process to consider greater

cooperation between its fishery management activities and the Convention on International

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which regulates global trade in

endangered species.

Not surprisingly, the World Trade Organization (WTO) generally discourages nations

from taking unilateral trade action, arguing that it undermines free trade. But the WTO

has also recognized that conservation can be a legitimate objective of trade policy. When

the United States banned the import of certain shrimp products from nations whose harvesting practices resulted in a large bycatch of sea turtles, a complaint was filed at the

WTO. Although the WTO’s original ruling criticized the United States for the manner in

which the law was implemented, it reaffirmed that the law itself was not inconsistent with

WTO or General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade obligations. Subsequent changes to

implementation of the law were found to be fully consistent with WTO policy.

Given that the United States is one of the largest markets for swordfish and tunas, it

could employ similar measures to promote adoption of safer gear and methods, particularly in the longline fishery. The United States should continue to press for the inclusion

of environmental objectives—particularly those specified in international environmental

agreements—as legitimate elements of trade policy.

303
304 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

References

1 U.S. Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources. Panel Reports of the Commission on Marine Science,

Engineering, and Resources. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.

2 Klyashtorin, L.B. Climate Change and Long-term Fluctuations of Commercial Catches: The Possibility of Forecasting.

FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 410. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2001.

3 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census

Bureau. 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, DC, 1993.

4 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census

Bureau. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, DC, 2002.

5 Sutinen, J. G., and R.J. Johnston. “Angling management organization: integrating the recreational sector into fishery

management.” Marine Policy 27, no. 6 (2003): 471–87.

6 American Sportfishing Association. Sportfishing in America: Values of Our Traditional Pastime. Alexandria, VA, 2002.

7 National Academy of Public Administration. Courts, Congress, and Constituencies: Managing Fisheries by Default.

Washington, DC, July 2002.

8 National Research Council. Science and Its Role in the National Marine Fisheries Service. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 2002.

9 National Academy of Public Administration. Courts, Congress, and Constituencies: Managing Fisheries by Default.

Washington, DC, July 2002.

10 Social Science Review Panel. Social Science Research within NOAA: Review and Recommendations. Final Report to the

NOAA Science Advisory Board. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2003.

11 Striped Bass Plan Review Team. 2003 Review of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Fishery

Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis). Washington, DC: Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission, November 2003.

12 National Research Council. Improving the Collection, Management, and Use of Marine Fisheries Data. Washington,

DC: National Academy Press, 2000.

13 National Marine Fisheries Service. Annual Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries: 2002. Silver Spring, MD:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2003.

14 National Academy of Public Administration. Courts, Congress, and Constituencies: Managing Fisheries by Default.

Washington, DC, July 2002.

15 National Research Council. Sharing the Fish: Toward a National Policy on Individual Fishing Quotas. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 1999.

16 Ibid.

17 Whitfield, C., South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. “Joint Project Agreement Update.” Memorandum to

Alvin Taylor, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. Columbia, SC, February 10, 2000.

18 Pauly, D., et al. “Fishing Down Marine Food Webs.” Science 279 (1998): 860–63.

19 Ward, T.J., et al. “Selecting Marine Reserves Using Habitats and Species Assemblages as Surrogates for Biological

Diversity.” Ecological Applications 9 (1999): 691–98.

20 Beck, M.W., and M. Odaya. “Ecoregional Planning in Marine Environments: Identifying Priority Sites for Conservation

in the Northern Gulf of Mexico.” Aquatic Conservation 11 (2001): 235–42.

21 National Marine Fisheries Service. Evaluating Bycatch: A National Approach to Standardized Bycatch Monitoring

Programs. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2003.

22 Garcia, S.M., and I. de Leiva Moreno. “Global Overview of Marine Fisheries.” In Responsible Fisheries in the Marine

Ecosystem, eds. M. Sinclair and G. Valdimarsson. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations, 2003.

23 Garcia, S.M., and R. Willmann. “Status and Issues in Marine Capture Fisheries: A Global Perspective.” Paper presented

at the Global Conference on Oceans and Coasts, December 3–7, 2001. Paris, France: United Nations Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Organization.

24 Milazzo, M. Subsidies in World Fisheries: A Reexamination. World Bank Technical Paper 406. Washington, DC: World

Bank, 1998

25 Garcia, S.M., and R. Willmann. “Status and Issues in Marine Capture Fisheries: A Global Perspective.” Paper presented

at the Global Conference on Oceans and Coasts on December 3–7, 2001. Paris, France: United Nations Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Organization.

306 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 20

PROTECTING MARINE

MAMMALS AND ENDANGERED

MARINE SPECIES

Protection for marine mammals and endangered or threatened species from direct

impacts has increased since the enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act

in 1972 and the Endangered Species Act in 1973. However, lack of scientific data,

confusion about permitting requirements, and failure to adopt a more ecosystem-based management approach have created inconsistent and inefficient

protection efforts, particularly from indirect and cumulative impacts.

Consolidating and coordinating federal jurisdictional authorities, 

clarifying permitting and review requirements for potentially harmful

activities, increasing scientific research and public education, and

actively pursuing international measures to protect these species

are all improvements that will promote better stewardship of

marine mammals, endangered or threatened species, and the

marine ecosystem. 

Assessing the Threats to Marine Populations

Most endangered marine species fall into four main groups:

marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, and salmon. Of the

nineteen species listed as endangered by the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the Endangered Species

Act, nine are marine mammals, five are sea turtles, and two are salmonids.

Of the twelve species listed as threatened, two are marine mammals,

three are sea turtles, and five are salmonids. Seabirds fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and eleven species are listed as

endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Different factors

threaten the survival and recovery of each of these groups. 

Marine Mammals 

Because of their intelligence, visibility and frequent interactions with humans, marine

mammals hold a special place in the minds of most people. Little wonder that, as a whole,

marine mammals are afforded a higher level of protection than most other marine organisms. Nevertheless, they continue to be affected by a wide range of human activities. 

The biggest threat to marine mammals worldwide is their accidental capture or entanglement in fishing gear (known as bycatch), which kills hundreds of thousands of them

each year.1 Dolphins, porpoises and small whales often drown when tangled in a net or a
C HAPTER 20: PROTECTING MARINE MAMMALS AND E NDANGERED MARINE S PECIES

fishing line because they are not able to surface for air. Even large whales can become

entangled, towing nets or other gear for long distances leading to injury, exhaustion, or

death. Entanglement in fishing gear is a significant cause of mortality for one of the most

endangered marine mammals, the North Atlantic right whale. (The issues of discarded

gear and bycatch are also discussed in Chapters 18 and 19.)

Historically, commercial harvesting contributed to major declines in the populations

of marine mammals but only a few nations still allow hunting for purposes other than

subsistence. Nevertheless, hundreds of thousands of seals, whales, and other marine

mammals are killed by hunters each year, while subsistence catches account for thousands

more deaths.

Just as pedestrians are vulnerable to traffic in the streets, marine mammals are vulnerable to ship traffic at sea, particularly in areas crowded with commercial and recreational

vessels. Several hundred animals are wounded or killed by such interactions every year.

Ship strikes are a leading cause of mortality for endangered North Atlantic right whales in

busy East Coast corridors,2 while manatees, another endangered species, are frequently

struck by boats in shallow Florida waters. 

Other possible causes of marine mammal mortality include the introduction of new

diseases, ecosystem changes such as algal blooms, and indirect effects of climate change.

These factors may cause several thousand additional deaths each year. 

Although pollution rarely kills marine creatures directly, it can impair their health,

harm their reproductive potential, and eventually lead to their death. Chemicals in 

fertilizers, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and other materials can accumulate in the tissues

of these animals, especially those with long life spans. As discussed in Chapter 18, 

ingestion of marine debris and entanglement in plastic trash can be significant additional

sources of mortality.

Marine mammal populations may also be disturbed by noise from shipping, oil and

gas exploration, ocean drilling, naval operations, oceanographic and geophysical research,

and similar activities. In the last ten years, considerable publicity has surrounded the

deaths of marine mammals in close proximity to naval operations and geophysical

research vessels. Unfortunately, very little is known about marine mammal physiology,

including baseline data on hearing, making it difficult to assess the potential biophysical

impacts of noise on marine animals. 

Another factor that is common to declines in many endangered species is the destruction

or degradation of their natural habitat. Thus, the successful recovery of a species depends

to a large degree on protection or restoration of its habitat. 

Endangered Species

Sea Turtles

Sea turtles are integral components of the ocean environment and have been shown to

have beneficial impacts on coral reefs, seagrass meadows, and coastal dune ecosystems.

Sea turtles are particularly vulnerable to human impacts due to their long life spans,

delayed onset of reproductive maturity, and other aspects of their life history. All sea turtle

species found in U.S. waters are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered

Species Act. 

Sea turtles are threatened both on land and at sea. Nesting beaches and nearshore 

foraging habitat can be damaged or lost by beach armoring, coastal development, and

vehicular access to nesting sites. Beach nourishment projects can enhance nesting beaches

if conducted outside of nesting and hatching season, but can be harmful if improperly

planned. Human predation on turtles and turtle nests, although no longer common in the

United States, is a large source of mortality internationally and in some U.S. territories.

307
308 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Overall, the largest source of mortality to sea turtles is bycatch during normal fishing

operations.3,4 Most of the turtles harmed in this way are juveniles or sub-adults that are

critical to the stability and recovery of marine turtle populations.5 Tens of thousands of

leatherback and loggerhead turtles are captured by Pacific longline fishermen, with thousands subsequently dying. This is thought to be a major contributing factor in the twenty

year decline of leatherback and loggerhead nests in the Pacific, by 95 percent and over 80

percent respectively.6 Given that the United States accounts for less than 2 percent of

world longline effort, reversing this trend will require international action.7

Gear modifications, such as turtle excluder devices, used in the shrimp trawl fishery

since the late 1980s, have saved tens of thousands of sea turtles in U.S. waters and other

areas where the gear is required, such as Australia. Nevertheless, sea turtle bycatch in

global shrimp fleets remains very high. Other gear types, notably gillnets, dredges, and

other trawl nets, also cause significant turtle mortality. Mortality from bycatch threatens

the ability of sea turtles to recover, and may threaten the long-term survival of particular

populations, such as Pacific loggerhead and leatherback turtles and Atlantic olive ridleys. 

Similar to marine mammals, other threats to sea turtles include pollution, disease,

loss of foraging areas in sensitive habitat, marine debris, and disturbance along ocean

migration routes.

Salmonids

Over the past several decades, populations of wild salmon and steelhead throughout the

West Coast have declined to dangerously low levels.8 There is no single factor responsible

for this decline, and it is even difficult to quantify the relative contributions of different

factors. Salmon population declines are the result of numerous forces, such as habitat loss

due to development, resource extraction, dam construction and other land uses, and commercial and recreational harvest. Human activities that diminish salmon populations also

cause them to be more susceptible to natural environmental fluctuations, such as poor

ocean conditions and drought.

Seabirds

Although many species of birds spend time on or

near the ocean for at least part of their life cycle,

seabirds are those that spend the majority of their life

at sea, coming on land only to reproduce. Albatrosses

and petrels are among the most well known seabirds,

but murres, murrelets, auklets, kittiwakes, sea ducks

and others also depend on the oceans. Disturbance of

nesting habitats, non-native pests, marine debris,

pollution, contaminants, and overfishing of prey

species all threaten seabirds. However, because of the

amount of time these birds spend at sea, mortality

due to fishing operations is thought to be the greatest

threat to the recovery of imperiled populations of

seabirds.9 The discussion on bycatch in Chapter 19

includes recommendations designed to minimize

harm to seabirds and other threatened populations.

Additional recommendations that will contribute to

seabird protection can be found in Chapter 9 (on

coastal management), Chapter 11 (on habitat conservation), Chapters 14 and 16 (on

coastal and vessel pollution), and Chapter 18 (on marine debris).

A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Sea birds, like this American Oystercatcher, are threatened both at

sea and on land. Their coastal nesting areas are frequently disturbed

by human activities, but mortality due to fishing bycatch is the

greatest threat to their survival. 

NOAA Photo Library
C HAPTER 20: PROTECTING MARINE MAMMALS AND E NDANGERED MARINE S PECIES

Reviewing Authorities and Responsibilities

The early 1970s witnessed the passage of several landmark environmental laws in the

United States. Many of these statutes affected marine mammals and other protected

species indirectly, but two were focused specifically on the conservation and protection of

these animals.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act

The 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was passed by Congress in response 

to public concerns about the incidental deaths of hundreds of thousands of dolphins each

year associated with tuna fisheries, the hunting of seals for fur, and the continuing commercial harvest of whales despite controls by the International Whaling Commission. 

The MMPA, with limited exceptions, prohibits the hunting, killing, or harassment of

marine mammals. 

The MMPA divides federal jurisdiction over marine mammals between two agencies.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS) manages the vast majority of marine mammals, including

whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, and sea lions. The U.S. Department of the Interior’s

(DOI’s) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) manages five species: polar bears, walrus,

sea otters, manatees, and dugongs. 

The MMPA also established the independent Marine Mammal Commission (MMC).

The MMC is charged with reviewing and making recommendations on domestic and

international actions and policies of all federal agencies with respect to marine mammal

protection and conservation. It also manages and funds a research program to support

management activities. Although the Commission’s independence has been essential to 

its functioning, establishment of the National Ocean Council will provide it with a venue

to coordinate with other federal agencies involved in marine mammal research and management. According to the MMC, most marine mammal stocks in U.S. waters, and many

others around the world, are in better condition now than before passage of the MMPA.10

The Endangered Species Act

In 1973, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted to conserve endangered and

threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The new law vastly

strengthened earlier measures directed at the same problem. The public was broadly supportive of the Act due to the well-publicized declines of well-known species such as the

bald eagle. A 1999 public opinion survey indicated that public support for the protection

of biodiversity continues.11

Under the ESA, the federal government is responsible for listing species as endangered

or threatened based on population size and trends. This responsibility is divided between

the USFWS, primarily responsible for terrestrial organisms, and NOAA, primarily responsible for marine and anadromous species. The law includes powerful prohibitions against

any action that harms a listed animal. The law, with limited exceptions, prohibits federal

agencies from authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action that would jeopardize a

member of a listed species or destroy its critical habitat and requires them to undertake

conservation programs. To promote state action, matching federal funds were authorized

for states willing to enter into approved cooperative agreements. 

Currently, there are 1,509 species listed as endangered and 345 listed as threatened 

by USFWS while, as noted above, NOAA has listed 19 species as endangered and 12 as

threatened. It is impossible to precisely quantify the overall biological impact of the ESA.

However, a 1995 National Research Council (NRC) report concluded that the ESA has

309
310 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

successfully prevented species from becoming extinct.12 The rigorous provisions of the

ESA work as a safety net to help species survive once they have declined to the level that

listing is warranted. Because of this, the NRC did not recommend wholesale changes to

ESA implementation. It did, however, point out that the ESA has been less effective in 

preventing species from declining to levels that require listing in the first place. 

The NRC also observed that, although one purpose of the ESA is to conserve ecosystems, the Act itself includes little specific guidance in this area. To fix this, the NRC 

recommended a focus on broader rehabilitation of ecosystem functions, as part of a move

toward ecosystem-based management. Maintaining healthy, functioning ecosystems can

help prevent species from becoming threatened or endangered and avoid some of the 

economic disruption that results when drastic measures must be taken to protect an

endangered species. The NRC report also concluded that the federal focus of the ESA

should be broadened to include other layers of government and nongovernmental interests as well. Because humans are part of the ecosystem, comprehensive management plans

will need to balance species conservation and human uses. 

Recommendation 20–1 

Congress should amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to require the Marine Mammal

Commission to coordinate with all the relevant federal agencies through the National Ocean

Council (NOC), while remaining independent. The NOC should determine whether there is a

need for similar oversight bodies for other marine animals whose populations are at risk,

such as sea turtles.

Identifying and Overcoming Gaps in Protection

Several changes are needed in federal law to enhance marine mammal and endangered

species protection. The split of management jurisdiction between two federal agencies,

confusion over the requirements of permit applications and approvals, and the lack of

clarity in the definition of legal terms are all issues that should be addressed.

Clarifying Jurisdiction and Authority

As noted, the management of marine mammals and endangered species is currently

divided between NOAA and USFWS. In the case of marine mammals, this split was

intended to be temporary and makes little sense. In the case of endangered species, 

the split is more logical, but better coordination and clarity are still needed.

The original congressional committee reports that accompanied the MMPA in 1972

show that Congress did not intend marine mammal jurisdiction to be permanently divided

between NOAA and USFWS.13,14 Rather, House and Senate committees anticipated the 

creation of a new Department of Natural Resources that would combine NOAA and

USFWS. The report stated that if the proposed new department did not become a reality,

they would reexamine the question of jurisdiction and consider placing the entire marine

mammal program within a single department. Nevertheless, the jurisdictional split

remains today. 

Recommendation 20–2 

Congress should amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to place the protection of all

marine mammals within the jurisdiction of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. 

A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY
C HAPTER 20: PROTECTING MARINE MAMMALS AND E NDANGERED MARINE S PECIES

The division of endangered species jurisdiction appears reasonable because of the

expertise of each agency: NOAA has jurisdiction over marine and anadromous species and

DOI has jurisdiction over terrestrial and freshwater species. But ecosystems do not recognize these distinctions. When some species of salmon were listed under the ESA in the

1980s and 1990s, most of the causes for their decline were land-based or freshwater in

origin, requiring significant coordination between NOAA and USFWS, as well as other

agencies. In addition, jurisdiction over listed sea turtles is split between NOAA and the

USFWS according to location: NOAA has jurisdiction over sea turtles in the water and the

USFWS has jurisdiction on land. Thus, addressing threats to sea turtles requires significant

coordination. This coordination has not been entirely effective and improved oversight of

the relationship between NOAA and USFWS is needed to clarify areas of responsibility

and reduce conflicts.

Recommendation 20–3 

The National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with guidance from

the National Ocean Council, should significantly improve their coordination with respect to

the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, particularly for anadromous species and

sea turtles, and in circumstances where land-based activities have significant impacts on

marine species.

Cooperation with States

Section 6 of the ESA provides authority to the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior 

to enter into cooperative agreements with any state that “establishes and maintains an

adequate and active program” for the conservation of endangered and threatened species.

Such joint programs are an effective way for the federal government to extend its limited

resources and take advantage of state and local expertise and contacts. The states, working

with the federal government, can better accomplish the purposes of the ESA than either

could alone. 

State natural resource agencies often have excellent knowledge about local species

and their habitats, as well as local staff support and facilities. State residents may also be

more familiar and more comfortable with state agencies than with federal ones. Cooperative

programs may be particularly appropriate for protecting and rebuilding species such as sea

turtles, that are affected by a range of human activities typically under the purview of

states, such as coastal development and beach recreation. At the same time, the federal

government can provide long-term monitoring, a broader ecosystem-based perspective,

and potentially a more stable funding stream. It remains responsible for reviewing cooperative agreements regularly, to ensure that states are maintaining adequate protection for

endangered species. However, despite its promise, the ESA Section 6 program has been

chronically underfunded, limiting its effectiveness. 

Recommendation 20–4 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

should expand their cooperative agreements with states under Section 6 of the ESA, including enhanced research, management, monitoring, and public information. 

Unclear Permitting and Review Standards

A take is a term used in the MMPA and ESA to define an activity that results in the death,

injury, or harassment of a marine mammal or member of an endangered species. After

much litigation and scrutiny, the interpretation of this term under the ESA appears fairly

clear to both managers and the public. This is not the case for the MMPA.

311
312 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

The MMPA prohibits the taking or importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products unless that action falls under one of the law’s exemptions, such as a taking

for the purpose of public display, enhancement of the species, or scientific research.

Exemptions are also allowed for Native Alaskans, who may take marine mammals for 

subsistence or for creating authentic native handicrafts and clothing.

Outside these narrow exemptions, the MMPA authorizes the issuance of letters of

authorization for the unintentional and incidental taking of small numbers of marine

mammals provided it has only a negligible impact on the species. This provision has been

problematic because terms such as small numbers and negligible impact are not defined in

the Act, resulting in a lack of clarity about when authorization is necessary and under

what circumstances it should be granted. 

Recommendation 20–5 

Congress should amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to require the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration to more clearly specify categories of activities that are allowed

without authorization, those that require authorization, and those that are prohibited.

The Meaning of Harassment in the MMPA

Under the MMPA, the term harassment, defined as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance of a marine mammal, is an essential element in determining whether permits or

authorizations are necessary for activities that fall under one of the law’s exemptions.

Amendments to the Act in 1994 split the definition of harassment into two categories: 

• Level A harassment has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal

stock in the wild.

• Level B harassment 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.

The apparent intent of this definition was to distinguish activities likely to have significant effects from activities such as marine mammal research that, although perceptible to

the animals, are not likely to result in, significant disturbance. However, NOAA and

USFWS have had difficulties implementing the 1994 definition, which has led to public

uncertainty with respect to its implications. The lack of clarity means that almost any

commercial, recreational, or scientific activity that is noticed by a marine mammal might

be defined as harassment. Both agencies assert that the confusion limits their ability to

regulate even potentially harmful activities. 

A 2000 National Research Council report concluded that the intent of the MMPA was

not to regulate activities that result in minor changes in behavior.15 The report recommended

that Level B harassment be redefined to focus on “meaningful disruptions to biologically

significant activities.” Another National Research Council study currently underway is

investigating what behaviors should be considered biologically significant and what

research might be needed to implement the revised definition. 

Recommendation 20–6 

Congress should amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to revise the definition of harassment to cover only activities that meaningfully disrupt behaviors that are significant to the

survival and reproduction of marine mammals.

The Promise of Programmatic Permitting For Marine Mammals

In spite of the confusion about MMPA terminology, NOAA and USFWS have had to issue

regulations and make case-by-case decisions on permit and authorization applications.
C HAPTER 20: PROTECTING MARINE MAMMALS AND E NDANGERED MARINE S PECIES

Considerable deference has been given to the professional judgment of agency personnel

regarding which activities are permissible. Both agencies have qualified and dedicated

people reviewing applications, but the process is necessarily subjective and a personnel

change can mean the difference between approval and denial of similar permits. This caseby-case decision making has led to inconsistencies, a lack of clear standards, and uncertain protection for marine mammals.

Most permit applications are processed according to the same procedures, regardless of

the level of potential harm to marine mammals. As a result, limited agency resources can

be wasted reviewing relatively insignificant permit applications, while insufficient attention is paid to more worrisome activities. A shift to programmatic permitting would

enable more proactive and efficient handling of the bulk of permit applications, while

reducing the costs and burdens on agency personnel. 

Programmatic permitting would allow for quick approval of activities on a defined

list, specifying broad parameters within which those activities could occur. A programmatic permit could also include mitigation and data collection measures, such as requiring that whale-watching boats keep at a certain distance from the animals and maintain

records of species observed and their locations.

In addition to streamlining permitting, clear and consistent enforcement is needed to

ensure compliance with permit conditions, and penalties must be stringent enough to discourage noncompliance. Any changes to the permitting processes under the MMPA will

have to be consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.

Recommendation 20–7 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should implement programmatic permitting for activities that affect marine mammals, wherever possible. Case-by-case

permitting, which is more resource intensive, should be used for activities that do not fit

within any programmatic category or when circumstances indicate a greater likelihood of

harm to marine animals. The National Ocean Council (NOC) should create an interagency team

to recommend activities appropriate for programmatic permitting, those that are inappropriate, and those that are potentially appropriate pending additional scientific information. 

To carry this out: 

• the interagency team, under the oversight of the NOC’s Committee on Ocean Resource

Management, should include representatives from NOAA, the National Science

313

Humans love to observe marine mammals, such as manatees, in their natural habitats, but close contact

with these animals can negatively impact populations. Interactions can disrupt natural feeding and 

mating behaviors and increase the risk of physical harm from boat or propeller strikes.

Photolink
314 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Foundation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Minerals Management Service, and U.S. Navy,

with input from the Marine Mammal Commission.

• programmatic permits should be subject to periodic review, and remain valid for a 

limited time to ensure that the best available science can be incorporated into 

permit requirements.

• enforcement efforts should be strengthened and the adequacy of penalties reviewed.

While programmatic permitting would reduce much of the uncertainty about whether

a permit is required, some cases will continue to be unclear. To ensure a smooth process

for all concerned, it will be best for potential permittees to approach the regulatory agencies

as soon as a question arises about possible interactions with marine mammals. In particular, the potential impacts of new ocean technologies on marine mammals will need to be

examined and the permit application process started early in the developmental stages. 

Communication must also be improved so that permitting agencies have sufficient

time and resources to meet their responsibilities while the action agency or permit applicant can be sure that decisions will be made in a confidential, timely and consistent 

manner. This has been a particular problem in the past with regard to naval exercises and

oceanographic research activities.

Expanding Research and Education 

Although much more is known about marine animals today than even a decade ago, 

scientists still do not understand the life history or physiology of most marine species.

Because the decline of such populations tends to be caused by multiple environmental 

factors, enhanced research on a range of subjects is necessary to find ways to reduce the

harmful effects of human activities and to implement effective ecosystem-based management plans.

Understanding Behavior and Human Impacts

Minimizing disruptions to the most important life stages of marine mammals and endangered or threatened species will aid in their survival. To maximize reproductive rates in

declining populations, more needs to be learned about breeding grounds and essential

habitat. If information were available that showed a particular species could benefit from

higher levels of protection during times of mating or birth, management practices could

evolve accordingly. Actions could include temporarily closing fisheries that overlap with

these activities or requiring vessel traffic to slow down or avoid critical areas. Knowledge of

migration patterns and feeding locations is also critical to maintaining healthy populations.

While many human activities can harm individual marine animals, the extent to

which humans affect the long-term status of protected species is poorly understood.

Coastal development, offshore oil and gas exploration, vessel traffic, military activities,

and marine debris all have the potential to threaten protected populations. Understanding

the danger of these activities relative to bycatch, hunting, and natural predation is critical

to focus attention, research, and enforcement efforts where they are most needed. 

Point and nonpoint source pollution threaten the health of all ocean organisms. Much

more study is needed about the effects of contaminants, especially on marine mammals’

immune functions, and the possible results of exposure to human pathogens and toxic

algal blooms. In addition, the differing impacts of chronic versus acute exposures need to

be measured—long-term exposure to relatively low levels of some pollutants may be more

damaging to a population’s continued success than a single, high-impact event. 

A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Along parts of the

Texas coast, residents

are warned that they

should consume

locally-caught fish 

no more than once 

a week, I believe. 

But the local marine

mammals, whose

mammalian physiology and lifespan 

rival ours, eat such

fish daily. 

—Dr. John E. Reynolds, III,

Chairman, U.S. Marine

Mammal Commission,

testimony to the Commission, February 2002
C HAPTER 20: PROTECTING MARINE MAMMALS AND E NDANGERED MARINE S PECIES

Although not always caused by human activities, strandings of marine mammals, sea

turtles, and other endangered species along the shore can be an invaluable tool to learn

more about the potential causes of mortality in these species. In the late 1980s, NOAA

established a Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program, in response to

growing concerns about the numbers of dead and dying marine mammals washing up on

U.S. shores. Between 1991 and 2004, NOAA documented twenty-eight unusual mortality

events involving marine mammals in U.S. waters alone. These events have included a

wide range of species and numerous causative factors including diseases, starvation, 

toxins from harmful algal blooms, and human interactions. However, the causes of at least

25 percent of these events are as yet undetermined. No similar federal program exists for

endangered sea turtles. A sustained and appropriately funded response and analysis program could help NOAA and its partners and volunteers to respond to strandings, identify

causes, and recommend actions to prevent further deaths. A similar program for sea turtles could also provide valuable information to managers.

Increased research into the biological, chemical, and psychological stresses to marine

mammal, sea turtles, and other protected species populations will allow for more comprehensive, ecosystem-based management. Furthermore, for activities where interaction with

protected populations is likely and unavoidable, better scientific data will lead to more

effective permitting procedures. 

Recommendation 20–8 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Department of the Interior

agencies should develop an expanded program, coordinated through the National Ocean

Council, to examine and mitigate the effects of human activities on marine mammals and

endangered species. 

The program should focus on two areas:

• research, monitoring, and assessment to better understand the basic biology, physiology,

life history, and population dynamics of marine mammals, sea turtles, and other endangered or vulnerable marine species and to understand how disease, contaminants, harmful algal blooms, human activities, and other stressors may impact these animals. An

important goal will be to enhance the capability to respond quickly to strandings and

unusual mortality events of marine mammals and sea turtles.

• technology and engineering to eliminate or mitigate human impacts on marine mammals,

sea turtles, and other endangered species.

Effects of Noise on Marine Mammals

One particular area that requires better understanding is the effect of sound on marine

mammals. Many marine mammals use sound to communicate, navigate, feed, and sense

their surroundings. These natural behaviors can be disrupted when other sounds interfere.

In the ocean, sound emanates from a variety of sources, both natural, such as storms, 

volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes, and human-generated, including shipping, scientific

and commercial surveys, and commercial and military sonar.

Scientists know relatively little about the biological, psychological, and behavioral

changes in marine mammals that are caused by human-generated sound. Activities such

as commercial shipping, construction, geological exploration, and sonar certainly can produce noises intense enough to elicit reactions from marine mammals. However, because of

the complexity of the biological and physical interactions being studied, and the difficulty

of conducting studies on marine mammals, many important questions remain unanswered.16

For example, the scientific community currently understands very little about marine

mammal hearing and how these animals react to sound. It is not known whether health

315
316 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

and behavioral problems will arise only from acute exposures to very loud sound, or

whether chronic exposure to lower-intensity sounds (such as passing ship traffic) may

also result in long-term effects.

Currently, the U.S. Navy and, to a lesser extent, the Minerals Management Service, 

are the only federal agencies with significant marine mammal acoustic research programs,

including studies to examine the impact of noise on marine mammals. Expanded research

efforts and data dissemination are needed to understand marine mammal interactions

with sound and reduce or prevent the negative impacts of human-generated noise on

these animals.

Recommendation 20–9

The National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.

Geological Survey, and Minerals Management Service should expand research on ocean

acoustics and the potential impacts of noise on marine mammals. These additional sources 

of support are important to decrease the reliance on U.S. Navy research in this area. The

research programs should be complementary and well coordinated, examining a range of

issues relating to noise generated by scientific, commercial, and operational activities.

Public Education and Outreach

The general public increasingly has opportunities to come into contact with marine species

through diving, aquarium shows, and similar activities. These interactions can increase

public awareness and sensitivity about the needs and vulnerabilities of these animals and

the ways in which human activities can affect them. Aquariums and other exhibitors can

also showcase how larger environmental issues affect marine species and the ecosystems

on which they rely. 

While human contact with marine mammals raises public awareness, there is also growing concern about activities such as feeding programs, whale-watching excursions, and facilities that allow humans to swim with captive dolphins. For example, feeding programs in

the open ocean, most prevalent in Florida, can disrupt natural behaviors and expose animals

to harm by decreasing their natural fear of humans.17 Education programs should point out

the harm that too much human interaction with animals in the wild can inadvertently cause.

Applying Ecosystem-based Management Principles

The purpose of ecosystem-based management approaches is to recognize the full nature of

ocean and coastal systems and to allow for better coordination of management actions,

reduce duplication and conflicts, and take full advantage of available resources. As they

are implemented, ecosystem-based management practices can enhance the protection of

marine mammals and endangered species.

Domestic Action

The MMPA and ESA currently provide powerful statutory and regulatory tools to address

direct impacts to marine mammals and endangered species. However, there are no mechanisms in place for decreasing broad, long-term threats and concerns. The basic tenets of

ecosystem-based management require an assessment of all important components and

processes in a system, and evaluation of all potential threats. Improved scientific assessments will allow managers to create ecosystem-based management plans, an essential part

of which would describe threats to marine mammals, sea turtles and other protected

species. Once an ecosystem is analyzed, managers can prioritize protection efforts,

addressing the most critical risks first.

A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY
C HAPTER 20: PROTECTING MARINE MAMMALS AND E NDANGERED MARINE S PECIES

For marine mammals and endangered marine species, fisheries bycatch, and to a

lesser degree hunting, would be at the top of the list of risks. For other species, impacts

on breeding and foraging habitat are critical. For certain highly endangered species, such

as North Atlantic right whales and manatees, reduction of ship strikes is a pressing need.

Once the major risks are identified, managers can use a combination of the tools available

to them to address these concerns. For example, the use of marine protected areas has

been shown to be effective in addressing a number of the impacts on protected species. 

Unfortunately, in most cases little is known about the relative effects of different factors

on the survival and recovery of a protected species. The lack of baseline biological data on

most marine mammals and endangered marine species, coupled with limited stock assess317

Box 20.1 Making a Case for Ecosystem-based Management: The Steller Sea Lion

The story of the Steller sea lion illustrates the conflicts that can arise between human activities and

protection of marine mammals. The Steller sea lion is

the largest of the sea lions and is found along coastal

areas of the northern Pacific Rim. Its primary sources of

food are groundfish, including pollock and mackerel,

and cephalopods, including octopus and squid. Since

the mid-1970s, the western population near Alaska has

declined by about 85 percent (Figure 20.1).i Analyses

indicate that the decline may be due in part to environmental changes, legal and illegal hunting, predation by killer whales, competition with fishermen for

food, and incidental catch in fisheries. A 2003 report

by the National Research Council found that none of

these causes could be ruled out and called for scientifically-designed adaptive management experiments to

find out more.ii

Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) is responsible for managing Steller sea lions. 

It is also the agency responsible for management of

Alaskan fisheries, resulting in potential statutory conflicts. In 1991, a number of environmental groups sued NOAA for failing to take into account

the potential role of Alaskan fisheries in the decline of the Steller sea lion. After years of litigation, the problem has yet to be resolved to the satisfaction of any of the litigants. In addition,

Steller sea lions were listed under the Endangered Species Act (the western population as

endangered and the eastern as threatened), adding that statute’s requirements to the mix. 

The continued decline of the Steller sea lion population highlights the importance of

moving toward an ecosystem-based management approach, where such factors as predators,

quality and quantity of food, essential habitat, and incidental catch are all weighed when

deciding the best course of action for protection of a species. In addition, a more ecosystembased focus would have identified the problem much more quickly, enabling managers and

scientists to develop a comprehensive and timely research strategy to determine the various

causes of the decline and develop a management regime to address the problems. Instead,

the situation was allowed to reach a crisis stage, requiring emergency measures.

i Marine Mammal Commission. Annual Report to Congress. Washington, DC, 2002.

ii National Research Council. The Decline of the Steller Sea Lion in Alaskan Waters: Untangling Food Webs and Fishing

Nets. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003.

Figure 20.1 Sea Lion Populations in Danger Thousands of Animals Over One Year Old

Although Steller sea lions have been protected since the early 

1970s, the Alaskan populations have continued to decline, 

particularly those located along the Aleutian Islands. This decline 

cannot be traced to a single cause, underscoring the need for an 

ecosystem-based approach for protecting these animals. 

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

<http://stellersealions.noaa.gov/> (Accessed January 2004).

Total Alaskan Population Western Alaskan Stock

0

50

100

150

200

250

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
318 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

ment data, make it difficult to evaluate population abundance and trends, isolate causes of

mortality, or distinguish management successes from failures.

The listing of several salmon species as endangered and threatened highlights both

the promise of an ecosystem-based management approach and the difficulties in achieving

it. The threat of large-scale economic disruptions in the Pacific Northwest has led many

state, local, and tribal entities to push for a more collaborative, ecosystem-based management approach to avoid severe federal sanctions under the ESA. However, initial results

indicate that the federal government needs to do a better job of supporting and encouraging such efforts. The enhancement of such ecosystem-based, regional approaches is discussed in Chapter 5.

International Coordination

Expanding the concept of ecosystem-based management to its logical conclusion will

require attention to impacts that occur beyond U.S. waters. For many of the marine

species discussed in this chapter, the ecosystem in which they live encompasses the high

seas and the waters of many other countries. In order to address impacts to these species

throughout their ecosystem, the United States will need to use international agreements

and other diplomatic means to strengthen protections for species beyond U.S. waters. 

For example, sea turtles are truly members of the global commons and their recovery

will require action on a global scale. Reversing the impacts of human predation on nesting

turtles and their eggs will take long-term concerted international efforts by the United

States and other nations. The United States can use ecosystem-based regional and multinational agreements, including technical and financial assistance, to promote international

sea turtle conservation activities.

The development of bycatch reduction methods for U.S. fishermen should be complemented by efforts to persuade foreign fishermen to implement similar methods. This comprehensive approach makes sense from a conservation perspective and creates a more

level playing field for U.S. and foreign fishermen. 

Recommendation 20–10

The U.S. Department of State, working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration and the U.S. Department of the Interior, should continue to actively pursue

efforts to reduce the impacts of human activities on marine species at risk in foreign and

international waters.

References

1 World Wildlife Fund. Reducing Global Cetacean Bycatch: A Call to Action. Washington, DC, 2002.

2 Jensen, A.S., and G.K. Silber. Large Whale Ship Strike Database. Technical Memorandum NMFS–F/OPR– 25. Silver

Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2003.

3 Lewison, R.L, S.A. Freeman, and L.B. Crowder.“Quantifying the Effects of Fisheries on Threatened Species: The Impact

of Pelagic Longlines on Loggerhead and Leatherback Sea Turtles.” Ecology Letters 7 (2004): 221–231.

4 National Academy Press. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.

5 Crouse, D.T., L.B. Crowder, and H. Caswell. “A Stage-Based Population Model for Loggerhead Sea Turtles and

Implications for Conservation.” Ecology 68 (1987):1412–1423.

6 Spotila, J.R., et al. “Pacific Leatherback Turtles Face Extinction.” Nature 405 (2000): 529–30.

7 Lewison, R.L, S.A. Freeman, and L.B. Crowder. “Quantifying the Effects of Fisheries on Threatened Species: The Impact

of Pelagic Longlines on Loggerhead and Leatherback Sea Turtles.” Ecology Letters 7 (2004): 221–231.

8 National Marine Fisheries Service. “Major Threats and Impacts to Pacific Salmonids.”

<www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR3/Fish/salmon_impacts.html> Accessed July 13, 2004.
C HAPTER 20: PROTECTING MARINE MAMMALS AND E NDANGERED MARINE S PECIES

9 Flint, E. and Swift, K. eds. Second International Conference on the Biology and Conservation of Albatrosses and Other

Petrels, Honolulu, Hawaii, 8–12 May 2000. Abstracts of Oral and Poster Presentations. Marine Ornithology 28 (2000):

125–52.

10 Marine Mammal Commission. Annual Report to Congress. Washington, DC, 2002.

11 Czech, B., and P.R. Krausman. “Public Opinion on Species and Endangered Species Conservation.” Endangered Species

Update 14, nos. 5 and 6 (1997): 7–10.

12 National Research Council. Science and the Endangered Species Act. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995.

13 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce. 92nd Cong. S. Rept. 92–863.

14 U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 92nd Cong. H. Rept. 92–707.

15 National Research Council. Marine Mammals and Low-Frequency Sound, Progress Since 1994. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 2000.

16 Ibid.

17 Spradlin, T.R., et al. ”Interactions between the Public and Wild Dolphins in the United States: Biological Concerns and

the Marine Mammal Protection Act.” Presented at the 13th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals.

Maui, HI, November 1999. 

319
320 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 21

PRESERVING CORAL REEFS AND

OTHER CORAL COMMUNITIES

Coral reefs and other coral communities are beautiful and diverse, as well as 

biologically and economically valuable. In addition to well-known tropical coral

reefs, coral communities can also be found in deep waters and at high latitudes.

Increasingly, coral reefs and other coral communities are facing threats from a

number of natural and human-induced causes. To conserve these unique

ecosystems, comprehensive coral reef protection and management 

legislation is needed to address research, protection, and restoration 

of coral ecosystems. A strengthened U.S. Coral Reef Task Force should

lead and coordinate federal coral management efforts. The United

States must continue to be a leader in coral management at the

international level, including promoting the development of 

international standards for sustainable harvesting of coral reef

resources. Finally, improved research and data collection are 

critical to better understand coral ecosystems and the impacts 

of human activities on them. 

Assessing the Status of Coral Ecosystems

Coral reefs are formed from layers of calcium carbonate deposited

over time by colonies of individual corals. These reefs provide

homes for tens of thousands of species of marine plants and animals,

making them among the world’s most diverse and productive habitats.

Nearly one-third of all fish species live on coral reefs,1 while other species

depend on the reefs and nearby seagrass beds and mangrove forests for 

critical stages of their life cycles.

The Distribution of Coral Ecosystems

Most coral reefs are found in shallow, clear ocean waters in tropical and semitropical

areas. These warm-water corals derive significant food and energy from photosynthetic

algae that live in symbiosis with the corals. Warm-water corals have raised intense interest

in the last decade because of their apparent sensitivity to climate variability. 

Other corals that do not depend directly on sunlight can form reef-like structures 

or banks at depths of one hundred feet to more than three miles below the ocean’s 

surface. While relatively little is known about these deep-water structures, many 

scientists believe that their biological diversity may rival that of coral communities 

in warmer, shallower waters.2
C HAPTER 21: PRESERVING CORAL REEFS AND OTHER CORAL COMMUNITIES

Coral reefs are found in the waters of more than one hundred countries, including the

United States (Figure 21.1). They are particularly abundant in the South Pacific; Indonesian

waters are estimated to include the largest area of corals, approximately 18 percent of the

global total. U.S. waters include 1–2 percent of global warm-water corals.3 Deep-water corals

have been found around the globe, although little is known about their actual extent. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimates that U.S.

shallow-water coral reefs cover approximately 7,600 square miles. These reefs can be

found in western Atlantic and Caribbean waters off Florida, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin

Islands, the Navassa Island National Wildlife Refuge (a small U.S. island territory near

Haiti), and in the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth

of the Northern Mariana Islands, and several remote, unincorporated Pacific island areas.

Estimates of coral reef extent in the Pacific Freely Associated States (Palau, the Federated

States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands) range from 4,500 to 31,500 square miles.4

Furthermore, emerging data indicate that unexplored deep-water reefs exist throughout

U.S. waters, although comprehensive information about their extent is not currently available (Figure 21.2).

The Value of Coral Ecosystems 

Coral reefs are valued for their rich biological diversity as well as for the important ecosystem

functions they serve. Reefs buffer shorelines from storms and erosion, and provide homes,

food, and nursery areas for tens of thousands of species of marine life. They are also the

basis of thriving commercial and recreational fishing and tourism industries, and have the

potential to provide beneficial medical applications. Coral reef ecosystems are estimated to

provide a worldwide total of $375 billion a year in goods and services, with approximately

500 million people dependent on these ecosystems for food, materials, or income.5 In 2001,

321

Figure 21.1 Tropical Waters Are Home to the Majority of Known Reefs

Most of the world’s known reefs are found in tropical and semitropical waters, between 30 north and 30 south latitudes. 

Because these reefs are often in shallow water and close to shore, their health is easily threatened by human impacts, such as 

increases in sedimentation, polluted runoff, and damage caused by fishing and recreation.

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. <www.coris.noaa.gov> (Accessed January 2004).

● Coral reef (reef area not to scale)
322 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

coral reefs in the Florida Keys alone supported $105 million in income and more than

8,000 jobs.6 Further, approximately one-half of all federally managed commercial fish

species depend on coral reefs for at least part of their life cycle.7

Many people also value coral reefs for their unique aesthetic and cultural value. Coral

reefs are an important part of the heritage of many countries, and the use of reef resources

is integral to the social fabric of coastal communities. As one of the longest-lived and most

beautiful ecosystems on Earth, their intrinsic value is incalculable. 

Threats to Coral Ecosystems

Coral reefs are declining at a disturbing pace.8 The causes of this decline are varied, particularly for warm-water reefs. Many scientists believe that excessive fishing pressure has

been the primary threat to coral ecosystems for decades.9 However, pollution and runoff

from coastal areas also deprive reefs of life-sustaining light and oxygen, and elevated sea

surface temperatures are causing increasingly frequent episodes of coral bleaching and

A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Figure 21.2 Deep, Cold-water Coral Reefs Found Throughout U.S. Waters 

Although most Americans are aware of the coral reefs that exist in the warm waters off Florida, Hawaii, 

and the U.S. island territories, few realize that deep, cold-water reefs are also found throughout U.S. 

waters. While scientists continue to discover new deep-sea coral communities, little is known about 

their true extent. Learning more about these species is necessary to manage them wisely.

Source: Oceana. “Deep Sea Corals: Out of Sight, But No Longer Out of Mind.” 

<northamerica.oceana.org/uploads/oceana_coral_report_final.pdf> (Accessed June 2004).

● Known deep, cold-water reefs (reef area not to scale)
C HAPTER 21: PRESERVING CORAL REEFS AND OTHER CORAL COMMUNITIES

appear to be exacerbating other coral disease outbreaks.10 Although little is known about

the condition of the world’s deep-water coral communities, extensive damage has been

documented in some areas, with fishing activities suspected as being the largest humanrelated threat.11

Worldwide, no pristine, undamaged warm-water coral reefs remain, and one-third of

the world’s identified reefs are severely damaged.12 In the United States, every warm-water

reef system has suffered varying degrees of impacts from natural and human disturbances.

Only the coral reefs in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands and some remote Pacific refuges

are in near-pristine condition, although they too have started to show signs of damage,

particularly from marine debris. In the U.S. waters of the south Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico,

and Caribbean, two-thirds of reef fish species are overfished. In addition, during the 1990s,

white band disease killed 90–96 percent of the most common nearshore species of corals.13

Coral communities have existed for millions of years and have developed mechanisms

to cope with natural threats such as hurricanes, landslides, and predation. Often, when one

part of a coral community is damaged, the overall functioning of the coral reef ecosystem is

sustained by other, untouched communities that are able to repopulate damaged areas.

However, the point is fast approaching where this natural cycle of repair may not be able to

keep pace with the increasing rate of damage. Without immediate and large-scale protection

from the cumulative impacts of a multitude of human activities, many reefs, particularly

those located near heavily populated coastal areas, may soon be irretrievably harmed.14

Managing U.S. Coral Resources 

Federal Agency Roles and Responsibilities 

Although a number of longstanding environmental laws can be applied to the protection

of coral reefs, the first legislation specifically targeted at coral reef issues, the Coral Reef

Conservation Act, was passed in 2000. The Act focuses primarily on NOAA activities,

requiring the agency to develop a national coral reef action strategy, initiate a matching

grants program for reef conservation, and create a conservation fund to encourage publicprivate partnerships. 

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) also provides protection for many coral

reefs by authorizing NOAA to designate areas as marine sanctuaries and promulgate regulations for the conservation and management of those areas. Since the Act was passed in

1972, thirteen sanctuaries have been designated, several of which contain coral communities. Coral research, monitoring, and management activities are conducted in these sanctuaries, as well as in the Reef Ecosystem Reserve, which is currently under consideration

to become the nation’s fourteenth sanctuary.

The NMSA includes a provision that allows NOAA to fund repairs to injured habitats

within sanctuaries, including coral reefs, with cost recovery from responsible parties. If a

damaged coral reef cannot be restored or replaced, recovered funds may be used to restore

other habitats within the same sanctuary; if neither is possible, restoration efforts may be

funded in another national marine sanctuary. The statute does not address the use of

recovered funds for proactive projects designed to prevent injuries before they occur, such

as the installation of navigational aids to prevent ships grounding on coral reefs. Further,

the NMSA does not apply to coral reefs outside sanctuaries and does not help in preventing

long-term chronic damage to corals from pollution, nutrient overloading, or disease.

Other federal laws that are used to manage and protect coral reef resources include the

following (a description of these and other federal statutes are included in Appendix D):

• The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which allows for

management of coral harvest and provides limited protections for corals if they are

designated as “essential fish habitat.” 

323
324 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

• The Coastal Zone Management Act, which provides for management of shoreline

areas that may include coral reefs.

• The Clean Water Act, which regulates the discharge of dredged or fill materials into

U.S. waters.

• The Sikes Act, which requires the U.S. Department of Defense to provide for conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources on military installations, which in some

locations include corals. 

• The Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and Lacey Act, all of

which contain some provisions that can be applied to the protection of corals.

Responsibility for implementing these and other laws with implications for coral reef

management is shared by a number of federal agencies. For example, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA)and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have regulatory

and management responsibilities related to pollution from land-based sources. NOAA has

the authority to regulate fishing in coral reef ecosystems. And, action on global climate

change is under the purview of many agencies, including the U.S. Departments of Energy

and State. 

Interagency and Intergovernmental Coral Reef Management Initiatives 

The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force

The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force was created by executive order in 1998 with the purpose

of improving coordination among the many agencies that manage various aspects of the

nation’s coral reef resources. Task Force responsibilities include developing strategies to

map and monitor U.S. coral reefs, studying the causes of, and recommending solutions

for, coral reef degradation, and promoting conservation and sustainable use of coral reefs

at the international level. Several broad action plans have been developed by the Task

Force, although not all have been implemented.

The Task Force, which is co-chaired by the U.S. Departments of the Interior and

Commerce, works primarily through consensus building among its member federal agencies and state and territorial government representatives. Two notable absences from the

Accidental vessel groundings can cause devastating damage to fragile coral reefs. Restoration efforts,

such as the project illustrated here, can help promote recovery. Boulders are placed on the damaged reef

to create a substrate for transplanted corals and future natural growth.

NOAA, Damage Assessment and Restoration Program
C HAPTER 21: PRESERVING CORAL REEFS AND OTHER CORAL COMMUNITIES

task force are the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE). DOE is actively involved in investigating the impact of global climate change on

coral reefs and thus has relevant expertise to contribute. Civil works projects sponsored by

the USACE, such as the construction of inland and shore structures, beach nourishment

programs, and mooring permits, can have significant effects on coral reefs. For this reason

it would be helpful to have direct USACE involvement in the Task Force, in addition to

existing participation by the Department of Defense. 

The U.S. All Islands Coral Reef Initiative

The U.S. All Islands Coral Reef Initiative, a cooperative effort among Hawaii, American

Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands, is working to improve the management of coral reefs in island areas.

Regional approaches that incorporate traditional knowledge are of particular interest to

these islands, many of which share common cultural concerns about coral reef resources

and manage similar threats, such as erosion, sea-level rise, and degraded water quality. 

Improving the Management of U.S. Coral Resources

Despite recent management efforts, the health of coral reef ecosystems is continuing to

decline at a rapid pace, demanding that further action be taken to overcome gaps and 

inefficiencies in the existing patchwork of laws, regulations, and agency programs. An

improved governance regime is needed to better respond to coral reef management priorities at all levels (local, state, territorial, regional, and national), improve coordination

among agencies, facilitate regional approaches, and implement national action on coral

reefs. This regime can build on existing ideas and strategies of the U.S. Coral Reef Task

Force, the U.S. All Islands Coral Reef Initiative, the Coral Reef Conservation Act, and the

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, tasking federal agencies with the promulgation and enforcement of effective regulations to protect coral reef resources. Concerted

support among all levels of government and increased public awareness are also essential

for successfully implementing improved management strategies to achieve and sustain

healthy coral reef ecosystems. 

Recommendation 21–1 

Congress should establish a Coral Protection and Management Act that enhances research,

protection, management, and restoration of coral ecosystems. 

The new legislation should include the following elements:

• mapping, monitoring, assessment, and research programs to fill critical information gaps,

to be carried out primarily through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

and the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force in partnership with the academic research community.

• increased protections for vulnerable coral reefs, including the use of marine protected areas.

• liability provisions for damages to coral reefs, similar to those in the National Marine

Sanctuaries Act, but with greater flexibility to use funds in a manner that provides maximum short- and long-term benefits to the reef.

• support for state-level coral reef management.

• outreach activities to educate the public about coral conservation and reduce human

impacts.

• support for U.S. involvement, particularly through the sharing of scientific and management expertise, in bilateral, regional, and international coral reef management programs.

In addition to new legislation directed specifically at improving the management of

the nation’s coral reef resources, a strengthened U.S. Coral Reef Task Force is needed to

improve collaborative efforts at reducing the threats to these resources. 

325
326 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 21–2 

As part of the new Coral Protection and Management Act, Congress should codify and

strengthen the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force and place it under the oversight of the National

Ocean Council (NOC). 

The Coral Reef Task Force should be strengthened in the following ways:

• it should report to the NOC’s Committee on Ocean Resource Management.

• its membership should be expanded to include the U.S. Department of Energy and 

specify participation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within the U.S. Department 

of Defense. 

• in collaboration with the states and territories, it should coordinate the development and implementation of regional ecosystem-based plans to address the impacts

of nonpoint source pollution, fishing, and other activities on coral reef resources.

The plans and goals developed by the Task Force will need to be carried out by the

various agencies with authorities in these areas. For example, EPA and USDA can implement pollution reduction goals, NOAA and the Regional Fishery Management Councils

can reduce the effects of fishing on corals, and states and territories can reduce impacts on

coral reefs within their own waters.

Although most U.S. efforts to date have focused on protecting tropical, shallow-water

coral reefs, threats to deep-water corals are just beginning to be recognized. Currently, the

federal government does not have a coordinated program for oversight of deep-water coral

communities and information concerning their distribution, abundance, and status remains

sparse. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has set aside large areas near the

Aleutian Islands to protect deep-water corals from the impacts of fishing. Little else has been

done to protect these communities, including those in international waters. There is growing concern that unrestricted fishing around seamounts, and the deep-water coral communities associated with them, may be causing long-term damage. It will be necessary to increase

our knowledge of the basic biology and ecology of corals so that threats can be addressed. 

Recommendation 21–3 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should serve as the lead

agency for management of deep-water coral communities. In this role, NOAA should work

with states, academic institutions, and others to enhance national capabilities related to

deep-water corals, including expanded surveys of their distribution and abundance and

research on the major threats to their continued existence. After an appropriate review,

NOAA should make recommendations to the National Ocean Council on the advisability of

expanding the Coral Reef Task Force’s charter and membership to oversee deep-water corals

or creating a similar task force on deep-water corals.

Promoting International Coral Reef Initiatives

The United States has been a leader in the management of coral reef ecosystems at the

international level. The State Department, NOAA, the U.S. Agency for International

Development, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contribute significantly to building

enhanced management capacity in developing countries through direct funding and

through training in areas such as research, enforcement, management procedures, and

environmentally sustainable harvesting techniques. 

The United States also participates in many international initiatives that protect coral

reef resources, including the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

(CITES), an international agreement designed to protect endangered species from over-
C HAPTER 21: PRESERVING CORAL REEFS AND OTHER CORAL COMMUNITIES

exploitation by strictly regulating trade with countries that cannot certify that their harvest of these species is not detrimental to their survival. (For a listing of many oceanrelated international agreements, see Table 29.1.) Over 2,000 species of coral are listed

under CITES. The International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) was developed in 1994 as an

informal mechanism to develop the best strategies for conserving the world’s coral reef

resources. ICRI membership is made up of over eighty developing countries, donor countries, development banks, international environmental and development agencies, scientific associations, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations. ICRI’s Global

Coral Reef Monitoring Network has published the only global estimates of coral reef coverage and status, although the accuracy of these estimates could be improved.15

Creating More Sustainable Harvesting Practices 

As the world’s largest importer of ornamental coral reef resources,16 the United States has a

particular responsibility to help eliminate destructive harvesting practices and ensure the

sustainable use of these resources. Many are harvested by methods that destroy reefs and

overexploit ornamental species. A balance is needed between protecting legitimate trade

and sustaining the health and survival of the world’s coral reef resources.

The Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 offers a potential model for the role of

the United States in curbing destructive harvesting practices. The Act authorizes the

President to reduce debt owed to the United States if a developing country establishes a

tropical forest management program and uses funds freed from the debt reduction agreement to support tropical forest conservation. Applying this type of program to the management of international coral reef resources could greatly enhance the ability of the

United States to promote stewardship and conservation of coral reef ecosystems around

the world. 

Recommendation 21–4 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should develop national standards—

and promote adoption of international standards—to ensure that coral reef resources are

harvested in a sustainable manner. The U.S. Department of State should implement incentive

programs to encourage international compliance with these standards.

Improving Understanding of Coral Ecosystems

Improved research and data collection activities are needed to better understand coral reef

ecosystems and the impact of human activities on these ecosystems. The national monitoring network called for in Chapter 15 and the Integrated Ocean Observing System discussed in Chapter 26 are intended to become an integrated and continuous monitoring

system encompassing all watershed, coastal, and ocean environments, including coral

communities. More finely-tuned measurements of water quality, temperature, and 

currents—and corresponding changes in coral communities—will allow scientists to

understand and better predict the impacts of global climate change and other natural and

human-induced events on coral communities. In addition, NOAA is working on a set of

comprehensive maps of U.S. coral reefs that will incorporate an assessment of the current

status of these reefs. 

As data collection programs (including the regional ocean information programs discussed in Chapter 5) move forward, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force can provide guidance

on additional information needs to support ecosystem-based management plans.

327

Although coral reefs

occupy less than one

quarter of one percent of the marine

environment, they

contribute about a

fourth of the total

fish catch, feeding as

many as one billion

people in Asia alone.

—The Honorable William

Reilly, Chairman, World

Wildlife Fund, testimony

to the Commission, 

July 2002
328 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 21–5 

The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, in coordination with the regional ocean information programs,

should develop regional, ecosystem-based research plans to help protect coral reef ecosystems. These plans should guide agency research funding and be incorporated into the design

and implementation of the national monitoring network and the Integrated Ocean

Observing System.

References

1 National Marine Fisheries Service. “Coral Reefs: Critical Biodiversity and Fishery Resources.”

<www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR/coralhome.html> Accessed February, 2004.

2 Oceana. Deep Sea Corals. Washington, DC, 2003.

3 Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2002. Ed. C. Wilkinson. Cape Ferguson,

Queensland: Australian Institute of Marine Science, 2002. 

4 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific

Freely Associated States: 2002. Silver Spring, MD, 2002. 

5 Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2002. Ed. C. Wilkinson. Cape Ferguson,

Queensland: Australian Institute of Marine Science, 2002. 

6 Johns, G.M., et al. Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, 2001.

7 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. A National Coral Reef Action Strategy. Report to Congress on

Implementation of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 and the National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs in

2002–2003. Silver Spring, MD, June 2002.

8 Pandolfi, J.M., et al. “Global Trajectories of the Long-Term Decline of Coral Reef Ecosystems.” Science 301 (2003):

955–58.

9 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific

Freely Associated States: 2002. Silver Spring, MD, 2002. 

10 Hughes, T.P., et al. “Climate Change, Human Impacts, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs.” Science 301 (2003): 929––33. 

11 Oceana. 2003. Deep Sea Corals. Washington, DC, 2003.

12 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. A National Coral Reef Action Strategy. Report to Congress on

Implementation of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 and the National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs in

2002–2003. Silver Spring, MD, June 2002.

13 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific

Freely Associated States: 2002 Report. Silver Spring, MD, 2002.

14 Pandolfi, J.M., et al. “Global Trajectories of the Long-Term Decline of Coral Reef Ecosystems.” Science 301 (2003):

955–58.

15 Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2002. Ed. C. Wilkinson. Cape Ferguson,

Queensland: Australian Institute of Marine Science, 2002. 

16 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. A National Coral Reef Action Strategy. Report to Congress on

Implementation of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 and the National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs in

2002–2003. Silver Spring, MD, June 2002.

330

CHAPTER 22

SETTING A COURSE FOR

SUSTAINABLE MARINE

AQUACULTURE

As world consumption of seafood continues to increase, the farming of marine

species has become a rapidly growing domestic and international industry. There

are, however, a number of challenges that this industry presents. Nearshore marine

aquaculture activities are affected by increasing population and development

pressures and confusing or overlapping laws, regulations, and jurisdictions.

Aquaculture operations in offshore waters lack a clear regulatory regime,

and questions about exclusive access have created an environment of

uncertainty that is detrimental to investment in this industry. Also of

concern are potential threats to the environment and to native fish

populations, and conflicts between aquaculture and other uses of

the nation’s ocean and coastal waters. A lead federal agency with an

office dedicated to marine aquaculture is needed to address jurisdictional issues and to ensure the development of an economically

and environmentally sound marine aquaculture industry. 

Acknowledging the Growing Significance

of Marine Aquaculture

As traditional harvest fisheries have approached and exceeded

sustainable levels, the farming of fish, shellfish, and aquatic

plants in marine and fresh waters has become a burgeoning global

industry. These organisms can be raised in everything from nearly natural environments to enclosed structures, such as ponds, cages, and tanks,

where they are fed and treated to maximize their growth rate. 

In the United States, the demand for seafood continues to grow as expanding numbers of Americans seek healthier diets. During the 1980s and 1990s, the

value of U.S. aquaculture production rose by about 400 percent, to almost $1 billion.

This figure includes fresh-water and marine finfish and shellfish, baitfish, and ornamental fish for sale to aquariums.1 Along with fish farmers themselves, the aquaculture industry supports an infrastructure of feed mills, processing plants, and equipment manufacturers. There is great potential for marine aquaculture to become an even more important

source of seafood for the U.S. market and a way to help reduce the nation’s seafood trade

deficit of $7 billion a year (Figure 22.1).2

A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY
C HAPTER 22: SETTING A COURSE FOR S USTAINABLE MARINE AQUACULTURE

Addressing Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture 

National management of marine aquaculture activities should minimize potential 

environmental impacts. These impacts include the spread of disease among fish 

populations, genetic contamination and competition between farmed and native stocks,

and effects from aquaculture operations on water quality, wetlands, and other natural

habitats. Fish waste, dead fish, uneaten food, and antibiotics may contaminate the water

around aquaculture facilities and harm surrounding ecosystems. Marine mammals,

attracted by the food source, can become entangled in nets. There are also concerns about

the increased demand for fishmeal used to feed farm-raised carnivorous fish. Obtaining

fishmeal from traditional wild harvest practices may increase the pressure on fisheries that

are already fully exploited. Extensive research is underway by the aquaculture community

to determine how to decrease this demand. 

Another issue of increasing concern is the possible introduction of non-native species

(intentionally or unintentionally) through marine aquaculture operations. In the United

States, many cultured marine species are not native to the area where they are being farmed.

In these cases, there is the possibility that foreign (or genetically-modified) animals or

their reproductive offspring may escape and potentially compete or reproduce with wild

populations, resulting in unpredictable changes to ecological, biological, and behavioral

characteristics. Where non-native species come in contact with already depleted fish or

shellfish stocks, recovery efforts may be hampered. 

Potential problems associated with the introduction of non-native species are illustrated

in the case of the Atlantic salmon, which is one of the most widely farmed fish species in

the United States and around the world. Escaped farm-bred salmon, which differ genetically from species of wild Atlantic salmon, have the potential to both compete with native

salmon species (at least one of which has been listed as threatened or endangered under

the Endangered Species Act) for limited resources, interbreed with native species causing

changes in the gene pool, and spread disease. Infectious salmon anemia and sea lice,

331

Figure 22.1 The United States Imports More Seafood Than It Exports

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 $0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

1999 2000 2001 2002

Sales of Shrimp Sales of Salmon Millions of Dollars Millions of Dollars

The values of U.S. imports and exports for both shrimp and salmon illustrate the trade deficits 

caused by the nation’s inability to harvest or culture enough seafood to meet consumer demand. 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Aquaculture Outlook 2003. LDP-AQS-17. 

Washington, DC, March 14, 2003. 

■ Exports ■ Imports Trade Deficit
332 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

which are widespread in European salmon aquaculture facilities, have recently appeared

in North American operations.3

Another example, discussed in more detail in Chapter 17, is the proposed farming of a

non-native oyster species from China in Chesapeake Bay tributaries. This Chinese oyster

appears to be resistant to the diseases plaguing native species. However, a 2003 National

Research Council report raised serious questions about the possible ramifications of such

an introduction.4 It is now up to state officials to decide what is best for the Bay, in both

the short- and long-term, with little science or law to guide them.5 Ironically, the steep

decline in the Bay’s native oyster population was caused in part by a disease introduced in

the 1950s during a previous attempt to establish a non-native oyster species.

All of the potential impacts discussed in this section need to be addressed if the nation

is to achieve an environmentally and economically sustainable marine aquaculture industry.

Dealing with Uncertainties in the 

Existing Management Structure 

The potential contribution of marine aquaculture to the nation’s economic growth and to

meeting the increasing demand for seafood is impeded by its current management framework, which is characterized by complex, inconsistent, and overlapping policy and regulatory regimes administered by numerous state and federal agencies. 

Because nearly all marine aquaculture activities operating today are located in

nearshore waters under state jurisdiction, the majority of laws and regulations that

authorize, permit, or control these activities are found at the state level and are not

designed to address offshore aquaculture activities in federal waters. For example, one 

of the first U.S. commercial open ocean aquaculture projects in Hawaii began in 2001 

with the lease of 28 acres of state marine waters to a private company, following a 1999

state legislative authorization to allow commercial offshore aquaculture leasing. Other

nearshore aquaculture activities—most of which are in the pilot project stage—include

the operation of a federally-sponsored experiment off the coast of New Hampshire and a

salmon facility off of Maine. 

Marine Aquaculture in Offshore Areas 

As competition for space in nearshore areas intensifies, the marine aquaculture industry is

looking increasingly toward opportunities in federal offshore waters. The expansion of

aquaculture activities into the outer Continental Shelf provides potential benefits, as well

as additional concerns. Locating marine aquaculture activities farther offshore may reduce

the visibility of these activities from land, be less intrusive to fisheries and recreational

activities, and have fewer environmental impacts than activities located in nearshore areas.

However, the logistics associated with operating offshore facilities are also more difficult,

requiring long transit times for workers and supplies, and other technical complications.

Offshore aquaculture structures must also be designed to withstand the effects of extreme

winds, waves, and temperatures, and be positioned in a way that does not create a hazard

to navigation. 

The Current Regulatory Conundrum 

There are numerous federal agencies directly or indirectly involved in implementing laws

associated with various aspects of offshore activities, including marine aquaculture. These

include the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and the Interior (USDA and DOI), the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Food and Drug

A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY
C HAPTER 22: SETTING A COURSE FOR S USTAINABLE MARINE AQUACULTURE

Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Coast Guard, and

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The responsibilities of these agencies

range from protecting water quality and other environmental resources, to navigation,

food safety concerns, and interactions with federal fishery management plans. The jumble

of authorities makes it difficult for those involved in aquaculture activities to know what

permits are needed and what relevant rules govern their operations. (See Box 6.1

Swimming Through Hoops: Establishing an Offshore Aquaculture Facility.) Simply put,

there is no overall ocean governance structure to comprehensively manage this new and

emerging use in federal waters. 

In 1980, Congress passed the National Aquaculture Act, stating that it is in the

national interest to encourage the development of aquaculture in the United States and

calling for a national aquaculture development plan. The Act required the Secretaries of

Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior to prepare a report on federal laws and regulations that restrict the development of commercial aquaculture operations and submit the

report to Congress with recommendations on how to remove unnecessarily burdensome

regulatory barriers. However, no streamlined regulatory regime has been developed. 

As a result of this mix of laws and regulations, applicants have no guarantee of exclusive use of space in offshore areas, private capital is difficult to obtain, insurance companies do not provide coverage, and banks are unwilling to accept the unknown risks

involved. Enhanced predictability is needed, as is the elimination of unnecessary hurdles

and the reduction of potential conflicts with other commercial and recreational users of

offshore areas and resources. 

Developing a New Marine Aquaculture

Management Framework 

For the marine aquaculture industry to reach its full potential, the United States, in cooperation with states, tribes, and territories, should develop a coordinated and consistent

policy, and a robust regulatory and management framework. Federal and state agencies,

with full participation by the industry, will need to implement the new framework, and

the academic community will be called upon to provide scientific and engineering support

to ensure that marine aquaculture activities are ecologically and economically sustainable.

It is important for this framework to be flexible and responsive to changes in the industry.

Finally, as noted, development of a national aquaculture management framework must be

considered within the context of overall ocean policy development, taking into account

other traditional, existing, and proposed uses of the nation’s ocean resources. (More information about developing a framework for managing multiple activities in federal waters,

including aquaculture, is found in Chapter 6.)

Coordinated Action

The inherent differences between land-based, closed-system aquaculture operations and

marine-based operations should be acknowledged in any new legislation and in the new

management framework. The respective roles of the federal agencies involved with the

marine aquaculture industry must also be clarified, duplicative or outdated laws and regulations eliminated, and marine aquaculture policies, programs, and practices coordinated.

In addition, a lead federal agency is needed to act as the main interface with industry and

overseer of the government’s public trust responsibilities. 

The National Aquaculture Act of 1980 established the Joint Subcommittee on

Aquaculture (JSA) within the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) structure.

The JSA coordinates federal agency activities, ensures communication among the agen333

The US aquaculture

industry is developing

in an unprecedented

environmental and

food safety climate.

In many respects, this

helps ensure the

aquaculture industry

is environmentally

sustainable, while still

providing needed

rural employment

and income.

—Dr. Robert Rheault,

Board Member, National

Aquaculture Association,

testimony to the 

Commission, June 2002
334 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

cies, and provides recommendations for national aquaculture policy. Members of the JSA

include: the Secretaries of USDA (permanent chair), DOI, the Departments of Commerce,

Energy, and Health and Human Services; the Administrators of EPA, the Small Business

Administration and the U.S. Agency for International Development; the Chair of the

Tennessee Valley Authority; and the Director of the National Science Foundation. This

kind of coordination is necessary, although the issues to be addressed go far beyond the

purview of the NSTC. Close coordination will be needed between the JSA and the

National Ocean Council.

Recommendation 22–1 

Congress should amend the National Aquaculture Act to designate the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as the lead federal agency for marine aquaculture, create an Office of Sustainable Marine Aquaculture in NOAA, and designate the Secretary of

Commerce as a permanent co-chair, along with the Secretary of Agriculture, of the Joint

Subcommittee on Aquaculture. NOAA should use this authority to design and implement

national policies for environmentally and economically sustainable marine aquaculture.

Implementation

In overseeing marine aquaculture activities, including evaluating and approving offshore

aquaculture operations, NOAA will need to practice wise stewardship of ocean resources

and weigh the needs of a variety of stakeholders. At the same time, offshore aquaculture

operators will need assurance that they can have exclusive access to certain waters for 

specific periods of time to secure financial investments. 

These goals can best be achieved through the development and implementation of a

leasing system for the ocean surface, water column, and ocean bottom that protects marine

resources and environments, offers adequate exclusivity to aquaculture operations, and

institutes a system of revenue collection that acknowledges the public interest in ocean

space and resources. The leasing system will also need to specify details, such as applicant

eligibility and the acceptable scope, size, duration, and degree of exclusivity for facilities.

Competing uses of ocean and coastal areas, and the potential for impacts from aquaculture

on other ocean uses, must also be considered. 

Enhanced coordination is also needed between federal and state aquaculture policies

and regulations to provide consistency to the industry and to adequately manage potential

impacts that cross jurisdictional lines, such as the spread of disease. Significant state 

participation and input is needed in the development and implementation of a new

national management framework, which should include guidelines and regulations that

are complementary at the federal and state levels. The interstate fishery commissions

could be a valuable resource to assist in coordinating federal and state activities.

Recommendation 22–2 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s new Office of Sustainable Marine

Aquaculture should be responsible for developing a comprehensive, environmentally-sound

permitting, leasing, and regulatory program for marine aquaculture.

The permitting and leasing system and implementing regulations should:

• reflect a balance between economic and environmental objectives consistent with

national and regional goals. 

• be coordinated with guidelines and regulations developed at the state level.

• include a system for the assessment and collection of a reasonable portion of the

resource rent generated from marine aquaculture projects that rely on ocean resources

held in the public trust. 
C HAPTER 22: SETTING A COURSE FOR S USTAINABLE MARINE AQUACULTURE

• include the development of a single, multi-agency

permit application for proposed marine aquaculture operations.

• include a permit review process that includes public notice and an opportunity for state, local, and

public comment.

• require applicants to post a bond or other financial

guarantee to ensure that any later performance

problems can be remedied and that abandoned

facilities can be safely removed at no additional

cost to taxpayers. 

• require the development, dissemination, and

adoption of best management practices, with 

periodic updates to reflect advances in research

and technology.

• be well coordinated with other activities in 

federal waters.

Increasing the Knowledge Base

Enhanced investments in research, demonstration projects, and technical assistance can

further the development of a responsible and sustainable marine aquaculture industry.

Science-based information can help the industry address environmental issues, understand socioeconomic impacts to coastal communities, conduct risk assessments, develop

technology, select species, and improve best management practices. It is also vital for

developing fair and reasonable policies, regulations, and management measures.

In the last two decades, the number of research and monitoring programs related 

to aquaculture has surged. Much of the work conducted worldwide has focused on the

effects of open-water, net-pen culture on the environment. In the United States, early

research efforts focused on fish hatchery effluents and catfish ponds. As the domestic

industry has diversified, so has the scope of research efforts. Major federal investments are

examining the impacts of marine shrimp-pond and salmon net-pen cultures, as well as

issues concerning aquaculture feeds, species introductions, the use of chemicals and 

pharmaceuticals, and effluent controls. 

Most of the federal research to support marine aquaculture has been carried out 

under the auspices of NOAA’s National Sea Grant College Program, which funds primarily

university-based research. Results are used by educators and outreach specialists to improve

resource management and address development and conservation issues. Sea Grantfunded information is also used to increase the knowledge base of industry, government

agencies, and the public. As noted in Chapter 25, research on the potential socioeconomic

impacts of marine aquaculture is sparse.

Recommendation 22–3 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s new Office of Sustainable Marine

Aquaculture should expand marine aquaculture research, development, training, extension,

and technology transfer, including a socioeconomic component. The Office should set priorities for research and technology, in close collaboration with the National Sea Grant College

Program, states, tribes, academia, industry, and other stakeholders.

335

The SeaStation 3000 is an experimental aquaculture facility off the

coast of Hawaii. The sea cage lies 40 feet below the surface to

reduce the risk of harm to the cage or the fish from large ocean

swells and is out of the way of local boating traffic. The project is

the first of its kind in Hawaii and may serve as a model for future

offshore aquaculture.

NOAA Photo Library
336 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Promoting International Improvements and Cooperation

An estimated one billion people worldwide rely on fish as their primary source of 

animal protein. This demand will continue to rise as human populations increase 

and wild stocks around the world are depleted. Aquaculture has been growing almost six

times faster in developing countries than in developed countries. The United Nations

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that by 2030 more than half of the

fish consumed globally will be produced through aquaculture.6

While the majority of international aquaculture occurs in inland and coastal areas,

interest in offshore operations is also growing. There are even proposals to establish aquaculture operations on the high seas (see Chapter 29 for a discussion of emerging international ocean-related management challenges). This new interest is accompanied by growing concerns about the potential environmental impacts of offshore operations. The use of

non-native species for aquaculture also poses ecological risks, particularly in view of the

absence of regulations and enforcement in many countries. Global policies on prevention,

containment, monitoring, and risk assessments are needed to prevent the spread of invasive species and ensure that industries operate sustainably. 

Efforts are underway at FAO to assess the possible environmental implications of

growing aquaculture operations around the world and to develop appropriate protocols

for use by government and industry. In the meantime, FAO’s non-binding Code of Conduct

for Responsible Fisheries includes a number of aquaculture provisions. The Code calls for:

appropriate assessments and monitoring to minimize adverse impacts from discharges of

effluents, waste, drugs, and chemicals; consultation with neighboring countries prior to

the introduction of non-native species; conservation of genetic diversity; and responsible

choices of species, siting, and management. The implementation of these guidelines will

require strong commitments from the global community. 

Recommendation 22–4 

The United States should work with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization to

encourage and facilitate worldwide adherence to the aquaculture provisions of the Code of

Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. 

References

1 Economic Research Service. “Briefing Room: Aquaculture Overview.” 

<www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/aquaculture /overview.htm> Accessed October 21, 2003.

2 National Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries of the United States 2002. Silver Spring, MD: National Ocean and

Atmospheric Administration, September 2003. 

3 Goldburg, R.J., M.S. Elliot, and R.L. Naylor. Marine Aquaculture in the United States: Environmental Impacts and Policy

Options. Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commission, 2001. 

4 National Research Council. Non-native Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003.

5 Blankenship, K. “State, Federal Roles in Oyster Introduction Pondered.” Bay Journal 13, no. 7 (October 2003).

6 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome,

Italy, 2000

A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

338 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 23

CONNECTING THE OCEANS

AND HUMAN HEALTH

While marine animals and plants are most commonly used as sources of food,

they also produce a vast array of chemical compounds that can be developed

into products with beneficial medical and industrial uses. However, marine organisms, such as bacteria, algae, and viruses, can also be sources of human illness.

Although these microorganisms exist naturally in the ocean, human actions

can lead to ocean conditions that greatly increase their growth, harming

the health of humans, marine species, and ecosystems. Significant

investment must be made in developing a coordinated national

research effort to better understand the links between the oceans

and human health, with research aimed at discovering new drugs

and other useful products derived from marine organisms, and

detecting and mitigating outbreaks of disease and other harmful

conditions. Efforts must also be aimed at improving public awareness about how pollution and waste can contribute to the spread

of seafood contamination and disease, and can decrease the diversity of species that provide new bioproducts. 

Understanding the Links between 

the Oceans and Human Health

The topics generally included under the umbrella of Oceans and

Human Health, such as harmful algal blooms and pharmaceutical

development, may at first seem to be unrelated, but they are actually inextricably linked. The health of marine ecosystems is affected by human activities

such as pollution, global warming, and fishing. But in addition, human health

depends on thriving ocean ecosystems. A better understanding about the many ways

marine organisms affect human health, both for good by providing drugs and bioproducts, and bad by causing human ailments, is needed.

The oceans sustain human health and well-being by providing food resources and

absorbing waste from areas of human habitation. For many years, the ocean’s carrying

capacity for meeting both these needs was assumed to be limitless. As we know today, this

is not true. Scientists have reported that excessive human releases of nutrients and pollution into the ocean, and a subtle, yet measurable, rise in ocean surface temperatures are

causing an increase in pathogens, primarily bacteria and viruses.1,2 These environmental

conditions can also promote excessive growth of microscopic algae, some of which can

produce toxins that are released into the water and air, and become concentrated in the
C HAPTER 23: CONNECTING THE OCEANS AND HUMAN HEALTH

tissues of fish and shellfish. When these toxins are ingested or inhaled by humans, they

present health risks ranging from annoying to deadly.

On the other hand, thousands of new biochemicals have been discovered in marine

organisms, such as sponges, soft corals, mollusks, bacteria, and algae. Furthermore, scientists believe only a fraction of the organisms that live in the ocean have been documented,

underscoring the vast potential of the oceans as a source of new chemicals.3 These natural

products can be developed not only as pharmaceuticals, but also as nutritional supplements, medical diagnostics, cosmetics, agricultural chemicals (pesticides and herbicides),

enzymes and chemical probes for disease research, and for many other applications. Based

on existing pharmaceutical products, each of these classes of marine-derived bioproducts

has a potential multibillion-dollar annual market value. 

The use of marine organisms as models for human systems has also advanced biomedical research. The diversity of life found in the oceans offers vast opportunities for the 

discovery of organisms that can be used to investigate biological processes analogous to

those found in humans. Of particular interest are primitive vertebrates. Studies on the

biology of these animals may offer insights into the evolution and physiology of humans

and other organisms. Although some of the most familiar marine animal models have

been used by researchers for decades, increased understanding of human biology can be

gained by continuing to examine new marine organisms.

A 1999 National Research Council (NRC) report recommended a renewed effort to

understand the health of the ocean, its effects on humans, and possible future health

threats.4 In a 2002 report, the NRC also emphasized the beneficial value of marine biodiversity to human health, noting that underexplored environments and organisms—such

as deep-sea environments and marine microorganisms—provide exciting opportunities 

for discovery of novel chemicals.5

Currently, two national programs are designed to enhance our understanding of the

ocean’s role in human health. The first is a joint program between the National Institute 

of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF)

called the Centers for Oceans and Human Health. The Centers promote interdisciplinary

collaborations among biomedical and ocean scientists, with the goal of improving knowledge about the impacts of the oceans on human health. The second is the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) Oceans and Human Health Initiative, which

will coordinate agency activities and focus funding on ocean and health issues such as

infectious diseases, harmful algal blooms, environmental indicators, climate, weather and

coastal hazards, and marine biomedicine.

In addition to these broad interdisciplinary programs, several other existing programs

focus on one or more specific subtopics. For example, ECOHAB (Ecology and Oceanography

of Harmful Algal Blooms), a program created by NOAA and NSF, provides a scientific

framework designed to increase our understanding of the fundamental processes leading

to harmful algal blooms. Other agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control

(CDC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Food and Drug Administration

(FDA), administer research and management programs that address different aspects of

the links between the oceans and human health. 

Maximizing the Beneficial Uses of Marine-derived Bioproducts

The marine environment constitutes the greatest source of biological diversity on the planet.

Representatives of every phylum are found in the world’s oceans, and more than 200,000

known species of invertebrates and algae have been documented. With so many organisms

competing for survival in the challenging ocean environment, it is not surprising that many

organisms produce chemicals that provide some ecological advantage. Animals and plants

synthesize natural biochemicals to repel predators, compete for space to grow, and locate

339
340 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

potential mates. Scientists have shown that these chemicals can also be developed as human

pharmaceuticals and used for other biomedical and industrial applications (Table 23.1).

Despite these potential benefits, the U.S. investment in marine biotechnology is relatively

small. Japan, the world leader in this field, has spent between $900 million and $1 billion 

a year for the last decade and has said it intends to significantly increase this investment in

the future. About 80 percent of the Japanese investment comes from industry, with the

remainder from government. By contrast, U.S. public investment in marine biotechnology

research and development in 1996 was around $55 million, and U.S. industry investment is

estimated at approximately $100 million annually. Yet even with this limited funding, U.S.

marine biotechnology efforts since 1983 have resulted in more than 170 U.S. patents, with

close to 100 new compounds being patented between 1996 and 1999.6

Specific Applications

Pharmaceuticals

Since the 1970s, scientists have been isolating and characterizing molecules from ocean

organisms that have unique chemical structures and bioactivities. In recent years, several

of these compounds have undergone clinical testing in the United States as potential treatments for cancer. Progress has also been made in finding treatments for other human ailments, including infectious diseases, cancer, chronic pain, and arthritis.

Molecular Probes

Several marine-derived compounds, explored initially as potential pharmaceuticals, are

available commercially as molecular probes. These probes are special chemical compounds

that researchers can use to study important biochemical processes. Their value in resolving the complexities of diseases has often outweighed their economic and medicinal value

as commercial pharmaceuticals. Moreover, molecular probes often offer attractive opportunities for commercialization, with revenues generated in a shorter time than pharmaceuticals because lengthy regulatory approvals are not required for research that does not

involve human subjects.

Nutrients

Marine-derived nutritional supplements, or “nutraceuticals,” present a relatively new

opportunity for research and development in the application of natural marine products 

to human health issues. Nutritional supplements from plants have been used for years,

including commonly known products such as St. John’s wort, ginseng, and echinacea. 

A few products from marine sources are also commercially available such as xanthophylls

from algae, which are used in nutritional supplements and vitamins for their antioxidant

properties. Although the use of marine natural products in nutritional supplements is 

limited at this time, it represents a large potential market.

Industrial Uses

In addition to medicinal uses, chemicals produced by marine organisms have a wide array

of industrial applications. For example, some marine organisms, such as limpets, produce

adhesive proteins that hold them strongly to surfaces against the pull of tides and waves.

Currently, researchers are examining the chemistry of these adhesives to produce new

glues that work in wet environments. Cold-water marine microorganisms are being studied because of chemicals they produce that can be used as detergents. These chemicals

could help produce commercial detergents that are more effective in cold water. Many

sedentary marine organisms produce anti-fouling chemicals that prevent algae and bacteria

from clinging to their surfaces. Researchers are investigating these chemicals as potential

paint additives for ship hulls. If effective, these chemicals could reduce the need for traditional anti-fouling paints that contain high levels of heavy metals, which can contaminate

A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

The oceans are the

last great frontier for

biomedical research.

We have learned

much from the life on

land, but it is now

time to access the

wealth of information

in the sea. 

—Dr. William Fenical,

Director, Center for

Marine Biotechnology

and Biomedicine, Scripps

Institution of Oceanography, testimony to the

Commission, April 2002
C HAPTER 23: CONNECTING THE OCEANS AND HUMAN HEALTH

bottom sediments. Several other applications of marine-derived substances are currently

in development, such as reaction enzyme catalysts and biochemicals used for detoxifying

chlorinated hydrocarbons and other pollutants. 

Encouraging Interdisciplinary Marine Biomedical Research

Past U.S. efforts to discover marine biomedicines were of the collect-and-test type, with little

attention given to the evolutionary, environmental, and molecular biology of the species

being tested. However, to realize the greatest rewards for research investments, each species’

ecological, genetic, and physiological information will need to be examined to understand

how they adapt to environmental conditions. The unique diversity and adaptations of

marine life can help scientists understand the evolutionary development of biochemical 

signals that regulate cell cycles and control resistance against diseases and infections.

Historically, structural limitations inherent in the federal agencies made it difficult to

undertake truly multidisciplinary science. NSF restricted funding for biomedical research

because it is the primary focus of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), creating difficulties in establishing combined environmental and biomedical research programs. Likewise,

NIH has generally supported direct medical research, thus precluding ancillary studies of

systematics, ecology, and species distributions. Until a few years ago, the NIH’s ocean pharmaceutical programs had been very narrow, focusing almost exclusively on discovering and

developing new anti-cancer drugs. Thus, the very structure of the federal scientific support

system has been counterproductive to establishing the type of multidisciplinary programs

required to advance the broader field of marine natural product discovery and development. 

Based on recommendations from the National Research Council and others, in the 

last two years, new approaches for supporting marine bioproduct development have been

established that allow the necessary cross-disciplinary research to occur, including the

NIEHS–NSF and NOAA programs mentioned earlier. However, increased participation

and cooperation from other federal agencies, including EPA, the Office of Naval Research

(ONR), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), CDC, FDA, and 

the Minerals Management Service (MMS), each of which brings particular expertise and

perspectives, will also be helpful.

341

Box 23.1 Special Focus on Microbial Diversity

Microorganisms comprise a larger biomass than any other form of life on Earth. In addition, they are the most diverse group of organisms on the planet, having evolved to

survive in almost all environments. In the ocean they are the basis for food webs, even in

areas that would not normally be capable of sustaining life. 

For example, in the deep ocean environment with no light and few nutrients, chemosynthetic bacteria thrive on the methane present in frozen gas hydrates. Near deep-sea hydrothermal vents where temperatures can rise to over 300 degrees Celsius, bacteria are capable of

using hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide as their only nutrients and producing enough

organic compounds to support whole vent communities, including tubeworms, fish, crabs,

shrimp, clams, and anemones. 

However, microorganisms have not evolved simply to synthesize molecules for food; they

have also been shown to produce a wide array of chemicals for other purposes. Understanding

how these organisms survive, both individually and symbiotically, and why they produce such

unique chemistry, is essential to understanding their therapeutic and technological potential.

Yet, only a small percentage of these organisms have been documented, largely due to 

difficulties in culturing organisms from such unique habitats. An expanded search for new

microbes in the ocean based on cooperation among a number of multidisciplinary government programs could yield exciting results.
342 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

This table highlights some of the chemicals and biological materials isolated from marine organisms that are in use or 

being developed.

Table 23.1 The Bounty of the Sea

Application Original Source Status

Anti-viral drugs (herpes infections)

Anti-cancer drug (non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma)

Anti-cancer drug

Anti-cancer drug (mitotic inhibitor)

Anti-cancer drug (tumor-cell DNA disruptor)

Anti-cancer drug

Anti-cancer drug

Anti-cancer drug (microtubule stabilizer)

Anti-cancer drug

Anti-cancer drug

Anti-cancer drug (G2 checkpoint inhibitor)

Anti-cancer drug

Anti-inflammatory agent

Anti-fungal agent

Anti-tuberculosis agent

Anti-HIV agent

Anti-malarial agent

Anti-dengue virus agent

Sponge, Cryptotethya crypta

Sponge, Cryptotethya crypta

Bryozoan, Bugula neritina

Sea hare, Dolabella auricularia

Ascidian, Ecteinascidia turbinata

Ascidian, Aplidium albicans

Gastropod, Elysia rubefescens

Sponge, Discodermia dissoluta

Sponge, Lissodendoryx sp.

Actinomycete, Micromonospora marina

Ascidian, Didemnum granulatum

Sponge, Jaspis sp.

Marine fungus

Sponge, Trachycladus

Gorgonian, Pseudopterogorgia

Ascidian

Sponge, Cymbastela

Marine crinoid

Commercially available

Commercially available

Phase II clinical trials

Phase I clinical trials

Phase III clinical trials

Advanced preclinical trials

Advanced preclinical trials

Phase I clinical trials

Advanced preclinical trials

Advanced preclinical trials

In development

In development

In development

In development

In development

In development

In development

In development

Phosphatase inhibitor

Phospholipase A2 inhibitor

Bioluminescent calcium indicator

Reporter gene

Dinoflagellate

Sponge, Luffariella variabilis

Bioluminescent jellyfish, Aequora victoria

Bioluminescent jellyfish, Aequora victoria

Commercially available

Commercially available

Commercially available

Commercially available

Orthopedic and cosmetic surgical implants Coral, mollusk, echinoderm skeletons Commercially available

Molecular Probes

Medical Devices

Detection of endotoxins (LPS) Horseshoe crab Commercially available

Commercially available

Diagnostics

Polymerase chain-reaction enzyme Deep-sea hydrothermal vent bacterium

Enzymes

Polyunsaturated fatty acids used in food additives Microalgae Commercially available

Nutritional Supplements

Conjugated antibodies used in basic research

and diagnostics

Red algae Commercially available

Pigments

Cosmetic (anti-inflammatory) Gorgonian, Pseudopterogorgia elisabethae Commercially available

Cosmetic Additives

Source data combined from: 

Pomponi, S. A. “The Bioprocess-technological Potential of the Sea.” Journal of Biotechnology 70 (1999): 5–13. 

Pomponi, S. A. “The Oceans and Human Health: The Discovery and Development of Marine-derived Drugs.” Oceanography 14 (2001): 78–87. 

National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Natural Products Branch, Frederick, MD.

Jordan, M.J., and L. Wilson. “Mining the Ocean’s Pharmacological Riches: A Lesson from Taxol and Vinca Alkaloids.” In Marine Biotechnology in the

21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001.

Pharmaceuticals
C HAPTER 23: CONNECTING THE OCEANS AND HUMAN HEALTH 343

Recommendation 23–1 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, National

Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and other appropriate entities should support

expanded research and development efforts to encourage multidisciplinary studies of the

evolution, ecology, chemistry, and molecular biology of marine species, discover potential

marine bioproducts, and develop practical compounds.

These efforts should include: 

• a strong focus on discovering new marine microorganisms, visiting poorly sampled areas

of the marine environment, and studying species that inhabit harsh environments.

• encouragement for private-sector investments and partnerships in marine biotechnology

research and development to speed the creation of commercially available marine bioproducts.

Managing Marine Bioproduct Discovery and Development 

Based on the potentially large health benefits to society, the federal government should

encourage and support the search for new bioproducts from marine organisms, known as

bioprospecting. However, before wide-scale bioprospecting proceeds in federal waters,

requirements need to be established to minimize environmental impacts. Planning and

oversight will help ensure that public resources are not exploited solely for private gain

and will help protect resources for future generations. 

Individual states regulate the collection of marine organisms quite differently, sometimes requiring an array of research permits to collect organisms and licenses to gain access

to particular areas. Regulations that ban the removal of specific organisms, such as corals

and other sensitive species, often exist in both state and federal protected areas. In protected

federal waters, such as national marine sanctuaries, research permits are required for all

collections. However, bioprospecting outside state waters and federal protected areas is

unrestricted, except for certain species subject to regulation under existing legislation,

such as the Endangered Species Act. Both U.S. and foreign researchers, academic and

commercial, are free to collect a wide range of living marine organisms without purchasing a permit and without sharing any profits from resulting products.

On land, the National Park Service has successfully asserted the government’s right to

enter into benefit sharing agreements in connection with substances harvested for commercial purposes in Yellowstone National Park. The National Park Service is in the process of

conducting a full environmental impact statement on the use of such agreements for benefit sharing in other parks. This practice could serve as a model for the management of bioprospecting in U.S. waters.

Similar to other offshore activities, bioprospecting in federal waters will require appropriate permitting and licensing regulations to protect public resources while encouraging

future research. Furthermore, when allocating use of federal ocean areas for bioprospecting, it is important that consideration be given to other potential uses of those areas,

including oil and gas exploration, renewable energy, and aquaculture. A proposal for 

better coordinated governance of offshore uses is discussed in detail in Chapter 6.

Reducing the Negative Health Impacts of 

Marine Microorganisms

A host of microorganisms exist in marine waters, filling their roles in the ecosystem and

generally causing no problems to humans. However, the number and distribution of marine

pathogens can change over time due to many environmental factors. Human impacts, such

as pollution or climate change, can produce even greater fluctuations that threaten the

health of humans, marine organisms, and the marine ecosystems on which we all depend.
344 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Harmful Algal Blooms

The term harmful algal bloom (HAB) is used to describe destructive concentrations of

particular algal species in ocean waters. These blooms are sometimes called red tides

because the high algal density can make the ocean surface appear red, but they may also

be green, yellow, or brown, depending on the type of algae present. 

The Nature of the Problem

The underlying physical, chemical, and biological causes for most harmful algal blooms

are not well understood, but an increase in distribution, incidence, duration, and severity

of HABs has been documented within recent decades (Figure 23.1). In many areas, increases

in nutrients in coastal waters, from point and nonpoint sources of pollution, and higher

numbers of invasive species released from ships’ ballast water mirror the increase in HAB

events, suggesting a possible causal connection.7,8 However, others have suggested that

the apparent increase in HAB events is simply a result of more frequent and effective 

monitoring. Additional research is needed to understand why blooms form in a specific

area, how they are transported, and what causes them to persist.

HABs become a health concern when they produce high concentrations of potent toxins

in ocean waters. When these toxins are concentrated in fish and other seafood consumed by

humans, they can lead to paralytic, diarrhetic, neurotoxic, or amnesic shellfish poisoning.

Most of these toxins cause harm only if ingested; however, some enter the air from sea spray

and can cause mild to severe respiratory illnesses when inhaled. These health effects are not

restricted to human populations; fish, birds, and marine mammals also fall victim to red tide

poisoning. The Great Lakes and large estuarine systems are also affected by HABs. Lake Erie

continues to experience blooms of a blue green alga called Microcystin sp. This alga is capable of producing toxin compounds called microcystins that have been implicated in bird and

fish kills and can result in gastrointestinal problems in humans.

Annually, HABs are believed to cost the nation’s fishing and tourism industries more

than $50 million directly, with a likely multiplier effect that pushes the total economic

loss to $100 million.9,10 This can be catastrophic to low-income fishing communities, as

witnessed in Maryland in 1997 during an outbreak of Pfiesteria piscicida (a species of

dinoflagellate) associated with widespread fish kills.11 Tourism was hurt by news coverage

of seafood poisonings, and reports of red tides had a swift and chilling effect on oceanside

resort visits, beach-going, and boating. Aquaculture can also be severely damaged by

HABs, which can cause rapid fish kills and result in harvesting moratoria. 

HABs are of particular concern in areas where the water contains high concentrations

of dissolved nutrients. These areas are incubators for many types of algal blooms, nontoxic as well as toxic. The nutrients create conditions for rapid growth of large and dense

algal blooms. When the algae die, their decomposition consumes the dissolved oxygen

that other organisms need for survival.

Improving Understanding, Detection, and Prevention 

HABs constitute significant threats to the ecology and economy of coastal areas. While the

preferred course of action is prevention, effective treatments are also needed. The current

availability of biological, chemical, or physical treatments is extremely limited. The ecology

of each bloom is different, and the required environmental conditions are not completely

understood for any particular algal species. 

The most likely and immediate solution for reducing the number and severity of HABs

is to control nutrient inputs to coastal waters. (Nutrient pollution is further discussed in

Chapter 14.) Prevention may also be strengthened through careful facility siting decisions

and tighter controls on invasive species. However, for better long-term management, a

comprehensive investigation of the biology and ecology of HABs will be needed to increase

our understanding of options for prevention, prediction, and control.

A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY
C HAPTER 23: CONNECTING THE OCEANS AND HUMAN HEALTH

Better coordination would help leverage the relatively few but successful HAB research

programs currently being supported by the federal government (such as ECOHAB, 

MERHAB—Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms; NOAA’s National

Marine Biotoxin program and HAB sensor development and forecasting program, and

efforts supported by the CDC, states, and others).

Improved monitoring techniques are also essential in mitigating the harmful impacts 

of HABs. Sampling directly from the natural environment can help researchers compile 

an overall HAB picture, laying the foundation for predictive modeling and forecasting.

Numerous monitoring programs already exist, many of which are funded by state governments. However, routine field sampling, combined with laboratory analysis, is expensive

and time consuming, and becomes more so as greater numbers of toxins and pathogens are

discovered over larger geographic areas. Monitoring technologies that can be stationed in

aquatic environments and continually measure for HABs are urgently needed. (Chapters 15

and 26 include broader discussions of national monitoring and observing needs.)

To cover larger areas, monitoring data collected from remote sensing platforms are

essential. NOAA is currently developing and testing techniques to forecast HAB occurrence

and movement using satellite sensors. The complementary development and deployment

of satellites and moored sensors will provide even greater coverage, cross-referenced

ground truthing, and more frequent site-specific sampling. These elements will add up to

better data sets for monitoring of HABs. As more data are collected on HAB occurrences,

researchers will be able to more accurately predict future outbreaks by using advanced

computer models and taking into account the physical and biological conditions leading

to HABs. 

345

Pre-1972 Post-1972

Pfiesteria Complex

Neurotoxic Shellfish Poisoning

Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning

Ciguatera

Brown Tide

Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning

Figure 23.1 Harmful Algal Blooms on the Rise

Outbreaks of harmful algal blooms and related events, such as fish kills and marine mammal mortalities, have become more 

prevalent over the past thirty years. This can be attributed to many causes, including increases in nutrient runoff that enhance 

the growth of these types of organisms. However, a portion of the rise in reported bloom events may simply reflect better 

detection methods and more observers. 

Source: National Office for Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algal Blooms, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA.

Type of Outbreak Observed

Alaska Hawaii Puerto Rico Alaska Hawaii Puerto Rico
346 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Marine Bacteria and Viruses

Bacteria and viruses are present everywhere in the ocean; in fact, each milliliter of seawater

contains on average 1 million bacteria and 10 million viruses. While only a small percentage

of these organisms cause disease in humans, they pose a significant health risk. Humans

become exposed to harmful bacteria and viruses primarily by eating contaminated seafood

(especially raw seafood) and by direct intake of seawater. 

Many, if not most, occurrences of high concentrations of pathogens in the ocean 

and Great Lakes are the direct result of land-based human activities. Pollution and urban

runoff lead to nutrient-rich coastal and ocean waters that provide ideal conditions for the

growth and reproduction of these microorganisms. With ever-increasing numbers of 

people living in coastal areas, along coastal watersheds, and inland along rivers that 

ultimately drain into the ocean, waste and pollution have increased to a level that creates

negative environmental and human health-related consequences. 

A comprehensive and integrated research effort is needed to further explore the relationship between human releases of inorganic and organic nutrients to coastal waters and

the growth of pathogenic microorganisms in the ocean. Rapid monitoring and identification methods need to be developed so officials can warn populations at risk when unhealthy

conditions are present. Integration of these new methods into moored biological sensors,

the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS, discussed in Chapter 26), and the national

monitoring network (discussed in Chapter 15) will allow for continuous data collection,

and be particularly helpful in areas of high recreational or seafood harvesting activity. This

effort must include the input from the state, regional, tribal, and local organizations that

will implement localized monitoring programs and address public education issues associated with marine bacteria and viruses. 

Contaminated Seafood 

Contaminated seafood is one of the most frequent causes of human disease contracted from

ocean and fresh waters, whether due to pathogenic or chemical contamination. Chemicals,

such as mercury and dioxins that exist as environmental contaminants and are concentrated

in fish through bioaccumulation, continue to be a health concern for humans, especially in

terms of reproductive and developmental problems. In addition, harmful algal blooms and

pathogen outbreaks are becoming more common in local waters, increasing the risk of

seafood contamination. In addition to domestic sources, Americans are importing more

seafood than ever before.12 These imports often come from countries whose public health

and food handling standards are lower than in the United States. 

To protect the safety of the nation’s seafood, rapid, accurate, and cost-effective means

for detecting pathogens and toxins in seafood are needed. As these techniques are developed they can be incorporated into seafood safety regulations and surveillance efforts,

particularly inspections of imported seafood and aquaculture products.

Implications of Global Climate Change

In addition to the direct effects of human activities, marine microorganisms’ survival and

persistence are also strongly affected by environmental factors. In particular, global climate

change has the potential to significantly alter the distribution of microorganisms in the

ocean. Pathogens now limited to tropical waters could move toward the poles as seasurface temperatures rise. 

For example, the bacterium that causes cholera (Vibrio cholerae) has been implicated

in disease outbreaks fueled by the warming of coastal surface water temperatures. The

intrusion of these warmer, infected waters into rivers can eventually lead to mixing with

A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY
C HAPTER 23: CONNECTING THE OCEANS AND HUMAN HEALTH

waters used for drinking and public hygiene. An indirect relationship has also been noted

between climate change phenomena associated with the Bay of Bengal and the incidence

of cholera in Bangladesh. As the temperature in the Bay of Bengal increased, plankton

growth accelerated, which in turn created ideal growth conditions for bacteria such as

Vibrio cholerae.

13

Mass mortalities due to disease outbreaks have also affected major life forms in the

ocean. The frequency of epidemics and the number of new diseases in corals, sea turtles,

and marine mammals have increased. It is hypothesized that some of these outbreaks are

linked to climate change. Not only are new pathogens possibly present due to changes in

water temperature, but temperature changes can also stress marine organisms, making it

harder for them to fight infections.14 More research is needed to understand the links

among climate change, pollution, marine pathogens, and the mechanisms of disease

resistance in marine organisms.

Progress through Research and Technology Development

Better understanding about the links between oceans and human health will require a commitment of research funds to discover the fundamental processes controlling the spread and

impacts of marine microorganisms and viruses. In addition, closer collaboration between

academic and private sector scientists and federal agencies (including NIH, NSF, NOAA,

EPA, ONR, NASA, CDC, FDA, and MMS) will be needed to better examine these issues.

Recommendation 23–2 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation,

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and other appropriate entities, should

support expanded research efforts in marine microbiology and virology. 

These efforts should include:

• the discovery, documentation, and description of new marine bacteria, algae, and viruses

and the determination of their potential negative effects on the health of humans and

marine organisms.

• the elucidation of the complex inter-relations, pathways, and causal effects of

marine pollution, harmful algal blooms, ecosystem degradation and alteration,

emerging marine diseases, and climate change in disease events.

New technologies are needed for improving biological and biochemical sensors that

can continuously monitor high-risk sites. These sensors must be quick and accurate so

that information can be communicated to resource managers and the coastal community

in a timely manner. It is also important to incorporate site-specific and satellite sensor

data into the national monitoring network, discussed in Chapter 15, and the IOOS, discussed in Chapter 26. (Additional information about chemical and biological sensor needs

is presented in Chapter 27.) Federal and private support will be particularly needed to

develop monitoring and mitigation technologies that can be implemented at state and

local levels where these outbreaks occur. 

Recommendation 23–3 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation,

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and other appropriate entities should

support the development of improved methods for monitoring and identifying pathogens

and chemical toxins in ocean and coastal waters and organisms. 

This effort should include: 

• developing accurate and cost-effective methods for detecting pathogens, contaminants,

and toxins in seafood for use by both state and federal inspectors.

347
348 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

• developing in situ and space-based methods to monitor and assess pollution inputs,

ecosystem health, and human health impacts.

• developing new tools for measuring human and environmental health indicators in the

marine environment.

• developing models and strategies for predicting and mitigating pollutant loadings, harmful algal blooms, and infectious disease potential in the marine environment.

Increasing Federal Coordination on 

Oceans and Human Health

Several existing programs, including the NIEHS–NSF and NOAA programs, could form

the nucleus of a fully integrated, national oceans and human health program to address

the many issues discussed in this chapter. Most existing programs already involve significant interagency cooperation, which is essential for effectively examining issues that cross

federal agencies’ jurisdictional lines and for coordinating multidisciplinary biomedical

research. Any truly national effort to address the varied roles of the oceans in human

health will need to incorporate innovative basic and applied research with environmental

regulations, coastal management, biosecurity, and homeland security. 

Recommendation 23–4 

Congress should establish a national, multi-agency Oceans and Human Health Initiative to

coordinate and sponsor exploration, research, and new technologies related to examining the

connections among the oceans, ecosystem health, and human health. The National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration’s Oceans and Human Health Initiative and the National

Institute of Environmental Health Sciences–National Science Foundation Centers for Oceans

and Human Health should be expanded and coordinated as the basis for this initiative. 

The new Oceans and Human Health Initiative should:

• be implemented through both competitively awarded grants and support of federallydesignated centers with federal, state, academic, and private-sector investigators eligible

to compete for funding.

• work with the National Ocean Council to review other relevant agency programs and

suggest areas where coordination could be improved. 

• transfer new technologies into management programs that protect human health and

the health of ocean and coastal ecosystems.

Implementing Human Health Protections

In addition to achieving a better understanding of the links between the oceans and

human health, improvements in management are also needed. Most often this means 

protecting seafood safety and maintaining clean coastal waters and beaches.

Seafood Safety

Seafood consumption in the United States is rising. Americans ate about 15.3 pounds of

seafood per person in 1999, compared to only 12.5 pounds in 1980. This is generally considered a positive development for public health as the vast majority of seafood available

to the American public is wholesome and nutritious. However, as consumption rises, so

does the possibility of public health problems from contaminated seafood, including: biological hazards from bacteria and viruses; chemical hazards from toxins, such as ciguatoxin and tetrodotoxin; and other contaminants such as mercury. 
C HAPTER 23: CONNECTING THE OCEANS AND HUMAN HEALTH

The FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety of seafood sold within the United

States, including imported seafood products. NOAA also monitors seafood through the

Seafood Inspection Program that provides voluntary, fee-for-service monitoring of domestic and foreign manufacturers, processes, and products. 

In 1997, based in part on a National Research Council report on seafood safety, 15 the

FDA implemented the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system. The

HACCP system requires both U.S. producers and foreign importers to analyze potential hazards in preparing, handling, and packaging seafood and implement plans to control these

hazards. However, a 2001 study concluded that several problems existed with implementation of the HACCP system, both internationally and domestically.16 While the FDA has been

working to address these concerns, full implementation and enforcement will be needed to

ensure seafood safety. New seafood testing methods, which are faster and more cost-effective, can be used in conjunction with HACCP regulations to further ensure seafood safety.

Aquaculture products make up a significant portion of the seafood sold within the

United States and they are accompanied by specific health concerns that must be monitored. Cultured organisms are often more prone to disease than wild stocks. To protect

against these diseases, high concentrations of pharmaceuticals can be used, but these

chemicals may then appear in surrounding waters, and be concentrated in marine organisms that are consumed by people. 

States, territories, and tribes have a role in protecting their residents from the health risks

associated with contaminated fish and seafood caught outside the commercial industry by

issuing Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories, based on EPA guidance, for the general

population as well as for sensitive subpopulations. These advisories inform the public that

high concentrations of chemical contaminants—such as mercury, PCBs, chlordane, dioxins,

or DDT—have been found in local seafood. The advisories include recommendations about

limiting consumption of certain fish and seafood harvested from specified waterbodies.

Better seafood screening, processing regulations, and public advisories are only part 

of the solution. Proactive control of harmful algal blooms, bacteria, and viruses through

reductions in point and nonpoint source water pollution and control of invasive species 

is needed to ensure a safe food supply. Shellfish are at particular risk of contamination

because they feed by filtering large volumes of water. If that water is contaminated with

bacteria or viruses, shellfish become carriers of these pathogens. When outbreaks occur,

coastal areas may be closed to shellfishing, with serious economic consequences for fishing communities and repercussions for human health. 

Chemical contaminants such as methyl-mercury can also enter aquatic environments

through atmospheric deposition. These compounds can then accumulate in fish and other

marine organisms. Limiting atmospheric deposition of environmental contaminants to

protect coastal waters and the nation’s seafood supply is discussed in Chapter 14.

Coastal Water Quality 

In addition to the danger of consuming contaminated seafood, human health can also be

threatened by participating in recreational activities in or near unhealthy waters. Viruses

are believed to be the major cause of swimming-associated diseases, but bacteria, harmful

algal blooms, and microbial pathogens, such as amoebae and protozoa, also cause health

problems in humans. Although recent programs at the federal and state levels have been

put in place to address these problems, success has been limited. In 2003, more than

18,000 days of beach closings and swimming advisories were issued across the nation.17

The number of such actions continues to rise, costing many millions of dollars a year in

decreased revenues for tourism and higher health care costs.

Almost all coastal states monitor beach water quality by measuring levels of certain

indicator bacteria. However, studies have shown that the presence or absence of these

349

Harmful algal blooms

represent the most

notorious marine 

hazard to both man

and animal. They

know no geographic

bounds and appear to

be increasing worldwide. 

—Allen Dearry, Chief,

National Institutes of

Environmental Health

Sciences, testimony 

to the Commission, 

April 2002
350 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

indicator species does not provide information about all possible threats. In particular,

concentrations of marine viruses are not well characterized by indicator bacteria levels.

Another problem with using microorganisms as indicators of contamination is the lag

time between sample collection, test results, and public notice. During this time swimmers continue to be exposed to the contaminated water. As discussed above, improved

testing technologies and a well-coordinated federal effort are essential to support state and

regional implementation of appropriate monitoring. (A discussion of national monitoring

needs is found in Chapter 15.)

Of course, coastal managers can best protect public health by maintaining clean coastal

waters. Data indicate that most beach closings and advisories are due to the presence of

microscopic disease-causing organisms that come from human and animal wastes.18 These

wastes typically enter coastal waters from combined sewer overflows, discharges of inadequately treated wastes from sewage treatment plants and sanitary sewers, septic system

failures, or stormwater runoff from urban, suburban, and rural areas. Recommendations

on limiting point and nonpoint source pollution in marine and freshwater environments

are provided in Chapter 14. 

Public Education and Outreach

Reductions in pollution from urban area runoff, sewage outflows, agricultural pesticides,

and many other sources are needed to avoid creating harmful conditions in the oceans and

Great Lakes. One important step in achieving such reductions is public education (Chapter

8). Ocean-related educational campaigns frequently focus on the impacts of pollution on

marine animals. Signs stenciled on storm drains remind people that “dolphins live downstream.” However, people must also become more aware that food supplies and recreational

areas are also downstream. 

Education campaigns should also inform people of the potential risks from fish and

shellfish contaminated with bacteria, viruses, or chemicals. Timely and clear State Fish

and Wildlife Consumption Advisories are one way to educate the public about health 

hazards from seafood. Better communication among the seafood industry, state officials,

recreational fishermen, and consumers will also improve the effectiveness of seafood

safety programs and help prevent outbreaks of seafood-related illnesses.

Regional Dimensions

Ocean-related risks to human health are usually specific to certain local or regional areas.

Different species of algal blooms and bacteria are indigenous to particular regions, and both

air and water quality are dependent upon localized human activities. Because of this, the

regional ocean councils and regional ocean information programs, discussed in Chapter 5,

are well placed to examine these issues and their potential cumulative effects and work

toward management practices that best protect the health of the people in their region.

Regional ocean councils could coordinate the development of performance assessments—for example, by measuring the progress of point and nonpoint source control 

programs, monitoring introductions or eradications of invasive species, and tracking

water quality—to complement the regional ecosystem assessments called for in Chapter 5. 
C HAPTER 23: CONNECTING THE OCEANS AND HUMAN HEALTH

Recommendation 23–5 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Protection Agency,

and Food and Drug Administration, working with state and local managers, should fully

implement all existing programs to protect human health from contaminated seafood and

coastal waters. 

Particularly, the federal agencies should:

• incorporate new findings and technologies, especially those developed within the Oceans

and Human Health Initiative, into monitoring and prevention programs.

• coordinate and increase interagency public education and outreach efforts in this area. 

References

1 Harvell, C.D., et al. “Climate Warming and Disease Risks for Terrestrial and Marine Biota.” Science 296 (2002): 2158–62. 

2 Harvell, C.D., et al. “Emerging Marine Diseases—Climate Links and Anthropogenic Factors.” Science 285 (1999): 1505–10.

3 Burke, L., et al. Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems (PAGE): Coastal Ecosystems. Washington, DC: World Resources

Institute, 2000.

4 National Research Council. From Monsoons to Microbes: Understanding the Ocean’s Role in Human Health.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.

5 National Research Council. Marine Biotechnology in the Twenty-first Century: Problems, Promise, and Products.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002. 

6 Bruckner, A.W. “Life-saving Products from Coral Reefs.” Issues in Science and Technology Online, Spring 2002.

7 Hallegraeff, G.M., and C.J. Bolch. “Transport of Diatom and Dinoflagellate Resting Spores via Ship’s Ballast Water:

Implications for Plankton Biogeography and Aquaculture.” Journal of Plankton Research 14 (1992): 1067–84. 

8 Anderson, D.M. “Toxic Algal Blooms and Red Tides: A Global Perspective.” In Red Tides: Biology, Environmental

Science and Toxicology, eds. T. Okaichi, D.M. Anderson, and T. Nemoto. New York, NY: Elsevier, 1989. 

9 Anderson, D.M., et al. Estimated Annual Economic Impact from Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in the United States.

Technical Report WHOI 2000-11. Woods Hole, MA: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 2000. 

10 Hallegraeff, G.M. “A Review of Harmful Algal Blooms and Their Apparent Global Increase.” Phycologia 32 (1993): 7999. 

11 Hoagland, P., et al. “Average Annual Economic Impacts of Harmful Algal Blooms in the United States: Some Preliminary

Estimates.” Estuaries 25, no. 4b (2002): 677–95.

12 Degner, R., et al. Per Capita Fish and Shellfish Consumption in Florida. Industry Report 94-2. Gainesville, FL:

Agricultural Market Research Center, 1994. 

13 Lobitz, B., et al. “Climate and Infectious Disease: Use of Remote Sensing for Detection of Vibrio cholerae by Indirect

Measurement.” PNAS 97 (2000):1438–443.

14 Harvell, C.D., et al. “Emerging Marine Diseases—Climate Links and Anthropogenic Factors.” Science 285 (1999): 1505–10.

15 National Research Council. Seafood Safety. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991.

16 U.S. General Accounting Office. Food Safety: Federal Oversight of Seafood Does Not Sufficiently Protect Consumers.

GAO-01-204. Washington, DC, 2001.

17 Dorfman, M. Testing the Waters 2003: A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches. New York, NY: Natural Resources

Defense Council, 2003.

18 Ibid.

351
352

CHAPTER 24

MANAGING OFFSHORE ENERGY

AND OTHER MINERAL RESOURCES

Chapter 6 recommended development of a coordinated offshore management

regime that would be comprehensive, transparent, and predictable, bring a fair

return to the public, and promote a balance between economic and environmental

considerations. The management of nonliving resources in federal waters raises

many of the same fundamental policy questions. From the well developed,

but politically contentious, outer Continental Shelf oil and gas program to

new and emerging offshore uses that lack comprehensive management

regimes, much can be learned. But much work also remains in developing a consistent system for unlocking the treasures of the sea

while protecting the marine environment and providing affected

parties a voice in decisions. 

Exercising Jurisdiction over Nonliving

Resources in Federal Waters

I

n addition to its responsibilities for living marine resources, the

federal government also exercises jurisdiction over nonliving

resources, energy and other minerals located in the waters and

seabed of the more than 1.7 billion acres of the outer Continental

Shelf (OCS). Offshore oil and gas development has the most mature

and broadest management structure of all such resources. It also has

the longest and richest history, characterized by major changes to the

underlying law that established the more comprehensive administrative

regime, as well as intense political conflict resulting from divisions among

stakeholders and tensions inherent in American federalism. The development

of other ocean energy resources—some of which are newly emerging technologies—have differing levels of management, but none are currently making any noteworthy contributions to domestic production numbers. Historically, there also have been

varying expressions of commercial interest in non-energy minerals in the U.S. exclusive

economic zone (EEZ), but only sand and gravel have been used in recent years by coastal

states and communities, because of a change which eased access to those resources.

Managing Offshore Oil and Gas Resources

As noted in Chapter 2, from its beginning, the federal offshore oil and gas program faced

controversy over ownership issues, as states unsuccessfully sued the federal government

A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY
CHAPTER 24: MANAGING OFFSHORE ENERGY AND OTHER MINERAL RESOURCES

over control of offshore waters. Once that issue was settled legislatively, there was a short

but relatively stress-free period. Conflict, however, soon emerged over issues of management, environmental risks, and the costs and benefits of energy exploration and production

on the OCS that continues to this day. Proponents point to the program’s contributions to

the nation’s energy supplies and economy, significant improvements in its safety and environmental record, and noteworthy technological achievements. Opponents argue that 

offshore oil activities harm coastal communities economically and the marine environment

unacceptably. The ongoing debate is carried out in the halls of Congress, federal agencies,

state and local governments, trade associations, and nongovernmental organizations. OCS

oil and gas development is a classic example of the politics of multiple-use resource management, including federal-state tensions, competing user issues, arguments over the interpretation of data, and disagreements concerning tolerable levels of risk. 

Despite its political problems, which are best understood through an awareness of the

historical context associated with it, today the OCS oil and gas program has a well institutionalized and reasonably comprehensive management regime. While not without its 

critics, the program seeks to balance the many competing interests involved in offshore

energy activity, requires state and local government input in federal decisions, and specifies detailed procedures to be followed by those seeking offshore leases. It also manages

the various processes associated with access to non-energy minerals on the OCS. 

Energy development in federal waters is big business and has become an important

part of the fabric of the U.S. ocean policy mix. Most observers agree that the federal OCS

oil and gas program benefits America by helping to meet energy needs, creating thousands

of jobs, and contributing billions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury. Despite the limited offshore geographic area from which production flows and in which leasing is authorized,

the amount of oil and gas production from the OCS is significant. In 2002 and 2003, federal offshore waters produced more than 600 million barrels of oil annually1 and about 4.5

trillion cubic feet of natural gas.2

From a Quiet Beginning to Prohibitions on Leasing

In 1953, Congress enacted the Submerged Lands Act, which codified coastal states’ jurisdiction off their shores out to three nautical miles (or, for historic reasons, nine nautical

miles for Texas and the Gulf coast of Florida). That same year, regulation of OCS oil and

gas activity seaward of state submerged lands was vested in the Secretary of the Interior

with the passage of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which established

federal jurisdiction over the OCS for the purpose of mineral leasing. For a period of some

fifteen years, the offshore energy program was relatively quiet, being confined largely to

leasing off of Louisiana and Texas. In the late sixties, however, the relative peace on the

OCS would be dramatically changed.

As discussed in Chapter 2, the 1969 Santa Barbara blowout took place during an era

of rapidly expanding environmental awareness and helped spur the enactment of numerous major environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),

the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA),

and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). 

Just as the nation’s environmental consciousness rose, so too did recognition of the

need for secure supplies of oil and gas. Also, as noted in Chapter 2, the 1973 Arab oil

embargo prompted President Nixon to announce plans to lease 10 million OCS acres in

1975, an area equal to the entire amount leased prior to that time. Sales were scheduled

not only in areas of earlier OCS activity, but also along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The

result was a nationwide debate that raged through the remainder of the decade, pitting the

oil and gas industry and its allies against various representatives of coastal states, commercial and sport fishing interests, and environmental organizations. 

353
354 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Congress responded to this debate by virtually rewriting the OCSLA in 1978, requiring

the Secretary of the Interior to balance the nation’s needs for energy with the protection of

human, marine, and coastal environments, make certain that the concerns of coastal states

and competing users were taken into account, and ensure that some of the newly enacted

environmental laws were integrated into the OCS process. However, before regulations

and procedures could be fully developed to support the amended law, in the early 1980s

the Reagan administration proposed to terminate funding for the CZMA and its Coastal

Energy Impact Program (CEIP). The CEIP was specifically designed during the debate

over the OCSLA amendments to provide grants and loans to coastal states to deal with the

environmental effects occasioned by OCS activities. At the same time these budget cuts

were put forward, the Secretary of the Interior was pursuing an aggressive offshore program that would make one billion acres available for oil and gas leasing over the ensuing

five years. Thus began the modern day version of the battle over offshore oil, one that has

endured for over two decades and has included major legislative and executive branch

negotiations, actions to restrict leasing in so-called “frontier” areas, Supreme Court cases,

federal-state battles over administrative procedures and the sharing of revenues, and the

buyback of some OCS leases by the federal government. 

In its initial reaction to the proposed budget cuts, Congress was able to save the CZMA,

but not the CEIP. It then turned its attention to restricting and ultimately prohibiting a

substantial part of the OCS leasing schedule of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI).

Using its appropriations process in 1982, Congress put four basins offshore northern

California off limits to leasing. For the next few years, every annual DOI funding bill

included leasing prohibitions on additional regions until practically all offshore planning

areas outside of the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska were excluded. 

Additionally, Presidents have expanded on congressional action, providing longer

term restrictions than those covered in annual appropriations bills. In 1990, President

Bush withdrew areas offshore California, southern Florida, the North Atlantic states,

Washington, and Oregon from leasing consideration until after 2000. A few years later, 

the Clinton Administration added additional areas to the restricted list, extended all of the

withdrawals until 2012, and included a permanent prohibition on leasing in national

marine sanctuaries. These presidential and congressional actions have removed some 610

million acres from leasing consideration and effectively limited access to the OCS program

to the central and western Gulf of Mexico (95 percent of offshore production), a small

portion of the eastern Gulf, and virtually all areas off Alaska (Figure 24.1). 

The OCS Leasing, Exploration, and Development Process

As already noted, the OCSLA is a relatively comprehensive resource management statute.

Besides authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to hold competitive lease sales for offshore

tracts, regulate and oversee lease activities, and encourage efficient, safe, and diligent production, the law specifies the steps potential lessees must take to bid on offshore tracts and the

process that occurs after receiving a lease. For example, the OCSLA requires consultation

with coastal states and localities at a number of points in the federal offshore decision-making

process, including during the development of a five-year leasing program, individual lease

sale delineations, exploration and development-production plans, and environmental studies

and oil and gas information programs. Further, the law carries provisions on offshore safety

regulations, citizen suits and judicial review, enforcement authority, the applicability of NEPA,

geological and geophysical exploration, export limitations, documentation requirements for

offshore vessels and rigs, and numerous opportunities to address other environmental issues. 

DOI’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) characterizes its administration of the

OCSLA as being “process rich” (Figure 24.2). Through the initial years of promulgating

regulations to implement the 1978 amendments, and through litigation about the mean-
CHAPTER 24: MANAGING OFFSHORE ENERGY AND OTHER MINERAL RESOURCES

ing of certain provisions, the current OCS leasing and development program is one that is,

on balance, coherent and reasonably predictable. Although the comprehensiveness of the

program has not precluded the political battles noted above nor avoided restrictions on

leasing in frontier areas, in those regions of the nation where offshore development is

accepted, the internal administrative process is well known and understood by those who

invest in offshore leases and those who choose to observe and comment on such activity.

The OCSLA is replete with references to the applicability of other statutes and the authority of other departments in the oil and gas process, and presents a clearer roadmap than

most other offshore resource management laws or programs.

355

Figure 24.1 Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing 

Has Been Limited to a Few Planning Areas

Shown above are the outer Continental Shelf planning areas in the Minerals Management Service’s 

2002–2007 leasing program. The entire West Coast and almost all of the East Coast have been 

restricted from leasing through 2012, leaving only areas of the central and western Gulf of Mexico 

(and a small area of the eastern Gulf) and virtually all areas off the Alaskan coast available for 

development.

Source: Minerals Management Service, Washington, DC.

Planning area boundaries

■ Proposed for leasing in the MMS 2002–2007 leasing program

■ Area withdrawn from leasing through 6/30/12

■ Area neither withdrawn nor proposed for leasing

North Atlantic

Mid-Atlantic

South Atlantic

Straits of Florida

Southern 

California

Central 

California

Northern 

California

Washington/

Oregon

Western Central Eastern

Gulf of Mexico

Beaufort Sea

Chukchi Sea

Hope Basin

Norton Basin

St. Matthew-Hall

Gulf of Alaska

Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait

Shumagin

St. George Basin

Aleutian Arc

Bowers Basin

Aleutian Basin

Navarin Basin

North Aleutian Basin

Kodiak
356 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

After an initial bumpy start in the implementation of major amendments to its basic

law, the problems encountered by the offshore oil and gas program today are generally

external to its day-to-day administration and regulatory requirements. Although a number

of different variables have to be taken into consideration in crafting a regime for other

ocean uses, the scope and comprehensiveness of the OCS oil and gas program can be a

model for the management of a wide variety of offshore activities.

Figure 24.2 A “Process Rich” but Clear Path to Offshore Leasing, 

Exploration, and Development Activities

The process for companies and other stakeholders to comment on proposed sales, and to lease, explore, and develop the outer 

Continental Shelf, is clearly defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Although the process involves many steps, its 

comprehensiveness and transparency not only set out clear comment periods for coastal states and other interested 

stakeholders, but also provide companies greater predictability about the procedures they must follow to receive approval for 

their exploration and production work.

* Includes 60-day comment period and 15-day automatic extension. Unless state concurs, no decision can be made until 90 days after beginning of 

state review.

Source: Minerals Management Service, Washington, DC.

Abbreviations:

APD: Application for Permit to Drill

CD: Consistency Determination

CZM: Coastal Zone Management

EIS: Environmental Impact Statement

Develop 5-Year Program

Planning for Specific Sale

Exploration Plan Approval

Development and Production Plan Approval

Development 

and Production 

Plan

CZM 

Consistency 

Review Starts

Draft EIS 

Published

90-day 

Comment 

Period

Final EIS 

Published

CZM 

Consistency 

Obtained

Development & 

Production Plan 

Approved

Production Well 

Application

First Oil/Gas 

Production

Exploration 

Plan Submitted

Environmental 

Assessment

CZM Review 

Starts

Exploration 

Plan Approved

90-day CZM 

Review 

Approved

APD Approved

Permits Granted

Exploration 

Drilling Starts

First Exploration 

Well Completed

Delineation 

Drilling

Solicit 

Comments

45-day 

Comment 

Period

Draft 

Proposed 

Program 

Published

Proposed 

Program

Draft EIS 

Published

90-day 

Comment 

Period

Proposed 

Final Program

Final EIS

60-day 

Waiting 

Period

5-Year 

Program 

Announced

60-day 

Comment 

Period

Call for 

Information

Published

45-day 

Comment 

Period

Define 

Sale Area

Draft EIS 45-day 

Comment 

Period

30-day 

Pre-decision 

Period

90-day 

Review*

60-day 

Comment 

Period

Notice of 

Sale

30-day 

Comment 

Period

Sale Leases 

Issued

Final EIS 

Published

CD to 

States

Proposed 

Notice 

Distributed

Pre-Lease Post-Lease
CHAPTER 24: MANAGING OFFSHORE ENERGY AND OTHER MINERAL RESOURCES

Trends in Domestic Offshore Oil and Gas Production

Currently, energy development in federal waters accounts for more than 30 percent of

domestic oil production and 25 percent of natural gas. Further, of the oil and natural gas

still to be discovered in the United States, energy experts estimate that some 60 percent

will come from offshore areas.3

More than 95 percent of U.S. offshore oil and gas production takes place in the western and central Gulf of Mexico, where there is an established infrastructure and general

public acceptability. There is still some offshore production in Southern California and

limited leasing and exploration in federal waters off Alaska. The first oil production from

a joint federal-state unit in the Beaufort Sea (Alaska) commenced in 2001. 

The importance of offshore oil and natural gas to the nation’s total energy portfolio is

expected to increase. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects the United

States will need about 35–40 percent more natural gas and about 45 percent more oil by

2025 to meet demand, even as new energy conservation measures are mandated and efforts

to develop alternative power sources continue.4 Government and industry experts are 

concerned that rising demand for and limited supplies of natural gas will continue to boost

heating and electricity costs, affecting homeowners and a range of major industries. Nearly

all U.S. electric-generating plants built since 1998 are fueled by natural gas (Box 24.1).

Rise in Deep-water Oil Production

Although production in the Gulf of Mexico’s heavily leased shallow waters has been steadily

declining, production in its deeper waters (more than 1,000 feet), which tend to produce

more oil than natural gas, increased by over 500 percent between 1995 and 2002.5 In part,

this growth was attributable to technological breakthroughs, the relative stabilization of

crude oil prices, and the enactment of legislation in 1995 granting various levels of royalty

relief to lessees willing to make the risky investment in the Gulf’s deeper waters. Deepwater oil production now accounts for more than half of the Gulf’s total production.6

Additionally, the technology for ultra–deep-water development continues to advance with

the drilling of a number of exploratory and production wells in water depths greater than

7,000 feet. Recently, a world record exploratory well was drilled in 10,000 feet of water. 

A Promising Future for Natural Gas from Shallow Water

MMS estimates there is up to 55 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas available for production in the deeper stratigraphic horizons on the continental shelf of the Gulf (15,000 feet

below the seabed but in shallow-water depths of less than 656 feet). This estimate is 175

percent greater than the previous projection of 20 tcf just a few years ago. This is a hopeful sign of additional sources of natural gas to meet a portion of the nation’s future needs.

Natural gas production from the deeper horizons on the continental shelf of the Gulf

increased from a relatively low 284 billion cubic feet (bcf) in 2000 to 421 bcf in 2002.

This 2-year, 50 percent increase follows immediately after a 3-year, 21 percent decrease

between 1997 and 2000.7 To bolster industry interest in this high-cost deep drilling area,

in 2001, MMS instituted a program of deep shelf royalty relief for natural gas production.

This economic incentive, combined with more sophisticated cost-effective technology,

improved seismic data, better understanding of the potential from the deep shelf, and

increased public demand, is likely to provide the impetus for even further accelerated 

natural gas production from the OCS.

Federal Revenues from Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing and Production

The federal government receives a substantial amount of revenue from energy companies

for offshore oil and gas leasing and production. OCS lessees make three categories of pay357
358 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Box 24.1 Offshore Liquefied Natural Gas Ports May Be on the Horizon 

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration and private industry

trade associations predict that the nation’s demand for natural gas will continue to rise.i,ii

Notwithstanding estimates of increased natural gas production from the Gulf of Mexico 

(discussed earlier in this chapter), the United States is no longer self-sufficient in that energy

resource. A primary way to meet rising demand is through substantially increased imports of 

liquefied natural gas (LNG). In 2003, LNG supplied only about 2 percent of U.S. natural gas needs;

by 2010, it is expected to provide some 10 percent of such needs.iii

LNG is transported in large, specialized tanker ships that keep the gas cooled to approximately 260°F below zero to reduce the volume for shipping purposes. LNG tankers deliver the

gas to special port facilities, where the commodity is re-gasified, either on the ship or at the port

facility, and then transported through pipelines to customers.

The United States currently has four LNG import terminals in coastal port areas in

Massachusetts, Maryland, Georgia, and Louisiana. Over three dozen new terminals intended

to serve the U.S. market (including eight projects proposed for Eastern Canada, the Bahamas,

and Baja California, Mexico) are in varying stages of planning.iv For many complex reasons, it

is possible that only a few of the projected projects will be built.v However, of the proposed

new LNG projects, a number are likely be located offshore, on the outer Continental Shelf.

Congress has responded to the need for a broad and cohesive ocean governance structure for offshore LNG ports. The federal Deepwater Port Act (DPA) was amended in 2002 to

authorize the siting, construction, and operation of LNG terminals on the OCS, seaward of

state boundaries.vi The U.S. Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration are the primary

agencies responsible for the licensing process under the DPA. When it was moved to the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard’s authority under the DPA was transferred with it under the terms of an interagency memorandum of understanding (MOU). 

The MOU also included a number of other agencies that have regulatory authority over some

aspect of DPA licensing, or other aspects of LNG transportation and use on the OCS or

onshore. These agencies include the U.S. Departments of the Interior, Transportation, and

Commerce, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.

One of the interesting provisions of the DPA, which is applicable to the siting and operation of offshore LNG ports, stipulates that that the Secretary of Transportation may not issue

a license without the approval of the Governor of each coastal state adjacent to the proposed

facility. This gubernatorial approval process is in addition to the federal consistency authority

exercised by states with approved coastal zone management programs.

Although the recent amendments to the DPA establish an ocean governance structure

for LNG facilities, with designated agency mandates and responsibilities, the siting of new

LNG facilities and management of LNG tanker traffic should be fully integrated with the

coordinated offshore management regime discussed in Chapter 6. 

i Energy Information Administration. “Annual Energy Outlook 2004 with Projections to 2025”

<www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/gas.html> Accessed June 3, 2004.

ii National Petroleum Council. “Balancing Natural Gas Policy—Fueling the Demands of a Growing Economy, Executive

Summary.” <www.npc.org> Accessed May 19, 2004.

iii Energy Information Administration. “Annual Energy Outlook 2004 with Projections to 2025”

<www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/gas.html> Accessed June 3, 2004.

iv Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects. “Existing and Proposed North American LNG

Terminals, June, 2004.” <www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/gen-info/horizon-lng.pdf> Accessed June 24, 2004.

v Energy Information Administration. Reassessment of Liquefied Natural Gas Supply Potential in “Annual Energy

Outlook 2004 with Projections to 2025.” <www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/issues_3.html> Accessed June 3, 2004.

vi The Deepwater Port Act, as amended by Section 106 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Pub. L.

107–295, November 25, 2002.
CHAPTER 24: MANAGING OFFSHORE ENERGY AND OTHER MINERAL RESOURCES

ments: bonus bids when a lease is issued; rental payments before a lease produces; and

royalties on any production from the lease. In the half century of the oil and gas program’s

existence, between 1953 and 2002, it has contributed approximately $145 billion in federal revenues.8 In recent years, the revenues generated from offshore energy activity have

averaged $4–$5 billion annually (Table 24.1). Although most of the revenues have been

deposited directly into the U.S. Treasury, a significant portion has gone to the Land and

Water Conservation Fund and the National Historic Preservation Fund. 

A Question of Equity: Sharing OCS Receipts with Coastal States

Mineral resources on federal land, whether onshore or offshore, benefit the nation as a

whole. The primary law governing onshore mineral development is the Mineral Leasing

Act (MLA), and the comparable law for offshore minerals is the OCSLA. These two statutes

are analogous in many ways except for one—the sharing of revenues with states. Under

the MLA, each of the lower 48 states directly receives 50 percent of all mineral leasing 

revenues from public lands within its boundaries, and an additional 40 percent through

the Reclamation Fund; the state of Alaska receives 90 percent directly. There is a broad

array of additional federal land receipts sharing programs, including the National Forest

Receipts Program and the Taylor Grazing Act. Eligible uses of the shared receipts vary

widely. Some programs require that the funds be used by the recipient jurisdiction for 

specific purposes such as schools, roads, or land and resource improvements, while others

allow the states more discretion.

Furthermore, once leased under the MLA or some other land management statute,

onshore federal lands are generally subject to most state and local taxes. Most noteworthy

is the ability of states to levy severance taxes on minerals developed on federal lands within

their borders. Additionally, if local governments lose property tax revenue because of the

existence of federal lands, there are a variety of programs that provide localities with federal

payments in lieu of taxes. 

In contrast, the OCSLA specifically prohibits state taxes on OCS activities. Moreover,

there is no offshore revenue sharing program comparable to the MLA for coastal states.

Proponents of such an initiative argue that although the energy development occurs in 

federal waters, many of the impacts resulting from such activities occur locally, in and near

the states’ coastal zones. They contend that affected states and communities should receive

assistance in coping with the costs of facilitating offshore development, including actions

to minimize the risk of environmental damage. The executive branch has traditionally

opposed revenue sharing, largely because of the potential loss to the federal treasury. 

359

Table 24.1 Federal Revenues from Offshore Mineral Development

Source: Minerals Management Service. <www.mrm.mms.gov/Stats/pdfdocs/coll_off.pdf> 

(Accessed March 2004). Year 2001 data source: MMS Revenue Management Office, Lakewood, CO.

1997 $3,444,561,989 $1,814,666,046 $5,259,228,035 

1998 $2,703,722,873 $1,618,914,459 $4,322,637,332 

1999 $2,611,742,229 $576,646,226 $3,188,388,455 

2000 $4,094,576,078 $1,115,086,564 $5,209,662,642 

2001 $5,448,825,260 $1,056,762,550 $6,505,590,810

Total $18,303,428,429 $6,182,075,845 $24,485,504,274

Year

Oil and Gas

Royalites

Bonuses, Rents and

Other Revenue

Total 

by Year

Significant funds are paid into the U.S. Treasury each year from outer Continental Shelf (OCS) bonuses,

royalties, and rents. This money is used in part to help support federal conservation programs. A small

amount generated from nearshore development is shared with OCS producing states.
360 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

For decades, Congress has debated proposals on OCS revenue sharing—including the

Coastal Energy Impact Program in the mid-1970s—to help states address the effects of

offshore production and remedy the apparent inconsistency with onshore mineral development. Disputes over the fair division of revenues from resources discovered in fields

that straddle state and federal submerged lands were resolved in 1986. In that year,

Congress amended the OCSLA to require that 27 percent of revenues from federal leasing

and production activity within three nautical miles seaward of the federal–state offshore

boundary be given to the affected state. Through the release of money that was being held

in escrow, the awarding of past payments owed to the states, and subsequent entitlement

to 27 percent of current and future revenues from the three-mile area, the seven OCS

“producing” states have received slightly more than $3 billion since 1986. Currently, these

states receive approximately $50–60 million annually through this mechanism. In fiscal

year 2001, Congress authorized and appropriated $142 million for a Coastal Impact

Assistance Program to be allocated among the producing states by the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). However, this was a one-year authorization,

and no further funding has been provided.

The Federal-State Partnership for Oceans and Coasts

In various parts of this report, recommendations are made not only to strengthen the

coordination of ocean policy at the federal level, but also to increase the involvement of

nonfederal governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders. The time has come to significantly enhance the ocean and coastal partnership between the federal government and

state, territorial, tribal, and local governments. This partnership recognizes that much of

the responsibility for managing the nation’s ocean and coastal resources rests with nonfederal authorities. These concepts are at the heart of the CZMA and permeate many other

natural resource management programs.

As the federal-state ocean and coastal partnership began to evolve, the nation determined that activities associated with development of nonrenewable resources should not

be pursued at the expense of the long-term health of renewable resources. That is why the

OCSLA, the CZMA, and other applicable federal statutes call for balanced management of

offshore oil and gas, protection of the ocean and coastal environment, and involvement by

state and local governments. Eventually, new oil and gas will no longer be found or developed in the nation’s submerged lands but, if the proper policies are pursued, the renewable resources of our estuaries, coasts, oceans, and the Great Lakes—and the economic

activities that depend upon them—will remain healthy and strong.

To make certain that the federal-state partnership remains strong and that critical marine

ecosystems are protected, more of the resource rents generated from OCS energy leasing and

production should be invested in the sustainability of ocean and coastal resources.

Recommendation 24–1

Congress should use a portion of the revenues the federal government receives from the leasing and extraction of outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas to provide grants to all coastal

states that can be invested in the conservation and sustainable development of renewable

ocean and coastal resources. States off whose coasts OCS oil and gas is produced should

receive a larger share of such revenue to compensate them for the costs of addressing the

environmental and socioeconomic impacts of energy activity in adjacent federal waters. None

of the programs that currently receive revenues from OCS oil and gas activities should be

adversely affected by this new allocation.

Chapter 30, Funding Needs and Possible Sources, includes a more extensive discussion about offshore revenue sharing and its connection to improved ocean and coastal

management.
State Involvement in OCS Oil and Gas Decision Making

The partnership between the federal and state governments with respect to activities in

federal waters should involve more than the sharing of some revenues. The central role of

states in the new ocean policy framework is addressed in practically every chapter of this

report. For example, Chapter 6 specifically calls for a more robust federal-regional-state

dialogue in the building of coordinated offshore management regime. Chapter 9 addresses

the link between coastal and offshore management, including the role of the federal consistency provision of the CZMA, despite some disagreements between levels of government, in enhancing cooperative federalism. 

With respect to offshore oil and gas, the 1978 amendments to the OCSLA were intended,

among many purposes, to bring state and local governments into much clearer and statutorily specified consultative roles at various points in DOI’s decision-making process.

Further, the amendments made clear that the federal consistency provision of the CZMA

applied to exploration, development, and production plans submitted to the Secretary of

the Interior under the OCSLA. (Box 24.2 provides additional information on the federal

consistency provision.)

Environmental Issues Related to Offshore Oil and Gas Production 

As with most industrial development activities, along with the economic- and energyrelated benefits of OCS oil and gas production, are actual and perceived risks to the 

environment, coastal communities, and competing users. Since the 1969 Santa Barbara

blowout, the U.S. oil industry’s environmental and safety record has improved significantly, as has the regulatory regime of DOI. Today, safety stipulations are more stringent,

technologies are vastly improved, inspections are regular and frequent, and oil spill

response capabilities are in place. Nevertheless, there remain numerous environmental

issues associated with the development and production of oil and gas from the OCS.

Foremost among these are:

• Physical damage to coastal wetlands and other fragile areas by OCS-related onshore

infrastructure and pipelines. 

• Physical disruption of and damage to bottom-dwelling marine communities. 

• Discharge of contaminants and toxic pollutants present in drilling muds and cuttings

and in produced waters.

• Emissions of pollutants from fixed facilities, vessels, and helicopters. 

• Seismic exploration and production noise impacts on marine mammals, fish, and

other wildlife. 

• Immediate and long-term ecological effects of large oil spills. 

• Chronic, low-level impacts on natural and human environments. 

• Cumulative impacts on the marine, coastal, and human environments. 

The most obvious of these risks, and the one most commonly cited, is the potential

for oil spills including drill rig blowouts, pipeline spills, and chronic releases from production platforms. The impacts of large oil spills can last from years to decades, particularly

in critical habitats, such as wetlands and coral reefs. 

According to MMS, 97 percent of OCS spills are one barrel or less in volume and U.S.

OCS offshore facilities and pipelines accounted for only 2 percent of the volume of oil

released into U.S. waters for the period 1985–2001 (Figure 24.3).9 The total volume and

number of such spills over that period declined significantly due to industry safety practices and improved spill prevention technology. By comparison, the National Research

Council (NRC) estimated that 690,000 barrels of oil enter North American ocean waters

each year from land-based human activities, and another 1,118,000 barrels result from

natural seeps emanating from the seafloor.10

CHAPTER 24: MANAGING OFFSHORE ENERGY AND OTHER MINERAL RESOURCES 361

John Wesley Powell,

the Civil War veteran

and explorer who led

the first expedition

down the Colorado

river, had the fundamental insight that

natural resources do

not respect political

boundaries. [His]

insight fully applies

to the resources of

the Outer Continental

Shelf—whether they

be commercial fisheries, oil and gas, or

endangered species.

Everything that happens on the federal

OCS affects state

waters and the land

and people of the

adjoining states. 

—Robert Wiygul, 

Environmental Attorney,

Waltzer & Associates,

testimony to the Commission, March 2002
362 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Since 1981, the volume of oil spilled from OCS pipelines is four to five times greater

than that from OCS platforms (Figure 24.4).11 Third party impacts due to events such as

anchor dragging and ship groundings, and damages resulting from natural disasters such

as hurricanes and underwater landslides, are leading causes of pipeline spills. As noted by

the NRC, spills due to structural failures in aging pipelines are also a growing concern.12

Long-term exposure to weather and marine conditions makes pipelines older than twentyfive years considerably more susceptible to stress fractures and material fatigue that can

lead to spills and leaks. In addition, older pipelines do not incorporate the advanced oil

spill detection and prevention technologies that have been developed in recent years.

Box 24.2 The Federal Consistency Provision and 

Offshore Oil and Gas Development

The application of the federal consistency provision of the Coastal Zone Management Act

(CZMA) to offshore energy development has been one of the most contentious issues

among the federal government, coastal state governments, and outer Continental Shelf

(OCS) lessees. In the mid-1970s, Congress amended the original version of the federal 

consistency provision to add a section that explicitly covered certain OCS activities. Of the

thousands of exploration and development plans submitted by oil and gas companies over

the years and approved by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), states have concurred

with the consistency of such plans with their state coastal management program in virtually

all of the cases. But there have been some instances in which states have objected and these

are generally cases 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.

In a case that reached the highest court in the land in 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court held

that OCS lease sales were not subject to the consistency provision of the CZMA. In 1990,

Congress enacted a law, which reversed the effect of the decision, clarified that such sales

are subject to a state consistency review, and made a number of other changes to the interpretation of the federal consistency provision that resulted in a lengthy rule-making process

by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The final rule was published in 2000. 

In 2001, the Vice President submitted the National Energy Policy report of the National

Energy Policy Development Group to the President.i The report contained a section on the

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), as administered by DOI’s Minerals Management

Service, and the CZMA, as carried out by NOAA. It noted that the effectiveness of these programs is “sometimes lost through a lack of clearly defined requirements and information

needs from federal and state entities, as well as uncertain deadlines during the process.” 

The report recommended that the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior reexamine the

legal and policy regimes to see if changes were needed regarding energy activities in the

coastal zone and the OCS. 

In 2003, after a series of negotiations between the two departments, the Department of

Commerce published a proposed rule addressing the information needs of states, coordination

of timing requirements between the OCSLA and the CZMA, definitive time limits on the

Secretary of Commerce’s appeals process, and additional procedural matters. (For a more

detailed discussion of the OCS-specific federal consistency provisions of the CZMA and the issues

related to their implementation, including a history of related litigation, see Appendix 6.)

i National Energy Policy Development Group. National Energy Policy: Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound

Energy for America’s Future. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, May 2001. 
CHAPTER 24: MANAGING OFFSHORE ENERGY AND OTHER MINERAL RESOURCES

The MMS Environmental Studies Program (ESP) is a major source of information

about the impacts of OCS oil and gas activities on the human, marine, and coastal environments. Since 1986, annual funding for the program has decreased, in real dollars, from a

high of $56 million to approximately $18 million in 2003. Even accounting for the contraction in the areas available for leasing, the erosion in ESP funding has occurred at a

time when more and better information, not less, is needed. There continues to be a need

to better understand the cumulative and long-term impacts of OCS oil and gas development, especially in the area of low levels of persistent organic and inorganic chemicals,

and their cumulative or synergistic effects. 

Also, as noted, OCS oil and gas exploratory activities in the Gulf of Mexico are now

occurring in water depths approaching 10,000 feet with projections that the industry will

achieve 15,000 feet drilling capabilities within the next decade. The technological ability

to conduct oil and gas activities in ever deeper waters on the OCS places a significant and

important responsibility on MMS to collect the essential environmental deep-water data

necessary for it and other agencies to make informed management and policy decisions on

exploration and production activities at those depths. Thus, as the knowledge base increases

and the industry expands its activities further offshore and into deeper waters, new environmental issues are emerging that cannot all be adequately addressed under the current

ESP budget.

363

Figure 24.3 Oil Inputs to the 

North American Marine Environment 

Offshore Oil and Gas 

Development 

(including pipelines)

2%

Recreational 

Marine Vessels

2%

Natural 

Seepage

Municipal or

Industrial 

Waste and 

Runoff

Atmospheric 

Fallout from 

Human Activities

Marine 

Transportation

3%

63% 22%

8%

Offshore oil and gas development contributes only 2 

percent of the 1.8 million barrels of oil released into North 

American waters each year. Natural seepage from the 

seafloor is by far the largest input, while runoff and waste 

from human land-based activities contribute roughly a 

quarter of the oil present in the marine environment. On a 

worldwide basis, the oil released from offshore oil and gas 

development still only accounts for 4 percent of the total 

8.9 million barrels. (One barrel is equal to 42 gallons.) 

Source: Minerals Management Service. “OCS Oil Spill Facts, 2002.” 

<www.mms.gov/stats/PDFs/2002_OilSpillFacts.pdf> 

(Accessed March 2004).

Figure 24.4 Pipelines Are a Leading Source 

of Oil Leaks from OCS Infrastructure

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

1971–1980 1981–1990 1991–2000

Barrels of Oil Spilled

In the last thirty years, the amount of oil spilled from OCS 

platforms and pipelines has continued to decrease. The 

large disparity between the number of barrels spilled from 

platforms versus pipelines is indicative of improvements in 

platform technology and operations and the greater 

susceptibility of pipelines to third party damages, natural 

hazards, and structural failure brought on by corrosion 

and materials fatigue.

Source: Minerals Management Service. “OCS Oil Spill Facts, 2002.” 

<www.mms.gov/stats/PDFs/2002_OilSpillFacts.pdf> 

(Accessed March 2004). 

■ Platforms ■ Pipelines
364 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 24–2

The U.S. Department of the Interior should expand the Minerals Management Service’s

Environmental Studies Program.

Priorities for the enhanced Environmental Studies Program should include:

• conducting long-term environmental research and monitoring at appropriate outer

Continental Shelf (OCS) sites to better understand cumulative, low-level, and chronic

impacts of OCS oil and gas activities on the natural and human environments.

• working with state environmental agencies and industry to evaluate the risks to the

marine environment posed by aging offshore and onshore pipelines, particularly in the

Gulf of Mexico.

Opportunities for Sharing Ocean Observation Information and Resources

Floating drilling rigs and production platforms are able to maintain position over the tops

of wells thousands of feet below the surface without the need for mooring or permanent

structures. Dynamic positioning systems compensate for wind, waves, and currents to keep

the vessel stationary relative to the seabed, and new hull designs maintain stability. Threeand four-dimensional subsurface images allow operators to obtain a better idea of how a

reservoir behaves and increase the likelihood of drilling success. And, the use of horizontal

and directional drilling creates more flexibility in deciding where to site offshore platforms. 

The movement of oil and natural gas exploration, development, and production activities further offshore into deeper waters and harsher marine environments, such as the

Arctic, affords an excellent opportunity for incorporating the industry’s offshore infrastructure into the national Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). In addition to its offshore

infrastructure, the industry has the technological capacity to collect, assimilate, and analyze

environmental data of use in both IOOS forecasts and more general ocean and environmental models and data products (which are discussed in more detail in Chapter 28). The U.S.

offshore industry has a history of partnering with ocean scientists, allowing them to use production platforms for mounting environmental sensors, and in some cases, collecting and

providing them with environmental data and information. The industry would also benefit

from participation in the IOOS as a user of the system’s data and information products and

by being involved in its design, implementation, and future enhancement. 

Recommendation 24–3

Ocean.US, working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and

Minerals Management Service (MMS), should include the offshore oil and gas industry as an

integral partner in the design, implementation, and operation of the Integrated Ocean

Observing System (IOOS), especially in areas where offshore oil and gas activities occur.

Specifically, Ocean.US, NOAA, and MMS should work with the oil and gas industry to:

• employ industry resources, such as pipelines, platforms, and vessels as part of the IOOS.

• incorporate nonproprietary data into IOOS informational products and larger environmental databases, while protecting the security of proprietary data and meeting other

safety, environmental, and economic concerns. 

Assessing the Potential of Offshore Methane Hydrates

Conventional oil and gas are not the only fossil-based fuel sources located beneath ocean

floors. Methane hydrates are solid, ice-like structures composed of water and natural gas.

They occur naturally in areas of the world where methane and water can combine at

appropriate conditions of temperature and pressure, such as in thick sediment of deepocean basins, at water depths greater than 1,650 feet.
CHAPTER 24: MANAGING OFFSHORE ENERGY AND OTHER MINERAL RESOURCES

The estimated amount of natural gas in the gas hydrate accumulations of the world

greatly exceeds the volume of all known conventional gas resources.13 A 1995 U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) estimate of both marine and Arctic hydrate resources revealed

the immense energy potential of hydrates in the United States.14 These deposits have been

identified in Alaska, the east and west coasts of the United States, and in the Gulf of

Mexico. USGS estimated that the methane hydrates in U.S. waters hold a mean value of

320,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, although subsequent refinements of the data

have suggested that the estimate is a slightly more conservative 200,000 trillion cubic

feet.15 Even this lower estimate is enough to supply all of the nation’s energy needs for

more than 2,000 years at current rates of use.16

However, there is still no known practical and safe way to develop the gas and it is

clear that much more information is needed to determine whether significant technical

obstacles can be overcome to enable methane hydrates to become a commercially viable

and environmentally acceptable source of energy.

In the United States, federal research concerning methane hydrates has been underway since 1982, was intensified in 1997–98, and received further emphasis with the passage of the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act in 2000. That Act established

an interagency coordination mechanism that includes the U.S. Departments of Energy,

Commerce, Defense, and the Interior, and the National Science Foundation, and directed

the National Research Council to conduct a study on the status of research and development work on methane hydrates. This study is scheduled for release in September 2004.

Recommendation 24–4

The National Ocean Council (NOC), working with the U.S. Department of Energy and other

appropriate entities, should review the status of gas hydrates research and development to

determine whether methane hydrates can contribute significantly to meeting the nation’s

long-term energy needs. If such contribution looks promising, the NOC should recommend an

appropriate level of investment in methane hydrates research and development, and determine whether a comprehensive management regime for industry access to hydrate resource

deposits is needed. 

Developing Offshore Renewable Energy Resources

Environmental, economic, and security concerns have heightened interest among many

policy makers and the public in renewable sources of energy. Although offshore areas 

currently contribute little to the nation’s supply of renewable energy, the potential is significant and could include wind turbines, mechanical devices driven by waves, tides, or

currents, and ocean thermal energy conversion, which uses the temperature difference

between warm surface and cold, deep-ocean waters to generate electricity.

Offshore Wind Energy Development

While the offshore wind power industry is still in its infancy in the United States, it is

being stimulated by improved technology and federal tax credits that have made it more

attractive commercially. Additionally, developers are looking increasingly to the lead of

European countries such as Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Germany, where growing

numbers of offshore projects are being licensed. 

In fact, the United States already has a wind energy management program applicable

on some federal lands onshore. This comprehensive program is carried out by DOI’s

Bureau of Land Management under broad authority provided by the Federal Land Policy

and Management Act. 

365
366 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Conversely, there is no comprehensive and coordinated federal regime in place to regulate offshore wind energy development or to convey property rights to use the public space

of the OCS for this purpose. In the absence of a specific regime, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE) is the lead federal agency responsible for reviewing and granting a permit for this activity. Its authority, however, is based on Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors

Act, which, although it has a public interest requirement, primarily regulates obstructions

to navigation, including approval of any device attached to the seafloor. 

In reviewing a proposed project under Section 10, the USACE is required by the

National Environmental Policy Act to consult other federal agencies. Depending on the

circumstances, these agencies and authorities may include: 

• The U.S. Coast Guard, which regulates navigation under several federal statutes.

• The Federal Aviation Administration, which regulates objects that may affect navigable

airspace pursuant to the Federal Aviation Act. 

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which may conduct a review for potential

environmental impacts of a project pursuant to the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. 

• The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which may review projects for potential

impacts to fishery resources pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation

and Management Act. In addition, NMFS’ review includes assessing potential impacts

to endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act or the Marine

Mammal Protection Act. 

• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which may review projects for potential impacts to

endangered species or marine mammals under its jurisdiction pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act or the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

• In addition, depending on its location, a wind energy project, or at least its Section 10

permit, may be subject to review by one or more state coastal management programs

in accordance with the CZMA federal consistency provisions. 

The Section 10 review process stands in stark contrast both to the well established

DOI regulatory program for onshore wind energy and, in the marine setting, to the robust

regulatory program for offshore oil and gas that has developed under the OCSLA. Using

the Section 10 process as the primary regulatory vehicle for offshore wind energy development is inadequate for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it cannot grant leases or

exclusive rights to use and occupy space on the OCS. It is not based on a comprehensive

and coordinated planning process for determining when, where, and how this activity

should take place. It also lacks the ability to assess a reasonable resource rent for the 

public space occupied or a fee or royalty for the energy generated. In other words, it lacks

the management comprehensiveness that is needed to take into account a broad range of

issues, including other ocean uses in the proposed area and the consideration of a coherent policy and process to guide offshore energy development. 

Wave Energy Conversion—Current and Tidal

Various technologies have been proposed to use wave or tidal energy, usually to produce

electricity. The wave energy technologies for offshore use include floating or pitching

devices placed on the surface of the water that convert the horizontal or vertical movement of the wave into mechanical energy that is used to drive a turbine. Currently, the offshore wave, tidal, and current energy industry is in its infancy. Only a small proportion of

the technologies have been tested and evaluated.17 Nonetheless, some projects are moving

forward in the United States, including one to install electricity-producing wave-energy

buoys more than 3 nautical miles offshore Washington State, in the Olympic Coast

National Marine Sanctuary. Internationally, there is considerable interest in wave, tidal,

and current energy, but the projects are almost all in the research and development stage.
CHAPTER 24: MANAGING OFFSHORE ENERGY AND OTHER MINERAL RESOURCES

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) asserts jurisdiction, under the

Federal Power Act (FPA), over private, municipal, and state (not federal) hydropower

projects seaward to 12 nautical miles. FERC has formally asserted jurisdiction over the

Washington State project, and is likely to assert jurisdiction over all forms of wave, tidal, or

current energy projects whose output is electricity, from the shoreline out to 12 nautical

miles offshore, on the basis that they are “hydropower” projects under the FPA. 

Although in issuing a license for a wave, current, or tidal project, FERC is directed by

the FPA to equally consider environmental and energy concerns, it is not an agency with a

broad ocean management mission. As with wind energy, several other federal laws may

apply to ocean wave projects. For example, NEPA, the federal consistency provision of the

CZMA, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination

Act may apply, as may the consultation provisions of the Endangered Species Act and the

Marine Mammal Protection Act. But there is no comprehensive law that makes clear

which of these individual laws may be applicable, nor is there any indication that overall

coordination is a goal, thus leaving implementation to mixed federal authorities. 

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion 

The surface waters of the world’s tropical oceans store immense quantities of solar energy.

Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) technology could provide an economically efficient way to tap this resource to produce electric power and other products. The U.S. 

government spent over $200 million dollars in OTEC research and development from the

367

British Wind Energy Association

Box 24.3 A Mighty Wind Blows in Cape Cod

Although offshore wind energy facilities are wellestablished in other areas of the world, the first

proposal for such a facility in the United States is testing the ability of the federal system to manage emerging offshore industries. The proposal calls for use of

approximately 23 square miles in the Nantucket

Sound, some 5.5 nautical miles off the coast of Cape

Cod, Massachusetts. It would consist of 130 wind turbines, each of which would be sunk into the ocean

floor and reach up to 420 feet above the ocean surface. The project would generate an annual average of

approximately 160 megawatts of electrical power.i

This project has divided local citizens, elected officials, environmentalists, business interests, and other

stakeholders. Supporters cite the project’s potential to

reduce pollution, greenhouse gases, and reliance on

foreign oil, while opponents warn of bird deaths, harm

to tourism, interference with commercial and sports

fishing, and obstructed views.

Despite the controversy, the project is proceeding

through the review process contained in Section 10 of

the Rivers and Harbors Act. In the meantime, proposals

for offshore wind development projects up and down

the East Coast are proliferating.

i U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “Commercial Scale Wind Energy Generation Project for the NE Grid.”

<www.nae.usace.army.mil/projects/ma/ccwf/farmfact.pdf> Posted March 3, 2004; accessed March 11, 2004.
368 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

1970s to the early 1990s that produced useful technical information but did not result in a

commercially viable technology.18

Early optimism about the potential of OTEC led to the enactment of the Ocean Thermal

Energy Conversion Act in 1980, and the creation of a coordinated framework and licensing

regime for managing that activity if and when economic considerations permitted. NOAA

issued regulations to implement the Act, but because of investor risk for this capital-intensive

technology and relatively low fossil fuel prices, no license applications were ever received and

NOAA subsequently rescinded the regulations in 1996. Thus, the United States currently has

no administrative regulatory structure to license commercial OTEC operations. 

Comprehensive Management for Offshore Renewable Energy

Offshore renewable technologies will continue to be studied as a means of reducing U.S.

reliance on potentially unstable supplies of foreign oil, diversifying the nation’s energy

mix, and providing more environmentally benign sources of energy. Similar to offshore

aquaculture described in Chapter 22, the offshore renewable processes described in this

section present obvious examples of the shortcomings in federal authority when it comes

to regulating specific new and emerging offshore activities. As long as federal agencies are

forced to bootstrap their authorities to address these activities, the nation runs the risk of

unresolved conflicts, unnecessary delays, and uncertain procedures. What is urgently

needed is for the National Ocean Council to develop a comprehensive offshore management regime (as recommended in Chapter 6) that considers all offshore uses within a

larger planning context. A coherent and predictable federal management process for offshore renewable resources that weighs the benefits to the nation’s energy future against the

potential adverse effects on other ocean users, marine life, and the ocean’s natural

processes, should be fully integrated into the broader management regime.

Recommendation 24–5

Congress, with input from the National Ocean Council, should enact legislation providing for

the comprehensive management of offshore renewable energy development as part of a

coordinated offshore management regime.

Specifically, this legislation should: 

• be based on the premise that the oceans are a public resource. 

• streamline the process for licensing, leasing, and permitting renewable energy facilities

in U.S. waters. 

• subsume existing statutes, such as the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act.

• ensure that the public receives a fair return from the use of the resource and that development rights are allocated through an open, transparent process that considers state,

local, and public concerns. 

Managing Other Marine Minerals

The ocean floor within the U.S. EEZ contains vast quantities of valuable minerals other

than oil and gas, but the economics of recovering them, especially in areas far offshore, 

are not welcoming. These resources include more than 2 trillion cubic meters of sand and

gravel reserves on the Atlantic shelf of the OCS alone, enormous phosphate deposits off

the East Coast from North Carolina to northern Florida, titanium-rich heavy mineral

sands from New Jersey to Florida, manganese nodules from South Carolina to Georgia,

high-grade calcium carbonate sands off Florida, gold and platinum deposits off Alaska,

polymetallic sulfides off Oregon, barite resources off southern California, and quantities of

cobalt and platinum off Hawaii. It is likely that substantial amounts of other valuable minerals will be identified in the future as exploration proceeds. Access to these minerals for
CHAPTER 24: MANAGING OFFSHORE ENERGY AND OTHER MINERAL RESOURCES

commercial recovery, including offshore sand and gravel for use as construction aggregate,

is through the competitive leasing process of the OCSLA.

In 1994, Congress authorized coastal communities to use sand and gravel from the

OCS for public works projects without going through the statute’s bidding process. Since

then, MMS has used this authority to allow federal, state, and local agencies to mine OCS

sand to protect shorelines, nourish beaches, and restore wetlands. Between 1995 and

2004, MMS provided over 20 million cubic yards of OCS sand for 14 coastal projects.19

Louisiana alone is expected to seek millions of cubic yards of OCS sand for various barrier

island restoration projects and levee systems.20

The depletion of OCS sand in state waters after decades of excavation, and growing

environmental opposition to the activity in areas close to shore, are exacerbated by the

acceleration of erosion, ever-expanding coastal populations, and on the increasing vulnerability of fragile beaches, exposed beachfront property, and coastal-dependent industries

to coastal storms. With the need for sand increasing and its availability in state waters

decreasing, the OCS provides the obvious remedy. It is not, however, a remedy without

associated problems.

MMS has numerous environmental studies underway or planned to evaluate the effects

of OCS dredging on the marine and coastal environment and to identify ways to eliminate

or mitigate harmful impacts. There remains, nevertheless, significant uncertainty about the

long-term, cumulative impacts of sand and gravel mining on ocean systems and marine

life. Changes in bathymetry can affect waves and currents in a manner that could increase

shoreline erosion. Alterations to the ocean bottom can affect repopulation of the benthic

community, cause increased turbidity, damage submerged resources such as historic shipwrecks, and kill marine organisms, including fish. For economic reasons, the demand for

sand and gravel leases will most likely concentrate on OCS areas that are relatively close to

shore. Some environmentalists and fishing representatives have opposed mining in state

waters and may well oppose similar projects in adjacent federal waters. 

A vital component of a national strategy to manage mineral resources located on the

OCS is the need for an overall assessment of: the nation’s OCS mineral endowment (sand

and gravel, as well as other strategic minerals vital to the long-term security of the

nation); the need for those resources (highest and best uses); the long-term environmental

impacts associated with use of those resources; and the multiple-use implications of other

uses of the OCS (including wind farms, cables, and pipelines). While resource managers

have identified large volumes of sand off the nation’s shores, the ultimate volumes that

may be recovered remain unknown. Sand and gravel resources from the OCS are key to

protecting the nation’s shores and wetlands and to supplementing ever-diminishing

onshore supplies of aggregate to support construction activities. 

Recommendation 24–6

The Minerals Management Service should systematically identify the nation’s offshore nonenergy mineral resources and conduct the necessary cost-benefit, long-term security, and environmental studies to create a national program that ensures the best uses of those resources. 

References

1 Minerals Management Service. “Total OCS Gas Production.”

<www.mms.gov/stats/PDFs/OCSNaturalGasProduction_March2004.pdf> Accessed March 11, 2004.

2 Minerals Management Service. “Federal Offshore Crude and Condensate Production: 1992–2003.”

<www.mms.gov/stats/PDFs/FederalOffshoreCrudeCondensateProduction92–03_March2004.pdf> Accessed March 11, 2004.

3 Minerals Management Service. “Offshore Minerals Management.” <www.mms.gov/offshore/> Accessed March 9, 2004. 

4 Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2004. DOE/EIA–X053. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Energy, January 2004. 

369
370 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

5 Richardson, G.E., et al. Deepwater Gulf of Mexico 2004: America’s Expanding Frontier. OCS Report MMS 2004–021.

New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, May 2004.

6 Ibid.

7 Minerals Management Service. “Deep Shelf Gas May Be More Abundant in Gulf Than Earlier Forecast Probabilistic

Estimate Increases by 175%.” <www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/newsreal/031119.html> Posted November 19,

2003; accessed March 12, 2004.

8 Minerals Management Service, “Total Federal Offshore Minerals Revenue Collections, Calendar Years 1953–2000.”

<www.mrm.mms.gov/stats/pdfdocs/coll_off.pdf> Accessed March 9, 2004. Year 2001 and 2002 data source: MMS

Revenue Management Office, Lakewood, CO. 

9 Minerals Management Service. “OCS Oil Spill Facts.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, September 2002.

10 National Research Council. Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates and Effects. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003. 

11 Minerals Management Service. OCS Oil Spill Facts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, September 2002.

12 National Research Council. Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates and Effects. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003.

13 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. “Gas Hydrates—Will They be Considered in the Future Global

Energy Mix?” <www.usgs.gov/public/press/public_affairs/press_releases/pr1824m.html> Posted December 10, 2003;

accessed March 12, 2004.

14 National Oil and Gas Resource Assessment Team. 1995 National Assessment of United States Oil and Gas Resources.

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1118. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995. 

15 Congressional Research Service. “Methane Hydrates: Energy Prospect or Natural Hazard?” 

<www.cnie.org/nle/crsreports/energy/eng-46.pdf> Updated February 14, 2004; accessed March 12, 2004.

16 Monastersky, R. “The Ice That Burns: Can Methane Hydrates Fuel the 21st Century?” Science News 154, no. 20

(November 14, 1998): 312. 

17 California Energy Commission. “Ocean Energy.” <www.energy.ca.gov/development/oceanenergy/> 

Accessed December 16, 2003. 

18 Jones, A.T., and W. Rowley. “Global Perspective: Economic Forecast for Renewable Ocean Energy Technologies.”

Marine Technology Society Journal 36, no. 4 (Winter 2002–2003).

19 Minerals Management Service. “Offshore Sand and Gravel Facts.” 

<www.mms.gov/sandandgravel/pdf/sandandgravelfactsheet.pdf> Accessed March 12, 2004.

20 Minerals Management Service. “Sand and Gravel Program—Offshore Minerals Management: Louisiana.”

<www.mms.gov/sandandgravel/louisiana.htm> Updated January 29, 2004; accessed March 12, 2004.


PART VII

SCIENCE-BASED DECISIONS:

ADVANCING OU R

UNDERSTANDING OF

THE OCEANS

CHAPTER 25

CREATING A NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR

INCREASING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ...............................................................374

CHAPTER 26

ACHIEVING A SUSTAINED, INTEGRATED OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM..........394

CHAPTER 27

ENHANCING OCEAN INFRASTRUCTURE

AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT........................................................................412

CHAPTER 28

MODERNIZING OCEAN DATA AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS ..................428
374 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 25

CREATING A NATIONAL

STRATEGY FOR INCREASING

SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

Ocean managers and policy makers need comprehensive scientific information

about the ocean and its environment to make wise decisions. Increased knowledge will help achieve sustainable resource use, economic development, and conservation of the ocean’s biological diversity and natural beauty. However, to

ensure the highest return on the nation’s investment in ocean research,

exploration, and marine operations, a national strategy is needed. The

strategy should coordinate and prioritize basic and applied ocean and

coastal research supported by all federal agencies, increase partnerships

with the academic and private sectors, promote enhanced ocean

exploration, and coordinate federal marine operations to reduce

redundancies. Significantly increased research in ocean-related 

natural and social sciences will also be key to fostering a new era 

of ecosystem-based management supported by sound science.

Fortifying the Foundations of 

Ocean Understanding

Ocean science and technology are integral parts of the overall

U.S. research enterprise and contribute greatly to society.

They are essential to understanding the Earth’s environment and how

it changes over time, improving climate predictions, managing marine

resources wisely, finding beneficial new uses of ocean resources, protecting national security, and unlocking the basic mysteries of life on Earth. In

addition, important technological advances have resulted from devices originally developed for ocean research and exploration, such as medical acoustic

tools that grew out of sonar technologies.

Components of Ocean Science and Technology

For the purpose of this and the following three chapters of Part VII, the term ocean science

and technology is defined as:

• the exploration of ocean environments and the conduct of basic and applied research

to increase understanding of (1) the biology, chemistry, physics, and geology of the

oceans and coasts, (2) oceanic and coastal processes and interactions with terrestrial,
C HAPTER 25: CREATING A NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR I NCREASING SCIENTIFIC K NOWLEDGE

hydrologic, and atmospheric systems, and (3) the impacts of oceans and coasts on

society and of humans on these environments; and

• the development of methodologies and instruments to improve that understanding.

Knowledge about the oceans advanced remarkably during the 20th century due to 

significant financial investments, a host of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary studies,

new technologies, and an expanding community of dedicated experts. Despite this

progress, the ocean remains one of the least explored and understood environments on

the planet and a frontier for discoveries that could provide important benefits. Broader

understanding is essential to make ecosystem-based, multi-use, and adaptive management

possible and to conserve marine biodiversity. Ocean science and technology will play an

increasingly central role in the multidisciplinary study and management of the whole

Earth system. 

The chapters of Part VII focus on four building blocks of a renewed and restructured

U.S. commitment to improving ocean science, technology, and infrastructure in support of

sound management practices: 

• This chapter presents a national strategy for conducting research, exploration, and

marine operations at the federal level, in close partnership with academia and private

organizations.

• Chapter 26 explains the need for the Integrated Ocean Observing System to monitor

and predict ocean conditions and processes. 

• Chapter 27 outlines the infrastructure and technology needed to support ocean and

coastal research, management, assessments, enforcement, and monitoring. 

• Chapter 28 discusses new requirements in data and information management to

receive data from many sources and generate useful products for managers, policy

makers, and the general public.

Federal Leadership in Ocean Science and Technology

Since the mid-1900s, the U.S. government has achieved a leadership role in ocean science

and technology. For many years, the U.S. Navy was the major supporter, primarily through

the Office of Naval Research (ONR). Since the National Science Foundation (NSF) was

created in 1950, it has gradually assumed a larger role in this research portfolio, although

ONR remains a significant contributor in certain fields. Today, fifteen federal agencies 

support or conduct diverse activities in ocean research, assessment, and technology. The

heads of these agencies direct the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP),

created by Congress in 1997 to coordinate national oceanographic research and education.

NOPP has provided a useful venue for agencies to jointly support selected ocean science

and technology projects, but it has not realized its full potential as an overarching mechanism for coordination among federal agencies, or between federal activities and those of

state, local, academic, and private entities.

Under the new National Ocean Policy Framework proposed in Chapter 4, the National

Ocean Council (NOC) will serve as the federal coordinating body for all ocean-related

activities and the NOC’s Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and

Operations (COSETO) will assume leadership of NOPP. This new structure will allow 

for creation of a national strategy to promote ocean research, education, observation,

exploration, and marine operations. NOPP’s existing offices and committees will be 

incorporated within this structure (Figure 25.1). Ocean.US, the lead office for planning

the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), and the Federal Oceanographic Facilities

Committee, which provides advice related to oceanographic facilities, will both report to

COSETO. An additional planning and coordinating body, Ocean.IT should be added to

COSETO to provide stronger integration for information technology activities. (The 

creation of Ocean.IT is discussed in Chapter 28.) 

375
376 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Reviving the Federal Investment 

The United States has a wealth of ocean research expertise spread across a network of 

government and industry laboratories and world-class universities, colleges, and marine

centers. With strong federal support, these institutions made the United States the world

leader in oceanography during the 20th century. However, a leader cannot stand still.

Ocean and coastal management issues continue to grow in number and complexity, new

fields of study have emerged, new interdisciplinary approaches are being tried, and there

is a growing need to understand the planet on a global and regional scale. All this has created a corresponding demand for high-quality scientific information.

Significant federal investments by the Navy and NSF during the cold war years of the

1960s and 1970s enabled scientists to help promote the U.S. economy and security by 

supporting research on the fundamental physical, chemical, biological, and geological

properties of the oceans. During that period, funding for ocean-related research constituted

7 percent of the federal research budget. However, the federal investment began to stagnate

in the early 1980s (Figure 25.2), so that ocean research now comprises a meager 3.5 percent

or less of the federal research portfolio. Due to this decrease, the NSF must reluctantly turn

Figure 25.1 Proposed Structure for the Coordination of 

Federal Ocean Science Activities

Committee on Ocean Science, Education, 

Technology, and Operations

(formerly NORLC)

Chair: OSTP Director

Membership: Current NORLC members and others

Advisory Panel

(formerly ORAP)

Ocean.US Ocean.IT

Federal 

Oceanographic 

Facilities 

Committee

Ocean.ED

(including the existing 

COSEE Central 

Coordinating Office)

Regional

COSEE

Centers

Staff Staff Staff

Shown here are the institutional components that should be established under the National Ocean 

Council’s Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations (COSETO) recommended 

in Chapter 4. COSETO’s purpose is to improve federal leadership and coordination in ocean science, 

education, technology, and marine operations. This diagram also illustrates the organizational links 

between existing and planned units under COSETO, discussed in subsequent chapters. Entities 

shaded in gray are discussed in Chapters 4 and 8.

■ Existing Entities

■ New Entities

Reporting lines

Communication Lines

Advisory Lines

Relation to Overall 

Structure (Appendix E)

Interagency Working Group
C HAPTER 25: CREATING A NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR I NCREASING SCIENTIFIC K NOWLEDGE

down about one-half of the highly-rated grant 

proposals it receives in the ocean sciences. 

The current annual federal investment of

approximately $650 million in marine science is well

below the level necessary to adequately address the

nation’s needs for coastal and ocean information.

Unless funding increases sharply, the gap between

requirements and resources will continue to grow

and the United States will not be able to generate 

the information it needs to wisely manage its ocean

resources. 

Equally important, a failure to invest in fundamental ocean research now will cut off the pipeline

of creative ideas that can produce breakthroughs in

decades to come. ONR has a proud history of investing in basic research, primarily conducted at universities and private sector research institutions, with

long-term benefits in areas such as ocean acoustics

and ocean optics. Navy leaders would be wise to 

recognize and maintain this tradition. In addition to

national security payoffs, past investments have also

made significant contributions to the nation’s overall

well-being and have been a major force in the education and preparation of an internationally superior,

multi-disciplinary workforce. 

Recommendation 25–1

Congress should double the federal ocean and coastal research budget over the next five

years. The new funds should be used to support a balance of basic and applied research.

Creating a National Strategy

The United States has never developed a national strategy for ocean and coastal research

that integrates ongoing efforts, promotes synergies among federal, state, and local governments, academia, and the private sector, translates scientific and technological advances

into operational applications, and establishes national goals and objectives for addressing

high-priority issues. Instead, for the most part, each federal ocean agency independently

addresses its own mission needs. 

A national strategy can help meet the ocean resource management challenges of the

21st century and ensure that useful products result from federal investments in ocean

research. The move toward ecosystem-based management approaches will provide strong

motivation for a new generation of scientific understanding. More information is needed

about how marine ecosystems function on varying spatial scales, how human activities

affect marine ecosystems and how, in turn, these ecosystem changes affect society. 

Ecosystem-based management will require a deeper understanding of biological, physical, chemical, and socioeconomic processes and interactions. For example, as coastal population growth feeds a demand for new construction, managers will need to know which activities may cause rapid erosion, increase turbidity that may harm coral reefs, or disrupt coastal

economies. In the area of fishery management, scientists and managers must understand the

fundamental biology of fish species to protect spawning grounds and other essential habitat,

while appreciating the social, cultural, and economic realities in fishing communities. 

377

Figure 25.2 Ocean Research Is Neglected as 

Part of the National Research Budget

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Billions of Dollars

Funding for oceanography has remained stagnant for twenty 

years, while similar scientific disciplines have experienced 

steady increases in research funding.

Source: National Science Foundation. “Federal Funds for Research and 

Development, Detailed Historical Tables: Fiscal Years 1951–2002.” 

<www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf03325/> (Accessed January 2004). 

■ Life Sciences, Total

■ Physical Sciences, Total

■ Environmental Sciences, Total

■ Oceanography
378 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

It is time for the United States to establish a national strategy for ocean and coastal

research investments, and oversee implementation and funding of programs throughout

the ocean science community. This plan should address issues at the global, regional,

state, and local levels. It should emphasize ecosystem-based science to help resolve the

current mismatch between the size and complexity of marine ecosystems and the fragmented nature of the scientific enterprise and federal structure. At the same time, the

strategy must leave room for creative individuals to pursue the kind of fundamental 

scientific research that can lead to unforeseen breakthroughs. 

Better coordination and integration will help provide the information needed to sustain resources, protect human lives and property, identify and nurture new beneficial uses,

and resolve issues that result from competing activities. A unified national approach to

ocean research, structured around national investment priorities but with the flexibility to

incorporate new ideas, will also result in wiser and more efficient use of resources. 

Recommendation 25–2 

The National Ocean Council should develop a national ocean and coastal research strategy

that reflects a long-term vision and promotes advances in basic and applied ocean science

and technology. The strategy should recognize the different ocean science sectors (government, academic, commercial, and nongovernmental), acknowledge their different roles, and

maximize the use of partnerships. 

Advancing Ocean and Coastal Research

The national ocean and coastal research strategy designed by the NOC will need to include

both substantive and procedural guidance for the federal agencies. It should encompass a

broad range of issues, as discussed throughout this report and as summarized in Box 25.1.

Changes in grant practices and the establishment of strong partnerships are also essential

to optimize the national research enterprise. 

The national strategy should promote the scientific and technological advances required

to observe, monitor, assess, and predict environmental and socioeconomic events and

long-term trends. A few areas are worthy of special note.

Climate Change

One of the most important environmental trends to explore is climate change and variability. Although the ocean plays a critical role in climate—it has 1000 times the heat capacity

of freshwater lakes and rivers, its circulation drives the global heat balance, and it plays a

primary role in the global carbon cycle—these phenomena remain understudied and

poorly understood. 

The process of climate change should be examined both on geologic time scales that

characterize the transitions between ice ages, and over shorter periods of time. The buildup

of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will increase the melting of polar ice, introducing

large quantities of fresh water into the North Atlantic. Many researchers now believe this

process could drastically change ocean circulation and weather patterns in the span of a

few years.1 In particular, the Gulf Stream could slow or stop, causing colder temperatures

along the eastern seaboard of the United States and ramifications around the globe. It is in

the nation’s interest to learn more about the processes that lead to abrupt climate changes,

as well as their potential ecological, economic, and social impacts. 

Even as we try to comprehend the role of the ocean in climate change, we need also to

understand the effects of climate change on ocean ecosystems. If temperatures around the

globe continue to warm, sea level will continue to rise, putting many coastal residents at

greater risk from storm surges and erosion. For individual ecosystems, even small changes in
C HAPTER 25: CREATING A NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR I NCREASING SCIENTIFIC K NOWLEDGE

ocean temperature can put the health and lives of sea creatures and humans at risk. Changing

concentrations of carbon dioxide due to human activities also appear to be harming some

marine organisms. Ocean monitoring will be essential for detecting and predicting changes

more accurately, thereby improving prospects for minimizing harmful effects.

Marine Biodiversity

Maintaining overall ecosystem health requires an improved understanding of biological

diversity on different levels, including genetic diversity (the variety of genetic traits within

a single species), species diversity (the number of species within an ecosystem), and

ecosystem diversity (the number of different ecosystems on Earth). The largest threats to

maintaining diversity on all three scales are human activities, such as overfishing, pollution, habitat alteration, and introductions of non-native species. The extent of marine 

biological diversity, like so much about the ocean, remains unknown. But based on the

rate at which new marine species are currently being discovered, continued exploration 

of the ocean is almost certain to result in the documentation of thousands of additional

species that can provide fresh insights into the origins of life and human biology.

Regional Ecosystem Dynamics

Major initiatives, such as the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Census of

Marine Life, have been launched in the last couple of years to study the large-scale research

topics mentioned above. While these are important, many issues relevant to the everyday

needs of coastal managers do not occur on such global scales. Implementation of ecosystem-based management approaches will require greater knowledge of physical and biological dynamics on a regional scale. Ocean and coastal research targeted at regional concerns,

such as the origins of nonpoint source pollution, the impacts of development on coastal

habitat and water quality, socioeconomic trends in coastal areas, and the impacts of globalscale processes on local resources is urgently needed. Currently, insufficient emphasis is

placed on this kind of research, although the regional ocean information programs recommended in Chapter 5 could help close this gap.

Social and Economic Research 

The ocean and coastal environment is rife with conflicts among competing users and groups

of people applying different sets of values to the same issues. To resolve these conflicts,

information is needed not only about the natural environment but also about relevant

social, cultural, and economic factors. The funding required to increase knowledge in

these areas is modest when compared to the cost of the ships, labs, and instruments used

in oceanographic research. Nevertheless, social and economic research related to our

coasts and oceans has long been overlooked. 

A Neglected Research Area

The National Sea Grant College Program does fund some studies that examine legal, political, economic, anthropological, and other human dimensions of ocean and coastal affairs.

However, these projects often receive less than 10 percent of the Program’s overall research

budget. In other programs, social and economic sciences garner even less support, creating

a situation where basic information is not available to support management and planning.

To meet specific programmatic requirements of the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) and other laws that require impact analyses, individual resource management

agencies have had to pull together social science and economic information at various

times. For example, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s)

National Marine Fisheries Service hired anthropologists and economic researchers follow379
380 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Aquaculture

• determination of the environmental

impacts of marine aquaculture and 

the development of best management

practices

• knowledge about the impacts of aquaculture feeds, species introductions, and

the use of chemicals and pharmaceuticals

in aquaculture practices

Biodiversity

• baseline measurements of marine biodiversity on different scales (i.e., communities, populations, and individuals)

• methods to mitigate human activities

that adversely affect biodiversity and

marine ecosystems

Climate Change

• better understanding of the ocean’s

role in global carbon and heat cycling

• predictive models of the effects of

global warming, including sea-level rise

and changes in global circulation

Coastal Habitat

• knowledge about the structure and

functioning of coastal habitats and how

human activities and natural events

affect them

• effective habitat restoration techniques 

Coral Reefs

• measurements of ocean temperature,

currents, and other variables that affect

changes in coral communities

• prediction of the impacts of global climate

change and other natural and humaninduced events on coral communities

• comprehension about the distribution

and ecology of cold water corals

Fisheries

• better understanding of the relationship between fisheries and ecosystem

dynamics, including the identification 

of essential habitat

• measures of the social science and 

economic aspects of fisheries

International Science

• international scientific partnerships to

enhance long-term ocean science and 

management capacity in other nations

Invasive Species 

• comprehension of how or why certain

species become invasive

• understanding about why certain factors

make an ecosystem more susceptible to

invasions

• new techniques for invasive species

identification and eradication 

• new ballast water treatment and

exchange techniques

Marine Debris

• knowledge about debris behavior in the

marine environment and its ecological

effects on organisms and ecosystems

• effective debris control measures

• identification of marine debris sources

Marine Mammals and Protected Species

• expanded understanding of basic 

biology and population status

• understanding of the effects of noise,

coastal development, offshore oil and

gas exploration, vessel traffic, military

activities, and marine debris on these

species

• methods to mitigate harmful impacts 

on these animals

Box 25.1 Examples of Ocean and Coastal Science Needs

Fundamental knowledge about oceans and coasts is essential for assessing and predicting

the status of marine resources, finding beneficial new uses of ocean resources, and implementing an ecosystem-based management approach. Greater understanding of these environments will enable policy makers and managers to make wise, science-based decisions at

the national, regional, state, tribal, and local levels. However, to achieve this level of understanding, significantly more research will be needed as indicated throughout this report. The

list below gives some idea of the range of topics to be covered, although it is by no means a

comprehensive list of all needed research.
C HAPTER 25: CREATING A NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR I NCREASING SCIENTIFIC K NOWLEDGE 381

Natural Hazards

• basic understanding and site-specific

knowledge about a range of natural 

coastal hazards 

• new methods for tracking and predicting hazards and assessing risks 

• techniques to mitigate hazard events

Oceans and Human Health

• discovery of new marine bioproducts

• elucidation of the interrelations and

causal effects of marine pollution,

harmful algal blooms, ecosystem alteration, and emerging marine diseases in

disease events

• new methods to monitor and mitigate

threats to human health in marine and

freshwater systems

Offshore Energy and Minerals 

• understanding of cumulative, low-level,

and chronic impacts of oil and gas activities on marine environments

• evaluation of the risks to the marine

environment due to aging pipelines

• evaluation of the environmental effects

of OCS mineral and sediment use

Regional Understanding

• regional-scale research programs to

understand ecosystem processes

• integration of biological, physical, and

chemical research on a regional, 

ecosystem basis

Sediment

• data on sediment processes in the

marine environment on regional and

national scales

• innovative techniques and technologies

for managing marine sediment

• comprehensive information about the

source, movement, volume, quality, and

appropriate use or disposal of sediment—

particularly contaminated sediment

Socioeconomic Science

• operational data on the economic factors and human dimension affecting

ocean and coastal areas and activities

Vessel Pollution 

• understanding of cumulative impacts of

commercial and recreational vessel 

pollution on ecologically sensitive areas

• knowledge of impacts of vessel air emissions, particularly in ports and inland

• disposal options for concentrated

sludge resulting from advanced sewage

treatment on large passenger vessels

Water Pollution

• advanced treatment options for eliminating nitrogen, phosphorus, and other

emerging contaminants, such as pharmaceuticals, from wastewater discharges

• new methods for removing nutrients

and pathogens in coastal runoff

• new models and measures of atmospheric

transport and deposition of pollutants

NOAA Photo Library
382 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

ing enactment of the 1976 Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

The Minerals Management Service instituted a relatively comprehensive socioeconomic

research program in the 1970s to aid in developing five-year leasing plans that would meet

NEPA standards, and to address the requirements of the OCS Lands Act Amendments for

monitoring the impacts of offshore oil and gas development on the human environment.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has also funded research into marine cultural heritage

to meet its NEPA obligations. And, in the 1990s, NOAA’s National Ocean Service created

the Coastal Services Center to help generate information on coastal demographics.

Although wide-ranging, these efforts remain ad hoc, uncoordinated, and related to specific

issues that wax and wane in importance over time. Furthermore, the data developed on an

agency-by-agency basis are often mutually incompatible and hard to access.

Recently, NOAA has begun to reassess its needs for social and economic information.

In 2003, a panel of social scientists established by its Science Advisory Board concluded

that NOAA’s support for social sciences is not comparable to that of other agencies with

similar environmental assessment and stewardship responsibilities and that this shortcoming has hindered the agency’s ability to accomplish its mission.2 NOAA’s National Marine

Protected Areas Center also issued a report identifying high-priority social science needs

to support the planning, management, and evaluation of marine protected areas.3

Some existing and emerging ocean and coastal issues that will require better social

and economic information include:

• Multiple-use controversies in the coastal zone. 

• Novel offshore uses, such as the proposed introduction of wind farms.

• Consensus-based decision making involving stakeholders, watershed councils, publicprivate partnerships, and numerous nongovernmental organizations. 

• Global climate change and its potential effects on a range of issues including agriculture, water supply, and coastal development.

• Changes in coastal communities due to shifts in fishery policy, growth of the tourism

industry, and redevelopment of ports and waterfronts.

• Changes in coastal demographics.

• Varying perceptions of coastal environmental values. 

Any decision affecting our oceans and coasts should take socioeconomic information into

account, harnessing expertise from a wide range of specialties to deal with issues that demand

a broad range of knowledge. This will require integrated assessments by teams of natural and

social scientists working together with stakeholders and policy makers. Such an approach,

which has been employed in the context of climate change, is especially well suited to emerging ocean issues that require a merger of natural and social sciences, technology, and policy. 

The Coastal and Ocean Economies

Cost-benefit analyses to support ocean and coastal decisions require enhanced economic

data. However, the major federal economic statistical agencies have neither the mandate

nor the means to study the ocean and coastal economies. 

NOAA undertakes some economic analyses in support of its various missions. For

example, its Coastal and Ocean Resource Economics Program has assessed the economic

impacts of fishery management plans and marine sanctuaries. NOAA has also worked with

other federal agencies to conduct the first major examination of the economics of marinerelated recreation.4 But NOAA’s economic analyses tend to be directed at very specific purposes associated with particular programs. NOAA has not supported sustained, consistent,

and comprehensive data collection and analyses on the ocean and coastal economies.

To lay the groundwork for a broader program, NOAA and the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency are helping support the National Ocean Economics Project, a multi-year

research initiative involving economists from several universities. While this effort is gener-
C HAPTER 25: CREATING A NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR I NCREASING SCIENTIFIC K NOWLEDGE

ating valuable information, including much of the economic data used in this report, it

remains a research project. To be useful in understanding coastal and ocean economies and

assessing the impacts of management policies on individuals, businesses and communities,

a long-term, operational program is needed. Coordination between the federal government

and other entities will be needed to generate the socioeconomic data required for operational

activities (Table 25.1). NOAA, as the federal agency with principal responsibility for the

oceans, should take the lead in bringing these parties together to provide the economic

data needed for ocean and coastal decision making at the federal, state, regional, and local

levels. (A study of U.S. ocean and coastal economies, prepared for the Commission by the

National Ocean Economics Project, is included as Appendix C to this report.)

Key functions of an operational program for ocean and coastal economic data should

include:

• Data Collection—Standard measures of employment, income, and output for ocean

and coastal economies must be developed. The National Ocean Economics Project

provides a foundation for this work, but additional measures are needed to assess: the

influence of oceans and coasts on land values; the role of the oceans in the tourism

383

The organizations listed below will play key roles in creating an operational coastal and ocean economics program to support 

management activities. 

Table 25.1 Organizations Collecting Socioeconomic Data on the Ocean and Coasts

Entity Role

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Bureau of the Census

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Bureau of Economic Analysis

Minerals Management Service

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency

National Science Foundation

Bureau of Transportation

Statistics

Universities and Other Research

Organizations

Current economic activities are performed by NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries

Service to help draft and defend Fishery Management Plans and by the Coastal and

Ocean Resource Economics (CORE) Program, which conducts individual studies on

issues of interest, such as economic valuations of beaches or coral reefs.

In cooperation with the states, the Bureau collects the largest amount of basic

employment and wage data on the U.S. economy. These data will continue to be the

fundamental elements used for monitoring the coastal and ocean economies at

national, regional, and local levels.

The Census Bureau is the other major collector of primary data on the economy,

including the tabulation of population, housing, and major economic sectors.

USDA has responsibility for the Census of Agriculture, which includes data on

marine aquaculture.

BEA uses data from other agencies to maintain the most important measure of

annual economic activity: the national income and product accounts, whose bestknown element is the gross domestic product. Related measures, such as the gross

state product, are key to understanding regional economies.

MMS collects and analyzes socioeconomic data to examine the impacts of outer

Continental Shelf activities on natural, historical, and human resources. 

EPA undertakes substantial economic research in the fields of land, water, and air

pollution. EPA’s economic research focuses particular attention on nonmarket values, and provides an important supplement to NOAA’s work in this area.

NSF supports much of the basic research in the sciences, including the social sciences.

It has recently undertaken new initiatives to better integrate the natural and social

sciences to improve management of the environment and natural resources.

BTS collects and analyzes data related to maritime trade and transportation, such as

tonnage of U.S. commerce shipped and foreign vessel entries and departures at

major U.S. ports. 

The majority of research on coastal and ocean economies is conducted as a cooperative arrangement between the federal government and researchers in the nation’s

universities and private research organizations. The interactions among federal, academic, and private researchers strengthen the quality of research by introducing

multiple perspectives and organizational missions.
384 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

and recreation industries in terms of both market and non-market values; and the

economic value of ecosystem services provided by the oceans and coasts.

• Data Distribution—The data that would be generated by this program are urgently

needed by local and state managers, researchers, and stakeholders, and must be easily

accessible. The availability of modern database and Internet delivery systems has

made this function much easier and cheaper than in the past. 

• Data Analysis—Data only become useful outside the academic realm when they are

analyzed and transformed into information products. Data analyses should be tailored

to federal, regional, state, and local needs. Socioeconomic trends should be analyzed

and linked to environmental trends. Geographic Information Systems will facilitate

the integration of socioeconomic and natural resource data.

• Education and Research—Additional research should focus on improving measurements of nonmarket values, developing ways to quantify the use of ocean and coastal

resources, and standardizing measures such as employment and output. The field of

ocean and coastal economics is relatively new and primarily confined to a small group

of specialists. To accommodate the growing demand for expertise in this field,

expanded training of scientists and policy specialists will be required. 

Recommendation 25–3

The National Ocean Council (NOC) research strategy should include a national program for

social science and economic research to examine the human dimensions and economic value

of the nation’s oceans and coasts. The NOC should direct relevant agencies to include socioeconomic research as an integral part of their efforts.

The national program should include:

• an operational socioeconomic research and assessment function within the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

• an interagency steering group, chaired by NOAA and including the Bureau of Labor

Statistics (BLS), Bureau of the Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S.

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and National Science

Foundation to coordinate ocean-related socioeconomic research.

• biennial reports by BLS and BEA on the employment, wages, and output associated with

U.S. coasts and oceans. 

• biennial reports by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics on intermodal access to U.S.

ports and maritime facilities and assessments of relevant maritime system performance

and economic data.

• periodic reports on such topics as coastal demographics, geographic patterns and trends

of ocean and coastal use, economic contributions, attitudes and perceptions, functioning

of governance arrangements, and public-private partnerships.

• establishment of partnerships to take maximum advantage of the expertise resident

within government agencies, academic institutions, and the private sector.

• increased interactions with regional, state, and local stakeholders through regional

ocean councils and regional ocean information programs so their information needs can

be met and socioeconomic changes at these levels can be documented and analyzed. 

These efforts deserve, and will require, significant new funding, as discussed in

Chapter 30. While this may prove challenging in a time of scarce budgetary resources,

major federal funding is already devoted to economic research in the agricultural sector,

although the ocean economy is two and a half times larger than agriculture in terms of

total production of goods and services (Appendix C).

Coastal communities

depend on healthy

ecosystems and

economies for their

survival. Research to

better understand the

inter-connectivity

between the economy and the environment ... needs to be

greatly expanded. 

—Richard DeVoe, 

Executive Director, 

South Carolina Sea

Grant, testimony to 

the Commission, 

January 2002
C HAPTER 25: CREATING A NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR I NCREASING SCIENTIFIC K NOWLEDGE

The National Sea Grant College Program

The National Sea Grant College Program offers a unique opportunity to gather state and

local input in determining research needs, and provides a proven mechanism for applying

research results to management activities. The Sea Grant program, a partnership between

NOAA, thirty state Sea Grant programs, and over 200 universities, is a highly-leveraged

program. To the $60 million in federal funds appropriated in fiscal year 2003, the states

contributed an additional $36 million, a match of nearly 60 percent. 

Sea Grant’s emphasis on applied research, education, and outreach results in projects

that respond directly to local and national needs as determined by the marine industry,

government representatives, resource managers, and the public. Sea Grant advisory specialists and coastal field agents convey the needs of the marine communities to university

scientists, and in turn, transfer research results to resource users and managers at the state

and local level. Sea Grant also advances formal and informal education. Its communications specialists package and deliver research, outreach, and educational information on a

wide range of topics.

Sea Grant’s current strategic plan focuses on promoting ecosystem-based management

and involving constituencies from government, universities, and the private sector to

strengthen the U.S. marine research enterprise.5 The Sea Grant program has additional

untapped capacity to promote coastal economic growth, improve the quality of coastal

environments, educate students in marine sciences, and solve critical marine and Great

Lakes resource problems. However, limited funding has stymied Sea Grant’s ability to fund

research and outreach activities. 

In addition, in some regions, Sea Grant could potentially assume responsibility for the

regional ocean information programs discussed in Chapter 5, if it is able to take on new

tasks and its organizational structure is extended beyond the state level.

Recommendation 25–4

Congress should significantly expand the National Sea Grant College Program as part of 

doubling ocean and coastal research funding. 

Agency Strategies and Funding Mechanisms 

To ensure that new investments are used wisely and that important research activities continue, federal agencies will need to create their own long-term strategic plans and remedy

structural problems in their grant mechanisms. Improved cooperation between federal

ocean agencies, academic institutions, and industry can draw on the strengths of each,

ensure that quality research is conducted, satisfy multiple national objectives, and achieve

a balance between basic and applied science.

In creating long-term plans, a balance must be reached between support for basic,

curiosity-driven research conducted mostly at universities and marine research centers,

and more applied research, often conducted at government laboratories to support operations, management, and monitoring activities. Immediate national needs tend to exert

pressure for more applied research, but the enduring value, and often unexpected outcomes, of basic research should never be underestimated. Basic oceanographic research in

the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, primarily supported by the U.S. Navy, increased our understanding of ocean circulation and stratification, marine optics, marine acoustics, seafloor

geology, and robotics, and led to many widely-used and versatile new technologies with

both military and domestic applications, such as the Global Positioning System. 

Problems in the current system for awarding federal research grants make it difficult

to conduct the kind of interdisciplinary, ecosystem-based research required to understand

the ocean environment. Short-term research grants of two- to five-years duration are now

385
386 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

typical. This type of funding is useful for research on discrete topics of limited scope, and

has the advantage of giving agencies the flexibility to adjust quickly to changing priorities.

However, it is not adequate to acquire the continuous data sets that will be essential for

examining environmental changes over time or to accommodate the practicalities and

uncertainties of marine research in a dynamic and unpredictable environment.

In addition, a variety of mechanisms are used by federal agencies to review proposed

ocean research grants, some of which work better than others. Grant systems that are not

open to all applicants or that do not use an objective review process for ranking proposals

are unlikely to produce the highest quality research. Systems that favor established

researchers to the detriment of young scientists, whether intentionally or not, are also

flawed, stifling diversity and limiting the infusion of new ideas. When all research proposals,

including those from scientists working at federal laboratories, are subject to the same rigorous review process, tax dollars are more likely to support the best science. Streamlined grant

application and review processes will also help get more good science done in a timely way.

The ocean science community includes many scientists outside academic and federal

labs. Although coordination among sectors has steadily improved, the process will remain

mainly ad hoc without the backing of a national strategy and leadership. A clearer understanding of the respective strengths and roles of the different sectors could lead to productive new research partnerships, foster intellectual risk-taking, leverage funding, and

encourage participation in large multi-sector research efforts valuable to the nation. 

There is also a need to gain feedback from managers at state and federal levels and

from the private sector to guide new research directions and technology development and

ensure that research results are translated into useful products in a timely manner.

Coordination with the regional ocean information programs recommended in Chapter 5

and increased feedback through the Sea Grant programs will provide needed avenues for

gaining such input.

Recommendation 25–5

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should direct ocean-related agencies to develop ten-year

science plans and budgets consistent with the national strategy. The NOC should provide

additional guidance concerning granting mechanisms.

The NOC guidance should:

• require agencies to provide multi-year (greater than five-year) funding opportunities in

addition to traditional grant mechanisms.

• reiterate the importance of balancing basic and applied research projects and promote

the transition of basic research results to applied uses.

• require a system of independent review for all grant applications, including those from

federal laboratories.

• incorporate the science needs and priorities of local, state, regional, and national 

managers, working with the regional ocean information programs. 

Each agency’s first ten-year science plan should describe how the proposed doubling

of federal ocean research investments would enhance new and ongoing activities. 

Building a National Ocean Exploration Program

Ocean exploration missions conducted during the 19th and 20th centuries were the first

attempts to document how deep the oceans are, to chart key bathymetric features, and to

identify and study marine life. Previously, the oceans were viewed as mere highways for

maritime commerce, void of life below 1,000 feet. But despite the important discoveries

made during these missions, we still have only a cursory understanding of the deep ocean. 
C HAPTER 25: CREATING A NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR I NCREASING SCIENTIFIC K NOWLEDGE 387

The Value of Ocean Exploration

About 95 percent of the ocean floor remains unexplored, much of it located in harsh 

environments such as the polar latitudes and the Southern Ocean. Experience teaches us,

however, that these vast regions teem with undiscovered species and natural and cultural

resources. On virtually every expedition, oceanographers make fascinating new discoveries. Hydrothermal vents in the Pacific, chemosynthetic communities in the Gulf of Mexico,

numerous new species of fish and invertebrates, and important archeological sites are but

a few of the important discoveries made in the past thirty years.

Advances in deep-sea technologies have made it easier to locate shipwrecks and historical artifacts lost in the ocean depths, such as the stunning discovery of the RMS Titanic

in 1985. The continued exploration of marine archaeological sites will help us to better

understand human history and our global cultural heritage. In addition, preliminary evidence indicates that immense new energy sources exist in the deep sea. The amount of

carbon bound in frozen gas hydrates on the seafloor is conservatively estimated to be

twice the total amount of carbon existing in all the other known fossil fuels on Earth.6

Ocean exploration also offers an unprecedented opportunity to engage the general

public in marine science and conservation. Exploration missions to the depths of the

ocean provide images of ancient human artifacts, amazing creatures, and never-beforeseen ecosystems. These images fire the imagination of people of all ages and can be used

in both formal and informal educational settings. This kind of popular excitement and

support can be an enormous asset in sustaining exploration projects over the long term.

Given the importance of the ocean in human history and in regulating climate change,

guaranteeing food security, providing energy resources, and enabling worldwide commerce,

it is astounding that we still know so little about it. This is due primarily to the lack of a

long-term, large-scale national commitment to ocean exploration. The ocean and its depths

need to be systematically explored to serve the interests of the nation and humankind.

Growing Calls for a National Program

Although our dependence on healthy marine ecosystems continues to grow, ocean exploration remains a relatively minor component of U.S. ocean science and is a missing link in

the national strategy to better understand Earth’s environment. Comprehending the genetic

diversity of ocean life, developing fisheries, discovering energy resources, investigating

submerged cultural resources, and mapping the seafloor all require more extensive exploration. U.S. leadership in ocean exploration will increase what is known about all aspects

of ocean life and resources and make it possible to reach management decisions based on

more complete scientific information.

There have been many calls for a dedicated national ocean exploration program. The

Stratton Commission recommended an international program on a global scale.7 In response,

the United States led the International Decade of Ocean Exploration (IDOE) in the 1970s.

IDOE programs greatly improved ocean observation systems, and led to such important

research programs as Geochemical Ocean Sections, the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study, the

Ridge Interdisciplinary Global Experiments, and the World Ocean Circulation Experiment.

These initiatives dramatically enhanced understanding of the global climate system, geochemical cycling, ocean circulation, plate geodynamics, and life in extreme environments.

In 1983, President Reagan directed the U.S. Department of the Interior to take the lead

role in exploring the waters of the newly-recognized U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

Three years later, in a report to the President and Congress, the National Advisory Committee

on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) detailed the economic importance of the EEZ and

emphasized the need to improve efforts to assess its resources.8 The NACOA report recognized that federal science programs were making important contributions, but concluded that

individual efforts based on separate agency missions were neither comprehensive nor making

We have awakened a

new understanding

of the way the world

works with new technologies that have

taken us into the sea.

Yet less than five percent of the ocean has

been seen at all, let

alone really fully

explored.

—Dr. Sylvia Earle,

Explorer-in-Residence,

National Geographic

Society and Founder,

Deep Ocean Exploration

and Research, Inc., 

testimony to the 

Commission, June 2002
388 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

acceptable progress. In response, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and NOAA were tasked

with developing a ten-year exploration plan. Although reconnaissance surveys of much of the

EEZ were completed through 1990, more detailed assessments were never pursued. During

the late 1990s, efforts to explore the EEZ and beyond lagged due to budgetary constraints. 

In 2000, however, the President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration called for a robust

national ocean exploration program propelled by the spirit of discovery. The panel proposed multidisciplinary expeditions and annual funding of $75 million, not including the

cost of providing a dedicated ship and undersea vehicle.9 These recommendations led to

the establishment of the Office of Exploration within NOAA, at a token funding level of

$4 million in fiscal year 2001, increasing to $14 million in each of fiscal years 2002 and

2003. This is helping NOAA fulfill its applied science, environmental assessment, and

technology development responsibilities, although the program’s small budget and

agency-specific focus limit its effectiveness. 

A 2003 National Research Council report reiterated the need for a comprehensive

national ocean exploration program strongly linked to traditional research, with broad

international partnerships, and a commitment to educational opportunities.10 The report

offered specific recommendations on exploration priorities, management models, and

technology and infrastructure requirements. It also presented detailed cost analyses and

projections for programs at various levels of sophistication, including costs for capital

construction and annual operations. 

NOAA and the National Science Foundation (NSF), by virtue of their missions and

mandates, are well positioned to lead a global U.S. ocean exploration effort. NOAA currently runs the Office of Ocean Exploration, but NSF’s focus on basic research provides an

excellent complement to NOAA’s more applied mission. Working together, the two agencies have the capacity to systematically explore and conduct research in previously unexamined ocean environments. To succeed, coordination, joint funding, and interactions

with academia and industry will be essential. 

Recommendation 25–6

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation

should lead an expanded national ocean exploration program, with additional involvement

from the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Research. Public outreach

and education should be integral components of the program.

The dedicated infrastructure needed for an expanded national ocean exploration program is discussed in Chapter 27.

Coordinating and Consolidating Marine Operations 

The need for routine mapping, monitoring, and assessment of U.S. ocean and coastal

waters (referred to as marine operations) has grown significantly in the past two decades.

Accurate, up-to-date maps and charts of harbors, coastlines, and the EEZ are necessary for

many activities, including shipping, military operations, and scientific research. In addition, expanded regulatory regimes rely heavily on routine assessments of living and nonliving marine resources and water quality. Unfortunately, the accuracy and resolution of

existing information is inadequate, and ocean and coastal environments are changing

faster than can be documented by the current number and frequency of surveys. 

Modern sensor technologies, which can detect new variables in greater detail in the

water column and seafloor, have improved our ability to follow changing ocean and terrestrial dynamics. As these new technologies are implemented, they need to be calibrated

against previous methods, as well as with each other, to provide useful environmental

characterizations and ensure the consistency of long-term data sets.
C HAPTER 25: CREATING A NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR I NCREASING SCIENTIFIC K NOWLEDGE

Integrated National Maps and Assessments

At least eleven federal agencies (Box 25.2), almost all coastal states, and many local agencies, academic institutions, and private companies are involved in mapping, charting, and

assessing living and nonliving resources in U.S. waters. However, different organizations

use varying methods for collecting and presenting these data, leading to disparate products that contain gaps in the information they present.

Ideally, a variety of information, such as bathymetry, topography, bottom type, habitat,

salinity, and vulnerability, should be integrated into a single map using Global Positioning

System coordinates and a common geodetic reference frame. In addition, it is important

for these maps to include information on living marine resources, energy resources, and

environmental data when available. Only then will it be possible to create the complete

ocean characterizations necessary for developing and implementing science-based, ecosystem-based management approaches. However, achieving this integration in the coastal

zone is an extremely complex proposition. 

By launching the Geospatial One-Stop Portal, the Office of Management and Budget

has taken steps to avoid the collection of redundant data, facilitate information sharing,

and plan for future integrated mapping and charting. This Web-based server provides

national base maps with administrative and political boundaries that can also incorporate

information on agriculture, atmosphere and climate, hazards vulnerability, ecology, economics, conservation, human health, inland water resources, transportation networks,

and utilities. Furthermore, federal agency coordination is led by the Federal Geographic

Data Committee (FGDC)—a nineteen member interagency committee composed of representatives from the Executive Office of the President and departments and independent

agencies that promotes the coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data

on a national basis. The FGDC is currently developing the National Spatial Data Infrastructure

in cooperation with state, tribal, and local governments, the academic community, and the

private sector. This initiative includes policies, standards, and procedures for organizations to cooperatively produce and share geographically-linked data.

Federal agencies must continue to integrate and share data in the quest to create readily

accessible maps that track geological, physical, biological, and chemical features in three

dimensions. The fourth dimension—time—should also be incorporated wherever possible

to track changes in ocean and coastal resources over the short and long terms.

Federal Mapping and Charting Activities

Maps of coastal land areas, and charts of nearshore and offshore areas, are essential for

safe navigation and for defining boundaries, mitigating hazards, tracking environmental

changes, and monitoring uses. Because many organizations have mapping and charting

responsibilities, there are significant overlaps. This situation results in multiple entities

within government, industry, and academia undertaking the expensive and time-consuming

389

Box 25.2 Primary Federal Agencies that Conduct 

Science-based Marine Operations

• Coast Guard

• Environmental Protection Agency

• Federal Emergency Management Agency

• Minerals Management Service

• National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

• National Science Foundation

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• U.S. Geological Survey

• U.S. Navy
390 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

task of repeating surveys of the same area for different purposes. Furthermore, differences

in scale, resolution, projection, and reference frames inhibit the integration of onshore

and offshore data. It is impossible to merge most existing maps and charts to provide a

continuous picture of the coastal zone. However, recent advances in the development of

satellite positioning systems, sensors, and data manipulation techniques have created a

new generation of geospatial data products that address some of the key challenges faced

by ocean and coastal managers and policy makers. 

The U.S. marine transportation system is in particular need of better charts. As this

industry prepares for exponential growth over the next twenty years, a backlog of required

surveys is developing. Approximately 35,000 square nautical miles of navigationally significant U.S. waters have been designated by NOAA as critical areas requiring updated

information on depth and obstructions.11 New maps and charts of these waters and ports

are essential to minimize shipping accidents and to support the national security missions

of the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard. 

Another significant issue is the need to conduct extensive multi-beam sonar mapping

of the U.S. continental shelf, to the outer edge of the continental margin where it extends

beyond 200 miles. In this area, a potential $1.3 trillion in resources (including oil, minerals,

and sedentary species) could become available under provisions of the United Nations

Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention). If the United States accedes to the

LOS Convention, it will be able to present evidence to the United Nations Commission on

the Limits of the Continental Shelf in support of U.S. jurisdictional claims to its continental shelf. The University of New Hampshire’s Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping/Joint

Hydrographic Center, in conjunction with NOAA and USGS, has already identified regions

in U.S. waters where the continental shelf is likely to extend beyond 200 nautical miles

and is developing strategies for surveying these areas.12 Bathymetric and seismic data will

also be required to establish and meet a range of other environmental, geologic, engineering, and resource needs. 

A recent National Research Council report on national needs in coastal mapping and

charting provides a comprehensive review of the topic and offers sound recommendations

for: setting common reference frames and protocols; achieving data integration, interchangeability, and accuracy; and improving data accessibility.13 While all of these steps are

essential to improving federal mapping and charting activities, the National Research

Council’s recommendations for reducing redundancy in mapping and charting missions

are of utmost importance.

Coordination of the many existing federal mapping activities is necessary to increase

efficiency and help ensure that all necessary surveys are conducted. Registering all federally funded mapping and charting activities within a common database will allow agencies

to know what missions are being scheduled and will provide opportunities for coordinating similar activities. Once implemented, this registry could serve as the focal point for

national coordination of geospatial data collection and analysis efforts. 

The Marine and Coastal Spatial Data Subcommittee of the FGDC, whose membership

is composed of representatives from NOAA, USACE, National Geospatial-Intelligence

Agency, the U.S. Navy, USGS, and MMS, plus other relevant organizations such as the U.S.

Department of State and EPA, is the logical organization to coordinate and standardize

federal mapping and charting activities. To achieve the best results at the lowest cost, it

will be essential to draw on mapping and charting expertise found in the private sector

and academia. Coordination with state efforts will further reduce redundancies.
C HAPTER 25: CREATING A NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR I NCREASING SCIENTIFIC K NOWLEDGE

Recommendation 25–7

The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) should coordinate federal ocean and coastal

mapping and charting activities with the goal of creating standardized, easily accessible

national maps. These maps should be able to incorporate living and nonliving marine resource

data along with bathymetry, topography, and other natural features, and should provide

seamless data across the shoreline, coastal zone, nearshore areas, and open ocean waters. 

To accomplish these goals, the FGDC should:

• coordinate an interagency budget strategy to accelerate the completion of mapping 

priorities throughout coastal areas, the exclusive economic zone, and continental shelf.

• establish and maintain a Web-accessible registry that allows federal agencies to coordinate mapping and charting missions.

• establish and maintain a single Web-based source to provide easy access to geospatial

data and integrated national maps.

• ensure that federal mapping and charting activities take full advantage of resources

available in the academic and private sectors.

• ensure that federal mapping activities take advantage of state resources and address

state information needs.

Providing Useful Information to Congress

A theme reiterated throughout this report is that increased research, exploration, and

marine operations can provide decision makers with the information they need to make

better decisions. While Chapters 26 and 28 address the collection, analysis, and presentation of environmental data for research and management, a specific gap remains in the

flow of scientific information to Congress. 

Until its termination in 1995, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) provided

nonpartisan analytical information to Congress and assisted members and staff in understanding the complex and highly technical issues that increasingly affect society. While

OTA’s mission covered a wide range of issues, it produced many reports important to

ocean and coastal policy, including studies on fisheries, wetlands, marine technologies,

offshore energy, oil pollution, climate, aquaculture, maritime trade, and more (Box 25.3). 

391

Box 25.3 Selected Ocean and Coastal Reports from the 

Former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment

• Establishing a 200-Mile Fisheries Zone (1977)

• Coastal Effects of Offshore Energy Systems: An Assessment of Oil and Gas Systems, Deepwater

Ports, and Nuclear Powerplants Off the Coasts of New Jersey and Delaware (1976)

• Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation (1984)

• An Assessment of Maritime Trade and Technology (1983)

• Oil and Gas Technologies for the Arctic and Deepwater (1985)

• Ocean Incineration: Its Role in Managing Hazardous Waste (1986)

• Technologies for Underwater Archaeology and Maritime Preservation (1987)

• Bioremediation for Marine Oil Spills (1991)

• Science and Technology Issues in Coastal Ecotourism (1992)

• Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Vols. I and II (1993)

• Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System (1993)

• Fish Passage Technologies: Protection at Hydropower Facilities (1995)

• Selected Technology Issues in U.S. Aquaculture (1995)
392 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

OTA occupied a unique role among the congressional information agencies. Although

the General Accounting Office evaluates ongoing government programs and the

Congressional Research Service provides congressional members and staff with information

on legislative topics, OTA’s assignments covered a broad range of technical areas and its studies were comprehensive, serving as an important congressional resource for crafting public

policy. OTA’s work influenced many pieces of legislation and contributed to improved communication between policy makers and the scientific, technical, and business communities. 

Congress’s need for comprehensive scientific and technical information is as strong

today as it has ever been, if not stronger. In particular, many emerging ocean and coastal

activities will require comprehensive analyses to ensure that new legislation is based on

the best information possible. 

Recommendation 25–8

Congress should re-establish an Office of Technology Assessment to provide it with objective

and authoritative analyses of complex scientific and technical issues.

References

1 National Research Council. Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002.

2 Social Science Review Panel. Social Science Research within NOAA: Review and Recommendations. Washington, DC:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2003.

3 National Marine Protected Areas Center. “Social Science Research Strategy for Marine Protected Areas.” Internal

draft. Silver Spring, MD, June 11, 2003. 

4 The Interagency National Survey Consortium. National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE), 2000. 

Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, May 2001.

5 National Sea Grant College Program. NOAA Sea Grant Strategic Plan for FY 2003–2008 and Beyond: Science for

Sustainability in the 21st Century. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

November 4, 2003.

6 Cruickshank, M.J., and S.M. Masutani. “Methane Hydrate Research and Development.” Sea Technology (August 1999):

69–74.

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

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.

8 National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. The Need for a National Plan of Scientific Exploration for

the Exclusive Economic Zone. Washington, DC, 1986.

9 President’s Panel for Ocean Exploration. Discovering Earth’s Final Frontier: A U.S. Strategy for Ocean Exploration.

Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000. 

10 National Research Council. Exploration of the Seas: Voyage into the Unknown. Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, 2003.

11 Office of Coast Survey. National Survey Plan. Sliver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

November 2000.

12 Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping/Joint Hydrographic Center. The Compilation and Analysis of Data Relevant to

a U.S. Claim under United Nations Law of the Sea Article 76. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, 2002.

13 National Research Council. A Geospatial Framework for the Coastal Zone: National Needs for Coastal Mapping and

Charting. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2004.

394

CHAPTER 26

ACHIEVING A SUSTAINED,

INTEGRATED OCEAN

OBSERVING SYSTEM

Coastal and ocean observations provide critical information for protecting human

lives and property from marine hazards, enhancing national and homeland 

security, predicting global climate change, improving ocean health, and providing

for the protection, sustainable use, and enjoyment of ocean resources. While

the technology currently exists to integrate data gathered from a variety of

sensors deployed on buoys, gliders, ships, and satellites, the implementation of a sustained, national Integrated Ocean Observation System

(IOOS) is overdue and should begin immediately. Care should be taken

to ensure that user needs are incorporated into planning and that

the data collected by the IOOS are turned into information products

and forecasts that benefit the nation. In addition, the IOOS should

be coordinated with other national and international environmental observing systems to enhance the nation’s Earth observing

capabilities and enable us to better understand and respond to the

interactions among ocean, atmospheric, and terrestrial processes. 

Making the Case for an Integrated 

Ocean Observing System

About 150 years ago, this nation set out to create a comprehensive

weather forecasting and warning network and today most people 

cannot imagine living without constantly updated weather reports.

Virtually every segment of U.S. society depends on the weather observing

network. Millions of citizens check reports each day to decide how to dress,

whether to plan outdoor activities, and to determine if they need to prepare for

severe weather. Commercial interests use daily and seasonal forecasts to plan business activities and to safeguard employees and infrastructure. Government agencies use

forecasts to prepare for and respond to severe weather, issue warnings to the general public, and decide whether to activate emergency plans. 

Recognizing the enormous national benefits that have accrued from the weather

observing network, it is time to invest in a similar observational and forecasting capability

for the oceans. This system would gather information on physical, geological, chemical,

and biological parameters for the oceans and coasts, conditions that affect—and are

affected by—humans and their activities. The United States currently has the scientific

A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY
CHAPTER 26: ACHIEVING A SUSTAINED, INTEGRATED OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM

and technological capacity to develop a sustained, national Integrated Ocean Observing

System (IOOS) that will support and enhance the nation’s efforts for:

• Improving the health of our coasts and oceans.

• Protecting human lives and livelihoods from marine hazards.

• Supporting national defense and homeland security efforts.

• Understanding human-induced and natural environmental changes and the interactions between them.

• Measuring, explaining, and predicting environmental changes.

• Providing for the sustainable use, protection, and enjoyment of ocean resources.

• Providing a scientific basis for the implementation and refinement of ecosystembased management.

• Educating the public about the role and importance of the oceans in daily life.

• Tracking and understanding climate change and the ocean’s role in it.

• Supplying important information to ocean-related businesses such as marine 

transportation, aquaculture, fisheries, and offshore energy production.

The United States simply cannot provide the economic, environmental, and security

benefits listed above, achieve new levels of understanding and predictive capability, or

generate the information needed by a wide range of users, without implementing the IOOS. 

Assessing Existing Observing Systems 

The United States has numerous research and operational observing systems that measure

and monitor a wide range of terrestrial, atmospheric, and oceanic environmental variables

(Appendix 5). For the most part, each system focuses on specific research objectives or

limited operational applications. Among these are the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

stream gage monitoring system that helps predict flooding and droughts, the National

Weather Service’s atmospheric observation system for weather, wind, and storm predictions

and warnings, and the USGS/National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Landsat satellite system that characterizes landscape features and changes for land use

planning. The technologies used run the gamut from simple on-the-ground human observations to highly sophisticated instruments, such as radar, radiometers, seismometers,

magnetometers, and multispectral scanners.

Coastal and Ocean Observing Systems

Currently, the United States has more than forty coastal ocean observing systems, operated

independently or jointly by various federal, state, industry, and academic entities (Appendix

5). The federal government also operates or participates in several large-scale, open-ocean

observing systems. Examples include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s

(NOAA’s) Tropical Atmosphere Ocean program in the central Pacific Ocean that provides

data to monitor and predict El Niño–La Niña conditions and the global-scale Argo float

program for monitoring ocean climate. 

There are several independent regional ocean and coastal observing systems. For the

most part, they were built for different purposes and applications, measure different variables at different spatial and temporal scales, are not intercalibrated, and use different

standards and protocols for collecting, archiving, and assimilating data. They also compete

with each other for the limited funding available to support such efforts. As a result, despite

considerable interest among stakeholders and the existence of required technology and

scientific expertise, the United States has progressed very slowly in the design and implementation of a cohesive national ocean observing system. 

395
396 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

An integrated ocean and coastal observing system that is regionally, nationally, and

internationally coordinated, and is relevant at local to global scales, can serve a wide array

of users, be more cost-effective, and provide greater national benefits relative to the investments made. Although the current regional systems are valuable assets that will be essential to the implementation of the IOOS, they are insufficiently integrated to realize a

national vision.

Committing to Creation of the IOOS

The global ocean community has consistently articulated the need for a sustained ocean

observing system to address the myriad challenges facing the world’s oceans. In 1991, the

United Nations Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission proposed implementation

of the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) and in 1992, participating nations at the

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (known as the Earth

Summit) in Rio de Janeiro agreed to work toward establishment of this global system.

The U.S. National Ocean Research Leadership Council (NORLC), the leadership body

for the National Oceanographic Partnership Program, has taken the lead in creating the

IOOS, which will serve in part as the U.S. contribution to the GOOS. In response to congressional requests, the NORLC drafted two reports outlining the steps for creating a

national system: Toward a U.S. Plan for an Integrated, Sustained Ocean Observing System

(1999); and An Integrated Ocean Observing System: A Strategy for Implementing the First

Box 26.1 Components of the Integrated

Ocean Observing System

The IOOS, an integrated and sustained ocean and

coastal observing and prediction system, is a complex amalgam of many different land-, water-, air-, and

space-based facilities and technologies (Figure 26.1).

Some broad categories of components are:

• Platforms, such as ships, airplanes, satellites,

buoys, and drifters, that are used for mounting 

or deploying instruments, sensors, and other 

components.

• Instruments and sensors that sample, detect, and

measure environmental variables.

• Telecommunication systems that receive and transmit

the data collected by the instruments and sensors.

• Computer systems that collect, store, assimilate,

analyze, and model the environmental data and

generate information products.

Figure 26.1 Many Different Platforms 

Collect Data as Part of the IOOS 

This picture is an artist’s rendering of the various water-, air-, 

and space-components of ocean observing systems. The data 

collected by each of these different sensors are transmitted via 

seafloor fiber optic cables and satellites to a central location 

on land.

Source: HARRIS Corporation Maritime Communications, Melbourne, FL.
CHAPTER 26: ACHIEVING A SUSTAINED, INTEGRATED OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM

Steps of a U.S. Plan (2000). The second report provided a blueprint for the system’s design

and implementation. In October 2000, the NORLC established a federal interagency office

called Ocean.US and charged it with coordinating development of the IOOS. 

Ocean.US has made significant progress on a strategic plan for design and implementation. The plan is based on two distinct components: open ocean observations conducted

in cooperation with the international GOOS and a national network of coastal observations conducted at the regional level. The coastal component will include the U.S. exclusive economic zone, the Great Lakes, and coastal and estuarine areas.

Developers of the IOOS must ensure that the global component is not minimized and

that the connectivity with GOOS, including U.S. funding and leadership, remains strong

and viable. GOOS data will be essential for assimilating environmental data that spans

many spatial scales, and for creating forecasts of national and regional impacts that may

originate hundreds or thousands of miles away. Strong U.S. involvement in the GOOS will

also demonstrate the nation’s commitment to working toward an inclusive Earth observing system.

Although many individuals and agencies have spent countless hours creating plans

for the IOOS, its successful realization will require high-level visibility and support within

the administration, Congress, and the broad stakeholder community. 

Recommendation 26–1 

The National Ocean Council should make development and implementation of a sustained,

national Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) a key element of its leadership and 

coordination role. As an essential component of IOOS development, the NOC should promote

strong partnerships among federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local governments, nongovernmental organizations, industry, and academia, drawing upon the strengths and 

capabilities of each sector in the design, development, and operation of the IOOS.

Support from a broad-based, multi-sector constituency is critical to the success of 

the IOOS, particularly in light of the funding levels required to build, operate, and sustain

such a system. Establishing partnerships among all sectors will help to solidify stakeholder involvement and commitment to the IOOS. Implementation of a few national and

international pilot projects can test the links with existing systems and begin to produce

operational applications relevant to national policy and a broad spectrum of users. The

pilot projects will provide important visibility and demonstrate the potential economic

and societal benefits of the full system, while advancing research and development of useful technologies and applications. 

Creating a Governance Structure for the IOOS

National Planning

A strong national governance structure is required to establish policy and provide oversight for all components of the IOOS and to ensure strong integration among the regional,

national, and global levels. Interagency coordination and consensus through the National

Ocean Council and Ocean.US will be essential. While regional systems will retain a level

of autonomy, achievement of the IOOS with nationwide benefits will require the regional

systems to adhere to some national guidelines and standards. Regional observing systems

can and should pursue needs outside the scope of the national system as long as these

activities do not conflict with the smooth operation of the national IOOS.

NOAA’s role as the nation’s civilian oceanic and atmospheric agency, and its mission to

describe and predict changes in the Earth’s environment and to conserve and manage the

397

Although the challenges are significant,

we are witnessing 

a convergence of

societal needs and

technical capabilities

that provide the

motivation and

means to begin the

implementation of 

an integrated and

sustained ocean

observing system.

—Dr. Thomas Malone,

Professor, University of

Maryland Center for

Environmental Science

and Co-Chair, U.S. GOOS

Steering Committee, 

testimony to the 

Commission, July 2002
398 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

nation’s coastal and marine resources, make it the logical federal agency to implement and

operate the national IOOS. In addition, assigning the lead to NOAA will encourage close

coordination and information transfer between the national IOOS and the National

Weather Service.

Recommendation 26–2 

Ocean.US should be responsible for planning the national Integrated Ocean Observing

System (IOOS). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should serve as the

lead federal agency for implementing and operating the IOOS, with extensive interagency

coordination and subject to approval of all plans and budgets by the National Ocean Council.

Ocean.US 

A memorandum of agreement (MOA) among ten federal agencies (Box 26.2) created

Ocean.US as an interagency ocean observation office, supported by annual contributions

from the signatories. The fundamental problem with the current arrangement is that

Ocean.US has a number of responsibilities without any real authority or control over

budgets. Its ephemeral existence under the MOA, its dependence on personnel detailed

from the member agencies, and its lack of a dedicated budget severely detract from its

stature within the ocean community and its ability to carry out its responsibilities. 

A more formal establishment of the Ocean.US office is needed for it to advise the

National Ocean Council and achieve its coordination and planning mandates. The office

requires consistent funding and dedicated, full-time staff with the expertise and skills

needed to ensure professional credibility. In addition, outside experts on rotational

appointments could help Ocean.US meet its responsibilities. 

Recommendation 26–3 

Congress should amend the National Oceanographic Partnership Act to formally establish

Ocean.US under the National Ocean Council (NOC). 

Ocean.US should:

• report to the NOC’s Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations. 

• be provided with funding as a line item within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration’s budget, to be spent subject to NOC approval.

• have authority to bring in outside experts on rotational appointments when needed.

Regional Structure

Ocean.US continues to move forward in developing regional coastal observing systems

that will provide a backbone of estuarine, coastal, and offshore observations for the

national IOOS. Its plan calls for each regional observing system to establish a Regional

Association (RA), formed in a grassroots manner through alliances among data providers

and users, including government agencies (local, state, tribal and federal), private compaBox 26.2 Signatories to the Ocean.US Memorandum of Agreement

• Coast Guard

• Department of Energy

• Environmental Protection Agency

• Minerals Management Service

• National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

• National Science Foundation

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• U.S. Geological Survey

• U.S. Navy
CHAPTER 26: ACHIEVING A SUSTAINED, INTEGRATED OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM

nies, nongovernmental organizations, academic institutions, and international bodies.1,2

Each RA will be responsible for:

• Defining and prioritizing issues to be addressed and related science requirements.

• Identifying all potential data sources.

• Generating value-added products through public-private partnerships.

• Providing easy and rapid access to data and information on the coastal ocean.

• Fostering research and development and incorporating new technologies and knowledge to improve the capacity of regional observing systems to meet societal needs.

• Developing programs to improve public awareness and education on the marine 

environment. 

• Coordinating monitoring and research activities within the region and with 

adjacent regions.

Coordination among RAs will be assisted by formation of the National Federation of

Regional Associations, which will represent all regions, interact closely with Ocean.US,

and serve as a source of local and regional input in developing requirements for the

national system. The RAs and their Federation must also work side-by-side with NOAA

and the U.S. Navy on information management and communications in order to generate

timely, useful information products (discussed further below and in Chapter 28).

To fully address the needs of coastal managers, ocean observations should be integrated into other information gathering activities such as regionally-focused research,

monitoring, outreach and education, and ecosystem assessments. Thus, a RA could serve

as a good starting point for addressing broader regional information needs and should

consider expanding its mission and membership beyond observational activities to

assume the duties required of the regional ocean information programs proposed in

Chapter 5. Where a regional ocean information program exists in addition to a RA, close

coordination will be needed to ensure that observations are incorporated into the other

activities of the information program.

Reaching Out to the User Community

To fulfill its mission, the IOOS must draw on and meet the needs of a broad suite of users,

including the general public. However, at this early stage, many people do not even know

what the national IOOS is, nor do they grasp the potential utility and value of the information it will generate. This has slowed progress in its implementation. 

Some important stakeholders outside of the federal agencies and ocean research 

community have not been sufficiently integrated into the initial planning process. Some 

of those who were consulted are concerned that they were brought into the process after

important design and other decisions had already been made. While Congress and the

administration have both expressed support for the concept of a national Integrated

Ocean Observing System, there has been insufficient constituent demand to compel

appropriation of significant public funds. Clearer communication about the benefits of 

the IOOS, and broader participation in planning activities, are necessary to help create a

groundswell of support.

To get the most out of the IOOS, resource managers at federal, state, regional, territorial, tribal, and local levels will need to supply input about their information needs and

operational requirements and provide guidance on what output would be most useful.

Other users, including educators, ocean and coastal industries, fishermen, and coastal 

citizens, must also have a visible avenue for providing input. Ocean.US and the Regional

Associations will need to devote significant time and thought to proactively approaching

users and promoting public awareness of the enormous potential of the IOOS. 

399
400 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

One obvious application of the observing system will be to monitor potential terrorist

threats to the United States, including the possible use of commercial and recreational 

vessels to introduce nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons through the nation’s ports to

attack large metropolitan areas or critical marine infrastructure. Thus, it is important that

homeland security personnel be actively engaged in defining their needs as part of the

IOOS design process.

Recommendation 26–4 

Ocean.US should proactively seek input from coastal and ocean stakeholder communities to

build cross-sector support for the national Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) and

develop a consensus on operational requirements. 

Specifically, Ocean.US should seek input on its plans from:

• agencies with homeland security responsibilities, including ideas for future research and

development to improve and enhance the system.

• state, local, territorial, and tribal agencies, industry, academia, nongovernmental organizations, and the public in the design and implementation of regional observing systems

and their integration into the national IOOS.

Assembling the Elements of a Successful IOOS

The success of the IOOS will depend on several design elements: measuring the right set

of environmental variables to meet regional, national, and global information requirements;

transitioning research accomplishments into operational applications; and developing

technologies to improve all aspects of the system, especially the timeliness and accuracy 

of its predictive models and the usefulness of its information products.

Critical Environmental Variables

To establish a uniform national system, a consistent core of environmental variables must be

measured by all of the system’s components. This core needs to strike a balance, remaining

manageable and affordable while including enough parameters to address watershed,

atmosphere, and ocean interconnections and support resource management, research, and

practical use by many stakeholders. Measurements should include natural variables as

well as human influences. 

Based on an evaluation of more than one hundred possible environmental variables,

Ocean.US identified an initial priority set of physical, chemical, and biological parameters

for measurement by the IOOS (Table 26.1). It also created a supplemental list of meteorological, terrestrial, and human variables that are related to ocean conditions (Table 26.2).3

While these lists provide a starting point for further discussion, many of the items

included are actually broad categories rather than specific variables to be measured. The

lists do not specify which variables can be measured with current technologies, which

particular contaminants and pathogens should be observed, or which sets of observations

can be assimilated to predict potentially hazardous environmental conditions, such as

harmful algal blooms. Surprisingly, several important variables, such as inputs of air- and

river-borne pollutants, are not included at all. 

These lists will require further refinement and review by potential users of the system

and a mechanism must be established to solicit additional feedback. Regional observation

needs, such as fish stock assessments, assessments of sensitive and critical habitats, or

monitoring for invasive species, are best understood by those in the affected regions.

Therefore, input from local and regional groups, organized through the RAs, will be essential for determining which variables should be included as national priorities. 
Variables should be prioritized based on their value in resolving specific issues or

questions, their application across issues, and the cost of measuring them. An additional

factor to consider is the variable’s importance for global, national, regional, state, and local

information purposes. Future deliberations will need to identify those variables which can

be measured using current capabilities and those that will require new technologies.

CHAPTER 26: ACHIEVING A SUSTAINED, INTEGRATED OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM 401

Participants at an Ocean.US workshop recognized the following variables as important measurements to be made by the national

Integrated Ocean Observing System.

Table 26.1 Proposed Core Variables for the IOOS 

Physical Chemical Biological

Source: National Ocean Research Leadership Council. Building Consensus: Toward an Integrated and Sustained Ocean Observing System.

Proceedings of an Ocean.US workshop. Arlington, VA, March 2002. 

Salinity

Water temperature

Bathymetry

Sea level

Directional wave spectra

Vector currents

Ice concentration

Surface heat flux

Bottom characteristics

Seafloor seismicity

Ice thickness

Sea-surface height

Contaminants: water

Dissolved nutrients

Dissolved oxygen

Carbon: total organic

Contaminants: sediments

Suspended sediments

pCO2

Carbon: total inorganic

Total nitrogen: water

Fish species

Fish abundance/biomass

Zooplankton species

Optical properties

Ocean color

Pathogens: water

Phytoplankton species

Zooplankton abundance

Benthic abundance

Benthic species

Mammals: abundance

Mammals: mortality events

Bacterial biomass

Chlorophyll-a

Non-native species

Phytoplankton abundance

Phytoplankton productivity

Wetlands: spatial extent

Bioacoustics

In addition to the ocean-specific variables listed in Table 26.1, the participants at the Ocean.US workshop highlighted a number of

other variables that affect ocean and coastal environments.

Table 26.2 Proposed Supplemental IOOS Variables 

Meteorological Terrestrial Human Health & Use

Source: National Ocean Research Leadership Council. Building Consensus: Toward an Integrated and Sustained Ocean Observing System.

Proceedings of an Ocean.US workshop. Arlington, VA, March 2002.

Wind vector

Air temperature

Atmospheric pressure

Precipitation (dry and wet)

Humidity

Aerosol type

Ambient noise

Atmospheric visibility

Cloud cover

River discharge

Groundwater discharge

Seafood contaminants

Pathogens: seafood

Fish catch and effort

Seafood consumption

Beach usage
402 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 26–5

Ocean.US should develop a set of core variables to be collected by all components of the

national Integrated Ocean Observing System. This set of core variables should include appropriate biological, chemical, geological, and physical variables and be based on input from the

National Federation of Regional Associations.

Converting Research into Operational Capabilities

Research Observatories

A number of research observatories now in operation were created primarily by academic

institutions to develop new observation technologies. Rutgers University’s Long-term

Ecosystem Observatory and the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute’s Ocean

Observing System are two examples of programs that have made significant advances in

developing observation technologies and the data management systems needed to support

them. These observatories provide valuable scientific and engineering information that

will be essential in building the IOOS. However, they can not be easily integrated into an

operational, national IOOS, which will need to be based on stable, proven technologies

and structured to deliver long-term observations.

The national IOOS will also have significant synergies with the NSF Ocean Observatories

Initiative, which is being designed to address the ocean research community’s needs for

long-term, in situ measurements of biological, chemical, geological, and physical variables

over a variety of scales. The NSF observatories will be used to examine the processes that

drive atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial systems, and will serve as an incubator for new

technologies to monitor these processes. While the IOOS and NSF observatories have

thus far been planned independently, the basic research and technology development from

the NSF observatories and the information generated by the IOOS are in reality interdependent, with each program supplying ingredients essential to the other. Close coordination and cooperation between NOAA and NSF will be necessary to capitalize on these

benefits. 

To ensure that the best available science and technology are continuously integrated

into the national IOOS, mechanisms are needed for transitioning findings from research

settings to routine operational applications. A new NOAA Office of Technology, recommended in Chapter 27, would be instrumental in making this transfer proceed smoothly.

It would oversee coordination between NOAA, NSF, the Navy (including the Office of

Naval Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Naval Oceanographic Office, Fleet Numerical

Meteorology and Oceanography Command, and National Ice Center), NASA, other pertinent federal agencies, academia, and the private sector, all of which are essential in creating the bridge from research to operations.

New Sensor Technologies

One area where additional capabilities are critically needed is in sensor technologies.

Currently, the ability to continuously observe and measure physical variables (such as

water temperature, current speed, and wave height) far surpasses the ability to measure

chemical and biological parameters. With a few exceptions, most chemical and biological

measurements are still obtained mainly by direct sampling and analysis. This shortcoming

seriously hampers real-time observations of a broad range of biological parameters and

populations of special interest, such as corals, marine mammals, and fish stocks. To realize

the full promise of the IOOS, accelerated research into biological and chemical sensing

techniques will be needed, with rapid transitions to operational use. 
CHAPTER 26: ACHIEVING A SUSTAINED, INTEGRATED OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM

Another gap is in the development of satellite sensors for coastal observations. Coastal

waters typically display very different environmental characteristics than the open ocean,

with variability occurring over much smaller time and space scales, requiring specialized

satellite sensors. NOAA, NSF, the Navy, and NASA should fund the development, and 

subsequent integration, of new sensors for the IOOS as high priorities. Sensor development is discussed in more detail in Chapter 27 as part of the broader need to develop 

and implement new technologies.

Recommendation 26–6 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation

(NSF), the Office of Naval Research, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

should require investigators who receive federal funding related to ocean observatories,

including the NSF Ocean Observatories Initiative, to plan for the transfer of successful technologies to an operational mode in the Integrated Ocean Observing System.

Coordinating Civilian Satellite Observations

Space-borne sensors can provide comprehensive, real-time, widespread coverage of ocean

conditions and features and their data will form an integral part of the national IOOS. 

A growing international constellation of satellites allows extensive observation of oceansurface conditions, as well as the ability to extrapolate from in situ measurements. Satellites

can also provide baseline measurements at local, regional, national, and global scales to

help assess long-term environmental changes and the impacts of catastrophic events. 

However, achieving sustained observations from space presents daunting challenges.

Because of the high cost, the long time frame for constructing and launching satellites,

and the inability to modify satellites once in orbit, five- to ten-year plans are required to

ensure that reliable satellite observations will be available on a continuous basis, employing the most useful and modern sensors. 

In addition, development of a multi-decadal record of observations requires space

missions with sufficient overlaps to avoid gaps in data and allow intercalibration of 

successive generations of sensors. Lack of such coordination can seriously impair our

understanding, as occurred during the eleven-year hiatus (1986–1997) in the collection 

of ocean color data during the transition from the Coastal Zone Color Scanner to the 

Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) mission.

Planning for Space-based Observation Missions

Because NASA develops satellite technologies and analysis techniques and launches each

satellite, Ocean.US is in charge of planning the integrated components of the IOOS, and

NOAA is responsible for ongoing IOOS operations, close coordination will be necessary 

to achieve effective IOOS satellite observations. As part of its planning responsibilities,

Ocean.US will need to reach out to a diverse group of users to identify national priorities

for space-based observations, in a manner similar to that recommended for determining

IOOS environmental variables.

NOAA and NASA will both benefit from cooperative planning of future space missions, including the submission of coordinated budgets that account for their respective

responsibilities. Improved coordination among NOAA, NASA, and Ocean.US can create

opportunities to transition research-oriented satellite missions into operations and to

extend the use of newly proven sensors to other applications, such as weather satellites.

Coordination with international satellite programs will also be necessary to integrate the

national IOOS with the GOOS and to accelerate integration of new sensor technologies. 

403
404 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 26–7 

Ocean.US should recommend priorities for space-based missions as an essential component of

the national Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

should work together on the development, budgeting, and scheduling of IOOS satellite 

missions, based on Ocean.US plans.

Ocean.US, NOAA, and NASA should:

• work closely with the user community and the space industry to identify the most 

important space-based ocean observation needs.

• work with the international community to ensure that requirements for the Global

Ocean Observing System are coordinated with U.S. plans for satellite remote sensing.

• implement phased satellite missions and equipment replacement to maintain 

unbroken, consistent data streams based on Ocean.US plans. 

Configuring Earth Observing Satellites to Achieve Long-term Data Acquisition

Achieving continuity in satellite observations is essential for the national IOOS to be successful. Both NOAA and NASA currently operate civilian, space-based, Earth observing

programs that measure terrestrial, atmospheric, and oceanic variables (Appendix 5).

NOAA’s primary mission in this area is to provide sustained, operational observations for

monitoring and predicting environmental conditions and long-term changes, with a focus

on weather and climate. In contrast, NASA’s primary mission is to advance research efforts

and sensor development. As a result, NASA projects are relatively short, lasting from a few

days to a few years. 

While NASA-led research missions have greatly advanced our understanding of the

oceans, they are developed without regard to ongoing, operational observing needs beyond

the planned duration of the individual mission. NASA also lacks the extensive atmospheric,

land, and ocean ground-truthing infrastructure needed to verify remote observations for

operational purposes. Thus, NASA’s efforts have not, and will not, result in the sustained

operational capabilities needed for the national IOOS. 

In fact, improvements in technology have already created situations where the lifetime

of a NASA satellite, and its continued ability to collect and transmit data, can outlast the

funding planned for the mission. The nation is then faced with the prospect of abandoning

missions that still have great operational potential. No standard interagency process has

yet been developed to assure continued funding and operation under these circumstances. 

Thus, in addition to improved coordination in planning satellite missions, a process is

needed to plan for the transition of appropriate NASA Earth observing research satellites

to NOAA in order to achieve sustained operations and data collection. Because of its

expertise and capabilities, it is appropriate for NASA to maintain responsibility for

research, engineering, development, and launch of Earth observing satellites. However,

operational control of these satellites should be turned over to NOAA after the integrity of

the satellite is confirmed in orbit. 

The consolidation of space-based Earth environmental observing operations into one

agency will greatly ease the implementation of a functional national system. By transferring the operation of Earth, and particularly ocean, observing satellite missions to NOAA,

more seamless concept-to-operations data collection will be possible. This handoff has

been demonstrated with the Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites and the

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites, which provide the continuous, spacebased coverage needed for weather observations and predictions.

Our efforts in the

past decade have

resulted in a wealth

of observations, but

NASA could not have

been successful had

we worked alone.

Our collaboration

with other federal

agencies and international partners was 

a critical element in

this success. 

—Dr. Ghassem Asrar,

Associate Administrator

for Earth Science,

National Aeronautics

and Space Administration, testimony to 

the Commission, 

October 2002
CHAPTER 26: ACHIEVING A SUSTAINED, INTEGRATED OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM

Recommendation 26–8 

Congress should transfer ongoing operation of the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) Earth environmental observing satellites to the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to achieve continuous collection of critical space-based

Earth environmental measurements. NOAA and NASA should work together to identify

research satellite missions that have operational applications and to ensure the smooth transition of each Earth environmental observing satellite after its launch and testing. 

Planning for Satellite Data Management

A number of infrastructure and organizational changes will be needed at NOAA to ensure

the seamless transition of Earth environmental observing satellites from research to operations. Enhanced science, technology, and management coordination will also be needed

within NOAA and among NOAA, other agencies, and the private and academic sectors.

Foremost among the needed changes is fundamental improvement of NOAA’s data management capabilities. 

To guide these changes, NOAA should first review its past achievements and challenges

in remote-sensing, satellite data collection and processing, and data distribution and

archiving. To be successful, NOAA will need to deliver raw data and useful analytical

products to the public on an ongoing basis, and archive all incoming data in readily 

accessible formats for future assessments of environmental change. 

NOAA’s data and information management practices will need to be flexible, address

customer needs, allow for continuous feedback and improvement, and be based on partnerships with industry and academia to the maximum extent possible. (Additional recommendations concerning data management and information product development are provided in

Chapter 28.) NOAA will also need to plan for continued calibration of observing satellites,

using academic and private sector partners to form calibration and validation teams. 

Recommendation 26–9 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should improve its capacity to

calibrate, collect, and disseminate satellite data and to integrate satellite-derived information

with traditional ocean and coastal databases. NOAA should ensure that a suitable archive

exists to preserve historical satellite data, particularly those related to long-term trends such

as climate.

Developing Useful End Products Based on IOOS Data

To justify large federal investments in the IOOS, the system must result in tangible benefits

for a broad and diverse user community, including the general public, scientists, resource

managers, emergency responders, policy makers, private industry, educators, and homeland security officials. The IOOS cannot be developed as a narrow system useful only for

research or federal government applications. 

Tailoring Information to Users

The longtime partnership between the National Weather Service (NWS) and the private

sector, which results in both general and tailored weather forecast and warning products

that are widely acknowledged as valuable, is a good model upon which to build the IOOS.

NWS and commercial meteorological products have applications ranging from scientific

research to human safety, transportation, agriculture, and simple daily forecasts. Similarly,

IOOS products should be wide-ranging and based on the needs of regional and local

organizations and communities, as well as national needs. 

The Regional Associations will be essential in providing information products that

benefit regional, state, and local managers and organizations. The Regional Associations

405
406 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

can also provide important feedback to national planners about making national IOOS

products more useful. But the information will only be truly valuable if its users know

how to access and interpret it. Thus, NOAA, Ocean.US, and the Regional Associations will

also need to provide technical training and tools to help coastal and ocean resource managers and decision makers use the information provided by the national IOOS. 

Improving Coordination for Product Development

Both NOAA and the Navy have the computer infrastructure and human resources needed

to produce data and information products at varying spatial and temporal scales, and both

have experience tailoring products to the requirements of stakeholders in different regions

and for different purposes. A joint NOAA–Navy ocean and coastal information management and communications partnership, as recommended in Chapter 28, can help ensure

high-quality end products from the national IOOS. Working together, and in conjunction

with regional organizations, these agencies will be able to produce routine operational

ocean condition reports, forecasts, and warning products, based on data from the IOOS. In

addition, coordination among NOAA, the Navy, Ocean.US, the Regional Associations, and

Ocean.IT (a new data management office recommended in Chapter 28) will help target

the development of new forecast models to areas where results are most urgently needed. 

Recommendation 26–10 

Ocean.US and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should work

with state and local governments, the Regional Associations, educators, nongovernmental

organizations, and the private sector, to ensure that information products generated from

the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) are useful to a broad user community.

In particular, Ocean.US and NOAA should:

• work with the U.S. Navy, the Regional Associations, Ocean.IT, and the private sector to

create new models and forecasting methods to meet user information needs.

• work with the Regional Associations to provide the training and tools necessary for users

to work with, and benefit from, IOOS information products.

Funding the National IOOS

The existing IOOS implementation plan calls for a distributed funding structure under

which funds for implementation and operation of the national IOOS would be appropriated

to many individual ocean agencies to support their respective contributions to the system.4

This approach is not conducive to timely and seamless implementation of the national

Box 26.3 The National Weather Service: An Investment That Paid Off

Billions of dollars have been invested over the last century to create a robust weatherrelated observing system. Continued operation of the National Weather Service (NWS)

costs every U.S. citizen $4-$5 a year. For this investment, the NWS issues more than 734,000

weather forecasts and 850,000 river and flood forecasts annually, along with 45,000–50,000

potentially life-saving severe weather warnings. These forecasts and warnings have the

potential to save millions to billions of dollars. For example, during a typical hurricane season,

the savings realized based on timely warnings add up to an estimated $2.5 billion.i

Geomagnetic storm forecasts are estimated to save the North American electric generating

industry upwards of $150 million per year.ii

i National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Economic Statistics. Washington, DC, May 2002.

ii Colgan, C.S., and R. Weiher. Linking Economic and Environmental Goals in NOAA’s Strategic Planning. Draft report.

Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, September 2002.
CHAPTER 26: ACHIEVING A SUSTAINED, INTEGRATED OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM

IOOS. The differences in missions and priorities

among the ocean agencies could slow the implementation of key components of the IOOS. Additionally,

the federal ocean agencies answer to different congressional committees and subcommittees for

authorizations and appropriations, which could

result in inconsistent and incomplete funding of the

national system. Furthermore, in times of tight budgets, federal agencies may be tempted to tap into their

IOOS budgets to support shortfalls or unfunded initiatives. Only by consolidating the IOOS budget

within one agency, with input and agreement on

spending from the other agencies, can full implementation be assured. Nevertheless, many agencies and

nonfederal organizations will continue to play a vital

role in implementing different components of the

IOOS, and mechanisms must be in place for quickly

transferring appropriate portions of the IOOS budget

to these essential partners. 

System Cost Estimates

Ocean.US has provided estimates of the costs of

implementing, operating, maintaining, and enhancing

a national IOOS. The plan for the system involves a

4-year ramp-up of funding, from a $138 million

start-up cost in fiscal year 2006 to $500 million

annually starting in fiscal year 2010 (Table 26.3).

Details of the $138 million start-up cost are provided

in Table 26.4.5 The cumulative cost over the first 5

years is estimated at $1.8 billion.

However, these cost estimates are not complete.

They do not include all requirements for building,

operating, and maintaining the system, such as costs

associated with dedicated satellite sensors, spaceborne platforms, and data stream collection and

assimilation. Considering these additional system

elements, rough estimates suggest that total funding

for the national IOOS over the first five years may 

be closer to $2 billion.

Although Ocean.US has estimated ongoing costs for the IOOS at $500 million per

year, continuous improvements to IOOS observation and prediction capabilities will

require sustained investments in technology development. Considering the costs of sensor

development, telecommunications, computer systems, and improvements in modeling

and prediction capabilities, an additional annual investment of about $100 million will

most likely be needed. Furthermore, the operation of Earth observing satellites, along

with collection and management of the resulting data, will add approximately $150 million more per year, depending on the number of satellites in operation. Thus, the eventual

ongoing costs for operating, maintaining, and upgrading the national IOOS could

approach $750 million a year, not accounting for inflation. 

Given the importance of the IOOS as an element in an integrated Earth observing 

system, these costs are in line with federal expenditures for other elements, including

407

Table 26.3 Proposed Annual Costs for

Implementation of the IOOS

Source: Ocean.US, Arlington, VA.

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Total for first

five years

Out years

$138 million (start-up costs)

$260 million

$385 million

$480 million

$500 million (fully operational system)

$1.8 billion

$500 million/yr 

(to keep system operational, not

accounting for inflation)

Fiscal Year Cost

Assuming start-up in fiscal year 2006, this table shows the

Ocean.US cost estimates for the IOOS for each year through

fiscal year 2010. These figures do not include the costs for

some essential components, including satellite observations,

that could add another $100–$250 million per year.

Table 26.4 Proposed Start-up Costs for the IOOS

Activity

Cost to

Perform

In fiscal year 2006, the proposed start-up cost of $138 million

is based on expenditures for four distinct components.

Accelerate the implementation of the 

U.S. commitment to the Global Ocean

Observing System

Develop data communications and 

management systems for the national IOOS

Enhance and expand existing federal 

observing programs

Develop regional observing systems

Total

$30 million

$18 million

$40 million

$50 million

$138 million

Source: Ocean. US. An Integrated and Sustained Ocean Observing

System (IOOS) for the United States: Design and Implementation.

Arlington, VA, May 2002.
408 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

atmospheric, hydrologic, and pollution-related monitoring. For example, the ongoing 

cost of operating the National Weather Service is a comparable $700 million a year.

To fulfill its potential, the IOOS will require stable, long-term funding. The lack of 

stable funding for existing regional ocean observing systems has contributed to their

piecemeal implementation. Consistent funding will help ensure that the American public

receives the greatest return for its investment in the form of useful information, reliable

forecasts, and timely warnings (Box 26.4).

Recommendation 26–11 

Congress should fund the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) as a line item in the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) budget, to be spent subject to

National Ocean Council (NOC) direction and approval. IOOS funds should be appropriated

without fiscal year limitation. NOAA should develop a streamlined process for distributing

IOOS funds to other federal and nonfederal partners based on the NOC plan. 

Box 26.4 An Investment with Big Returns: 

The Economic Value of Ocean Observations

While it is impossible to predict all the economic benefits that would flow from a

national Integrated Ocean Observing System, its potential can be estimated by looking

at a few systems currently in operation.

The Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) array in the Pacific Ocean provides enhanced 

El Niño forecasting. The economic benefits of these forecasts to U.S. agriculture have been

estimated at $300 million per year.i Advanced El Niño forecasts allow fishery managers to

adjust harvest levels and hatchery production twelve to sixteen months in advance. For one

small northwestern Coho salmon fishery, the net benefits of these forecasts have been estimated to exceed $1 million per year.ii When all economic sectors are considered, the estimated

value of improved El Niño forecasts reaches $1 billion a year.iii

Improved wind and wave models based on ocean observations make weather-based 

vessel routing possible. Today, at least half of all commercial ocean transits take advantage 

of this, saving $300 million in transportation costs annually.iv Search and rescue efforts by the

U.S. Coast Guard also benefit from ocean observations. Small improvements in search efficiency can generate life and property savings in excess of $100 million per year.v Although

more difficult to quantify, marine tourism, recreation, and resource management also benefit

greatly from integrated observations and the improved forecasts they allow.

Finally, scientists estimate that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions now, compared to

twenty years in the future, could result in worldwide benefits of $80 billion, with the United

States’ share approaching $20 billion.vi Such emissions reductions will only be undertaken

when policy makers feel fairly certain about their likelihood of success. Improved ocean

observations and models will be critical to filling these knowledge gaps to support appropriate action.

i Solow, A.R., et al. “The Value of Improved ENSO Prediction to U.S. Agriculture.” Climate Change 39 (1998):47-60.

ii Adams, R.M., et al. “The Value of El Niño Forecasts in the Management of Salmon: A Stochastic Dynamics Approach.”

American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80 (1998): 765–77.

iii Colgan, C.S., and R. Weiher. Linking Economic and Environmental Goals in NOAA’s Strategic Planning. Draft Report.

Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, September 2002.

iv Kite-Powell, H.L. “NPOESS Benefits to Commercial Shipping.” Presentation to NOAA NPOESS IPO. Silver Spring, MD:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, May 2000.

v Kite-Powell, H.L., S. Farrow, and P. Sassone. Quantitative Estimation of Benefits and Costs of a Proposed Coastal

Forecast System. Woods Hole, MA: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1994.

vi Manne, A.S., and R. Richels. Buying Greenhouse Insurance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.
CHAPTER 26: ACHIEVING A SUSTAINED, INTEGRATED OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM

Strengthening Earth Observations through 

National and International Partnerships 

Other U.S. Operational Observing Systems

Atmospheric, terrestrial, and oceanic conditions and processes are inextricably intertwined.

Progress in managing and protecting global resources will depend on understanding how

those systems interact and what their impacts are on all scales, from local to global, over

minutes or decades. Understanding such interactions is essential for accurately forecasting

global climate change (long-term or abrupt), seasonal to decadal oscillations (like El

Niño–La Niña, the North Atlantic Oscillation, or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation), and

short- and long-term ecosystem responses to environmental change. 

The IOOS cannot exist as a stand-alone system, developed without considering associated observations. Rather, it should be integrated with other environmental observing

systems to link weather, climate, terrestrial, biological, watershed, and ocean observations

into a unified Earth Observing System. Such a system would improve understanding of

environmental changes, processes, and interactions, making ecosystem-based management possible. 

Integration of the IOOS with NWS’s ground-, water-, space-, and atmosphere-based

observations, with USGS’s stream gage, water quality monitoring, and landscape observations, and with EPA’s pollution monitoring, should be essential steps in implementation 

of the IOOS. The IOOS should also be linked with the broad national monitoring network

recommended in Chapter 15. Credible data gathered through other agencies and mechanisms, such as the Coral Reef and Invasive Species task forces, should all be considered in

creating a coordinated Earth Observing System.

Recommendation 26–12 

The National Ocean Council should oversee coordination of the Integrated Ocean Observing

System with other existing and planned terrestrial, watershed, atmospheric, and biological

observation and information collection systems, with the ultimate goal of developing a

national Earth Observing System. 

Enhancing Global Cooperation

The United States should continue to participate in the international Global Ocean

Observing System to gain a better understanding of global ocean circulation patterns and

biological processes, and answer pressing policy questions about global climate change

and resource availability. In July 2003, the Earth Observation Summit was held in

Washington, D.C. to focus on building an integrated global observation system over the

next ten years. Thirty-four nations, the European Commission, and twenty international

organizations joined the United States in adopting a declaration that affirmed the need 

for timely, high-quality, long-term global Earth observations as a basis for sound decision

making. The ad hoc Group on Earth Observations has been formed to implement the 

declaration, co-chaired by the United States, the European Commission, Japan, and South

Africa, and an implementation plan is scheduled to be completed by late 2004. 

A recurring limitation of international scientific agreements and programs is the

growing divide between scientific capacity and resources in developed and developing

nations. Global programs function most effectively when all partners can participate fully.

In addition to expanding scientific knowledge and stimulating technological development,

capacity-building programs serve U.S. interests by creating goodwill and strengthening

ties with other nations (including the Freely Associated States of Micronesia, the Marshall

409
410 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Islands, and Palau). Examples of capacity-building techniques include: providing access to

U.S. scientific and technological expertise on a continuing basis; establishing education

and training programs; securing funding for travel grants to allow scientists from less

developed countries to participate in symposia, conferences, and research cruises; and

funding international student fellowships. 

High-level U.S. participation in international global observing planning meetings is

essential, particularly by top-level NASA and NOAA officials. Furthermore, the United States

should be strongly involved in international Earth observation satellite missions. This

includes supporting U.S. scientists to participate in foreign satellite mission planning and

execution activities, such as planning for enhanced data management and access protocols. 

Compatibility and accessibility of data collected by all participants in the GOOS will

be needed to make the whole worth more than the sum of its parts. Although the United

States has always supported full and open access to oceanographic data, this policy has

met with resistance in some nations, especially where basic data collection and management activities have been outsourced to private companies. The United States should

encourage foreign entities to engage in a policy of reciprocity, with a commitment to

mutual sharing of data.

Recommendation 26–13 

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should promote international coordination and capacity

building in the field of global ocean observations.

Specifically, the NOC should:

• lead the interagency implementation of the 2003 Declaration on Earth Observing.

• encourage and support developing nations’ participation in the Global Ocean Observing

System.

• continue to advocate full, open, and meaningful data access policies and contribute 

technological expertise to ensure access by all participants.

References

1 Ocean.US. Implementation of the Initial U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System. Part 1: Structure and Governance.

Arlington, VA, June 2003.

2 Ocean.US. “Guidance for the Establishment of Regional Associations and the National Federation of Regional

Associations.” <www.ocean.us/documents/docs/RA-guidance-v4.doc> Accessed February 2004.

3 National Ocean Research Leadership Council. Building Consensus: Toward an Integrated and Sustained Ocean

Observing System. Arlington, VA: Ocean.US, March 2002.

4 Ocean.US. An Integrated and Sustained Ocean Observing System (IOOS) for the United States: Design and

Implementation. Arlington, VA, May 2002.

5 Ibid.

A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

412

CHAPTER 27

ENHANCING OCEAN

INFRASTRUCTURE AND

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

The future success of ocean and coastal research, management, enforcement, and

observations in the United States will depend on the availability of modern ships,

undersea vehicles, aircraft, satellites, laboratories, and observing systems, as well

as the continuous development and integration of new technologies into these

facilities. A renewed commitment, a clear national strategy, and significant

interagency coordination are needed to plan for the acquisition, maintenance, and operation of such expensive, large-scale assets. In addition,

better mechanisms are needed to transition new technologies into

operational use and virtual centers for marine technology will help

make these technological advances widely available.

Supporting Ocean and Coastal 

Activities with Modern Tools

Arobust infrastructure with cutting-edge technology forms the

backbone of modern ocean and coastal science and effective

resource management and enforcement. The nation has long

relied on technological innovation, including satellites, early-warning systems, broadband telecommunications, and pollution control

devices to advance economic prosperity, protect life and property,

and conserve natural resources. Ocean research, exploration, assessments, and enforcement activities will continue to rely on modern facilities and new technologies that can operate in the open ocean, along the

coasts, in polar regions, on the seafloor, and even in space. 

The three major components of the nation’s infrastructure for oceans and coasts are:

• Facilities—land-based structures (such as laboratories and monitoring 

stations) as well as remote platforms (such as ships, airplanes, satellites, and submersibles) where research, observations, monitoring, and enforcement activities are

conducted;

• Hardware—research equipment, instrumentation, sensors, and information technology

systems used in the facilities; and

• Technical Support—the expert human resources needed to operate and maintain the

facilities and hardware and participate in monitoring, research, modeling, resource

assessments, education, and enforcement.

A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY
CHAPTER 27: ENHANCING OCEAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

This chapter does not attempt to provide a comprehensive review of all marine-related

infrastructure and technology needs. Rather, it highlights several key areas where improvements in federal planning, coordination, and investment are sorely needed.

Improving Infrastructure and Technology

Gaps in Infrastructure

Periodic surveys have attempted to assess various aspects of academic, private-sector, and

federal ocean infrastructure, but many of these attempts have been incomplete, particularly

regarding private and academic assets. The last official inventory of marine facilities,

undertaken in 1981 by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, did not

include information related to maritime commerce, marine safety, or education.1

As one of its early tasks, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, as required by the

Oceans Act of 2000, authorized an extensive assessment of the infrastructure associated

with ocean and coastal activities (Appendix 5). This inventory documents the U.S. infrastructure for maritime commerce and transportation; ocean and coastal safety and protection; research, exploration, and monitoring; and marine education and outreach. The

number and types of assets included are extensive and cover a wide range of federal, state,

academic, institutional, and private-sector entities. Together, they represent a substantial

public and private investment that has made possible great strides in modern oceanography, coastal management, and marine commerce over the last fifty years. But the assessment also revealed that significant components of the U.S. ocean infrastructure are aged

or obsolete and that, in some cases, current capacity is insufficient to meet the needs of

the ocean research, education, enforcement, and operations community. 

Gaps in Technology Development

In both the federal and academic arenas, it is difficult to incorporate rapidly changing

technology into ongoing activities. To ensure that the nation’s ocean infrastructure is as

effective as possible, the science community must learn how to rapidly transition new

marine technologies from the research and development stages to sustained applications.

In 2003, the National Science Board (NSB), the governing board of the National Science

Foundation (NSF), concluded that academic research infrastructure has not kept pace

with rapidly changing technology, expanding opportunities, and increasing numbers of

users.2 New technologies should allow researchers, managers, educators, and enforcement

personnel to be remotely connected to a sophisticated array of facilities, instruments, and

databases; however, these technologies are not readily available today. Better planning and

new funding will be needed to bridge this technology gap and revolutionize ocean science

and management. 

If not remedied, a decline in U.S. leadership in marine technology development 

will result in increasing reliance on foreign capabilities. In 2001, the U.S. Commission 

on National Security/21st Century reported that federal investment in non-defense technology development has remained flat since 1989 and that the United States is losing 

its technological edge in many scientific fields.3 Japan, the European Community, India,

and China are all making great strides in marine technology development and have the

potential to outcompete the United States in the near future. Changes in the policies 

and priorities of foreign nations, and a potential reluctance to freely share technology

and environmental information, may leave this nation’s ocean research and observation

activities behind. 

413
414 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Maximizing Resources through Collaboration

An overarching message from the Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities (Appendix

5) is the need for continued partnerships among public and private entities to reduce costs,

leverage resources, and encourage information sharing. Many successful collaborations

have formed across the nation and around the world in recent decades. Ocean and coastal

laboratories are frequently focal points for these efforts, drawing additional resources and

new facilities supported by government, private, or academic institutions to advance the

capabilities of a region.

For example, Narragansett, Rhode Island is home to a strong coalition of diverse research

organizations, including the Atlantic Ecology Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency’s (EPA’s) National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) Northeast Fisheries Science

Center Narragansett Laboratory, and the University of Rhode Island’s Graduate School of

Oceanography. Similarly, at the Hollings Marine Laboratory in Charleston, South Carolina,

NOAA’s National Ocean Service, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology

have partnered with the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, the College of

Charleston, and the Medical University of South Carolina to construct and operate a stateof-the-art marine laboratory dedicated solely to collaborative, interdisciplinary research. 

The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and the Monterey Bay Aquarium regularly collaborate with the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute and other research

institutions in the area, sharing ships and undersea vehicles, as well as information, to

improve management practices and educational outreach. Partnerships of other kinds,

such as the Cooperative Enforcement Program between the National Marine Fisheries

Service and state agencies, allow these organizations to coordinate missions and responsibilities in order to maximize vessel use.

Consortia and joint programs, with facilities that support several organizations, create

marine communities that interact closely, share knowledge, enhance career pathways, and

promote collaboration among government, academic, and private sectors. The most costeffective means of making infrastructure available to the largest number of people is to

emphasize such partnerships.

In 1969, the Stratton Commission recognized that the technological and scientific

demands of global ocean research would overtax the means of any single nation, stressing

the need for international partnerships.4 Realizing the expense involved in building and

maintaining infrastructure and developing new technologies, nations have joined together

in extremely successful ways. Current examples of such shared resources include satellitebased sensors, Argo profiling floats that measure meteorological and ocean variables as

part of the Global Ocean Observing System, the Global Climate Observing System, and

the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program. It is in the interests of the United States to continue to pursue partnerships with foreign nations for high-cost technology development

activities with worldwide applications, while ensuring that foreign efforts are complementary to those in the United States, not replacements for them.

A National Strategy

Despite the growing need to improve ocean science, resource assessments, education,

operations, and enforcement, the federal government has yet to develop a long-range

strategy to support the necessary infrastructure and technology needed for these purposes.

Although federal agencies have made efforts to improve their coordination in some areas

through the National Oceanographic Partnership Program and other mechanisms, infrastructure and technology planning is still not conducted in an integrated fashion that

reflects regional, national, and international priorities. 
CHAPTER 27: ENHANCING OCEAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

Furthermore, while some facilities are operated with joint funding, interagency 

budgeting for shared facilities has had limited success due to differences in congressional

oversight and financial and project approval processes. As a result, facilities are typically

constructed or modernized in a piecemeal fashion, often through earmarked congressional

funding. A unified national strategy can help achieve and maintain an appropriate mix 

of federally supported, modern ocean facilities that meet the nation’s needs for quality 

science, resource management, enforcement, education, and assessments. Federal coordination can also accelerate the development of new research-based technologies and their

rapid transfer into operational settings. 

Recommendation 27–1 

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should develop a national ocean and coastal infrastructure

and technology strategy, including detailed plans for funding and implementation, to support

science, resource management, assessments, enforcement, and education. The strategy

should guide agency plans for facility construction, upgrading, or consolidation and for new

technology development. 

In particular, the national strategy should:

• be developed through the NOC’s Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology,

and Operations.

• set specific priorities for acquiring and upgrading ocean and coastal infrastructure,

including vessels, facilities, instrumentation, and equipment.

• build on the existing capabilities of federal, state, academic, and private entities.

• identify emerging technologies that should be incorporated into agency operations.

• promote international partnerships to deploy and share major oceanographic assets.

The incorporation of useful new ocean technologies into operational infrastructure

requires directed funding and coordination. The U.S. Navy, in particular, devotes significant attention to transferring new technologies into military operations. Domestic management programs can also benefit by having a centralized office responsible for accelerating the transition of technological advances made by federal and academic laboratories

into routine, nonmilitary operations. NOAA, by virtue of its mission, is the logical agency

to take on this role.

Recommendation 27–2 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should establish an Office of Technology

Transfer with responsibility for expediting the transition of proven ocean-related technologies

into operational applications. This office should work closely with the National Science

Foundation, the U.S. Navy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, academic

institutions, regional organizations, and private industry to achieve its mission.

Periodic Reviews and Assessments 

In conducting its inventory of U.S. coastal and ocean facilities, the Commission discovered few long-term plans for maintaining, replacing, or modernizing facilities (Appendix

5). As the first such assessment conducted in twenty-two years, the need for periodic

future infrastructure assessments became obvious. A meaningful accounting of national

assets, facilities, and human resources requires regular updates to ensure that the national

strategy is based on an up-to-date understanding of capacity, capabilities, and trends.

Developing a national facilities database based on comprehensive inventories would

improve plans for asset replacement or refurbishment. Furthermore, organizing such a

database along regional lines would help identify the facility needs of each region and

415
416 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

improve the prospects for resource sharing. State, academic, and private-sector capabilities

should be included in the inventory to alert scientists to the existence and potential 

availability of these assets. 

Recommendation 27–3 

The National Ocean Council should undertake an assessment of U.S. ocean and coastal 

infrastructure and technology every five years. These assessments should account for all 

federal, state, academic, and private assets and should be used to create and update a

national facilities database.

The assessments should build on this Commission’s efforts (Appendix 5), including information on:

• the location, ownership, availability, remaining service life, and replacement cost for a

wide range of ocean infrastructure assets.

• maintenance and operational costs associated with these assets. 

• associated human resource needs. 

• the outcomes of past federal investments in ocean technology and infrastructure, with

recommendations for improvements.

Funding the Modernization of Critically Needed Assets

Too often during the past decade, federal and state agencies have had to delay, reduce, or

cancel infrastructure upgrades due to budgetary constraints or changing agency priorities.

Similar challenges arise within the academic community, which must balance the cost of

expensive facilities with other institutional priorities. 

Recent fiscal crises have exacerbated the problem at the state and local level, and a

significant decline in the both private and state funding at universities has delayed modernization and expansion activities at many institutions. Funds dedicated for operations

and maintenance of existing equipment have also declined. As a result, significant parts of

the ocean and coastal infrastructure are outmoded, limiting the progress of ocean research

and education and hindering the implementation of improved management and enforcement practices. 

Essential Science Infrastructure and Technology Components

The following discussion provides a summary of the condition of several major ocean 

science infrastructure categories, highlighting those most in need of coordinated planning

and increased investment. 

Surface Vessels 

Despite the increasing availability of moored instruments, drifters, gliders, and satellites to

collect ocean data, the need remains for traditional ships to conduct research, exploration,

and education. But insufficient vessel capacity, vessel deterioration, and outdated shipboard equipment and technology hinder the conduct of vessel-based science. In some

cases, these conditions also present safety issues and increase costs. 

The nation’s existing surface vessels for research are spread across federal and state

agencies, universities, private research institutions, and private industry. The four largest

U.S. government fleets conducting global, coastal, and nearshore research are operated by

NOAA, the Navy, EPA, and the U.S. Department of the Interior. The University-National

Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) is an organization of sixty-two academic

institutions and national laboratories involved in oceanographic research that coordinates

oceanographic ship schedules. There are currently twenty-seven UNOLS research vessels—

owned by the Navy, NSF, or individual research institutions—located at twenty operating
CHAPTER 27: ENHANCING OCEAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

institutions. Most coastal states also own and operate vessels of various sizes and mission

capabilities to satisfy state research needs. A significant and growing number of privatelyowned vessels are also being used by federal and state agencies and academic institutions

through contract or lease arrangements, particularly for highly specialized work. 

The U.S. Coast Guard operates three icebreakers in coordination with UNOLS, which

provide polar research capabilities. This fleet was recently updated with a new vessel

specifically designed for research, but two of these ships will reach the end of their service

life within the next four to seven years. NOAA has enlarged its fleet by refitting surplus

Navy vessels and launching a ten-year plan to build four specialized fishery research ships

at a price of $52 million per vessel.5 Two of the ships are under construction, but funding

has not been finalized for the remaining two. 

While all of the agency research fleets would benefit from upgrades, the UNOLS 

fleet is in need of immediate attention. Twelve of the seventeen largest UNOLS ships will

reach the end of their service life over the next fifteen years, and almost all UNOLS ships

require significant enhancements.6 The National Ocean Partnership Program’s Federal

Oceanographic Facilities Committee, comprised of representatives from thirteen federal

organizations and one representative from UNOLS, was established to oversee oceanographic facility use, upgrades, and investments. The Committee’s 2001 plan for recapitalization of the UNOLS academic research fleet is an excellent example of successful interagency planning at the national level.7 Unfortunately, its plan has not yet been funded or

implemented. 

Furthermore, as the international Integrated Ocean Drilling Program gets underway,

the United States has pledged to provide a modernized non-riser drilling vessel with

enhanced coring and drilling capabilities at an estimated cost of $100 million.8

Modern research ships are designed as flexible platforms that can accept different

instrument systems to suit particular projects. However, the built-in instrumentation (such

as sonars, mapping systems, and computer labs) must be considered part of the vessel.

These onboard technologies typically require much more frequent maintenance and

upgrades than the vessels themselves. Thus, fleet planning strategies need to consider 

the costs of maintaining existing instrumentation and integrating emerging technologies. 

417

The R/V Kilo Moana, based at the University of Hawaii, is the newest U.S. oceanographic research vessel.

The twin hull design provides a stable platform for research in coastal and deep ocean areas, even in

high sea conditions.

University of Hawaii Marine Center
418 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Undersea Vehicles

Scientists working in the deep ocean have made fundamental contributions to understanding ocean and planetary processes and the nature of life itself. Further scientific

breakthroughs are likely if more regular access to the ocean depths can be provided.

Ninety-seven percent of the ocean floor can be accessed by existing undersea vehicles

with depth capabilities of around 20,000 feet. The remaining 3 percent—an additional

16,000 feet of ocean depth—remains largely inaccessible, although it includes most of 

the deep ocean trenches and comprises an area the size of the continental United States,

Alaska, and about half of Mexico combined. 

Human-occupied deep submersible vehicles came into operation in the late 1950s, followed by tethered remotely operated vehicles, and later by autonomous underwater vehicles. All three types of vessels are still used, and this variety allows researchers to choose

the best tool for their needs, based on factors such as task, complexity, cost, and risks. 

Today French, Russian, and Japanese human-occupied submersibles regularly work at

depths of 20,000 feet or more. The last such vehicle owned by the United States was the

Sea Cliff, which was retired in 1998 and not replaced. U.S. capability today is limited to

the Alvin, built in 1964, which can only descend to 15,000 feet and stay submerged for

relatively short periods. The University of Hawaii operates two submersibles that have the

next deepest capabilities in the United States. The Pisces IV and Pisces V can dive to about

6,500 feet, with missions lasting seven to ten hours. For missions of long duration, the

United States relies on the Navy’s NR-1 nuclear research submarine, which can stay submerged for thirty days but has a maximum depth of only 3,000 feet. The NR-1 was constructed in 1969, and its service life will end in 2012. 

The United States has a well-developed remotely operated vehicle (ROV) industry,

and ROVs are readily available for academic and industrial purposes. The last twenty-five

years have witnessed extraordinary advances in the field of subsea robotics, developed

mainly for the oil and gas industry, and there is a wide array of ROVs available with working depths of 9,800 feet. Current U.S. ROV capabilities are led by Jason II, with a maximum operating depth of 21,325 feet, but it is the only vehicle in the federal fleet capable

of reaching this depth. Federal funding has expedited the development of ROVs that can

dive to 23,000 feet and deeper, but a concerted effort will be needed to make deep-water

capabilities more economical and accessible. 

Submersibles in the federal research fleet, including Alvin and Jason II, are currently

housed at the National Deep Submergence Facility at the Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institution. The facility is funded through a partnership among NSF, the Office of Naval

Research (ONR), and NOAA. In addition, the NOAA-funded Undersea Research Program

provides scientists with tools and expertise needed to work in the undersea environment.

The vehicles owned and operated by the Undersea Research Program are divided into six

regional centers that choose research missions based on a peer review process.

The U.S. autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) industry has just begun to emerge

from the research, development, and prototype phase. Over the past decade, close to 60

development programs have been initiated throughout the world, producing approximately 175 prototypes. About twenty of these programs remain active, with at least eight

in the United States. While the primary financial drivers of AUV development in the

United States have been the U.S. military and the oil industry, significant programs are in

place at a few academic institutions and private institutes. 

Nevertheless, a 2003 report by the National Research Council found that the scientific

demand for deep-diving vehicles is not being met.9 The report suggests a mix of vehicles

to support current and future research needs. Recommendations include: setting aside

funds at the National Deep Submergence Facility to gain access to vehicles outside the

federal fleet for specific missions; acquiring a second ROV to join Jason II by 2005, at a

Dramatic advances in

submergence vehicle

technologies and

instruments will help

foster a revolution in

our ability to measure

the chemical, biological, and physical

processes that occur

in the oceans.

—Dr. Margaret Leinen,

Assistant Director for

Geosciences, National

Science Foundation, 

testimony to the 

Commission, April 2002
CHAPTER 27: ENHANCING OCEAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

cost of approximately $5 million; and initiating an engineering study to evaluate various

options for replacing Alvin, with a goal of providing submergence capability up to 21,000

feet, at a cost of approximately $20 million. The report noted that, over time and with

additional funding, new platforms with greater capabilities could be profitably added to

the fleet.

Dedicated Ocean Exploration Platforms

The success of a robust national ocean exploration program (described in Chapter 25) will

depend on the availability of sufficient vessel support, particularly ships and submersibles.

Given that the existing suite of platforms requires upgrading just to meet current demands,

implementation of a robust, national ocean exploration program will require additional

support facilities. These assets should provide dedicated support for exploration missions

and the flexibility to investigate many ocean areas and environments. 

In 2003, the National Research Council recommended U.S. participation in an international exploration effort and discussed the benefits of providing a $70 million modern

flagship and several modernized underwater vehicles and platforms.10 Such assets should

be included in the national strategy for ocean infrastructure and technology.

Airborne Ocean Science Platforms

Piloted and autonomous aircraft are an integral part of modern ocean science. They are

needed for precise airborne observation and measurements of the ocean, air-sea interface,

and atmosphere. Many multidisciplinary, ocean-atmosphere field projects require a mix of

observational platforms, particularly aircraft teamed with ships and satellites. Research

aircraft are also instrumental in developing new satellite and airborne sensors. 

The future of airborne ocean science and monitoring rests on the increased availability of autonomous or remotely-piloted aircraft. These research platforms, which are being

developed now, possess a greater range, duration, and ceiling than conventional aircraft,

and present less risk when operating in hazardous environments. The research community has suggested the need for a worldwide fleet of autonomous aircraft for ocean and

atmospheric observation by 2005. The National Aeronautic and Space Administration

(NASA), ONR, and NSF currently have active autonomous airborne ocean research programs, and are working to develop additional resources. 

The national airborne fleet is operated by a partnership of federal agencies and academia. Private aircraft are also used for specialty and operational projects such as aerial 

mapping, marine mammal surveys, and supply missions. The Interagency Coordinating

Committee for Airborne Geoscience Research and Applications, which is composed of

federal agencies and academic institutions that operate research aircraft programs, works

to improve cooperation, foster awareness, and facilitate communication among its members, and serves as a resource to senior managers. In an effort to coordinate ocean research

aircraft, UNOLS recently established the Scientific Committee for Oceanographic Aircraft

Research. This committee coordinates the operators and agencies whose aircraft have been

chosen by UNOLS to be a part of the National Oceanographic Aircraft Facility. 

The demand for these assets is increasing, particularly as collaborative ocean-atmosphere

projects become more common, and currently exceeds availability. Inadequate funding for

research flight time is exacerbating the problem. Furthermore, as with surface vessels,

emerging technologies and updated safety and personnel requirements will require significant funding that must be included in planning.

In 2003, NOAA drafted a ten-year plan for airborne platforms that provides an extensive analysis of agency requirements. The plan included an examination of historical flight

requests, allocations, and budgets, and delineated future requirements, contracts for service, and a recapitalization schedule and cost.11

419
420 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

The Ocean Observatories Initiative

Investigation of the oceans as a dynamic system requires sustained observational capabilities

in remote locations not routinely accessible by ships. NSF’s Ocean Observatories Initiative

(OOI) will develop and construct the initial infrastructure for an integrated research

observatory network, providing the research and education communities with a new mode

of access to the oceans. The scientific problems driving creation of the OOI are broad in

scope and encompass nearly every area of ocean science. Once established, the observatories

constructed as part of this initiative will provide earth and ocean scientists with unique

opportunities to study multiple, interrelated processes over timescales ranging from seconds to decades, to conduct comparative studies of regional processes and spatial characteristics, and to map whole-Earth and basin scale structures. 

Funding support for the OOI is scheduled to come from NSF’s Major Research

Equipment and Facilities Construction account. The OOI is listed as a priority new start

for fiscal year 2006, although funding has not yet been appropriated by Congress.

While the OOI is an essential component of the federal research infrastructure, care

should be taken to ensure that it is developed in close coordination with its operational

counterpart, the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). The outcomes of research

and technology development in the OOI will be indispensable for development and continual enhancement of the IOOS. Likewise, the operational measurements and products of

the IOOS will provide OOI researchers with essential ocean background information for

experimental planning and execution purposes. Thus, it is imperative that the OOI

Project Office, Ocean.US, NSF, and NOAA, work closely together to ensure mutually 

beneficial interactions and coordination between these two efforts.

Laboratories and Instrumentation

Maintaining academic laboratory space and instrumentation over the past decade has

been challenging due to increased construction of facilities to meet rising student and

faculty needs and increased upkeep needs for aging facilities. This problem is aggravated

by the prohibition against academic institutions setting aside adequate federal funds for

ongoing maintenance and replacement. A recent RAND study estimated that the true

cost of providing facilities and administration to support research projects is about 31

percent of the grant amount.12 However, federal regulations limit the share that can be

covered with federal funds to between 24 and 28 percent, leaving the difference to be

covered by the institutions. 

In 2002, the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education surveyed eightysix non-UNOLS academic ocean programs to examine facility age and replacement plans

(Appendix 4). Relatively few institutions had replacement plans for their facilities, and a

number of institutions noted that lack of available funds was the primary factor preventing planning and upgrades. Yet increases in both laboratory space and instrumentation

capacity will be essential for the continued conduct of cutting-edge ocean research.

Many federal research facilities are also deteriorating due to growing budget pressures

and new mandates related to safety, homeland security, and environmental health compliance. NOAA characterizes its need for improvements to equipment and labs as a major

impediment to future science capabilities. Other agencies like EPA, U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) also fund and operate laboratories throughout the United States, conducting much needed ocean and coastal research

and monitoring. All of these laboratories contribute to our national research goals and

need to be maintained in order to support new, cutting-edge science for years to come.

Advanced Telecommunications Technology and Broadband Capabilities

The satellite communications infrastructure provides affordable, global broadband coverage to support ocean observations and exploration. However, current coverage does not

provide links to important polar regions or portions of the Southern Ocean. Advanced

Support for basic 

laboratory facilities,

instrumentation, 

support systems,

computing facilities,

and ship access are 

all essential items

for which currently

available funds are

woefully inadequate. 

—Dr. Madilyn Fletcher,

President, National 

Association of Marine

Laboratories, testimony

to the Commission, 

January 2002
CHAPTER 27: ENHANCING OCEAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

communication capabilities are also required for scientists to remotely operate ocean

exploration vehicles, similar to the highly successful use of space probes. These telecommunication technologies also provide excellent educational opportunities for the general

public, allowing them to participate in virtual voyages to deep and inaccessible parts of

the ocean. Telepresence—the transmission of real-time, high-quality video, audio, and

other digital data from undersea exploration sites over the Internet—will demand modern

broadband data transfer capabilities.

A variety of other research activities require upgrades in the current data transmission

infrastructure, such as the fiber optics needed for cabled sensor systems. Active partnerships between ocean scientists and the private telecommunications industry will be crucial

to ensure that the United States has the capability to transmit and assimilate the data

streams of the future. 

A Federal Commitment to Scientific Infrastructure

Coordinated federal support for ocean science infrastructure in all the areas discussed

above is urgently needed to build or upgrade critical facilities and acquire related instrumentation and equipment. Improved coordination of similar equipment purchases, where

feasible, can achieve significant economies of scale. 

NSF has traditionally been the lead federal agency for supporting academic infrastructure. NSF can propose funding for large research facilities (those costing hundreds of 

millions of dollars) through its Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction

account, while small infrastructure projects (costing millions of dollars or less) have 

generally been funded through the regular disciplinary science programs. In 1997, NSF

launched the Major Research Instrumentation program to provide additional support for

instrumentation ranging in cost from $100,000 to $2 million, although funding for this

program falls far short of the needs. There is currently no NSF program dedicated to funding mid-size facilities (costing millions to tens of millions of dollars).

Recommendation 27–4 

Congress should create a mechanism to ensure a dedicated funding stream for critical ocean

science infrastructure and technology needs. Spending priorities should be based on the

National Ocean Council’s ocean and coastal infrastructure and technology strategy. 

High-priority areas for funding include the following:

• the renewal of the University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System fleet and other

essential air fleets and deep-submergence vehicles.

• the completion of the third and fourth dedicated fishery research vessels.

• the acquisition of vessels and infrastructure needed for an expanded national ocean

exploration program.

• the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program non-riser drilling vessel.

• the refurbishment or replacement of two U.S. Coast Guard polar ice breakers.

• the ongoing modernization of existing assets, including telecommunications assets, 

laboratories, and other facilities.

Other Essential Infrastructure and Technology Components

Ocean-related agencies maintain the infrastructure needed to carry out their responsibilities

in resource management, navigation and safety, enforcement, and environmental protection

and response. While the Coast Guard and NOAA generally lead these efforts, other federal

agencies such as USACE, Navy, USGS, and EPA also possess assets for specific purposes.

With so many government agencies involved and such a wide range of activities included,

cooperation among these agencies in planning and deploying these assets is critical. For

example, while the Coast Guard is the lead agency for responding to environmental incidents, it receives support for these activities from the Navy, Minerals Management Service

421
422 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

(MMS), and EPA, and indirect help with scientific information, surveying, and modeling

from NOAA and other parties. Establishing collaborative efforts among agencies, and

acquiring infrastructure assets that can respond to multiple mission mandates, will

enhance overall federal capabilities. 

The following provides an overview of the range of assets the United States requires 

in order to manage resources, protect human lives, enforce ocean and coastal laws, and

predict ocean conditions. 

Vessels and Aircraft

A robust federal fleet of vessels and aircraft is required to conduct monitoring, mapping,

enforcement, response, and safety activities in both coastal waters and the open ocean.

While some activities, such as monitoring and mapping, can be conducted by private

companies under contract, the nation will always need to maintain a federal fleet that 

can quickly and effectively respond to environmental disasters, conduct assessments on 

a routine basis, and enforce applicable laws. Regular upgrades to these vessels and aircraft

are needed to incorporate cutting-edge technologies, increase fleet capacity, and address

both national and international safety requirements.

After the Navy, the Coast Guard has the largest fleet of any agency and performs the

largest range of activities on the water. It conducts search and rescue missions, prevents

and responds to oil spills and other environmental threats, enforces fishery laws and other

measures designed to ensure the sustainability of living marine resources, facilitates maritime commerce, and provides for maritime safety, security, and national defense. The

Coast Guard’s role in enforcement will remain an essential element in the effective management of offshore activities. In addition to their obvious roles, enforcement personnel

can provide invaluable feedback on the real-world impacts of management regimes and

can suggest potential improvements to enhance their effectiveness. Enforcement activities

also provide excellent opportunities to inform and educate the public about resource management requirements.

To accomplish its duties, the Coast Guard fleet includes 223 cutters (vessels over 65

feet), 211 aircraft, and 1400 boats (vessels under 65 feet). Unfortunately, the Coast Guard

air and surface fleet is aging and falling behind technologically—over half of these assets

will reach the end of their service life in the next four years. The consequences of allowing

these resources to decline have become even more severe as a result of the Coast Guard’s

dramatically increased maritime security responsibilities. Accelerated recapitalization of

the Coast Guard fleet is critically important because of the wide-ranging roles the Coast

Guard plays in furthering U.S. ocean interests. 

NOAA operates fourteen vessels for environmental monitoring and fishery and oceanographic research, and maintains a fleet of four additional vessels dedicated to conducting

hydrographic surveys. Two of these vessels are stationed in the Pacific and two in the

Atlantic. A reconditioned NOAA hydrographic vessel is expected to enter service in the

Pacific in late 2004. NOAA also maintains a smaller hydrographic boat in the Chesapeake

Bay. NOAA’s own hydrographic survey capability is roughly matched by contracts it maintains with private sector vessels; both capabilities will become increasingly important as

the nation strives to address the survey backlog discussed in Chapter 25. 

Most ocean agencies undertake both biological and physical monitoring activities

that require significant ship time. USGS has some vessels that collect samples for sediment and water quality monitoring, and others, including a number in the Great Lakes,

that conduct fish stock assessments and determine the effectiveness of stocking programs. EPA also has several ships that monitor potential environmental threats and support coastal marine protection programs. The EPA ships collect environmental information from harbors, ports, and offshore waters in the ocean, as well as the Great Lakes.

NOAA conducts extensive fish stock surveys throughout U.S. waters, using both its own

ships and contract vessels. 
CHAPTER 27: ENHANCING OCEAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

In addition to ship-based monitoring programs, much of the coastal and open ocean

monitoring supported by the federal government is conducted using buoys and in situ

sensors. In addition to the buoys themselves (discussed below), both NOAA and the

Coast Guard maintain the ships needed to deploy and care for buoys in the open ocean.

The development of the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), discussed in detail 

in Chapter 26, will intensify the demand for ship support to install and maintain ocean

buoys. This capability is not available in the federal fleet today, nor is it foreseen in the

near future.

Other routine activities such as marine salvage, dredging, ensuring safe navigation,

and monitoring offshore oil and gas activities also require significant support. While most

salvage in the United States is conducted by private contractors, both the Coast Guard and

the Navy maintain some assets for these activities. In particular, the Navy has four manned

rescue and salvage ships and several unmanned underwater vehicles. Like salvage activities, most port and waterway dredging projects are conducted by private companies under

contract (over 160 contracts were granted by USACE in fiscal year 2003); however, USACE

does keep a small fleet of twelve dredging vessels throughout the country to help maintain

navigable waterways. The Coast Guard conducts icebreaking activities to permit vessels to

move safely on frequently traveled routes. In particular, the Coast Guard owns and operates thirteen primary icebreaking vessels (some of which are also used for research as discussed above) and conducts numerous ice reconnaissance flights using HC-130 aircraft.

As part of its mandate to oversee oil and gas activities in the outer Continental Shelf, MMS

must monitor coastal and ocean areas for oil spills. This responsibility is carried out primarily through a fleet of contract helicopters that are used to transport inspectors to over

4,000 offshore oil and gas platforms annually. 

Land-based Facilities

Federal ocean agencies own hundreds of buildings and structures across the country that

house thousands of employees on the front lines of ocean management and protection at

the regional, state, and local level. 

A small sampling of these facilities includes:

• The Coast Guard’s 186 multi-mission stations that operate boats and provide personnel to conduct a variety of operations, including search-and-rescue, law enforcement,

and marine environmental protection missions. They also operate twenty-five air 

stations that provide mission capable aircraft. 

423

A Coast Guard cutter and helicopter undergo flight operations as practice for real-life search and 

rescue missions.

David M. Santos, U.S. Coast Guard Photo Library
424 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

• The USGS Coastal and Marine Geology program field centers that collect data and

monitor conditions related to geologic processes and hazards, environmental conditions, habitats, and energy and mineral resources. 

• EPA’s ten regional offices, each of which is responsible for several states and territories.

Within some regions there are additional program offices, such as the Chesapeake Bay

Program Office which oversees protection and restoration of the Bay.

However, many agencies are experiencing shortfalls in the funds needed to maintain

and upgrade these facilities. As an example, in a 2002 performance review, NOAA showed

holdings of 800 buildings at 500 installations, representing 6 million square feet of space.13

Approximately 50 percent of the properties were over 30 years old, and there was a backlog of 316 maintenance and repair projects. Of the estimated $65 million in costs needed

to remedy this backlog, $25 million was required just to remedy health and safety problems.

Comprehensive planning, including consolidation or elimination where possible, is

needed to ensure that ocean agencies have the facilities required to fulfill their responsibilities for management, monitoring, and enforcement.

Monitoring Stations and Buoy Arrays

In situ monitoring stations that collect and transmit continuous data streams, are essential

for forecasting marine and weather conditions, predicting marine hazards, and evaluating

water quality. In particular, NOAA operates several ocean observing arrays that collect

data on climate, weather, air quality, and ocean variables, including: the Marine Observation

Network; the National Water Level Observation Network; the Tropical Atmosphere Ocean

(TAO) buoy array; and the Drifting Buoy Program.

Each of these networks can include hundreds of moored or drifting buoys used to collect and transmit data for predicting tsunamis, monitoring El Niño conditions, compiling

long-term baseline measurements, and contributing to safe navigation. NOAA also manages the National Ice Center’s U.S. Interagency Artic Buoy Program in conjunction with

the Coast Guard and the Navy. This program supports the International Arctic Buoy

Program, an international collaborative effort that maintains thirty-six operational buoys

that monitor air temperature, surface pressure, and ice drift. The Navy also has several

buoys and current measurement systems consisting of acoustic profiling instruments

which, among other things, are being explored as a method of monitoring marine mammals

in cooperation with MMS and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

In addition to ocean monitoring, NOAA, USGS, EPA, and other federal and state

agencies oversee a number of coastal and estuarine monitoring programs throughout the

nation. For example, USGS operates around 2,900 stations that monitor coastal streams.

These monitoring systems are discussed in more detail in Chapter 15. 

Satellites

In addition to the satellite operations discussed in Chapter 26 as part of the national

IOOS, many environmental management and monitoring programs rely on a constellation

of orbiting satellites to collect operational data. 

NOAA currently operates two different kinds of satellites in support of its missions.

Two Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES) collect and transmit data

related to many essential weather variables and potential environmental hazards such as

hurricanes and flood warnings. In addition, NOAA maintains five Polar-orbiting

Environmental Satellites (POES) (some are in orbit as backups if needed) that are able 

to monitor the entire Earth on a daily basis for a variety of land, ocean, and atmospheric

applications. Data support a broad range of environmental monitoring applications,

including weather analysis and forecasting, climate research and prediction, global sea
CHAPTER 27: ENHANCING OCEAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

surface temperature measurements, atmospheric soundings of temperature and humidity,

ocean dynamics research, volcanic eruption monitoring, search and rescue, and many

other applications. These satellites send more than 16,000 global measurements daily to

NOAA computers, adding valuable information for forecasting models, especially for

remote ocean areas where conventional data are lacking. 

In 1994, a decision was made to merge the nation’s military and civilian operational

meteorological satellite systems to lower costs. As a result, NOAA, NASA, and the U.S.

Department of Defense designed the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental

Satellite System (NPOESS). The first NPOESS satellite, which will collect and disseminate

data on Earth’s weather, atmosphere, oceans, land, and near-space environment, is expected

to be launched in 2008.

Since 1972, NASA and USGS have collaborated to collect important environmental data

through the Landsat satellite program, joined in 1994 by NOAA. Landsat’s mission is to guarantee repeated observations over the Earth’s land mass, coastal boundaries, and coral reefs as

needed to monitor long-term changes. The continuity of Landsat satellites (currently Landsat

7 is in operation) ensures the collection of consistently calibrated Earth imagery. 

Satellites are also essential for transmitting data from sensors and buoys deployed

throughout the world. For example, the data collected by the TAO buoy array located in

the tropical Pacific Ocean are transmitted to NOAA via the Argos satellite system. The

implementation of the IOOS and Global Observing System will intensify the need to 

transmit large amounts of coastal, oceanic, and atmospheric data in real and near-real time,

increasing the demand for advanced telecommunications technology and infrastructure.

Infrastructure Planning to Support Ocean and Coastal Activities

Most ocean agencies periodically produce infrastructure maintenance and upgrade plans.

One important example of such a plan is the Coast Guard’s Integrated Deepwater System,

a twenty-year program to modernize its fleet through acquisition of new cutters, patrol

boats, aircraft, and communications capabilities designed to operate as an integrated system. However, this program was initiated prior to September 11, 2001, before significant

new demands were placed on Coast Guard resources. A 2004 study concluded that the

Deepwater acquisition program will no longer provide the Coast Guard with the assets

and capabilities needed to meet all its responsibilities.14

All ocean agencies, both working separately and in coordination through the National

Ocean Council, will need to plan for future acquisitions and upgrades of their infrastructure

assets related to management, operations, and enforcement missions. Periodic national

ocean and coastal infrastructure and technology assessments, as called for in Recommendation

27–3, will aid these agencies in drafting strategic plans that take full advantage of private

sector assets and will highlight possible opportunities for interagency coordination.

Recommendation 27–5 

Congress should support the infrastructure and technology requirements related to ocean

and coastal management, operations, and enforcement. Priorities should be based on the

National Ocean Council’s ocean and coastal infrastructure and technology strategy. 

High-priority areas for funding include the following:

• recapitalization of the Coast Guard fleet based on an accelerated modernization plan.

• modernization of other federal fleets as needed.

• ongoing maintenance and upgrades of land-based operational and enforcement facilities.

• maintenance and upgrading of monitoring buoys, gages, and stations.

• coordinated satellite observing deployment.

425

It is critical to continue

construction of the

long-time record of

ocean observations,

incorporating measurements from 

historical and current

satellites and in-situ

platforms, as well 

as from new instruments such as those

on NPOESS.

—Gregory Withee, 

Assistant Administrator

for National Satellite,

Data, and Information

Service, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric 

Administration, testimony

to the Commission,

October 2002
426 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Creating Virtual Marine Technology Centers

Fundamental oceanographic questions require the best scientific and engineering talent

working cooperatively to obtain answers. Interdisciplinary oceanographic research programs typically require large numbers of platforms and sensors operating in a coordinated

manner. While new technologies are enabling the creation of more powerful sensors,

robotic platforms, and ocean observing systems, it would be extremely difficult for any

individual research group to acquire all these technologies and master the increasingly

complex instrumentation. By sharing expensive technologies, infrastructure, and expertise,

more investigators will have greater access to these assets.

Virtual centers will require a smaller federal investment than if numerous institutions

all attempt to acquire the same essential instrumentation. By electronically linking existing

academic, government, and private-sector capabilities and instrumentation, virtual centers

for ocean and coastal technology could maximize the use of the excellent capabilities and

facilities already present in the United States. These interdisciplinary virtual centers could

simultaneously operate remote submersibles, receive in situ ocean measurements taken

halfway around the globe, and schedule satellite time to collect additional data from

space. Infrastructure components available through the center could be used by smallscale, pilot projects that would not normally have access to such sophisticated facilities.

Investigators could apply for grants to join an ongoing team linked by computers, not

geography. The multipurpose focus of each center would also lend itself to the development of new approaches to education and public outreach.

Marine technology centers can serve as incubators for innovations and new technologies necessary to achieve and sustain national competitiveness in ocean science and engineering research. In particular, these virtual centers could provide the critical mass of

interest to develop much needed new environmental sensors. Sensors for measuring basic

oceanographic parameters such as currents, temperature, and salinity are already widely

available, but sensors that illuminate the chemistry and biology of the ocean are just

emerging. A new generation of sensors will be able to measure such parameters as carbon

dioxide, acidity, alkalinity, dissolved oxygen, nitrates, photosynthetically active radiation,

spectral radiance and irradiance, back-scattered light, and stimulated fluorescence. Some

of the innovative biological technologies currently being investigated include acoustic

monitoring and optical scanning systems for identifying and tracking marine life, DNA

probes for identifying harmful algal blooms, and nanotechnology sensors for monitoring

potentially harmful pathogens. Although prototypes exist, many sensors still need considerable development before they can be expected to operate unattended for long periods of

time in the harsh ocean environment. 

The virtual marine technology centers, like other successful programs of this kind,

should be located at established universities, museums, and science centers in order to

take advantage of existing infrastructure and expertise, but should also strive to incorporate outside research groups to ensure an influx of new ideas. A strengthened NOAA, as

the lead ocean agency, is the logical organization to coordinate and provide funding for

these centers.

Recommendation 27–6 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should establish four to six national

virtual marine technology centers at existing institutions to provide coordinated access,

through electronic means, to cutting-edge, large-scale research technologies. 

A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY
CHAPTER 27: ENHANCING OCEAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

References

1 Office of Technology Assessment, Science, Information and Natural Resources Division. Technology and

Oceanography: An Assessment of Federal Technologies for Oceanographic Research and Monitoring. 

Washington, DC, 1981.

2 National Science Board Task Force on Science and Engineering Infrastructure. Science and Engineering Infrastructure

for the 21st Century: The Role of the National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 

April 2003. 

3 U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change.

Washington, DC, 2001.

4 U.S. Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources. Panel Reports of the Commission on Marine Science,

Engineering, and Resources. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.

5 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report of NOAA’s Ship Platform Requirements: FY 2003–2012.

Silver Spring, MD, March 2003.

6 Office of Naval Research. Report to Congress—Requirements and Plans for UNOLS Fleet Renewal. Washington, DC:

U.S. Navy, February 2003.

7 Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee. Charting the Future for the National Academic Research Fleet—

A Long-Range Plan for Renewal. Washington, DC: National Oceanographic Partnership Program, December 2001.

8 U.S. Science Advisory Committee. The Non-riser Drilling Vessel for the IODP: A Report from the Conceptual Design

Committee. Washington, DC: Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, March 2000.

9 National Research Council. Future Needs in Deep Submergence Science: Occupied and Unoccupied Vehicles in Basic

Ocean Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003. 

10 National Research Council. Exploration of the Seas: Voyage into the Unknown. Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, 2003.

11 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report of NOAA’s Airborne Platform Requirements for the 

Ten-Year Period FY 2003–FY 2012. Silver Spring, MD, February 2003.

12 Goldman, C.A., and T. Williams. Paying for University Research Facilities and Administration. Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND Corporation, 2000.

13 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Program Review. Silver Spring, MD, June 2003.

14 RAND Corporation. The U.S. Coast Guard’s Deepwater Force Modernization Plan: Can It Be Accelerated? 

Will it Meet Changing Security Needs? Santa Monica, CA, 2004.

427
428 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 28

MODERNIZING OCEAN DATA

AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Ocean and coastal research, observing, and monitoring activities are generating

new data at ever-increasing rates—data that must eventually be analyzed, distributed, and stored. The nation’s ocean and coastal data management systems

should be modernized and integrated to promote interdisciplinary studies and

provide useful information products for policy makers, resource managers,

and the general public. Better interagency planning is needed to coordinate federal data management. An information management and communications program will help produce operational ocean and coastal

forecasts and disseminate information products relevant to national,

regional, and local needs. Ultimately, the goal should be to transition all environmental data archiving, assimilation, modeling, and

information systems, which are currently divided by environmental

sectors, into a fully integrated Earth environmental data system. 

Turning Oceans of Data into Useful Products

Ocean and coastal data are essential for understanding marine

processes and resources. They are the foundation for the 

science-based information on which resource managers depend.

Previous chapters have provided ample evidence of the importance 

of data from ocean, coastal, and watershed observations; but processing these data, and converting them into information products useful 

to a broad community of end users, remains a huge challenge.

In the following discussion, data refer to direct measurements collected

during scientific research, observing, monitoring, exploration, or marine operations. Information, on the other hand, includes both synthesized products developed through analyses of original data using statistical methods, interpolations,

extrapolations, and model simulations, and interpreted products developed through incorporation of data and synthesized products with additional information that provides spatial, temporal, or issue-based context. 

There are two major challenges facing data managers today: the exponentially growing volume of data, which continually strains ingestion, storage, and assimilation capabilities; and the need for timely accessibility of these data to the user community in a variety

of useful formats. Meeting these challenges will require a concerted effort to integrate and

modernize the current management system. The ultimate goal of improved data manage-
C HAPTER 28: MODERNIZING OCEAN DATA AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

ment should be to effectively store, access, integrate, and use a wide and disparate range

of data needed to better understand the environment and to translate and deliver scientific

results and information products in a timely way. 

Reviewing the Data Management Structure

Data centers throughout the nation collect and analyze environmental data and information.

Because these centers often operate in isolation, users who need to gather and integrate

data from multiple sources can face an inefficient and lengthy process.

Types of Data Centers

National Civilian Data Centers 

The national data centers that archive and distribute environmental data have been evolving since the late 1950s. Federal science agencies maintain eleven national data centers,

some with regional extensions (Table 28.1). These centers collect, archive, and provide

access to an assortment of publicly available data sets streaming in from local, regional,

and global environmental observing systems. Nine of the centers are run by federal agencies,

including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and U.S. Department

of Energy. Of the remaining centers, one is housed at Columbia University and sponsored

by twenty-two federal and nonfederal organizations and the other is located at the

University of Colorado and affiliated with NOAA through a cooperative agreement. 

Each federal data center collects and archives complementary data and information

sets. Yet, for the most part, these centers are disconnected from each other, and attempting

429

Box 28.1 Data Management Terminology

Stages in Data and Information Management

• Collection—gathering data from a range of sources, including observing systems and

field research investigations.

• Ingestion—receiving data at data centers and processing it for entry into the archives.

• Quality control—determining the reliability of data received.

• Archiving and maintenance—standardizing formats, and establishing databases and

security at repository centers.

• Rescue and conversion—identifying and reformatting historical data for placement into

the archives.

• Access and distribution—making data and information products available to end users. 

• Modeling—using data in numerical computer models to describe systems, theories, and

phenomena related to natural processes.

• Assimilation and data fusion—assembling and blending data, and combining them with

models in optimal ways for operational and research purposes.

Other Useful Terms

• Metadata—information about the origin and attributes of data that allows users to find,

understand, process, and reuse data and data products.

• Visualization tools—methods of visually displaying data, such as visualization theaters,

computer displays, and maps and charts. 

• Communication networks—telecommunications infrastructure that transfers data from

observing systems to data centers, and from these centers to end users.
430 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Table 28.1 National Civilian and Military Data Centers

Name of Center Sponsoring Agency Specialty

U.S. Department of Energy

Columbia University (supported

by contracts from 22 nonfederal and federal agencies)

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

USGS

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

NOAA

NOAA

University of Colorado (under

cooperative agreement with

NOAA)

NOAA, U.S. Coast Guard, 

U.S. Navy

NOAA

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA)

Atmospheric trace gases, global carbon cycle, solar and

atmospheric radiation

Agriculture, biodiversity, ecosystems, world resources, 

population, environmental assessment and health, land

use and land cover change

Cartographic and land remote-sensing data products

Earthquake information, seismograms

Climate, meteorology, alpine environments, ocean–

atmosphere interactions, vegetation, paleoclimatology

Bathymetry, topography, geomagnetism, habitat, hazards, marine geophysics

Physical, chemical, and biological oceanographic data

Snow, land ice, sea ice, atmosphere, biosphere, 

hydrosphere

Global ice, meteorology, and oceanographic data

Data relevant to coastal managers

Astronomy, astrophysics, solar and space physics, lunar

and planetary science

Carbon Dioxide Information

Analysis Center (CDIAC)

Center for International

Earth Science Information

Network (CIESIN)

Earth Resources Observation

Systems (EROS) Data Center

(EDC)

National Earthquake 

Information Center (NEIC)

National Climatic Data 

Center (NCDC)

National Geophysical Data 

Center (NGDC)

National Oceanographic

Data Center (NODC)

National Snow and Ice Data

Center (NSIDC)

National Ice Center (NIC)

National Coastal Data 

Development Center

National Space Science Data

Center (NSSDC)

NASA

NASA

NASA

NASA

NASA

NASA

NASA

NASA

Terrestrial biogeochemistry, ecosystem dynamics

Population and administrative boundaries

Land remote-sensing imagery, elevation, land cover

Sea ice, snow cover, ice sheet data, brightness, temperature, polar atmosphere

Ocean color, hydrology and precipitation, land biosphere,

atmospheric dynamics, and chemistry

Radiation budget, clouds, aerosols, and tropospheric

chemistry

Atmospheric moisture, climatology, heat flux, ice, ocean

wind, sea-surface height, temperature

Sea ice, polar processes

Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory (ORNL) DAAC

Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC) DAAC

Land Processes (EDC) DAAC

National Snow and Ice Data

Center (NSIDC) DAAC

Goddard Space Flight Center

(GSFC) DAAC

Langley Research Center

(LaRC) DAAC

Physical Oceanography (PO)

DAAC

Alaska Synthetic Aperture

Radar (SAR) Facility DAAC

U.S. Navy

U.S. Navy

U.S. Navy

Bathymetry, hydrography, oceanography

Global ice, meteorology, and oceanographic data

Atmosphere and oceans

Naval Oceanographic Office

Naval Ice Center

Fleet Numerical Meteorology

and Oceanography Center

Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs)

Military Data Centers of Particular Importance to Ocean-related Issues

Source (except military centers): National Research Council. Government Data Centers: Meeting Increasing Demand. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003. 

Listed below are the existing federal data centers with their sponsoring agencies and scientific specialties. 

National Data Centers
C HAPTER 28: MODERNIZING OCEAN DATA AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

to gather and integrate data from several centers can be a time-consuming and sometimes

impossible task due to differences in storage formats and computer software. Ever-increasing

amounts of incoming data will only exacerbate this untenable situation, impeding the 

creation and dissemination of critical information products.

Distributed Active Archive Centers

NASA operates eight Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs) as part of its Earth

Observing System Data and Information System. Each DAAC collects data within a 

different Earth science discipline and manages and distributes data products based on its

specialty. However, implementation of the DAACs has been costly, and they have not yet

fulfilled their potential. In an effort to ensure long-term data storage and coordination,

NASA has entered into memoranda of agreement with NOAA and USGS that call for the

orderly transfer of NASA data to NOAA or USGS within fifteen years after their collection. 

Military Data Centers

Several military data centers exist in addition to the civilian centers. Of particular importance are the U.S. Department of Defense assets at the Naval Oceanographic Office and

the U.S. Navy’s centers for ocean observation and prediction, which include the Fleet

Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center, the Naval Oceanographic Office, and

the Naval Ice Center. These centers are integrated with the civilian sector’s national data

centers through memoranda of agreement, primarily with NOAA, NASA, the Department

of Energy, and the National Science Foundation (NSF). The purpose is to incorporate 

certain classified data into civilian research and operational products while retaining their

confidentiality. 

Other Specialized Data Centers

Fifteen discipline-based World Data Centers exist in the United States that collect and

archive data related to atmospheric trace gases, glaciology, human interactions in the

environment, marine geology and geophysics, meteorology, oceanography, paleoclimatology, remotely sensed land data, seismology, and solar-terrestrial physics. Individual states

also operate data centers associated with certain state environmental offices, such as

weather or geological offices. Independent specialized data collections have also been

assembled by interagency groups, university and research centers, and consortia in various fields of science. 

Ocean and Coastal Data 

Ocean, coastal, and watershed data are primarily located in NOAA, NASA, USGS, the

Minerals Management Service (MMS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the

Navy. A number of ocean industries, notably the marine transportation and offshore oil

and gas sectors, also collect substantial amounts of ocean information that could be of

enormous value to the nation. 

NOAA has the unique mission of archiving environmental data, with a special focus

on ocean and coastal data, and making it accessible to support management and economic

decisions and ecosystem-based research. NOAA carries out this mission through its three

national data centers, which jointly manage large collections of atmospheric, oceanographic,

and geophysical data. Despite the fact that these centers are all within NOAA, they function

independently of each other, and it remains difficult for users to acquire and integrate data

in a seamless manner. Other agencies are also experiencing problems with incorporating,

storing, and distributing large amounts of environmental data. For example, USGS has

struggled with the large volumes of Landsat satellite data which have historically been

very helpful in ocean and coastal research and management activities. 

431
432 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Coping with the Flood of Incoming Data

Throughout the 1990s and into the 21st century, all of the national military and civilian

data centers have experienced tremendous growth in the inflow and archiving of data, and

this growth is expected to continue. In 2001, NOAA projected that its environmental data

holdings would grow by a factor of 100 between 2002 and 2017 (Figure 28.1),1 while a

more recent report indicates that these holding could actually be greater than 140,000 

terabytes by 2017.2 The civilian data centers make data available to support operational

products and forecasts and to fill specific requests. During the 1990s, NOAA’s online data

requests grew to 4 million a year (an average of 11,000 per day), while offline requests

doubled to a quarter of a million (Figure 28.2). Although many users increasingly rely on

electronic access, only 4 percent of NOAA’s digital data archive is currently available

online and many of NOAA’s historical data sets have yet to be converted to digital form.3 

Ongoing improvements to ocean databases have substantially increased the amount of

available data and have dramatically improved accessibility. However, data collection and

information needs continue to outpace archiving and assimilation capabilities. 

Reinventing Data and Information Management

Several improvements can help make the national system for storing and distributing

ocean and coastal data more effective. Agencies tasked with collecting, archiving, assimilating, and disseminating data need to increase their cooperation and coordination and

provide faster, easier, and more unified access to raw and processed data. In return, scientists and other data generators need to feed valuable, high quality data into the national

system in a timely way.

Interagency Planning 

Growing observational capabilities, improved numerical models of the world, and formal

methods for linking data and models now permit scientists to study ecosystems with an

unprecedented degree of realism. The impact of these developments on the understanding

A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Figure 28.1 The Flood of Ocean and Coastal Data into NOAA

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Terabytes

Between 2002 and 2017, NOAA’s data holdings are expected to grow by a factor of 100, to 74 

million gigabytes. (One gigabyte equals about one billion bytes; one terabyte equals about one 

thousand gigabytes.) 

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Nation’s Environmental Data: Treasures at Risk: 

A Report to Congress on the Status and Challenges for NOAA’s Environmental Data Systems. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 2001. 
C HAPTER 28: MODERNIZING OCEAN DATA AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

of oceanic processes pervades all disciplines and fuels cross-disciplinary links between

physical, biological, and chemical oceanography, marine geology and geophysics, and

atmospheric sciences. 

Nevertheless, inadequate information technology infrastructure inhibits progress.

Continuing efforts to establish modeling and data assimilation nodes within the National

Ocean Partnership Program agencies provide just one example of a high-priority activity

where infrastructure limitations are acute. Topics of particular concern include:

• Data Incorporation—Scientists and managers need to combine data from disparate

sources to produce information products, often in real time. As computer software

and hardware technologies evolve, data stored in older formats need to be upgraded.

In particular, enormous archives of historical data exist only in nondigital formats.

Differences in data protocols also remain among scientific fields; physical and biological

variables are measured using very different parameters. New methods are needed to

incorporate biological data into ocean and coastal information products.

• Computer Hardware—Ocean scientists are expected to require 10 to 1,000 times the

current hardware capacity over the next five to ten years, with the most critical bottlenecks occurring in the availability of computer processing power, memory and massstorage capacity, and communications network bandwidth.4 Many oceanographic

models have grown in computational size to the point that they require dedicated,

long-term computing that exceeds the time available on computers currently used for

most medium- and large-scale ocean projects. 

• Software and Modeling—Software challenges include the need to redesign models and

methods to assimilate new data sources and improve visualization techniques to deal

effectively with increasing volumes of observations and model outputs. There is a

need throughout the ocean science community for well-designed, documented, and

tested models of all types. Models of living systems lag significantly behind those

related to physical variables; the capacity to run simulations of organisms, populations,

and ultimately ecosystems, is currently not available.

• Human Resources—In the early days of collecting and storing environmental data in

digital formats, many of the technical staff were environmental scientists who gained

experience through on-the-job training and trial and error. By the mid-1980s, this

433

Figure 28.2 The Growing Demand for Ocean Data 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Millions of Users

Online users are requesting increasing amounts of environmental data and information from NOAA 

each year. Improved data management practices are needed to address the growing volume of requests. 

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Nation's Environmental Data: Treasures at Risk: 

A Report to Congress on the Status and Challenges for NOAA's Environmental Data Systems. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 2001. 

■ Offline Users ■ Online Users
434 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

type of education was wholly inadequate to meet the ever-increasing complexity of

computer hardware and software systems, and the volumes of digitized data being 

collected and archived. As technical requirements grew, the federal government fell 

far behind academia and the private sector in attracting and retaining highly trained

experts, particularly because government pay scales for information technology specialists were well below those of the private sector. This scenario continues today. 

A strategy is needed for attracting and retaining highly trained technical staff in the

federal government. 

• Meeting User Needs—Data and information must be available to a wide range of users,

from scientists looking for raw data, to individuals interested in forecasts, to students

looking for educational information. User needs should be determined at national,

regional, and local levels. The regional ocean information programs, discussed in

Chapter 5, will be an essential link to user communities when deciding on priorities.

An interagency group, dedicated to ocean data and information planning, is needed to

enhance coordination, effectively use existing resources for joint projects, schedule future

software and hardware acquisitions and upgrades, and oversee strategic funding. Most

importantly, this entity will create and oversee implementation of an interagency plan to

improve access to data at the national data centers, DAACs, and other discipline-based

centers. The plan will need to be appropriately integrated with other national and international data management plans, including those for the Integrated Ocean Observing System

(IOOS) and Global Ocean Observing System (discussed in Chapter 26) and the national

monitoring network (discussed in Chapter 15), and should be flexible enough to integrate

data from a variety of other sources, such as the environmental data collected through the

Vessel Monitoring System (discussed in Chapter 19) and data from the offshore oil and

gas industry (discussed in Chapter 24). 

This coordination must extend beyond ocean data. The ocean community needs to

take a leading role in broader environmental data planning efforts, such as the federal

cyber infrastructure initiative. An interagency planning group could also coordinate the

development of a viable, long-term strategy for partnering with the private sector to

enhance environmental data and information management capabilities. This organization

should not have an operational role, but instead should be responsible solely for interagency planning and coordination, similar to the role of Ocean.US for the IOOS.

Recommendation 28–1

Congress should amend the National Oceanographic Partnership Act to establish Ocean.IT as

the lead federal interagency planning organization for ocean and coastal data and information

management. Ocean.IT should consist of representatives from all federal agencies involved in

ocean data and information management. 

Ocean.IT should:

• report to the National Ocean Council’s Committee on Ocean Science, Education,

Technology, and Operations.

• create an interagency plan to improve coordination between the existing data centers

and to integrate ocean and coastal data from different agencies and from the academic

and private sectors.

• set priorities for archiving historical and nondigital data.

• coordinate shared resources and the acquisition of new hardware for use by the ocean

sciences community.

• work with existing supercomputer centers to negotiate adequate time for ocean science

needs. 

• assess federal agency software needs and initiate interagency programs to create highpriority applications, such as new modeling programs.

A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY
C HAPTER 28: MODERNIZING OCEAN DATA AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

• coordinate federal agency efforts to attract information technology expertise into the

ocean sciences community.

• communicate with regional, state, and local organizations, including the regional ocean

information programs, to determine user needs and feed this information back to relevant agencies. 

Access to Data and Information

There are two distinct types of data sought by users. Scientists are generally interested in

calibrated, long-term time series of basic data that can be used to study topics such as

atmospheric composition, ecosystem change, carbon cycles in the environment, the

human dimensions of climate change, and the global water cycle. At the other end of the

spectrum, the general public is most often interested in outcomes based on data analysis,

such as forecasts and models, and do not wish to see the original data. Users seeking

information products include commercial users, policy makers, and educators who wish

to develop curricula and class materials. 

Information Products and Forecasts

Compared to a few decades ago, an impressive array of data and information products for

forecasting ocean and coastal conditions is now available from a wide range of sources. A

mechanism is now needed to bring these data together, including the enormous amounts

of information that will be generated by the national IOOS and the national monitoring

network, and use them to generate and disseminate products beneficial to large and

diverse audiences. 

At the national level, civilian operational ocean products and forecasts are produced

mainly by NOAA’s National Weather Service and National Ocean Service. The National

Weather Service routinely issues marine and coastal information and forecasts related to

meteorological conditions and issues marine warnings, forecasts, and guidance for maritime users. The National Ocean Service’s Center for Operational Oceanographic Products

and Services also collects and distributes oceanographic observations and predictions

related to water levels, tides, and currents. 

Military ocean informational products are produced mainly by two offices. The Fleet

Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center provides weather and oceanographic

products, data, and services to the operating and support forces of the Department of

Defense. The Naval Oceanographic Office located at the Stennis Space Center in

Mississippi is the hub of oceanographic data collection, archiving, fusion, modeling, and

distribution. It supplies global oceanographic products and generates strategic, operational, and tactical oceanographic and geospatial products to guarantee safe navigation

and weapon/sensor performance.

While each of these offices possesses unique missions, as well as resources, infrastructure, and data, a partnership between them could lead to a new generation of ocean and

coastal information and forecasts. A national ocean and coastal information management

and communications partnership that builds on the Navy’s model for operational oceanography would take advantage of the strengths of both agencies, reduce duplication, and

more effectively meet the nation’s information needs. This partnership would also allow

for the prompt incorporation of classified military data into information products, without

publicly releasing the raw data. Working together, NOAA and the Navy can rapidly

advance U.S. coastal and ocean analyses and forecasting capabilities by drawing on the

distinct, yet complementary capabilities of each organization and using all available physical, biological, chemical, and socioeconomic data.

Private-sector and academic involvement in creating ocean analyses and forecast

products has matured over the last thirty years through highly successful partnerships.

435

One of the major

challenges in information technology is

not just producing

the science and giving

it to policy-makers,

but producing the 

science and giving it

to citizens so they 

can be adequately

informed about the

coastal and marine

environment.

—Dr. Michael Orbach,

Director, Duke University

Marine Laboratory, 

testimony to the 

Commission, 

January 2002.
436 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE LUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Interactions between private companies, the academic community and the NOAA-Navy

partnership could produce a wide range of general and tailored forecast and warning

products. An interface between national forecasters at the federal level, the regional ocean

information programs, and the Regional Associations of the national IOOS would also

help identify ocean and coastal information products of particular value at the regional

and local levels.

Recommendation 28–2

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Navy should establish an ocean and coastal information management and communications partnership to generate information products relevant to national, regional, state, and local operational needs.

The NOAA-Navy partnership should:

• prioritize products and forecasts based on input from regional ocean information 

programs, Ocean.IT, Ocean.US, the Regional Associations of the IOOS, and other federal,

regional, state, and local users.

• base products and forecasts on all available data sources.

• support the generation of new models and forecasts in collaboration with Ocean.IT, 

academia, and the private sector.

NOAA will need to develop a variety of dissemination techniques and educate potential users about information access and applications to ensure that the products produced

in cooperation with the Navy fulfill their potential.

Raw Data

Although many paths exist to access data, there is currently no focal point where users 

can go to gain access to all available ocean data and information. As a result, the process

can be tedious, and the risk of missing key databases high. Interdisciplinary users face even

greater challenges when attempting to integrate data sets from different centers. The varied

data standards, formats, and metadata that have evolved over time make data exchange

complex and unwieldy. Other problems arise when important data sets are kept by individual scientists or institutions, rather than being integrated into national databases.

One area of critical concern, particularly for coastal resource managers, is the integration of coastal data, including maps, charts, and living and nonliving resource assessments.

The user community is frustrated by the difficulties in accessing coastal geospatial data.

Serious concerns continue regarding the timeliness, accuracy, and descriptions associated

with coastal data, and the difficulties of integrating data sets from various sources. Coastal

managers and researchers still lack a seamless bathymetric/topographic base map and

database for the U.S. coast—an essential underpinning for improved understanding of the

processes that occur across the land-sea interface. (The integration of maps and charts is

also discussed in Chapter 25.) 

Several innovative and highly promising interagency efforts to increase data accessibility are underway. The National Virtual Ocean Data System project is a primary example.

Funded by the National Ocean Partnership Program, it facilitates seamless access to

oceanographic data and data products via the Internet, regardless of data type, location of

the storage site, the format in which the data are stored, or the user’s visualization tools

and level of expertise. The National Virtual Ocean Data System uses OPeNDAP technology that provides machine-to-machine interoperability within a highly distributed environment of heterogeneous data sets. This is similar to other successful Internet-based file

sharing systems that allow users to access data (typically music files) that reside on

another individual’s computer. The Ocean.US data management plan envisions that the

National Virtual Ocean Data System will be implemented to allow access to IOOS data.
C HAPTER 28: MODERNIZING OCEAN DATA AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Recommendation 28–3

Ocean.IT should work with developers of the National Virtual Ocean Data System and other

innovative data management systems to implement a federally-supported system for accessing ocean and coastal data both within and outside the national data centers.

Incorporating Data into the National Data Centers 

Academic Research Data

The discussion of the IOOS in Chapter 26 points to the importance of collecting data 

from stable, long-term, calibrated in situ and satellite sensors. However, there is also value

in capturing more ephemeral observational data, typically collected as a part of research

projects. Recipients of federal research grants and contracts are required by law to submit

their data to the appropriate national data center within a specified time period. Most

oceanographic data must be submitted to the National Oceanographic Data Center or the

National Geophysical Data Center. Oceanographic data arising from international programs must also be submitted, according to policies established by the Intergovernmental

Oceanographic Data Exchange program. However, there are wide variations among agencies in their enforcement of these requirements and their tracking of compliance. Research

data are often not submitted to national databases for years after a project ends, if ever.

Strengthened procedures, both domestically and internationally, are urgently needed to

provide for the timely inclusion of all ocean data into data centers, and to ensure full and

open access to data collected at taxpayers’ expense. 

Recommendation 28–4

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should establish and enforce common requirements 

and deadlines for investigators to submit data acquired during federally funded ocean

research projects.

In establishing these requirements, the NOC’s Committee on Ocean Science, Education,

Technology, and Operations should:

• develop incentives to ensure more timely submission of investigator data to the 

national centers. 

• require that a certification of data deposit be supplied to investigators who comply with

the new regulations and that this certificate be presented before subsequent federal

funding is provided. 

Reviewing Classified Data

A significant proportion of all oceanographic data is collected and archived by the Navy.

However, these data are generally classified and not available for access by the larger

oceanographic community. In 1995, the Measurement of Earth Data for Environmental

Analysis (MEDEA) Special Task Force was created to determine the potential for important environmental research based on classified or restricted Navy databases, and to prioritize data for declassification or release. Opportunities were identified for mutually beneficial collaborations between the civilian and naval ocean sciences communities, and

approaches were suggested to realize broader national benefits from public investments in

data collection and modeling by the Navy.5 Increased access to data declassified as a result

of the MEDEA initiative, although limited, has been very useful to the oceanographic

community. Both scientists and managers can continue to benefit from ongoing declassification of Navy data, particularly bathymetric data critical to improved ocean modeling. 

437
438 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 28–5

The U.S. Navy should periodically review and declassify appropriate naval oceanographic data

for access by the civilian science community. 

Meeting the Challenges of a New Century

Looking beyond the data management needs for ocean sciences, the environmental challenges of the 21st century will require access to the full spectrum of environmental data.

As a robust ocean observing system and national monitoring network are created, and as

the nation moves toward integrating ocean, climate, atmospheric, and terrestrial monitoring systems within the comprehensive Earth Observing System, both the volume of data

and the need to integrate widely varied datasets will continue to grow. At the same time,

historical environmental data must continually be preserved to enable long time-series

analyses of natural processes that occur over decades, centuries, and millennia. Revolutionary

discoveries about the Earth’s environment and the ability to better predict its dynamics

will result from the use of diverse, long-term, integrated data sets.

Critical improvements in the environmental data management infrastructure at the

federal level must be made today and sustained into the future to realize the full benefits

of an integrated system. Numerous valuable studies, pilot projects, recommendations, and

strategies for improved management of environmental data have been produced over the

years. However, the integration of existing environmental data is continually impeded by

the lack of a unified interagency strategy and a national financial commitment to a modern, integrated data management system. 

Recommendation 28–6

The President should convene an interagency task force to plan for modernizing the national

environmental data archiving, assimilation, modeling, and distribution system with the goal

of creating an integrated Earth environmental data and information system. 

The task force should:

• be comprised of all federal agencies with environmental data collection responsibilities.

• propose a plan for the national environmental data system that includes specific cost 

estimates and phasing requirements to ensure timely implementation.

References

1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Nation’s Environmental Data: Treasures at Risk. A Report to

Congress on the Status and Challenges for NOAA’s Environmental Data Systems. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Commerce, 2001.

2 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Environmental Data: Foundation for Earth Observations

and Data Management System. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 2003.

3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Nation’s Environmental Data: Treasures at Risk. A Report to

Congress on the Status and Challenges for NOAA’s Environmental Data Systems. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Commerce, 2001. 

4 Office of Naval Research and National Science Foundation. An Information Technology Infrastructure Plan to Advance

Ocean Sciences. Washington, DC, January 2002.

5 MEDEA. Special Task Force Report: Scientific Utility of Naval Environmental Data. McLean, VA: Mitre Corporation, 1995.

A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY


PART VIII

THE GLOBAL OCEAN: 

U.S. PARTICIPATION IN

INTERNATIONAL POLICY

CHAPTER 29 

ADVANCING INTERNATIONAL OCEAN SCIENCE AND POLICY ...............442
442 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 29

ADVANCING INTERNATIONAL

OCEAN SCIENCE AND POLICY

T he United States has long been a leader in developing and supporting international

initiatives vital to the health of the world’s oceans and coasts. These include agreements to protect the marine environment, conserve whales and other marine mammals, implement responsible fishing practices, preserve coral reefs, and enhance

port security. The nation can continue to protect and advance its maritime

interests by actively engaging in international policy making, global scientific initiatives, and programs to build ocean management capacity in

developing nations. In particular, it is imperative that the nation ratify

the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the preeminent

legal framework for addressing international ocean issues. Until that

step is taken, the United States will not be able to participate directly

in the bodies established under the Convention that make decisions

on issues of importance to all coastal and seafaring nations. 

Acting Globally to Safeguard the Oceans

J

ust as the well-being of U.S. citizens and the productivity of 

the U.S. economy depend on the ocean, the same holds true 

for most other nations. The oceans provide vital food and energy

supplies, facilitate waterborne commerce, and create valuable recreational opportunities. It is in America’s interest to work with the 

international community to preserve the productivity and health of the

oceans and to secure cooperation among nations everywhere in managing

marine assets wisely. 

Over the last several decades, we have seen the creation of a comprehensive body of international ocean law and policy, renewed efforts in ocean and

coastal management by many nations, enhanced scientific understanding of the

marine environment, and a proliferation of new actors who participate in ocean governance at global, regional, and national levels. Despite this rise in activity and scrutiny,

resource depletion has continued, conflicts persist over the management of ocean uses,

and many countries in the developing world lack the means to effectively manage the

marine areas and resources within their jurisdictions.

International ocean challenges should be familiar to U.S. policy makers because parallel

problems are found to varying degrees along our own coasts. Virtually every topic covered

in this report has a corresponding international dimension and the proposed solutions are

often similar, including an emphasis on sustainability, the adoption of an ecosystem-based

management approach, enhanced education and stewardship, better science, smoother
C HAPTER 29: ADVANCING INTERNATIONAL OCEAN SCIENCE AND POLICY

intergovernmental cooperation, and sufficient funding. The international aspects of living

marine resources, coral reefs, pollution abatement, marine debris, vessel safety, invasive

species, habitat loss, science and observations, and conflict resolution among competing

users have been addressed throughout this report. The focused discussions and recommendations found in the issue-specific chapters should be considered in conjunction with

the broader international themes discussed here. (A summary of all international recommendations is included in Chapter 31.) 

The United States can best influence ocean management globally by enacting and

enforcing exemplary policies at home. However, domestic action alone will not be enough

to deal with the many challenges facing the world’s oceans and coasts. Solutions at the

international level will require broad participation and cooperation, taking into account

the interests, rights, and responsibilities of all coastal nations. To this end, the United

States must work with other nations to develop institutions and mechanisms to improve

all aspects of ocean governance. 

Reviewing the Evolution of the International Ocean Regime

As discussed in Chapter 2, the international ocean management regime has evolved from

virtually unregulated, open access to a system of well-defined national zones of authority.

Beginning in the early 1600s and continuing for almost four centuries, the dominant 

paradigm for governing the oceans was the principle of freedom of the seas, based on 

the premise that the oceans were infinite and marine resources inexhaustible. There was

nothing, it was assumed, that humans could do to cause irreversible damage to such a

vast and bountiful resource.

This view of the oceans began to change dramatically in the middle of the 20th century,

when it became apparent that problems of overfishing and pollution threatened ocean assets

that had previously been taken for granted. Coastal nations began to assert exclusive jurisdiction over ocean areas and resources off their coasts, creating a bewildering array of claims

about the extent of these areas and the powers that could lawfully be exercised within them.

To restore a sense of order and predictability, the international community developed a

global ocean regime that specifies the rights and duties of coastal nations in 200-mile exclusive economic zones off their coasts, while maintaining freedoms of navigation essential for

security and world trade. This regime also sets forth the collective rights and responsibilities

of nations in the use of ocean resources outside areas of national jurisdiction. 

Today, a plethora of mechanisms and institutional arrangements exist at the bilateral,

regional, and global levels to address ocean-related issues. Many of these arrangements

benefit from the participation of nongovernmental organizations, scientists, the private

sector, development assistance agencies, and other stakeholders, in addition to government representatives.

On June 3, 2003, the leaders of the eight largest industrialized democracies (known 

as the G–8), issued a joint statement declaring their intention to implement a global action

plan for environmental responsibility and sustainable development of the oceans.1 If carried

out, this action plan could serve as a basis for more effective ocean management worldwide. 

Developing and Implementing International Policy 

The United States has traditionally been a leader in international ocean policy making and

has participated in the development of many international agreements that govern the world’s

ocean areas and resources. That leadership must be maintained and reinvigorated. The challenges of the 21st century will require improved collaboration among policy makers everywhere to establish ambitious objectives and take the actions necessary to achieve them.

443
444 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Guiding Principles

The guiding principles for sound ocean management discussed in Chapter 3 of this report

are also relevant to U.S. policies in the international arena. These include an emphasis on

sustainability, good stewardship, ecosystem-based management, preservation of biodiversity,

use of the best available science, and international responsibility. This last principle calls for

the United States to act cooperatively with other nations in developing and implementing

ocean policy, reflecting the deep connections between U.S. interests and the world’s oceans.

U.S. interests internationally can be most effectively advanced through coordinated

global, regional, and bilateral initiatives. International regional forums, such as those 

dealing with issues in the Great Lakes, Pacific islands, and Arctic and Caribbean regions,

provide excellent opportunities to identify and address ocean issues on a regional ecosystem basis and to implement broad international objectives regionally. Bilateral agreements,

such as the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, also provide opportunities to enhance

ecosystem- and watershed-based management. The participation of U.S. states, territories,

and indigenous peoples within each region provides important perspectives, and builds on

established ties and shared interests and experiences. 

In developing and implementing international ocean policy, the United States should:

• Use multilateral approaches, including participation in international forums, to achieve

solutions to global ocean issues where coordinated action by many nations is required.

• Use regional and bilateral approaches, with input from U.S. states, territories, and

tribes in those regions, to address regional ecosystem-based ocean and coastal management problems. 

• Provide technical and financial assistance to build ocean science and management

capacity in developing nations and small island states. 

• Engage in partnerships with nongovernmental organizations, the scientific community, the private sector, regional institutions, and others to combine government and

nongovernmental resources and expertise. 

The Law of the Sea Convention

For more than two centuries, the United States participated in the formation of customary

international ocean law, a set of uniformly applied rules that nations accepted as binding.

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention) codified

much of this body of law, and created new rules to address unresolved issues, such as the

balance between freedom of navigation and expanding claims of coastal state jurisdiction.

The LOS Convention is, in essence, an international constitution for the oceans. It

provides a comprehensive delineation of the rights, duties, and responsibilities of each

nation within its territorial sea, exclusive economic zone (EEZ), continental shelf, and 

on the high seas. It addresses specific subjects such as marine scientific research, seabed

mining, and environmental protection. The LOS Convention also creates institutions for

managing ocean issues and provides mechanisms for settling disputes. 

The United States is not among the 145 parties to the LOS Convention, despite having

been at the forefront of its development. When the Convention was adopted in 1982, the

United States and other industrial nations had concerns about the regime established to

govern deep seabed mining in areas outside national jurisdiction. To address these concerns, an agreement was reached in 1994 that substantially modified the provisions that

the United States and others found objectionable.

Today, the LOS Convention enjoys widespread backing within the United States across

a broad range of stakeholders in government, industry, environmental groups, and academia,

and bipartisan support in Congress. There are many compelling reasons for the United

States to expeditiously accede to the Convention. International bodies established under
C HAPTER 29: ADVANCING INTERNATIONAL OCEAN SCIENCE AND POLICY

the LOS Convention are in the process of making decisions that directly affect important

U.S. interests. For example, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf is 

considering jurisdictional claims over resources on the continental margin, an area of 

particular importance to the United States with its broad continental margin rich in

energy resources. Measures to guide the future exploration and exploitation of deep

seabed resources under the Convention are also being developed. 

The Convention will no doubt continue to evolve. In 2004, the Convention will be open

for amendment by its parties for the first time. If the United States is to ensure that its interests as a maritime power and coastal state are protected, it must participate in this process.

The best way to do that is to become a party to the Convention, and thereby gain the right

to place U.S. representatives on its decision-making bodies. Participation in the Convention

would also enhance America’s prestige and credibility as a leader on global ocean issues.

Recommendation 29–1

The United States should accede to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Other Ocean-related International Agreements

There are many international agreements in addition to the LOS Convention that address

either ocean management generally, or specific issues such as fishery regulation, species

protection, cultural heritage, vessel safety, and coral reefs. Here again, the United States

has played a major role in designing and gaining support for many of these agreements,

which are briefly summarized in Table 29.1. 

Binding international agreements signify a commitment by participating nations to

carry out specific actions, often allowing measurable progress to be made in meeting

objectives. For example, parties to the International Convention for the Conservation of

Atlantic Tunas must abide by catch limits placed on tunas and related species. 

Nonbinding agreements can also prove useful in influencing nations to act responsibly. These agreements establish goals toward which nations agree to work and sometimes

serve as a preliminary step to binding action. They are often preferable for addressing a

problem where scientific uncertainty or temporarily insurmountable economic costs make

firmer commitments unobtainable.

In addition to international agreements that directly address ocean and coastal management issues, international trade agreements also have indirect but significant consequences

for ocean management. The impacts of these agreements on ocean and coastal policies

need to be carefully considered, and efforts made to review each agreement to ensure that

its provisions and U.S. ocean policy objectives are consistent and mutually supportive. 

Agreements Stemming from the Earth Summit

Several major nonbinding agreements were reached at the 1992 United Nations

Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, known as

the Earth Summit. This event built on the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment

held in Stockholm twenty years previously. The Stockholm conference placed environmental matters on the global agenda for the first time and led to the creation, among other

landmark outcomes, of the U.N. Environment Program and of environmental programs

and associated legislation in many countries, including the United States.

At the center of the Earth Summit’s agenda was a commitment to advancing sustainable

development—the principle that economic development and the environment are inextricably linked and must be addressed together. Summit negotiations were intense, requiring

the resolution of differences among developed and developing nations. The Summit was

also characterized by the inclusion of an unprecedented number of representatives from

nongovernmental organizations. Among the major international agreements forged at the

Summit were the Rio Declaration of Principles, the Framework Convention on Climate

445

Because the oceans

and their resources

do not recognize

national boundaries,

international cooperation is necessary to

resolve most oceans

issues, and the United

States has been a

world leader on the

international oceans

stage. To protect our

national security, as

well as our economic

and environmental

interests, we must

continue in that role. 

—Ambassador Mary

Beth West, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for

Oceans and Fisheries,

U.S. Department of

State, testimony to 

the Commission, 

November 2001
446 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Date of

Agreement

Date 

Entered 

Agreement Name Description Into Force

An examination of ocean-related international treaties and agreements reveals the wide range of international ocean policy

issues, including fisheries management, species protection, vessel safety, and coral reef preservation. (Note: some of the listed

agreements are not formal treaties or conventions, and thus, ratification is not applicable.)

Table 29.1 U.S. Participation in International Ocean Agreements

United Nations

Convention on the 

Law of the Sea

(LOS)

LOS is a comprehensive regime of law and order

for the world’s oceans and seas. LOS is comprised

of 320 articles and 9 annexes and governs all

aspects of ocean space, such as delimitation, pollution control, scientific research, resource management, technology transfer, and dispute settlement.

Agreement to Promote

Compliance with

International

Conservation and

Management Measures

by Fishing Vessels on

the High Seas

The Compliance Agreement promotes compliance

by fishing vessels on the high seas with international conservation and management measures. It

requires a party to make all efforts to ensure that

vessels flying its flag do not engage in any activity

that undermines the conservation or management of biological resources.

Convention on the

Prevention of Marine

Pollution by Dumping 

of Wastes and Other

Matter

(London Convention) 

The London Convention regulates the disposal of

waste materials into the sea. It establishes “blackand gray-lists” for wastes that can be considered

for disposal at sea according to the hazard they

present to the environment.

International

Convention for the

Conservation of 

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)

ICCAT is a fishery treaty for the conservation of

tunas and tuna-like species in the Atlantic Ocean

and its adjacent seas.

Agreement on Part

XI of the LOS

Convention

(Deep Seabed

Mining Agreement)

This agreement amends the LOS regime governing the deep seabed, reflecting a shift to more

free-market oriented policies. It modifies decision

making to reflect political and economic interests

and financial contributions of states, while retaining the principle that the seabed is the “common

heritage of mankind.” 

Agreement for the

Implementation of

the LOS Relating to

the Conservation and

Management of

Straddling Fish Stocks

and Highly Migratory

Fish Stocks (FSA) 

The FSA sets out principles for the conservation

and management of straddling stocks and highly

migratory fish on the high seas and places new

regulatory authority in the hands of regional

fishery bodies. 

08/04/95 12/11/01 Yes Yes

11/24/93 04/24/03 Yes Yes

05/14/66 03/21/69 Yes Yes

12/29/72 08/30/75 Yes Yes

11/08/96 Not in Yes No

force

07/28/94 07/28/96 Yes No

12/10/82 11/16/94 No No

Has the 

U.S. 

Signed?

Has the 

U.S. 

Ratified?

Fisheries-related Agreements

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Related Agreements

Marine Environment

Protocol to the 

London Convention

The Protocol is more restrictive than the

Convention and in principal part creates a

“reverse list,” which implies that all dumping is

prohibited unless explicitly permitted.
C HAPTER 29: ADVANCING INTERNATIONAL OCEAN SCIENCE AND POLICY 447

Date of

Agreement

Date 

Entered 

Agreement Name Description Into Force

Table 29.1 (continued) U.S. Participation in International Ocean Agreements

International

Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution

from Ships 

(MARPOL 1973/1978)

MARPOL is concerned with the prevention of

accidental and operational vessel-source pollution. It is implemented through six technical

annexes. Annexes I (oil) and II (noxious liquids 

carried in bulk) are mandatory. Annexes III 

(harmful substances carried in package form), 

IV (sewage), V (garbage from ships), and VI (air

emissions) are optional.

Convention on the

Conservation of 

Antarctic Marine 

Living Resources 

(CCAMLR)

CCAMLR established a Commission with the

authority to adopt measures for the conservation

of Antarctic marine living resources, including

the designation of protected species, open and

closed seasons and areas for harvesting, and

catch limits. 

Has the 

U.S. 

Signed?

Has the 

U.S. 

Ratified?

MARPOL

Annexes I and II

Annex III

Annex IV

Annex V

10/02/83 Yes Yes

10/02/83 Yes Yes

12/31/88 Yes Yes

05/20/80 04/07/82 Yes Yes

Antarctic Treaty The Treaty provides that Antarctica shall be used

for peaceful purposes only and for scientific investigation and cooperation. It prohibits nuclear

explosions and disposal of radioactive waste.

12/01/59 06/23/61 Yes Yes

Protocol on

Environmental Protection

to the Antarctic Treaty

The Protocol provides for the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment and

dependent and associated ecosystems. 

10/04/91 01/14/98 Yes Yes

Declaration on the

Establishment of the

Arctic Council

The Arctic Council is a high-level forum that 

promotes cooperation, coordination, and interaction among Arctic states, with the involvement of

Arctic indigenous communities on common issues

(except military security), in particular, sustainable

development and environmental protection in

the Arctic.

09/19/96

Scheduled Yes No

to enter

into force

5/19/05

09/27/03 No No

07/01/92 Yes Yes

Annex VI

Global Plan of Action

for the Protection of

the Marine Environment

from Land-based

Activities (GPA)

The GPA is designed to be a source of conceptual

and practical guidance to be drawn upon by

national and/or regional authorities in devising

and implementing sustained action to prevent,

reduce, control, and eliminate marine degradation

from land-based activities. 

Not a

treaty

Not 

applicable

Supported

Not a

treaty

Not 

applicable

Supported

11/03/95

Boundary Waters Treaty This treaty established the International Joint

Commission between the United States and

Canada to prevent and resolve disputes relating

to the use and quality of boundary waters such as

the Great Lakes.

01/11/1909 05/05/1910 Yes Yes

Marine Environment (continued)
448 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Change, and Agenda 21—a comprehensive set of international guidelines for achieving

sustainable development in all areas, including the oceans and coasts. 

Another product of the Earth Summit was the Convention on Biological Diversity

(CBD), which aims to conserve biological diversity worldwide while providing guidance

for the sustainable use of its components and the equitable sharing of any benefits derived

from the use of genetic resources. In 1995, the parties to the CBD issued the Jakarta Mandate,

which initiated a marine and coastal resource work program focused on five topics: integrated ocean and coastal area management; ocean and coastal protected areas; sustainable

use of ocean and coastal living resources; marine aquaculture; and non-native species. 

Most nations have ratified the CBD, but the United States has not, largely because of

divergent views regarding the ownership of genetic resources. Many coastal nations regulate access by foreign scientists and explorers to genetic resources in waters under their

jurisdiction. These nations often seek royalties from the commercialization of these

resources, including pharmaceutical products resulting from bioprospecting. The United

States has expressed concerns about balancing legal protections for private biotechnology

investors with the rights of sovereign nations to their resources. 

Because the United States is not a party to the CBD, the nation cannot directly 

participate in the development of the CBD regime or in negotiations on its protocols. 

For example, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which provides a framework for the safe

transfer, handling, and use of living modified organisms, has important implications for U.S.

economic sectors. Other CBD areas of interest to the United States include efforts to combat

invasive non-native species, creation of compilations of marine scientific data, and facilitation

of member nation negotiations concerning access and collection agreements for scientists. 

Recommendation 29–2

The National Ocean Council should coordinate an expedited review and analysis of the

ocean-related components of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and 

recommend to the U.S. Department of State whether, from an ocean perspective, ratification

of this treaty would be beneficial to U.S. interests. 

Date of

Agreement

Date 

Entered 

Agreement Name Description Into Force

Table 29.1 (continued) U.S. Participation in International Ocean Agreements

Convention on Wetlands

of International

Importance, Especially

as Waterfowl Habitat

(Ramsar Convention)

The Ramsar Convention provides the framework

for national action and international cooperation

for the conservation and wise use of wetlands. The

system currently includes 1368 wetland sites, totaling 120 million hectares (about 296 million acres).

Has the 

U.S. 

Signed?

Has the 

U.S. 

Ratified?

Biodiversity and Wildlife

02/02/71 12/21/75 Yes Yes

Convention on

International Trade in

Endangered Species 

(CITES)

The goal of CITES is to ensure that international

trade in wild animals and plants does not

threaten their survival. Trade in listed species is

regulated through a permit system.

03/03/73 07/01/75 Yes Yes

Convention Concerning

the Protection of the

World Cultural and

Natural Heritage

The World Heritage Convention defines the kind

of natural or cultural sites which are eligible for

inscription on the World Heritage List, and sets

out the duties of State Parties in identifying

potential sites and their role in protecting and

preserving them.

11/23/72 12/17/75 Yes Not 

applicable

International Convention 12/02/46 11/10/48 Yes Yes

for the Regulation of

Whaling (ICRW)

The ICRW establishes the International Whaling

Commission, which regulates commercial and

aboriginal subsistence whaling.
C HAPTER 29: ADVANCING INTERNATIONAL OCEAN SCIENCE AND POLICY

Meeting International Obligations 

Although the next decade will undoubtedly see new international agreements on ocean

issues, the main challenge for the world community will be wider ratification and more

effective implementation and enforcement of existing agreements. To achieve their goals,

the international organizations charged with carrying out these agreements must also be

adequately funded. This will require every participating nation, including the United

States, to fully meet its financial commitments, consistent with relevant treaty obligations.

Collaboration for International Ocean Policy 

To lead in the international ocean arena, the United States must maintain a vigorous

national discussion about global ocean issues. Enhanced communication, coordination,

and collaboration among U.S. government agencies, scientific institutions, the private sector, and other stakeholders will strengthen U.S. performance at international negotiations

and enable the nation to be more influential in shaping and executing world ocean policy.

Similarly, at the international level, governments, agencies, United Nations bodies, and

scientific associations must work closely together to achieve success.

U.S. Coordination

Within the U.S. government, the U.S. Department of State is the lead agency for most

international negotiations. However, the role of more specialized agencies is extremely

important due to the scientific and resource focus of many multilateral ocean issues. For

example, living marine resources are primarily the responsibility of the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration; the U.S. Coast Guard generally takes the lead in developing and enforcing vessel safety and environmental protection regulations; the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency does the same in mitigating pollution from land- and

water-based sources; and the U.S. Trade Representative has a role in the interface of international trade and ocean policy. 

Consistent application of a wide range of expertise is essential both to establish international ocean standards that reflect U.S. interests, and to make certain that subsequent

actions by the United States and others are in accordance with those standards. A new

mechanism is needed to provide improved coordination among U.S. agencies that share

responsibility for, and knowledge about, international ocean issues. Since the early 1970s,

various interagency groups have attempted to address these issues, most recently as a subcommittee under the National Security Council’s (NSC’s) Global Environmental Affairs

Policy Coordinating Committee. While the NSC subcommittee should continue to focus

on specific security-related issues, the National Ocean Council will be a better home for a

broad interagency committee dealing with all facets of international ocean policy. 

Recommendation 29–3

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should establish and oversee an interagency committee to

support the development and implementation of ocean-related international policy. 

The international committee of the NOC should:

• be chaired by the U.S. Department of State.

• make recommendations to the Assistant to the President, the Secretary of State, and

other agency heads as appropriate, on international ocean policy. 

• assess the implementation status of ocean-related treaties to which the United States is a party

and recommend appropriate actions and funding required to fulfill U.S. treaty obligations.

• provide technical assistance to the NOC on international ocean issues.

International Ocean Governance

Numerous global institutions exist to coordinate the development and implementation of

international ocean policy. These include the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic

449
450 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Commission, International Maritime Organization, Environment Program, Food and

Agricultural Organization, and many others. (For a description of these and other international institutions see Box 29.1.) 

Enhanced coordination is needed among international ocean governance institutions to

avoid the piecemeal, sectoral, and unstructured development of ocean policy. One possible

approach is to develop a mechanism for coordinating all U.N. entities that have jurisdiction

over ocean and coastal issues. Recent steps in this direction by the U.N. are encouraging. 

A number of nations have recently developed new initiatives for ocean management in

their waters. These new approaches have important implications both for the United States

and the international community. The results of emerging management regimes elsewhere

can provide important lessons for U.S. ocean management. Moreover, policy changes by

nations that share borders or marine ecosystems with the United States may have direct

impacts on our nation. New ocean management strategies may also impact the evolution of

international ocean law, potentially shifting the balance between interests in freedom of navigation and effective ocean resource management. It is important for the United States to

monitor, study, and learn from ocean management initiatives undertaken by other nations.

Emerging International Management Challenges

Wise management requires good planning and proactive approaches. New ocean-related

problems and opportunities are sure to arise as populations grow, technologies improve,

and knowledge increases. Several prominent emerging ocean and coastal management

issues, some of which are beginning to be acknowledged at the national level, also have

international dimensions. 

Among these issues are the impacts of global climate change, such as thinning polar

ice due to rising temperatures or coral reef damage caused by elevated carbon dioxide

concentrations. Other emerging international management challenges are directly associated with the use of ocean resources. In each case, the challenge is to find appropriate

global mechanisms—whether new or existing—to ensure that emerging issues are dealt

with in accordance with sound management principles. A clear international regime is

vital to provide consistency and certainty to users, maximize the benefits of these resources,

and reduce possible negative environmental impacts. The following examples describe

just a few emerging issues that will require international attention:

• Polar regions. Many studies indicate that by mid-century the Earth will probably have

substantially less ice cover in polar regions. This may lead to major changes in commercial and military transportation routes, ecosystem conditions, resource exploitation, and social and economic conditions. It is not too soon to begin discussions about

the ramifications and appropriate management of burgeoning activities in polar waters.

• Carbon sequestration. Due to concerns about the rising level of carbon dioxide in the

atmosphere, experiments have been conducted to transfer some of the excess carbon

into the oceans. One method is to inject carbon dioxide directly into deep ocean waters

or under the seafloor, where it forms frozen gas hydrates. Another approach is to fertilize the surface of the ocean—typically with iron—thereby accelerating the uptake of

carbon dioxide by organisms in surface waters. The long-term effectiveness and potential environmental consequences of either approach remain unknown and urgently

require further study. Furthermore, no process is in place to determine whether or not

these activities should be allowed to proceed, or what body would make that decision.

• Marine protected areas. Numerous international agreements support the establishment of

protected areas to improve the management of fragile coastal and marine ecosystems and

certain submerged cultural resources. These protected areas may restrict other activities

depending on the level of protection necessary to sustain particular resources. (For a discussion of marine protected areas, see Chapter 6.) Difficult international decisions loom

over the appropriate balance between environmental protection and high seas freedoms.
C HAPTER 29: ADVANCING INTERNATIONAL OCEAN SCIENCE AND POLICY 451

Box 29.1 Selected International Bodies with Ocean-related Responsibilities

• The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (U.N.) leads international efforts to defeat hunger, raise levels of nutrition and standards of living, improve

agricultural productivity, and better the condition of rural populations. The Committee on

Fisheries is a subsidiary body of the FAO Council. It provides a forum to examine and

make recommendations on major international fisheries and aquaculture issues, negotiate international fishery agreements, and periodically review international fisheries 

programs and their implementation. 

• The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is the U.N. agency responsible for

improving maritime safety and security and preventing pollution from ships, through

adoption and implementation of international standards, guidelines, and agreements.

The IMO also has developed a number of conventions creating liability and compensation

regimes for damages arising from vessel-related pollution and other vessel incidents.

• The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) is a semi-autonomous body

within the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. It assists governments

in addressing ocean and coastal problems through sharing of ocean science information

and technology, including oceanographic data and information. As part of this effort,

IOC has a fundamental interest in the development of earth observing and global ocean

observing systems. 

• The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) helps countries strengthen their

capacity to address challenges related to energy, environment, and sustainable development. The Strategic Initiative for Ocean and Coastal Management is a global initiative to

harness the knowledge and skills of UNDP, other U.N. agencies, donors, and other external support agents to enhance the effectiveness of ocean and coastal management projects in promoting sustainable human development in developing countries.

• The UN Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea is the secretariat for the U.N.

Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention). Its mandate is to fulfill the functions

associated with the LOS Convention, including assistance to states in implementing it.

The Division monitors and reports annually to the U.N. General Assembly regarding both

the LOS Convention and general ocean affairs and works to promote better understanding, uniform and consistent application, and effective implementation of the LOS

Convention.

• The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) is dedicated to enhancing global

understanding of environmental issues and helping nations address those issues. Its work

includes assessing global, regional, and national environmental conditions and trends;

developing international and national environmental instruments; strengthening 

institutions for the wise management of the environment; facilitating the transfer of

knowledge and technology for sustainable development; and encouraging new partnerships. UNEP oversees a number of activities in marine and coastal areas. A few examples

include: the U.N. Atlas of the Oceans, the Global Program of Action for the Protection 

of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities, and the Coral Reef Unit, which

implements the International Coral Reef Action Network.

• The World Trade Organization (WTO) deals with the rules of trade between nations. The

WTO’s primary mission is to facilitate global trade while ensuring that such transactions

are conducted in a fair and predictable manner. With respect to world trade, the WTO

administers agreements, serves as a forum for negotiations, settles disputes, and reviews

national policies. The WTO can become involved in environmental policy when an international environmental agreement has an impact on free trade, or when a nation’s environmental policies may be interpreted as discriminatory trade practices.
452 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

• Seamounts. Worldwide concerns have been expressed about over-fishing around

underwater mountains on the high seas. These ocean features, referred to as seamounts,

typically attract robust fish populations that are not subject to the jurisdiction of any

country. Without binding international agreements, there is a great potential for these

areas to be overfished.

Recommendation 29–4

The National Ocean Council should assess emerging international ocean-related management

challenges and make recommendations for either incorporating these activities under existing management regimes or developing appropriate new ones. The U.S. Department of State

should work with the international community to implement these recommendations.

Scientific Input to U.S. Policy Makers 

Successful national and international ocean policies depend on sound scientific information.

It is essential, therefore, to ensure that U.S. policy makers benefit from timely advice and

guidance from the U.S. marine scientific community. This, in turn, requires regular avenues

of communication that allow scientists the opportunity to provide input and policy makers

the chance to carefully consider their recommendations.

A 1999 report by the National Research Council introduced the concept of “science

for diplomacy”—an approach for improving the ability of the State Department to incorporate scientific expertise into the foreign policy process.2 The State Department has since

taken several significant steps to strengthen its scientific capabilities, including the establishment in 2000 of a Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State. Continued

progress is needed to increase knowledge and enhance understanding within the department about the complex scientific basis of many international ocean policy issues. 

Recommendation 29–5

The U.S. Department of State should improve its integration of ocean-related scientific expertise

in policy and program development and implementation.

These improvements can be accomplished by:

• conducting State Department staff training about the relevance of scientific considerations

to international ocean policy. 

• increasing scientific support throughout the department to address current and emerging

ocean-related issues, particularly through the use of borrowed personnel from resource

agencies or academic institutions.

• creating mechanisms to facilitate input from the scientific community on complex oceanrelated issues. 

Enhancing International Ocean Science 

The United States has been a leader in ocean science and research since creation of the

U.S. Commission on Fish and Fisheries in 1871. Eleven years later, the 234-foot USS

Albatross entered service as the first U.S. research vessel built exclusively for fishery and

oceanographic research. On land, major centers of activity included the Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution, which has attracted scientists from around the world for 

more than a century, and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, an innovator in marine

science and technology since 1903. Over the last fifty years, dozens of other top-tier U.S.

oceanographic institutions have developed. If the United States is to maintain its leadership status, it must build on this tradition by strengthening international scientific partnerships and expanding the world’s understanding of the oceans. 
International Ocean Science Programs

International ocean research is conducted and coordinated by a variety of entities including

the U.N. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, which has sponsored conferences

and meetings on an array of topics in this field. These programs include efforts to understand El Niño, the role of the oceans in the global carbon balance, climate variability, and

algal blooms. The Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR), an interdisciplinary

body of the International Council for Science, focuses on large-scale ocean research projects for long-term, complex activities. SCOR also promotes capacity building in developing countries by encouraging scientists from such countries to participate in its working

groups and other activities. Other institutions, including the World Meteorological

Organization, the U.N. Environment Program, and the International Hydrographic

Organization, are doing valuable work on climate change, coral reefs, and ocean surveys.

The United States participates in and contributes to collaborative international ocean

research both to fulfill our global obligations and because it is in our national interest to

do so. The more we know, the better we can protect our long-term stake in healthy and

productive oceans. 

Recommendation 29–6

The United States should continue to participate in and support major international ocean

science organizations and programs. 

The Global Ocean Observing System

An international effort is underway to gain a better understanding of the current state of

the world’s oceans, and to revolutionize the ability to predict future ocean conditions.

When fully realized, the Global Ocean Observing System will use state-of-the-art technology to integrate data streams from satellites and globally-deployed ocean sensors. These

data will then be made available in useable form to resource managers, businesses, and the

general public. This initiative is part of a larger international effort to create a system that

integrates ocean, atmosphere, and terrestrial observations.

One of the most important functions of the Global Ocean Observing System will be to

better understand the ocean’s critical role in climate and climate change. The oceans store

tremendous amounts of heat, water, and carbon dioxide, transport them around the globe

through ocean circulation, and exchange them continually with the atmosphere. A better

understanding of the interactions between oceans and climate will assist scientists in 

analyzing and predicting short- and long-term climate changes. Improved information

from the Global Ocean Observing System will also help scientists predict changes in the

oceans themselves, such as sea-level rise, elevated carbon dioxide concentrations, and

variations in water temperature, and assist in planning for the potential impacts of such

changes. Enhanced observations of ocean-atmosphere interactions may also help assess

the potential for abrupt climate change, and suggest ways to mitigate its impacts.

The U.S. role in development of the Global Ocean Observing System is closely linked

with efforts to improve ocean data collection nationally. The U.S. Integrated Ocean

Observing System (discussed in Chapter 26) will be the link between the global system

and the regional ocean observing systems in the United States. Improving international

coordination on ocean observations, and integrating these observations into the broader

suite of atmospheric and terrestrial observations, is a cornerstone of the ongoing effort to

strengthen the role of science in international policy making.

C HAPTER 29: ADVANCING INTERNATIONAL OCEAN SCIENCE AND POLICY 453
454 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

U.S. Scientific Activities Abroad

In the past, marine scientific research was protected as a “freedom of the sea” and largely

unregulated outside territorial seas. However, under the LOS Convention, coastal nations

generally can assert greater legal jurisdiction than before over various types of research

conducted in their exclusive economic zones and extended continental shelves. Coastal

nations can require researchers to obtain prior approval before conducting research in

their waters and to share research data, samples, and results. The extent of the coastal

nation’s authority depends on the location and purpose of the research (e.g., scientific,

archaeological, historical, or economic) and must be exerted in accordance with provisions

of the LOS Convention that promote international cooperation in this field. There is variability in the extent to which coastal nations choose to exercise the authority available to

them. For example, for now the United States has chosen not to regulate marine scientific

research in the U.S. EEZ. This policy is intended to encourage good international relations,

and through reciprocity, to benefit the U.S. marine scientific community by easing access

to foreign waters. 

The State Department is the primary federal agency charged with facilitating the international programs and activities of U.S. scientists. Since 1972, the department has processed

about 6,000 requests to coastal nations around the world seeking permission to conduct

U.S. oceanographic research in their waters. However, support for facilitating U.S. science

abroad has declined over time. While modest improvements have been made in the last

few years, growing interest in marine scientific research will require continued attention

to this function.

Strong partnerships between U.S. and foreign scientists facilitate agreements on how

international science initiatives should be conducted and how results should be shared.

An example of this type of collaborative effort is the Ocean Drilling Program, which is

implemented through a memorandum of understanding among the United States and 

several international partners. Such partnerships can also be used to build scientific capacity

in other nations. Collaborations between the United States and Mexico, for example, show

the benefits of integrating scientific research with education and training, building and

sharing infrastructure, participating mutually in large-scale programs, planning joint

events and publications, and developing sources of binational funding.3

Recommendation 29–7

The U.S. Department of State should offer strong support for U.S. scientists conducting

research programs around the world. Existing international partnerships should be strengthened and new partnerships promoted to facilitate the conduct of international research. 

Building International Capacity in 

Ocean Science and Management

Implementation of international ocean policy and improved management of ocean and

coastal resources worldwide are affected by the adequacy of the science and management

capacity of every coastal nation. Well-trained scientists and high-quality laboratories and

equipment around the world will contribute to our understanding of the oceans. Ecosystembased management can only succeed if all nations with management responsibility for

some component of the ecosystem work together to sustain its health. 

There are a variety of U.S. programs designed to assist in international capacity building, including several related to ocean and coastal science and management capacity. The

U.S. Agency for International Development, as part of its mission to expand democracy and

improve the lives of citizens in the developing world, sponsors programs that promote nat-
C HAPTER 29: ADVANCING INTERNATIONAL OCEAN SCIENCE AND POLICY

ural resource management and that stress sustainability of resources through sound environmental and management practices. Other agencies also have programs that assist developing countries with ocean and coastal science and management efforts (Box 29.2). 

This report recommends a number of measures aimed at strengthening U.S. capacity in

ocean and coastal science and management. But to maintain progress on a global scale, the

United States and other wealthy nations will need to assist coastal nations of more limited

means. This assistance can be in the form of funding, human resource development, technology transfer, information sharing, or other advisory and consultative services. To be

most effective, assistance should be science-based and developed within the context of an

ecosystem-based approach. Efforts should be concentrated on issues that have been identified as particularly critical for the health of an ecosystem or marine species, and have the

greatest potential for positive impacts. In most instances, effective capacity-building will

require long-term efforts to change detrimental practices and build support for new, sustainable management approaches. These efforts will require long-term funding commitments sufficient to make the changes needed to preserve or rebuild healthy ecosystems. 

Many developing nations are particularly dependent on ocean and coastal resources;

however poverty and unhealthy conditions still predominate in many of their coastal communities. U.S. assistance will not only benefit ocean and coastal science and management,

but also result in meaningful economic gains to the developing nations, thereby creating

goodwill and strengthening U.S. international ties.

Recommendation 29–8

The United States should increase its efforts to enhance long-term ocean science and 

management capacity in other nations through grants, education and training, technical

assistance, and sharing best practices, management techniques, and lessons learned.

References

1 2003 G8 Summit. “Marine Environment and Tanker Safety: A G8 Action Plan.” <www.g8.fr/evian/english/navigation/2003_g8_summit/summit_documents/marine_environment_and_tanker_safety_-_a_g8_action_plan.html>

Accessed March 2, 2004.

2 National Research Council. The Pervasive Role of Science, Technology, and Health in Foreign Policy. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 1999.

3 National Research Council. Building Ocean Science Partnerships: The United States and Mexico Working Together.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.

455

Box 29.2 U.S. Involvement in International Capacity Building Efforts

The United States is helping to build the capacity of other nations to implement ecosystembased management through the White Water to Blue Water initiative, which focuses on

land-based sources of pollution and their impacts on the marine environment. White Water

to Blue Water is currently developing pilot programs with partners in the Caribbean region.

The United States also helps to finance the U.N. Environment Program, which in 2002

launched the Hilltops to Oceans (H2O) initiative, with a similar focus, as part of the Global

Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Sources.

(For additional discussion of these initiatives, see Chapter 14.)

PART IX

MOVING AHEAD:

IMPLEMENTING A NEW

NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY

CHAPTER 30 

FUNDING NEEDS AND POSSIBLE SOURCES ......................................................458

CHAPTER 31 

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................472
458 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CHAPTER 30

FUNDING NEEDS AND

POSSIBLE SOURCES

Better coordination at all levels of government...decisions based on excellent 

science and accurate information...an informed and engaged citizenry... these 

are important components of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s vision of 

our ocean future. To implement that vision, the Commission proposes many

specific recommendations aimed at ensuring that the nation’s ocean and

coastal resources are healthy and sustainable. Significant change, however, cannot be achieved without commensurate investment. This 

chapter outlines the costs associated with making improvements to

our ocean policy. It also presents a proposal for meeting those costs

through the establishment of a new Ocean Policy Trust Fund.

Monies for the Trust Fund would be generated through resource

rents from certain approved uses in federal waters, including 

outer Continental Shelf oil and gas revenues that are not currently

committed to other purposes. The Trust Fund would help support

the new responsibilities placed on federal, state, territorial, tribal,

and local governments, and, thus, avoid the imposition of

unfunded mandates.

Investing in Change

This report outlines a series of ambitious proposals for improving the

use and protection of the nation’s oceans and coasts. But meaningful

change requires meaningful investments. In the case of the ocean, such

investments are easy to justify. As explained in Chapter 1, more than one trillion

dollars, or one-tenth of the nation’s annual gross domestic product is generated

each year within communities immediately adjacent to the coast. By including the

economic contributions from all coastal watershed counties, that number jumps to

around five trillion dollars, or fully one-half of our nation’s economy. Equally important,

the oceans and coasts contribute in immeasurable ways to the health and well-being of the

nation and the world. Both the direct economic benefits of the sea and its less quantifiable

contributions are threatened by continued degradation of ocean and coastal environments

and resources.

Government agencies will not be able to take on additional responsibilities in implementing a comprehensive national ocean policy without improved tools and resources.

Again and again, recommendations in this report call for actions to improve ocean and
C HAPTER 30: F UNDING NEEDS AND POSSIBLE SOURCES

coastal management: “NOAA should strengthen the Coastal Zone Management Program,”

“EPA should tighten pollution controls,” “The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should integrate individual dredging projects into regional ecosystem plans,” and “State and local

governments should achieve better regional coordination.” Implicit in each of these recommendations is a requirement for Congress and the Administration to offer the support

and resources needed to achieve the stated goals.

Recognizing this reality, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy pledged from its inception to be clear about any new costs associated with its recommendations. This chapter

fulfills that promise by estimating the additional federal expenses that would arise if all

the recommendations in this report were adopted. Mindful of intense budgetary pressures

at all levels of government, and sensitive to the hardship associated with unfunded federal

mandates, the Commission also set out to identify appropriate sources of revenue to cover

the costs of its recommendations through a logical, responsible funding strategy. The sections

below summarize the nature and magnitude of the costs associated with the Commission’s

recommendations. This summary is followed by a discussion of the Commission’s proposal

for an Ocean Policy Trust Fund to assist governments at all levels in carrying out the 

recommendations contained in this report.

Acknowledging the Cost of Taking Action

Although there is a considerable level of uncertainty in these estimates, the total additional

cost to the federal government of implementing the recommendations found throughout

this report is approximately $1.5 billion in the first year, rising to roughly $3.9 billion per

year after full implementation. A chapter-by-chapter summary of costs is shown in Table

30.1, with a more detailed itemization of the cost of each recommendation presented in

Appendix G.

The cost estimates discussed in this chapter were derived from a number of sources.

For some recommendations, such as implementation of the Integrated Ocean Observing

System (IOOS, Chapter 26), outside groups have already put considerable effort into planning and budgeting and their estimates have been used, with appropriate adjustments. In

other cases, such as creation of the Office of Ocean Policy (Chapter 4) or the Ocean.ED

office (Chapter 8), standard formulas were applied to compute approximate staff salaries

and related costs. Where the expansion of an existing activity is recommended, such as

the Coastal Zone Management Program (Chapter 9), actual appropriations from recent

years were adjusted upward in proportion to the level of additional effort needed. For

entirely new activities, such as the regional ecosystem assessments recommended in

Chapter 5, costs were extrapolated based on comparable activities in other agencies.

Finally, there were many cases where some combination of the methods described above

was used, in addition to consultation with knowledgeable budget and technical experts,

and employment of the Commission’s best professional judgment. The numbers presented

in this chapter are by no means definitive or authoritative, but the Commission believes

they will be helpful in setting the stage for ongoing discussions.

It is critical to note that all the cost estimates in this chapter are for new or additional

funding needs. In most cases, these amounts should be added to existing appropriations.

For example, the cost of doubling ocean research funding, as recommended in Chapter

25, is shown as $650 million in Table 30.1. This amount must be added to the $650 million currently being spent in this area, for a total of $1.3 billion.

The cost estimates in Table 30.1 also include many different types of expenses, such

as: funding for new or expanded federal programs (to cover personnel, travel, and administrative costs); grant and fellowship funds to be distributed through reviewed proposaldriven processes; and direct grants to coastal states to carry out their ocean and coastal

459
460 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

no recommendations N/A N/A 

no recommendations N/A N/A 

no recommendations N/A N/A 

Chapter Total $ 1.062 $ 2.124

Chapter Total $ 12.750 $ 48.750 ■

Regional ocean councils $ 3.000 $ 12.000

Regional ocean information programs $ 9.000 $ 36.000

Regional ecosystem assessments $ 0.750 $ 0.750

Chapter Total $ 6.900 $ 21.800

Development of an offshore management regime $ 0.900 $ 1.800

Design and implementation of marine protected areas $ 6.000 $ 20.000

Chapter Total $ – $ – 

Chapter Total $ 25.150 $ 136.370 Ch. 25

Support for K–12 efforts $ 11.500 $ 16.040

Expansion of the COSEE program $ – $ 29.100

Support for undergraduate, graduate, and 

post-doctoral students $ – $ 46.000

Increasing diversity in ocean fields $ 1.000 $ 3.930

Community education and outreach $ 1.250 $ 12.500

Other measures $ 11.400 $ 28.800

Chapter Total $ 55.000 $ 155.000

Strengthening the CZMA program $ 35.000 $ 95.000

Support for watershed initiatives $ 20.000 $ 60.000

Chapter Total $ 2.500 $ 10.000 ■

Chapter Total $ 40.000 $ 75.000 ■

Chapter Total $ 12.500 $ 72.500 Ch. 15, 25 ■

Chapter Total $ 1.500 – ■

Listed below are the estimated new costs, in millions of dollars, for implementing the recommendations in each chapter of this

report. Subcategories highlight costs in certain thematic areas which may include more than one recommendation. A square in

the last column indicates that some relevant costs are not included. Further explanation can be found in the text of this chapter

or in Appendix G.

Table 30.1 Summary of Costs Associated with 

Recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

Some

costs not

shown

Ongoing 

Annual Cost 

(millions of dollars)

Some costs

in other

chapters

First Year Cost 

(millions of dollars)

Chapter 1: Recognizing Ocean Assets and Challenges

Chapter 2: Understanding the Past to Shape a New National Ocean Policy

Chapter 3: Setting the Nation’s Sights

Chapter 4: Enhancing Ocean Leadership and Coordination

Chapter 5: Advancing a Regional Approach

Chapter 6: Coordinating Management in Federal Waters

Chapter 7: Strengthening the Federal Agency Structure

Chapter 8: Promoting Lifelong Ocean Education

Chapter 9: Managing Coasts and Their Watersheds

Chapter 10: Guarding People and Property Against Natural Hazards

Chapter 11: Conserving and Restoring Coastal Habitat

Chapter 12: Managing Sediment and Shorelines

Chapter 13: Supporting Marine Commerce and Transportation
C HAPTER 30: F UNDING NEEDS AND POSSIBLE SOURCES 461

Table 30.1 (continued) Summary of Costs Associated with 

Recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

Chapter Total $ 11.000 $ 53.900 Ch. 25 ■

Addressing point sources $ 2.000 $ 8.500 Ch. 25 ■

Addressing nonpoint sources $ 5.000 $ 29.800 Ch. 25 ■

Addressing atmospheric deposition $ 4.000 $ 15.600

Chapter Total $ 10.000 $ 60.000 Ch. 27 ■

Chapter Total $ 40.000 $ 88.000 Ch. 25 ■

Chapter Total $ 31.500 $ 50.000 Ch. 8, 15, 25 ■

Chapter Total $ 2.000 $ 5.000

Chapter Total $ 28.950 $ 87.850 Ch. 25 ■

Improvements to Fishery Councils, Commissions, and SSCs $ 7.650 $ 16.550

Enhanced cooperative research $ 3.000 $ 10.000

Improved fisheries enforcement $ 6.300 $ 12.300

Designation of essential fish habitat $ 5.000 $ 15.000 Ch. 25

Bycatch reduction $ 5.000 $ 30.000

Other measures $ 2.000 $ 4.000

Chapter Total $ 7.000 $ 16.000 Ch. 25

Chapter Total $ 7.200 $ 25.200 Ch. 25

Chapter Total $ 3.000 $ 7.000 Ch. 25

Chapter Total $ 2.000 $ 10.000 Ch. 14, 15, 25

Expand O&HH research initiative $ – $ – Ch. 25

Improve seafood safety and coastal water quality $ 2.000 $ 10.000 Ch. 14,15

Chapter Total $ 1.900 $ 8.800 Ch. 25 ■

Offshore renewable energy $ 0.900 $ 1.800

Offshore non-energy mineral resources $ 1.000 $ 7.000

Chapter Total $ 280.000 $ 960.000 Ch. 27 ■

Doubling of basic and applied ocean research investments $ 200.000 $ 650.000

Ocean exploration initiative $ 30.000 $ 110.000 Ch. 27

Comprehensive national coastal and ocean maps $ 50.000 $ 200.000

and charts

Chapter Total $ 231.000 $ 753.000

Chapter 14: Addressing Coastal Water Pollution

Chapter 15: Creating a National Monitoring Network

Chapter 16: Limiting Vessel Pollution and Improving Vessel Safety

Chapter 17: Preventing the Spread of Invasive Species

Chapter 18: Reducing Marine Debris

Chapter 19: Achieving Sustainable Fisheries

Chapter 20: Protecting Marine Mammals and Endangered Marine Species

Chapter 21: Preserving Coral Reefs and Other Coral Communities

Chapter 22: Setting a Course for Sustainable Marine Aquaculture

Chapter 23: Connecting the Oceans and Human Health

Chapter 24: Managing Offshore Energy and Other Mineral Resources

Chapter 25: Creating a National Strategy for Increasing Scientific Knowledge

Chapter 26: Achieving a Sustained, Integrated Ocean Observing System

Some

costs not

shown

Ongoing 

Annual Cost 

(millions of dollars)

Some costs

in other

chapters

First Year Cost 

(millions of dollars)
462 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Table 30.1 (continued) Summary of Costs Associated with 

Recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

responsibilities. (Throughout this chapter we use the term coastal states to include states

bordering any ocean or the Great Lakes, all U.S. territories, and federally-recognized tribes

with coastal resource treaty rights.) The different types of costs are not distinguished in

the table. Moreover, costs borne directly by nonfederal entities, including state and local

governments, private companies, and individuals, are not included, although in some

cases they may be substantial. The importance of state-level action is discussed further

below, with a recommendation for additional federal assistance in carrying out these

responsibilities.

Some costs in Table 30.1 are associated with recommendations for distinct, highvisibility projects, such as the IOOS, the national monitoring network, or new ships and

other infrastructure. Others costs are linked to recommendations for large, exciting new

programs, like the Oceans and Human Health Initiative, or a new program of global ocean

exploration. It can be tempting for policy makers to focus on these big-ticket items, but

doing so exclusively would not serve the cause of improving ocean and coastal vitality.

Most of the problems identified throughout this report are linked to human activities and

the cumulative impacts of those activities on ocean and coastal resources. As a result, the

solutions generally involve improvements to the management of human activities.

Overall, the majority of the costs presented in this chapter are not connected with large,

visible new projects, but with less tangible—but equally important—everyday improvements in existing programs to manage ocean and coastal resources.

Deferred Costs

The costs for a number of recommendations could not be assessed at this time and they

are noted as “TBD” in Appendix G. Often, this is because the Commission’s recommendation calls for the National Ocean Council or certain federal agencies to study an issue and

develop more detailed plans and strategies for addressing it. Until such plans are in place,

the scope of needed action is not known, although implementation of the proposed plans

is likely to have significant costs. For example, the cost of achieving better regional coorChapter Total $ 205.900 $ 191.800 ■

Science infrastructure $ 200.000 $ 150.000

Other ocean-related infrastructure – – ■

Technology development and implementation $ 5.900 $ 41.800

Chapter Total $ 14.000 $ 24.000 ■

Chapter Total $ 3.260 $ 7.850 Ch. 25

State Department science capacity and support $ 1.260 $ 2.850

International capacity building $ 2.000 $ 5.000 Ch. 25

Chapter Total $ 500.000 $ 1,000.000

Support for additional state, territorial, and $ 500.000 $ 1,000.000

tribal responsibilities

GRAND TOTAL $ 1,536.072 $ 3,869.944

Chapter 30: Funding Needs and Possible Sources

Chapter 29: Advancing International Ocean Science and Policy

Chapter 28: Modernizing Ocean Data and Information Systems

Chapter 27: Enhancing Ocean Infrastructure and Technology Development

Some

costs not

shown

Ongoing 

Annual Cost 

(millions of dollars)

Some costs 

in other 

chapters

First Year Cost 

(millions of dollars)
C HAPTER 30: F UNDING NEEDS AND POSSIBLE SOURCES

dination among federal agencies (Recommendation 5–2) will depend on the mechanisms

adopted and can only be determined after the National Ocean Council and its member

agencies develop a plan for such coordination.

Costs Beyond the Scope of the Commission’s Report

There are many other important activities, with significant implications for oceans and coasts,

whose costs, even if known, are not included in the totals provided. Examples include:

• Nationwide upgrading of wastewater and drinking water infrastructure.

• Ongoing flagship projects such as restoration of the Florida Everglades, the Chesapeake

Bay, coastal Louisiana, or San Francisco Bay.

• Nationwide water monitoring (Table 30.1 includes only monitoring costs within

coastal watersheds and coastal waters).

• Planning and implementation of a national system of intermodal freight transportation.

• The National Science Foundation’s Ocean Observatories Initiative.

• Reestablishment of a Congressional Office of Technology Assessment.

• Maintenance and improvements to federal offices, laboratories, and other facilities.

• The costs of renewing the U.S. Coast Guard fleet, implementing Maritime Domain

Awareness, and other broad ocean safety and enforcement needs.

These are all major projects with national implications and large price tags whose

importance extends far beyond the scope of this Commission and whose costs have not

been included in our totals and are not expected to be covered by the Ocean Policy Trust

Fund. In many cases, plans are already in place to implement, and often to fund, such

projects.

Itemizing Major Funding Areas

With over 200 recommendations spanning dozens of issue areas, it is impossible to single

out “the most important.” What’s more, it is not meaningful or productive to attempt to

compare the importance of protecting coral reefs to the value of better education, or the

benefits of improved land-use decisions to those of more thorough stream monitoring.

Instead, the following sections highlight a few major themes from the report—governance,

education, and science—and discuss some of the costs involved in implementing the

Commission’s vision in these areas and others.

The National Ocean Policy Framework

The centerpiece of the Commission’s recommendations is the National Ocean Policy

Framework, described in Chapters 4–7. Chapter 4 calls for the immediate establishment

of a National Ocean Council (NOC) in the Executive Office of the President to provide

visible leadership, improve coordination of ocean and coastal management, and help

move toward an ecosystem-based management approach. The NOC would be chaired by

an Assistant to the President, advised by a nonfederal President’s Council of Advisors on

Ocean Policy, and supported by a small Office of Ocean Policy. Because they are not operational in nature and will not be responsible for implementing new programs, the cost of

establishing these entities will be modest, approximately $1 million in the first year, and

$2 million per year thereafter.

The recommendations in Chapter 5 concerning the need for regional ocean councils,

improved regional coordination of federal agencies, better regional information, and periodic regional ecosystem assessments call for substantial state-level involvement, but will

463
464 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

also require federal support to become a reality. The costs to the federal government are

estimated at nearly $13 million in the first year, with eventual ongoing annual costs of

approximately $49 million. As the concept of regional ocean councils takes hold across

the country, and regional information needs become better articulated, these costs may

well increase. The additional funds needed by coastal states to participate in regional

activities will be provided in part by the proposed Ocean Policy Trust Fund, as discussed

later in this chapter.

The offshore management regime called for in Chapter 6 requires only a modest level

of staff support to coordinate the management of existing offshore activities and plan for

new uses, totaling under $2 million per year. (Additional costs associated with offshore

renewable energy and non-mineral resources, both discussed in Chapter 24, total around

$9 million per year.) In addition, once the National Ocean Council, in consultation with

state partners and stakeholders, has established a suitable process for the design of marine

protected areas, their orderly implementation and ongoing evaluation will require additional federal support of some $20 million per year.

The broad improvements to the federal agency structure called for in Chapter 7 carry

no direct costs because it is expected that the savings realized through improved coordination and efficiency will offset any expenses associated with restructuring.

Ocean Education

High quality, lifelong education about the oceans is essential for improving science literacy

and instilling a widespread sense of stewardship for the marine environment. A number of

concrete steps to achieve these goals are recommended in Chapter 8. Total first year startup

costs in the area of ocean education are estimated at approximately $25 million, with

investments of around $136 million per year in later years. This includes support for

efforts in kindergarten through 12th grade, expansion of the Centers for Ocean Sciences

Education Excellence, creation of a national ocean education coordinating office, grants

and fellowships for undergraduate and graduate students in ocean-related fields, informal

community outreach, and much more. It also includes $4 million per year in new spending to increase diversity in the ocean community, an important investment priority.

Again it is important to note that the costs in Table 30.1 are for additional federal

efforts to promote lifelong ocean education. However, state and local decision makers play

central roles in providing and improving education and will require funds to support their

own efforts in K–12, post-secondary, graduate and post-graduate education, as well as

informal education and outreach efforts, to improve society’s understanding and appreciation of the nation’s oceans and coasts. Support for coastal states to improve their ocean

education efforts will be covered by funds provided under the proposed Ocean Policy

Trust Fund.

Ocean Science and Exploration

Science and exploration are closely related endeavors. Explorers discover the new places,

species, and phenomena that other scientists then study and explain. Many experts have

pointed out that we now know more about the surface of the moon—and increasingly the

surface of Mars—than we do about the bottom of the ocean, despite the huge potential for

answering fundamental questions about our planet and discovering new forms of life right

here at home. The gradual shrinking of ocean science funding, from 7 percent of the federal

research budget in the 1970s to less than 3.5 percent today, must be reversed to address the

nation’s need for better coastal and ocean information and to help managers make wellinformed decisions. The Commission recommends a doubling of the federal ocean and

coastal research budget, from its current level of $650 million per year to $1.3 billion annu-
C HAPTER 30: F UNDING NEEDS AND POSSIBLE SOURCES

ally over the next five years. Chapter 25 summarizes the many high-priority research areas

that will benefit from this new investment. A healthy balance is needed between funding

for basic and applied sciences, and between research in coastal areas and the open ocean.

To keep reaching out further into the ocean’s unknown areas, scientific investments

should be complemented with significant new investments in well-planned, technologically sophisticated ocean exploration expeditions. The cost for sparking a new era of

ocean discovery—and reaping the tangible human benefits that will come from it—will be

about $30 million over current expenditures in the first year, rising to a sustained, but still

modest level of $110 million a year.

Science and exploration both depend on improved infrastructure and technology

(facilities, sensors, hardware, and technical support) as discussed in Chapter 27, as well as

better analysis, distribution, and archiving of the ever-increasing flow of new data, as discussed in Chapter 28. The total costs of improving ocean science-related infrastructure are

estimated at $192 million per year, while better data management will require ongoing

annual investments of $24 million. Some of the specific items to be included in the

renewal of ocean-science related infrastructure are the University-National Oceanographic

Laboratory System (UNOLS) fleet, a new ship for the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program,

two refurbished Coast Guard icebreakers, two new fisheries research vessels, new deep

submergence vehicles, and dedicated ocean exploration platforms.

Monitoring, Observing, and Mapping

The monitoring network called for in Chapter 15 covers much more than traditional

water quality measurements. Many chapters recommend better monitoring, for example

those addressing sediments (Chapter 12) and invasive species (Chapter 17). A wide range

of variables should be measured as part of the national network to improve assessments,

and provide accountability for management measures. First year monitoring efforts for

coastal watersheds and waters will cost about $10 million, with ongoing annual costs of

approximately $60 million.

Another important tool to achieve well-informed, science-based ocean and coastal

management with an ecosystem focus is the national IOOS. A fully operating IOOS will

provide critical information for: protecting human lives and property from marine hazards; improving ocean health; predicting global climate change; enhancing the nation’s

security; and providing for the protection, sustainable use, and enjoyment of ocean

resources. Just as the nation and its citizens have come to rely on an extensive system 

of weather observations, routine ocean and coastal observations and forecasts will soon 

be viewed as a necessity as their value becomes evident. The direct benefits to industry,

property, and human life alone easily justify the initial investment. The first year cost of

implementing the IOOS is estimated at $231 million, rising over a period of five years to

an ongoing annual cost of $753 million including satellite operations, data systems, and

technology development.

Chapter 25 highlights the importance of accurate maps and charts as vital tools for

coastal and ocean research, management, and economic activities. There is an immediate

need to create a national base map that is seamless across the shoreline and can incorporate new geospatial data of all kinds as they are collected. The cost estimate of $3 billion

over the next fifteen years includes mapping the entire U.S. exclusive economic zone

(bathymetry and backscatter), completing the backlog of National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration hydrographic surveys to support navigational safety, and making all mapping and charting activities accessible through a Geographic Information System-based

Web site.

465
466 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Other Ocean and Coastal Management Challenges

In addition to the broad themes described above, the Commission has recommended 

a variety of specific actions to meet identified challenges. Recommendations include

improving management of the nation’s coasts and coastal watersheds through strengthening the Coastal Zone Management Act and enhancing our ability to manage on a watershed scale. Related recommendations are directed at other critical coastal issues, such as

protecting people and property from natural hazards, managing the ebb and flow of 

sediments, and conserving and restoring valuable coastal habitats. To make meaningful

improvements to coastal and watershed management, the additional costs are estimated 

at $112 million in the first year, rising to $313 million in later years.

Another topic addressed at length is the need to improve the quality of ocean and

coastal waters. The Commission recommends a number of actions to address the variety

of contaminants and foreign substances that are degrading ocean and coastal waters,

whether physical, chemical, or biological, and whether from point, nonpoint, or airborne

sources. The combined new costs for all recommendations related to improving the quality of ocean and coastal waters is estimated at $85 million in year one and $197 million in

ongoing annual costs. This is one area where certain major costs are not included in our

totals. An estimated $600 billion in public and private investments will be needed over

the next twenty years to maintain and renew the nation’s entire water and sewer infrastructure—a prerequisite for improving water quality, but an activity that goes beyond 

the scope of this Commission.

The report also devotes considerable attention to improved management of living

marine resources, including actions related to fishery management and marine aquaculture, protecting marine mammals and endangered species, and sustaining valuable coral

communities. Many improvements can be made at minimal or no cost as they primarily

involve better decision making and governance. A number of recommendations call for

additional research to understand these intricate ecosystems; such needs are included

under the overall doubling of ocean research funding called for in Recommendation 25–1.

Remaining recommendations for living marine resource management require new investments of approximately $146 million per year.

In the international arena, most recommendations and associated costs are addressed

in the corresponding subject area chapters (for example, international fisheries, aquaculture, or coral reef protection). However, the recommendations for overarching improvements in this nation’s approach to international ocean issues, outlined in Chapter 29, will

cost approximately $8 million per year.

Recognizing the Important Roles of Nonfederal Authorities

Due to the nature, composition, and mandate of this Commission, the report’s recommendations focus primarily on changes needed at the federal level. But the role of states, territories, tribes, and local governments is central to every topic in this report. In particular,

they have a critically important role to play in the new National Ocean Policy Framework.

Governments at these levels exercise authority over land and water use within their borders, including state waters and submerged lands. In addition, Congress has assigned

additional responsibilities to many of these entities through a variety of programs that

have been created over the years. Because of their critical roles, it is imperative that the

federal government work with states, territories, tribes, and local governments as partners

in successfully executing a comprehensive national ocean policy.
C HAPTER 30: F UNDING NEEDS AND POSSIBLE SOURCES

Under the new ocean policy framework, states and other nonfederal authorities will

have particularly important functions to carry out in areas such as the following:

• Coordination through regional ocean councils and regional ocean information programs.

• Ocean-related education.

• Coastal and watershed management, including clean beaches, sustainable growth,

recreation and tourism, and economic development.

• Natural hazards planning and mitigation.

• Habitat conservation and restoration.

• Port and waterway management.

• Water quality and wastewater treatment.

• Reductions in invasive species and marine debris.

• Fishery management and aquaculture.

• Protection of endangered species.

• Science, observing, and mapping.

Although the specific costs to states and other nonfederal actors of carrying out their

responsibilities in these areas have not been calculated, the Commission recognizes that

they are real, large, and growing. The Commission is also well aware that some existing

ocean and coastal programs have not been adequately funded and that additional responsibilities will require additional revenues. The states simply cannot take on further unfunded

mandates as a result of the implementation of a comprehensive ocean policy. To achieve

the best results for the nation, the federal government will need to provide additional

financial assistance. The Commission recommends that $1 billion per year in federal

funds—in addition to any existing federal financial assistance—be distributed to coastal

states for these purposes. These funds will flow from a new Ocean Policy Trust Fund.

Dedicating Revenue from Ocean Uses for 

Improved Ocean Management

Existing and Emerging Uses

Various parts of this report discuss federal revenues that are, or may be, generated from

offshore activities. Chapter 6 introduces the concept of resource rents, the economic value

derived from the use or development of a natural resource. It recommends that the use of

a publicly-owned resource by the private sector be contingent on providing a reasonable

return of some portion of the revenues to taxpayers. For example, the proposal in Chapter

22 for a new marine aquaculture management framework includes a recommendation for

a revenue collection process that recognizes the public interest in the ocean areas and

resources used for aquaculture operations in federal waters. Chapter 23 recommends a

similar process for bioprospecting.

Chapter 24, on nonliving resources in federal waters, discusses the substantial revenues already flowing into land conservation and historic preservation funds and the U.S.

Treasury from outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas development. It then points out

the economic inequities between the treatment of onshore and offshore federal land leasing

and development. Recommendation 24–1 suggests that a greater share of the revenues

received from the extraction of OCS oil and gas resources should be granted to coastal

states for the conservation and sustainable development of renewable ocean and coastal

resources. OCS oil and gas producing states would receive a larger portion of such revenues

to address the impacts in their states from the activity in adjacent federal offshore areas.

467
468 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Chapter 24 also addresses the potential emergence of offshore renewable energy

resources, including the growing interest in offshore wind farms, and wave and ocean

thermal gradient energy conversion. As recommended in Chapter 6, these emerging 

activities will require a comprehensive management regime that ensures a fair return to

the public for the use of marine resources.

Revenues for Ocean and Coastal Management: 

The Ocean Policy Trust Fund

The nexus between activities in federal waters and the programmatic, regulatory, and

management responsibilities they engender is clear. The actions recommended in this

report are all linked in some way to our use of the ocean. The critical nature of ocean

assets, and the challenges faced in managing them, justify the establishment of an Ocean

Policy Trust Fund in the U.S. Treasury to assist federal agencies and coastal states in carrying out the comprehensive ocean policy recommended by this Commission.

The Trust Fund would be composed of returns from commercial uses of offshore

resources, including OCS oil and gas revenues not currently committed to other programs, and any future revenues from allowed uses of federal waters. The Land and Water

Conservation Fund, the National Historic Preservation Fund, and the OCS oil and gas

revenues currently allocated to coastal states from the ocean areas that lie 3 nautical miles

seaward of state waters would not be affected. Only after the revenues for those programs

were provided in accordance with law, would any remaining OCS monies be deposited in

the Trust Fund.

As a practical matter, now and for the foreseeable future, all the revenues flowing into

the Trust Fund would come from OCS oil and gas revenues, virtually all of which are

derived from activities in the central and western Gulf of Mexico. The drilling in the Gulf

is an ongoing activity and an important contributor to our domestic supply of energy. The

revenues coming from the Gulf that are not allocated to other purposes are currently credited to miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury. They are either used for other governmental

activities or are counted against the deficit. The Commission has determined that funds

generated from activities in offshore waters are an appropriate and important source of

revenues to dedicate to a new and comprehensive national ocean policy.

As discussed in Chapter 24, approximately $5 billion is generated annually from the

various forms of OCS oil and gas revenues. Protecting the three programs noted above

would remove about $1 billion. Thus, some $4 billion a year of oil and gas money remains

available for the Ocean Policy Trust Fund under current projections, enough to fund the

full cost of implementing the Commission’s recommendations. While it would be purely

speculative to estimate the amount and timing of revenues that might be produced by

newer uses in federal waters, such resource revenues should also be deposited in the Trust

Fund as they begin to flow.

Recommendation 30–1

Congress should establish an Ocean Policy Trust Fund in the U.S. Treasury, composed of 

unallocated federal revenues from outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas activities, plus

revenues from any new activities approved in federal waters, to support the nation’s new

coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy. Trust Fund monies should be disbursed

to coastal states, other appropriate coastal authorities, and federal agencies to support

improved ocean and coastal management, based on an allocation determined by Congress

with input from the National Ocean Council. The Trust Fund should be used to supplement—

not replace—existing appropriations for ocean and coastal programs.

The Ocean Policy Trust Fund should be distributed as follows:

• $500 million in the first year, increasing to $1.0 billion in the third and subsequent years,

among all coastal and Great Lakes states, territories, and federally-recognized tribes with
C HAPTER 30: F UNDING NEEDS AND POSSIBLE SOURCES

coastal resource treaty rights. A larger share should go to OCS producing states to

address offshore energy impacts. The funds should be used for the conservation and sustainable development of renewable ocean and coastal resources, including any new

responsibilities that arise as a result of Commission recommendations and the expansion

of programs and activities that are currently underfunded.

• the remainder of the funds to federal agencies to address the new or expanded activities

assigned to them as a result of Commission recommendations.

The sole intent of the Trust Fund is to ensure a dedicated source of funding for improved

ocean and coastal management, including the sustainability of renewable resources. It is

not intended to either promote or discourage offshore uses authorized under existing

laws, and the Fund itself would not drive activities in offshore waters. Rather, all proposed

actions would be evaluated under established statutes and governance structures, including the NEPA process. Chapter 6 recommends an offshore management regime in which

all activities in federal waters are better coordinated and are guided by principles including sustainability, stewardship, good science, ecosystem-based management, and preservation of marine biodiversity. Once an activity is deemed acceptable, the resulting resource

rents due to the American taxpayer for the use of a public resource would be deposited

into the Trust Fund to be devoted exclusively to ocean and coastal issues, as noted above.

The design and establishment of the Trust Fund are within the jurisdiction of

Congress. Thus, Congress will need to determine how the Fund will be set up, the process

and criteria for the distribution of the monies, the formula or method for allocating the

funds among coastal states, the eligible uses of the funds, and appropriate connections to

existing laws and authorities. The National Ocean Council and the nonfederal President’s

Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy will be in an excellent position to provide input on

these questions.

Understanding the Changing Ocean and Coastal Budget

The proliferation of ocean and coastal programs throughout the federal government over

the last thirty years reflects a growing awareness of the importance of marine resources

and processes to our economy and our lives. However, this growth has not been wellplanned or coordinated. In a world of limited resources and increasing demands, it is

imperative that ocean programs be coordinated fiscally as well as operationally.

Congress recognized this need in the Oceans Act of 2000, directing the President to

“transmit to the Congress biennially a report that includes a detailed listing of all existing

Federal programs related to ocean and coastal activities, including a description of each

program, the current funding for the program, linkages to other federal programs, and a

projection of the funding level for the program for each of the next five fiscal years beginning after the report is submitted.” The first Federal Ocean and Coastal Activities report

was released by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in March 2003.

The usefulness of OMB’s report was limited because of inconsistent interpretations of

the request for data by the various federal agencies, errors in some of the budget information, variations in the level of detail provided, and a questionable classification system for

ocean and coastal functional categories. For example, the report did not summarize

agency investments in coastal water quality or ocean-related education, making it impossible to track spending in these areas over time. Subsequent reviews of the OMB report by

Congress’s General Accounting Office and the Congressional Research Service corroborated these problems and highlighted the inherent difficulties in determining federal

spending levels on ocean and coastal issues.1,2

469
470 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Nevertheless, the need remains for the National Ocean Council, the President, Congress,

OMB, and the public to understand what the federal government is spending on ocean

and coastal programs and activities. The integration of the budgets of such programs at

the highest level of government would greatly facilitate the coordination of on-the-ground

research, monitoring, and management activities. Implementation of Recommendation

7–2, which calls for NOAA’s budget to be reviewed as part of the OMB Natural Resources

Programs directorate, rather than the General Government Programs directorate, is one

important step. But improving the format and content of the biennial report called for in

the Oceans Act of 2000 will also be crucial to establish the financial baselines necessary to

evaluate growth and changes in ocean and coastal programs and activities and to provide

crucial information to Congress, the President, and the public.

Recommendation 30–2

The National Ocean Council, in cooperation with the Office of Management and Budget,

should coordinate the compilation of a biennial report from the President on ocean funding,

as required by the Oceans Act of 2000, including establishment of a consistent reporting format and a more useful classification scheme. 

References

1 U.S. General Accounting Office. “Ocean and Coastal Activities: Information on Federal Funding.” Memorandum to

Senators John McCain and Ernest F. Hollings. GAO–03–1070R. Washington, DC, August 11, 2003.

2 Buck, E.H., and J.A. Zinn. “Agency Data on Funding of Federal Ocean and Coastal Activities.” Memorandum.

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, September 30, 2003.

CHAPTER 31

SUMMARY OF

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Oceans Act of 2000 charged the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy with carrying out the first comprehensive review of ocean-related issues and laws in more

than thirty years. The Commission took up that charge, presenting over 200 

recommendations throughout this report that will move the nation toward a

more coordinated and comprehensive ocean policy. This chapter assembles

all the recommendations in one place. To assist federal agencies and 

others in quickly identifying actions most relevant to them, it also 

provides an index of the recommendations organized by the agency,

group, or individual charged with carrying out the proposed action. 

Context for the Recommendations

Guiding Principles

As explained in Chapter 3, the Commission’s work was

guided by the following set of fundamental principles:

• Sustainability: Ocean policy should be designed to meet the

needs of the present generation without compromising the 

ability of future generations to meet their needs.

• Stewardship: The principle of stewardship applies both to the

government and to every citizen. The U.S. government holds

ocean and coastal resources in the public trust—a special responsibility that necessitates balancing different uses of those resources for

the continued benefit of all Americans. Just as important, every member

of the public should recognize the value of the oceans and coasts, supporting appropriate policies and acting responsibly while minimizing negative

environmental impacts.

• Ocean–Land–Atmosphere Connections: Ocean policies should be based on the

recognition that the oceans, land, and atmosphere are inextricably intertwined and

that actions that affect one Earth system component are likely to affect another.

• Ecosystem-based Management: U.S. ocean and coastal resources should be managed

to reflect the relationships among all ecosystem components, including humans and

nonhuman species and the environments in which they live. Applying this principle

will require defining relevant geographic management areas based on ecosystem,

rather than political, boundaries. 

472 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

• Multiple Use Management: The many potentially beneficial uses of ocean and 

coastal resources should be acknowledged and managed in a way that balances 

competing uses while preserving and protecting the overall integrity of the ocean and

coastal environments. 

• Preservation of Marine Biodiversity: Downward trends in marine biodiversity should

be reversed where they exist, with a desired end of maintaining or recovering natural

levels of biological diversity and ecosystem services. 

• Best Available Science and Information: Ocean policy decisions should be based on

the best available understanding of the natural, social, and economic processes that

affect ocean and coastal environments. Decision makers should be able to obtain and

understand quality science and information in a way that facilitates successful management of ocean and coastal resources.

• Adaptive Management: Ocean management programs should be designed to meet

clear goals and provide new information to continually improve the scientific basis 

for future management. Periodic reevaluation of the goals and effectiveness of management measures, and incorporation of new information in implementing future

management, are essential. 

• Understandable Laws and Clear Decisions: Laws governing uses of ocean and

coastal resources should be clear, coordinated, and accessible to the nation’s citizens

to facilitate compliance. Policy decisions and the reasoning behind them should also

be clear and available to all interested parties.

• Participatory Governance: Governance of ocean uses should ensure widespread 

participation by all citizens on issues that affect them. 

• Timeliness: Ocean governance systems should operate with as much efficiency and

predictability as possible.

• Accountability: Decision makers and members of the public should be accountable

for the actions they take that affect ocean and coastal resources.

• International Responsibility: The United States should act cooperatively with other

nations in developing and implementing international ocean policy, reflecting the

deep connections between U.S. interests and the global ocean. 

These principles underlie all the Commission’s recommendations, and their full

implementation will lead the nation toward a future where the benefits of the oceans and

coasts are fully realized and the problems plaguing these areas are minimized.

Creating a Strong Role for States

Based on the charge of the Oceans Act of 2000, the Commission has recommended actions

to achieve a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy at all levels of government—including federal, state, and local—and has called for enhanced partnerships among

federal agencies and state and local stakeholders. The Commission sees a central role for

states in ocean and coastal management and identifies many opportunities for them to 

contribute to an integrated national ocean policy. The President’s Council of Advisors on

Ocean Policy, a high-level advisory body to be appointed by the President, should serve as

one important formal structure for input from nonfederal individuals and organizations,

including governors of coastal states, additional state, territorial, tribal, and local government

representatives, and others. 

Some of the important areas for state involvement, as discussed throughout the

report, include:

• formal and informal ocean education at all levels, including outreach to underrepresented and underserved communities. 

473
474 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

• creation of regional ocean councils to help coordinate federal, state, tribal, and local

planning and action, and designation of regional ocean information programs to 

supply the information needed to support an ecosystem-based approach. 

• improved management of coastal areas, including incorporation of coastal watersheds,

to achieve better pollution control, growth management, hazards mitigation, transportation planning, sediment management, and habitat conservation and restoration.

• development of a prioritized, comprehensive plan for upgrading the nation’s aging

and inadequate wastewater and drinking water infrastructure, including improved

stormwater management.

• coordination of a national monitoring network and creation of useful products based

on monitoring data. 

• planning for early detection, prompt notification, and rapid response to marine 

invasive species. 

• prevention of marine debris, in part through public outreach and education. 

• management of commercial and recreational fish stocks and sustainable aquaculture

operations.

• participation in a broad dialogue on the development of a coordinated offshore management regime, including the design and implementation of marine protected areas. 

Another area where state input will be essential is the development of ocean observations and science to support policy decisions. States will need to communicate their information needs and priorities as part of the creation of a national strategy for basic and

applied ocean science and technology, including the social science and economic research

needed to understand the human dimensions and economic value of the oceans and

coasts. States should also participate as full partners in the design and implementation 

of regional observing systems and their integration into the national Integrated Ocean

Observing System.

Many of the Commission’s recommendations explicitly call for the executive branch

to consult with the nonfederal President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy and for

federal entities to work closely with state and local governments. But even where it is left

unstated, the importance of state input and action is assumed throughout. 

The Need for Congressional Leadership

Substantial legislative action will be required to achieve a comprehensive, coordinated

ocean policy. Some of the statutory changes needed include codifying a major portion of

the new ocean policy framework, providing for organizational and jurisdictional restructuring within and between federal ocean agencies, and strengthening existing ocean programs and initiatives and enacting new ones. However, Congressional implementation of

the cross-cutting initiatives called for by the Commission will be tested and challenged by

the current organization of the committee systems in the Senate and House of Representatives.

(For additional information on congressional committee jurisdictions over the range of

ocean and coastal issues, see Appendix F.) 

In addition to the recommendations that call for specific legislative changes, Congress

will also need to supply additional funding to achieve meaningful improvement. Although

a number of administrative and organizational changes can be made at little or no cost,

most of the recommendations in this report—whether they call for major new initiatives

or for expansion of successful existing programs—can only be implemented with financial

support from Congress. Chapter 30 provides an extensive discussion of funding needs,

and Appendix G provides a detailed table listing the estimated cost of every recommendation in the report. This should be helpful as a guide in the congressional appropriations

process. Chapter 30 also suggests a mechanism, the Ocean Policy Trust Fund, for creating

a dedicated, long-term source of support for ocean and coastal science and management.
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Index to the Recommendations

The following section provides an index to all the Commission’s recommendations, 

categorized according to the various organizations and individuals directed to take action.

Each entry lists the numbers of all recommendations applicable to that entity. (As a

reminder, recommendations are labeled by chapter number. For example, Recommendation

12–5 refers to the 5th recommendation in Chapter 12.) The complete text of all the recommendations, organized by chapter, follows this index.

Although each recommendation is listed below under the primary actor or actors

charged with implementing it, other organizations or individuals are often tasked with

providing input or helping to accomplish the objective. To see further details about implementation, and to fully understand the background and reasoning behind each recommendation, the reader should carefully examine the corresponding chapter of the report.

Recommendations to Congress

Recommendations:

Recommendations to the Executive Branch Leadership

The President 

Recommendations: 4–1, 4–4, 4–6, 5–2, 5–3, 7–2, 7–5, 28–6

Assistant to the President (proposed)

Recommendations: 4–4, 7–3

National Ocean Council (proposed)

Recommendations:

NOC Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations

(currently the National Ocean Research Leadership Council)

Recommendations: 4–7, 26–3, 27–1, 28–1, 28–4

Office on Ocean Education (Ocean.ED) (proposed)

Recommendations: 8–1, 8–4, 8–7, 8–8, 8–9, 8–11, 8–12, 8–16, 8–17

475

4–1

4–6

4–7

6–2

7–1

7–4

8–1

8–2

9–1

9–2

9–4

11–1

11–3

12–2

12–6

13–1

13–2

14–4

14–10

16–5

19–1

19–10

19–12

19–13

19–14

19–15

19–16

20–1

20–2

20–5

20–6

21–1

21–2

22–1

23–4

24–1

24–5

25–1

25–4

25–8

26–3

26–8

26–11

27–4

27–5

28–1

30–1

4–2

4–3

4–8

4–9

5–1

6–1

6–2

6–3

8–5

9–3

9–4

10–2

10–3

10–4

11–2

11–5

12–1

13–1

14–8

14–9

16–12

17–2

17–3

17–4

17–6

17–8

18–3

19–27

20–1

20–7

24–4

25–2

25–3

25–5

26–1

26–12

26–13

27–1

27–3

28–4

29–2

29–3

29–4

30–2
476 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Office on Ocean Observing (Ocean.US)

Recommendations: 24–3, 26–2, 26–3, 26–4, 26–5, 26–7, 26–10

Office on Ocean Information (Ocean.IT) (proposed)

Recommendations: 28–1, 28–3

NOC Committee on Ocean Resource Management (proposed)

Recommendations: 4–8, 10–2, 13–2, 18–3, 20–7, 21–2

NOC International Committee (proposed)

Recommendations: 19–27, 29–3

President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy (proposed)

Recommendation: 4–5

Council on Environmental Quality

Recommendation: 5–6

Office of Management and Budget

Recommendation: 7–2

Recommendations to Federal Government Agencies

Department of Agriculture

Recommendations: 5–2, 11–3, 14–3, 14–7, 17–3

Department of Commerce 

Recommendation: 17–3

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Recommendations:

National Marine Fisheries Service

Recommendations:

National Sea Grant College Program

Recommendation: 8–6

5–2

5–5

8–2

8–3

8–10

8–12

8–13

8–16

11–3

14–11

15–1

15–2

15–3

16–13

18–1

18–2

18–4

18–5

19–9

19–11

19–16

19–26

20–4

20–7

20–8

20–9

21–3

21–4

22–1

22–2

22–3

23–1

23–2

23–3

23–5

24–3

25–6

26–2

26–6

26–7

26–8

26–9

26–10

26–11

27–2

27–6

28–2

19–4

19–5

19–6

19–7

19–8

19–14

19–17

19–18

19–19

19–21

19–22

19–23

20–3
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Department of Defense 

Army Corps of Engineers

Recommendations: 5–2, 10–1, 11–3, 12–3, 12–5

Navy

Recommendations: 28–2, 28–5

Office of Naval Research

Recommendations: 8–3, 8–10, 8–15, 8–16, 26–6

Department of Health and Human Services

Food and Drug Administration

Recommendations: 23–5

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Recommendations: 23–1, 23–2, 23–3

Department of Homeland Security

Recommendation: 17–3

Coast Guard

Recommendations: 16–1, 16–2, 16–4, 16–10, 16–11, 16–13, 16–14, 17–1, 19–18, 19–20

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Recommendation: 10–4

Department of the Interior

Recommendations: 5–2, 11–3, 17–3, 20–8, 24–2

Fish and Wildlife Service

Recommendations: 11–4, 16–7, 20–3, 20–4

Minerals Management Service 

Recommendations: 16–10, 20–9, 24–3, 24–6

U.S. Geological Survey

Recommendations: 15–1, 15–3, 20–9

Department of Labor

Recommendation: 8–12

Department of State

Recommendations: 18–4, 18–6, 19–24, 19–25, 20–10, 21–4, 29–4, 29–5, 29–7

Department of Transportation

Recommendations: 13–1, 13–3, 13–4, 13–5, 13–6, 16–10

477
478 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Environmental Protection Agency

Recommendations:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Recommendations: 8–3, 8–16, 26–6, 26–7, 26–8

National Science Foundation

Recommendations: 8–3, 8–10, 8–14, 8–16, 20–9, 23–1, 23–2, 23–3, 25–6, 26–6

Interagency groups

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and National Invasive Species Council

Recommendation: 17–5

Coral Reef Task Force

Recommendations: 21–2, 21–5

Federal Geographic Data Committee

Recommendation: 25–7

Interagency Committee for the Marine Transportation System

Recommendation: 13–2

National Dredging Team 

Recommendation: 12–4

Task Force on the Collection and Use of Hazards-related Data (proposed)

Recommendation: 10–2

5–2

5–5

12–7

14–1

14–2

14–3

14–4

14–5

14–6

14–11

14–12

14–13

15–1

15–3

16–6

16–7

16–8

16–9

16–10

16–13

18–2

23–5
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations to Regional Bodies

Regional Ocean Councils (proposed)

Recommendations: 6–2, 6–4, 9–4, 11–2

Regional Fishery Management Councils

Recommendations: 19–3, 19–5, 19–6, 19–7, 19–15, 19–19, 19–22

Scientific and Statistical Committees

Recommendations: 19–2, 19–7

Interstate Fishery Commissions

Recommendations: 19–15, 19–22

Regional Dredging Teams

Recommendations: 12–4

Recommendations to States

As noted in the introduction to this chapter, the Commission sees a strong role for state,

territorial, tribal, and local governments in implementing ocean policy. The list shown

below includes only those recommendations that call for specific actions to be led by

state-level actors. Many other recommendations and discussions throughout the report

also emphasize the importance of state and local involvement.

Recommendations: 5–1, 5–4, 11–1, 14–2, 14–3, 14–11, 19–10, 19–15, 19–22

Recommendations Related to International Ocean

Science, Policy, and Management

Recommendations:

479

14–14

16–3

16–4

16–8

17–7

18–4

18–6

19–23

19–24

19–25

19–27

20–10

21–1

21–4

22–4

26–7

26–13

29–1

29–2

29–3

29–4

29–5

29–6

29–7

29–8
480 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Complete List of Recommendations in order 

of Appearance in the Report

Chapter 1: Recognizing Ocean Assets and Challenges

No recommendations.

Chapter 2: Understanding the Past to Shape a New National Ocean Policy

No recommendations.

Chapter 3: Setting the Nation’s Sights

No recommendations.

Chapter 4: Enhancing Ocean Leadership and Coordination

Recommendation 4–1

Congress should establish a National Ocean Council (NOC) within the Executive Office of 

the President, and a nonfederal President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy to provide

enhanced federal leadership and coordination for the ocean and coasts. While Congress

works to establish these components in law, the President should begin immediately to

implement an integrated national ocean policy by establishing the NOC and President’s

Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy through an executive order, and by designating an

Assistant to the President to chair the NOC.

Recommendation 4–2

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should provide high-level attention to ocean and coastal

issues, develop appropriate national policies, and coordinate their implementation by the

many federal departments and agencies with ocean and coastal responsibilities.

The NOC should be:

• chaired by an Assistant to the President.

• composed of cabinet secretaries of departments and directors of independent agencies

with appropriate ocean- and coastal-related responsibilities. Heads of other relevant

executive departments, agencies, commissions, quasi-official agencies and senior White

House officials should be invited to attend meetings of the NOC when appropriate. 

The NOC should carry out the following functions:

• develop broad principles (based on those outlined in Chapter 3) and national goals for governance of the nation’s oceans and coasts, and periodically review and revise these goals.

• make recommendations to the President on developing and carrying out national ocean

policy, including domestic implementation of international ocean agreements.

• coordinate and integrate activities of ocean-related federal agencies and provide 

incentives for meeting national goals.

• 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.

• guide the effective use of science in ocean policy and ensure the availability of data and

information for decision making at national and regional levels.

• develop and support partnerships among government agencies and nongovernmental

organizations, the private sector, academia, and the public.
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

• expand education and outreach efforts by federal ocean and coastal agencies.

• work with a broad range of nonfederal stakeholders, governmental and nongovernmental, to develop a broad, flexible, and voluntary process for the establishment of regional

ocean councils to help advance regional approaches.

• periodically assess the state of the nation’s oceans and coasts to measure the achievement

of national ocean goals.

Recommendation 4–3

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should adopt the principle of ecosystem-based management

and assist federal agencies in moving toward an ecosystem-based management approach. 

As part of this effort, the NOC should: 

• coordinate the development of procedures for the practical application of the precautionary approach and adaptive management.

• encourage agencies to incorporate preservation of marine biodiversity in their management programs and support further study of biodiversity.

Recommendation 4–4

The President should designate an Assistant to the President to provide leadership and 

support for national ocean and coastal policy.

The Assistant to the President should have the following responsibilities:

• chair the NOC.

• co-chair the President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy.

• lead NOC efforts to coordinate federal agency actions related to oceans and coasts.

• make recommendations for federal agency reorganization as needed to improve ocean

and coastal management.

• resolve interagency policy disputes on ocean and coastal issues.

• reach out to state, territorial, tribal, and local stakeholders and promote regional

approaches to ocean and coastal management.

• consult with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director and NOC members 

to identify programs that contribute significantly to the national policy for oceans and

coasts, advise OMB and the agencies on appropriate funding levels for ocean- and

coastal-related activities, and prepare the biennial reports mandated by section 5 of the

Oceans Act of 2000. 

Recommendation 4–5

The President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, a formal structure for input from 

nonfederal individuals and organizations, should advise the President on ocean and 

coastal policy matters. 

The President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy should be:

• composed of a representative selection of individuals appointed by the President, including

governors of coastal states and other appropriate state, territorial, tribal and local government representatives, plus individuals from the private sector, research and education

communities, nongovernmental organizations, watershed organizations, and other nonfederal bodies with ocean interests. 

• comprised of members knowledgeable about and experienced in ocean and coastal issues. 

• co-chaired by the chair of the National Ocean Council and a nonfederal member. 

481
482 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 4–6

Congress should establish an Office of Ocean Policy to support the Assistant to the President,

the National Ocean Council (NOC), and the President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy. 

To provide staff support immediately, the President should establish an Office of Ocean Policy

through the executive order creating the NOC and the President’s Council of Advisors on

Ocean Policy.

The Office of Ocean Policy should be:

• composed of a small staff that reports to the Assistant to the President. 

• managed by an executive director responsible for daily staff activities.

Recommendation 4–7

Congress, working with the National Ocean Council (NOC), should amend the National

Oceanographic Partnership Act to integrate ocean observing, operations, and education 

into its marine research mission. A strengthened and enhanced National Ocean Research

Leadership Council (NORLC) should be redesignated as the Committee on Ocean Science,

Education, Technology, and Operations (COSETO), under the oversight of the NOC.

In particular, amendments to the National Oceanographic Partnership Act should specify that

the newly-named COSETO:

• reports to the NOC.

• is chaired by the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to ensure 

appropriate links to government-wide science and technology policy and equity among

participating federal agencies.

• includes in its mandate coordination and planning of federal marine facilities and operations, federal oversight of the Integrated Ocean Observing System, and coordination of

ocean-related education efforts, in addition to its existing research responsibilities.

• includes existing NORLC members plus the director of the National Institute of

Environmental Health Sciences at the National Institutes of Health, the assistant secretary

for Natural Resources and Environment at the Department of Agriculture, and the undersecretary for science at the Smithsonian Institution.

• subsumes the current tasks of the National Science and Technology Council’s Joint

Subcommittee on Oceans. 

• is supported by the Office of Ocean Policy.

Recommendation 4–8

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should establish a Committee on Ocean Resource

Management to better integrate the resource management activities of ocean-related 

agencies. This committee should oversee and coordinate the work of existing ocean and

coastal interagency groups and less formal efforts, recommend the creation of new topical

task forces as needed, and coordinate with government-wide environmental and natural

resource efforts that have important ocean components.

The Committee on Ocean Resource Management should:

• be chaired by the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality to ensure appropriate links

to government-wide environmental policy and equity among participating federal agencies.

• include undersecretaries and assistant secretaries of departments and agencies that are

members of the NOC.

• report to the NOC.

• be supported by the Office of Ocean Policy.

Recommendation 4–9

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should review all existing ocean-related councils and commissions and make recommendations about their ongoing utility, reporting structure, and

connections to the NOC. 
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter 5: Advancing a Regional Approach

Recommendation 5–1

The National Ocean Council should work with Congress, the President’s Council of Advisors

on Ocean Policy, and state, territorial, tribal, and local leaders, including representatives from

the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and academia, to develop a flexible and

voluntary process for the creation of regional ocean councils. States, working with relevant

stakeholders, should use this process to establish regional ocean councils, with support from

the National Ocean Council. 

Recommendation 5–2

The President, through an executive order, should direct all federal agencies with ocean- and

coastal-related functions to immediately improve their regional coordination and increase

their outreach efforts to regional stakeholders.

To initiate this process, NOAA, EPA, USACE, DOI, and USDA should:

• collaborate with regional, state, territorial, tribal, and local governments, and nongovernmental parties to identify regional priorities and information needs. 

• identify inconsistencies in agency mandates, policies, regulations, practices, or funding

that prevent regional issues from being effectively addressed and communicate these to

the National Ocean Council.

• improve coordination and communication among agencies, including the possible 

development of interagency protocols to guide regional decision making.

• coordinate funding and grants in a manner consistent with regional priorities. 

Recommendation 5–3

The President should form a task force of federal resource management agencies to develop

a proposal for adoption and implementation of common federal regional boundaries. The

task force should solicit input from state, territorial, tribal, and local representatives. 

Recommendation 5–4

Pending the creation of a regional ocean council, the governors in each region should select 

a suitable entity to operate a regional ocean information program that carries out research,

data collection, information product development, and outreach based on the needs and 

priorities of ocean and coastal decision makers. 

The entity assigned to carry out the regional ocean information program should: 

• include representation from federal agencies, state, territorial, tribal, and local decision

makers, scientists, as well as experts in information exchange and outreach.

• communicate regional research and information priorities to federal agencies and others

with ocean and coastal responsibilities to help guide their programs. 

• maintain strong links with the regional ocean observing systems to help them fulfill

regional data collection requirements while adhering to national Integrated Ocean

Observing System requirements. 

Recommendation 5–5

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), working with other appropriate federal and regional entities, should

coordinate the development of regional ecosystem assessments, to be updated periodically. 

As part of this process, NOAA and EPA should:

• incorporate data and information developed at the state and local levels, including

resource assessments developed by state coastal management programs. 

• coordinate with the organization responsible for improving regional ocean information

collection and dissemination activities to make optimum use of regional information.

• collaborate closely with regional ocean councils. 

483
484 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 5–6

The Council on Environmental Quality should revise its National Environmental Policy Act

guidelines to state that environmental impact statements for proposed ocean- and coastalrelated activities should incorporate the regional ecosystem assessments called for in

Recommendation 5–5.

Chapter 6: Coordinating Management in Federal Waters

Recommendation 6–1

The National Ocean Council should ensure that each current and emerging activity in federal

waters is administered by a lead federal agency and make recommendations for Congressional

action where needed. The lead agency should coordinate with other applicable authorities

and should ensure full consideration of the public interest. 

Recommendation 6–2

Congress, working with the National Ocean Council (NOC) and regional ocean councils, should

establish a balanced, ecosystem-based offshore management regime that sets forth guiding

principles for the coordination of offshore activities, including a policy that requires a reasonable portion of the resource rent derived from such activities to be returned to the public.

In developing an offshore management regime, Congress, the NOC, and regional ocean councils should:

• adopt as guiding principles those set forth by the Commission.

• recognize the need, where appropriate, for comprehensive, single-purpose ocean governance structures, which would be based on the guiding principles of the new regime and

integrated with other uses.

• include a process for addressing new and emerging activities. 

Recommendation 6–3

The National Ocean Council should develop national goals and guidelines leading to a uniform

process for the effective design, implementation, and evaluation of marine protected areas. 

The process should include the following:

• marine protected area designations that are based on the best available science to

ensure that an area is appropriate for its intended purpose.

• periodic assessment, monitoring, and modification to ensure continuing ecological and

socioeconomic effectiveness of marine protected areas.

• design and implementation that consider issues of national importance, such as freedom

of navigation, and are conducted in the context of an ecosystem-based comprehensive

offshore management regime. 

Recommendation 6–4

To create effective and enforceable marine protected areas, regional ocean councils and

appropriate federal, regional, state, and local entities should work together on marine protected area design, implementation, and evaluation. Planners should follow the process developed by the National Ocean Council, actively soliciting stakeholder input and participation.
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter 7: Strengthening the Federal Agency Structure

Recommendation 7–1 

Congress should establish an organic act for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) that codifies its existence and mission. The act should ensure that

NOAA’s structure is consistent with the principles of ecosystem-based management and with

its three primary functions of: assessment, prediction, and operations; management; and

research and education. 

Specifically, NOAA’s structure should support its role in: 

• assessment, prediction, and operations for ocean, coastal, and atmospheric environments,

including mapping and charting, satellite-based and in situ data collection, implementation of the Integrated Ocean Observing System, broadly based data information systems,

and weather services and products.

• management of ocean and coastal areas and living and nonliving marine resources,

including fisheries, ocean and coastal areas, vulnerable species and habitats, and protection from pollution and invasive species.

• research and education on all aspects of marine resources, including a focus on the

importance of research and development, the use of scientifically valid technical data

throughout the agency and with external partners, and promotion of educational 

activities across the agency and with the public.

Recommendation 7–2

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), at the instruction of the President, should

review the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration budget within OMB’s Natural

Resources Programs, along with the budgets of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Energy,

and the Interior, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation,

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’

Directorate of Civil Works.

Recommendation 7–3

The Assistant to the President, with advice from the National Ocean Council and the

President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, should review federal ocean, coastal, and

atmospheric programs, and recommend opportunities for consolidation of similar functions.

Recommendation 7–4

Congress should authorize the President to propose structural reorganization of federal

departments and agencies, subject to Congressional approval. 

In particular, such legislation should:

• preclude Congress from amending the President’s proposal.

• require Congress to vote on the President’s proposal within a specified time period after

submission of the plan by the President. 

Recommendation 7–5

Following establishment of the National Ocean Council and the President’s Council of Advisors

on Ocean Policy, strengthening of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and

consolidation of similar federal ocean and coastal programs, the President should propose to

Congress a reorganization of the federal government that recognizes the links among all the

resources of the sea, land, and air, and establishes a structure for more unified, ecosystembased management of natural resources. 

485
486 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Chapter 8: Promoting Lifelong Ocean Education

Recommendation 8–1

Congress should amend the National Oceanographic Partnership Act to add a national ocean

education office (Ocean.ED) with responsibility for strengthening ocean-related education

and coordinating federal education efforts. 

In particular, Ocean.ED should:

• develop a national strategy for enhancing educational achievement in natural and social

sciences and increasing ocean awareness, including promotion of programs that transcend

the traditional mission boundaries of individual agencies. 

• develop a medium-term (five-year) national plan for ocean-related K–12 and informal

education, working with federal, state, and nongovernmental education entities.

• coordinate and integrate all federal ocean-related education activities and investments.

• establish links among federal efforts, state and local education authorities, informal 

education facilities and programs, institutions of higher learning, and private-sector 

education initiatives, and strengthen existing partnerships.

• report to the National Ocean Council’s Committee on Ocean Science, Education,

Technology, and Operations.

Recommendation 8–2

Congress should provide funding for Ocean.ED operations and program implementation as 

a line item in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) budget, to be

spent at the direction of the National Ocean Council (NOC). NOAA should develop a streamlined process for distributing Ocean.ED funds to other federal and nonfederal entities based

on the NOC-approved plan. 

Recommendation 8–3

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, Office

of Naval Research, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration should strengthen

their support of both formal and informal ocean-related education, including appropriate

evaluations of these efforts. 

In particular, these agencies should:

• develop, with assistance from Ocean.ED, a cooperative system of dedicated, sustained,

multi-agency funding for formal and informal ocean education. This funding should be

explicitly linked to the national ocean education plan. 

• provide support for development and implementation of ocean-related education materials and activities with a requirement that evaluation mechanisms be included as a component of every program.

Recommendation 8–4

Ocean.ED should develop a framework for evaluating the effectiveness of ocean-related education programs, ocean-based K–12 professional development programs, best practices for

incorporating ocean-based examples into K–12 education, and public education programs.

Recommendation 8–5 

The National Ocean Council (NOC), working with the National Science Foundation, should

place the Centers for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence (COSEE) within the NOC structure

as a program to be organized and overseen through Ocean.ED. The NOC should also work to

expand the COSEE program. 

Expansion of COSEE should include:

• tripling the number of regional centers to twenty-one, with each center receiving at least

$1.5 million a year for an initial five year period.
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

• expanding the reach of each center beyond its immediate participants.

• identifying models for successful partnerships between scientists and K–12 teachers.

• devising strategies to incorporate the expertise of university science education specialists. 

• implementing professional development programs for K–12 teachers and university

research professors. 

Recommendation 8–6

The National Sea Grant College Program should increase the proportion of its resources dedicated to ocean and coastal education. 

Recommendation 8–7

Ocean.ED, working with state and local education authorities and the research community,

should coordinate the development and adoption of ocean-related materials and examples

that meet existing education standards. 

Specifically, Ocean.ED should:

• assess existing ocean-based curricula offerings, highlighting exemplary materials that are

aligned with national standards.

• promote the creation of companion materials to the National Science Education Standards

that are based on ocean data and research findings (including social and economic fields). 

• disseminate ocean-based examples and assessment questions that link to the concept

standards in physical and life sciences, geography, history, and other topics and that

demonstrate the value of oceans in teaching fundamental concepts. 

• promote the development of case studies that stress the interconnected nature of the

ocean, land, and atmosphere. 

Recommendation 8–8 

Ocean.ED, working with academic institutions and local school districts, should help establish

more effective relationships between the research and education communities to expand

professional development opportunities for teachers and teacher educators. 

Specifically, Ocean.ED should:

• provide supplemental grants and other rewards to scientists who partner with teachers

and teacher educators to include educational components in their research projects. 

• establish a grants program for development and implementation of an enhanced core

curriculum in science content that incorporates ocean concepts for pre-service teachers.

Applicants should be required to demonstrate collaborations and partnerships among

education, science, mathematics, and engineering faculty. 

Recommendation 8–9

Ocean.ED should promote partnerships among government agencies, school districts, institutions of higher learning, aquariums, science centers, museums, and private marine laboratories to develop more opportunities for students to explore the marine environment, both

through virtual means and hands-on field, laboratory, and at-sea experiences. 

Ocean.ED should ensure that programs for students:

• include a broad range of options, from in-school modules, to accessible after-school 

activities, daylong field trips, and summer programs. 

• acknowledge cultural differences and other aspects of human diversity to expose 

students and teachers from all cultures and backgrounds to ocean issues. 

487
488 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 8–10

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, and

Office of Naval Research should support colleges and universities in promoting introductory

ocean and coastal science and engineering courses to expose a wider cross-section of students,

including non-science majors, to these subjects. 

These agencies should support this effort by:

• providing small grants to assist in course development, equipment purchases, faculty 

support, and field experiences. 

• fostering collaborations between institutions with graduate ocean programs and others

with a primarily undergraduate population.

Recommendation 8–11

Ocean.ED should guide and promote the development of the nation’s ocean-related workforce.

In particular, Ocean.ED should:

• promote student support, diversified educational opportunities, and investment in innovative approaches to graduate education that prepare students for a broad range of careers. 

• encourage, with targeted federal support, graduate departments of ocean sciences and

engineering to experiment with new or redesigned programs that emphasize crossdisciplinary courses of study.

• set targets for federal stipends for ocean-related education to be competitive with other

disciplines. 

Recommendation 8–12

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Department of Labor

should establish a national ocean workforce database and compile an annual report for the

National Ocean Council on trends in ocean-related human resource development and needs.

This effort should include an information clearinghouse to facilitate career decisions, provide

access to career guidance, and enable employers, guidance counselors, and others to develop

effective strategies to attract students to ocean-related careers. Ocean.ED should organize an

ocean workforce summit every five years to address the alignment of ocean education with

workforce needs. 

Recommendation 8–13

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should establish a national

ocean education and training program, patterned after the National Institutes of Health

model, within its Office of Education and Sustainable Development to provide diverse and

innovative ocean-related education opportunities at the undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral levels. 

Specifically, NOAA should:

• offer students at the undergraduate level experiential learning opportunities in a range

of marine fields through summer internships or similar mechanisms.

• support fellowships and traineeships at the graduate and postdoctoral levels that emphasize interdisciplinary approaches and real-world experiences outside the university setting,

especially in areas critical to the agency’s mission.

• support professorships in fields of particular interest to NOAA.

Recommendation 8–14

The National Science Foundation’s Directorates for Geosciences, Biological Sciences, and

Education and Human Resources should develop cooperative programs to provide diverse,

multidisciplinary educational opportunities at the undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral

levels in a range of ocean-related fields. 
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 8–15

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) should reinvigorate its support of graduate education in

ocean sciences and engineering. This could be accomplished, in part, by increasing the number of ocean-related awards made under ONR’s National Defense Science and Engineering

Graduate Fellowship Program.

Recommendation 8–16

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, Office of

Naval Research, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration should encourage increased

participation of traditionally underrepresented and underserved groups in the ocean-related

workforce. Ocean.ED should coordinate among these agencies and institutions of higher learning. 

Specifically, Ocean.ED should:

• ensure that the appropriate mix of programs and opportunities exists to provide underrepresented and underserved groups ample access to and support for pursuing oceanrelated graduate education, including opportunities at Minority Serving Institutions and

other universities and oceanographic institutions.

• ensure that programs are established through a competitive process and evaluated for

performance on an annual basis. 

Recommendation 8–17

Ocean.ED, working with other appropriate entities, should promote existing mechanisms and

establish new approaches for developing and delivering relevant, accessible information and

outreach programs that enhance community education. 

In particular, Ocean.ED should:

• work with ocean-related informal education initiatives to better engage underrepresented and underserved populations and communities by using mechanisms, materials,

and language familiar to and accepted by them. 

• work with informal education facilities to develop the capacity to quickly prepare and

deliver new science-based materials and programs to the public and the media to capture

immediate interest in noteworthy advances in ocean science.

• engage industry, the commercial sector, and the media in community education and

stewardship programs.

Chapter 9: Managing Coasts and their Watersheds

Recommendation 9–1

Congress should reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to strengthen the

planning and coordination capabilities of coastal states and enable them to incorporate a

coastal watershed focus and more effectively manage growth. Amendments should include

requirements for resource assessments, the development of measurable goals and performance measures, improved program evaluations, incentives for good performance and disincentives for inaction, and expanded boundaries that include coastal watersheds. 

Specifically, CZMA amendments should address the following issues:

• resource assessments—State coastal management programs should provide for comprehensive periodic assessments of the state’s natural, cultural, and economic coastal

resources. These assessments will be critical in the development of broader regional

ecosystem assessments, as recommended in Chapter 5.

• goals—State coastal management programs should develop measurable goals based on

coastal resource assessments that are consistent with national and regional goals. State

coastal programs should work with local governments, watershed groups, nongovernmental organizations, and other regional entities, including regional ocean councils, to

develop these goals. 

489
490 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

• performance measures—State coastal management programs should develop performance

measures to monitor their progress toward achieving national, regional, and state goals. 

• evaluations—State coastal management programs should continue to undergo periodic

performance evaluations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In

addition to the existing evaluation criteria, the performance measures developed by

state programs should also be reviewed. The public, representatives of watershed

groups, and applicable federal program representatives should participate in these program evaluations.

• incentives—Existing incentives for state participation—federal funding and federal consistency authority—should remain, but a substantial portion of the federal funding received

by each state should be based on performance. Incentives should be offered to reward

exceptional accomplishments, and disincentives should be applied to state coastal management programs that are not making satisfactory progress in achieving program goals.

• boundaries—Coastal states should extend the landward side of their coastal zone

boundaries to encompass coastal watersheds. Mechanisms should also be established 

for coordinating with watershed management groups outside of a state’s designated

coastal zone boundary. 

Recommendation 9–2

Congress should consolidate area-based coastal management programs in a strengthened

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), capitalizing on the strengths of

each program. At a minimum, this should include bringing together the Coastal Zone

Management and National Marine Sanctuary programs and the National Estuarine Research

Reserve System, currently administered by NOAA, and additional coastal programs administered by other agencies, including the National Estuary Program, the John H. Chafee Coastal

Barrier Resources System, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program.

Recommendation 9–3

The National Ocean Council should recommend changes to federal funding and infrastructure

programs to discourage inappropriate growth in fragile or hazard-prone coastal areas and

ensure consistency with national, regional, and state goals aimed at achieving economically

and environmentally sustainable development. 

Recommendation 9–4

Congress should amend the Coastal Zone Management Act, Clean Water Act, and other federal laws, where appropriate, to provide better financial, technical, and institutional support

for watershed management initiatives. The National Ocean Council and regional ocean councils should enhance support for coastal watershed initiatives by coordinating agency programs,

technical assistance, and funding and by overseeing development of an accessible clearinghouse of information on watershed best management practices.

Chapter 10: Guarding People and Property against Natural Hazards

Recommendation 10–1 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Program, with guidance from the National

Ocean Council, should ensure valid, peer-reviewed cost-benefit analyses of coastal projects,

provide greater transparency to the public, enforce requirements for mitigating the impacts

of coastal projects, and coordinate such projects with broader coastal planning efforts.
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 10–2

The National Ocean Council should establish a task force of appropriate federal agencies and

state and local governments, with the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the lead,

to improve the collection and use of hazards-related data.

Under the oversight of the NOC’s Committee on Ocean Resource Management, the hazardsrelated data task force should develop a coordinated effort that includes the following 

functions:

• systematic collection, storage, analysis, and dissemination of data on post-disaster losses

and the cost of mitigation efforts.

• development and transmittal to communities of the information and tools they need to

understand the risks of hazards to their residents and their social, physical, economic, and

environmental infrastructures.

• cooperation with the Federal Geographic Data Committee and state and local governments to achieve comprehensive, digitized, georeferenced mapping and identification of

all natural hazards.

• development of adequate funding proposals for the National Flood Insurance Program

map modernization initiative, including a high-priority effort to update maps for highrisk coastal communities.

Recommendation 10–3

The National Ocean Council should recommend changes in the National Flood Insurance

Program (NFIP) to reduce incentives for development in high-hazard areas.

Specifically, NFIP changes should:

• establish clear disincentives to building or rebuilding in coastal high-hazard zones by

requiring property owners at risk of erosion to pay actuarially sound rates for insurance.

• enforce measures that reduce vulnerability to natural hazards, including assistance in

retrofitting older structures and buyout programs for susceptible structures with repetitive-loss histories.

• create enforceable mechanisms to direct development away from undeveloped floodplains and erosion zones. 

Recommendation 10–4

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) should enhance technical assistance to

state and local governments for developing or improving their hazard mitigation plans. The

National Ocean Council should identify opportunities for conditioning federal hazardsrelated financial and infrastructure support on completion of FEMA-approved state and local

hazards mitigation plans.

Chapter 11: Conserving and Restoring Coastal Habitat

Recommendation 11–1

Congress should amend the Coastal Zone Management Act to create a dedicated funding

program for coastal and estuarine land conservation. In addition, a larger share of U.S.

Department of Agriculture and other federal agency conservation programs should be

directed to coastal and estuarine lands. To guide these programs, each state should identify

priority coastal habitats and develop a plan for establishing partnerships among willing

landowners for conservation purposes, with participation from federal agency, local government, nongovernmental, and private-sector partners. 

491
492 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 11–2

The regional ocean councils, working with state coastal management programs and other

governmental and nongovernmental entities, should assess regional needs and set goals and

priorities for ocean and coastal habitat conservation and restoration efforts that are consistent with state and local goals. The National Ocean Council should develop national goals

that are consistent with regional, state, and local goals, and should ensure coordination

among all related federal activities.

Recommendation 11–3

The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should enhance their restoration science, monitoring, and assessment activities. Congress should amend relevant legislation to allow greater discretion in using a portion of federal habitat conservation and

restoration funds for related research, monitoring, and assessments.

Recommendation 11–4

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should complete, digitize, and periodically update the

National Wetlands Inventory. 

Recommendation 11–5

The National Ocean Council should coordinate development of a comprehensive wetlands

protection framework that is linked to coastal habitat and watershed management efforts,

and should make specific recommendations for the integration of the Clean Water Act

Section 404 wetlands permitting process into that broader management approach.

Chapter 12: Managing Sediment and Shorelines

Recommendation 12–1

The National Ocean Council should develop a national strategy for managing sediment on a

regional basis. The strategy should incorporate ecosystem-based principles, balancing ecological

and economic considerations.

In addition, the strategy should: 

• acknowledge adverse impacts on marine environments due to urban development, 

agriculture, dams, dredging, pollutant discharges, and other activities that affect 

sediment flows or quality. 

• ensure involvement of port managers, coastal planners, land use planners, and other

stakeholders in watershed planning. 

• emphasize watershed management as a tool to address upstream land uses that affect

sediment input to rivers and coastal waters.

Recommendation 12–2

Congress should direct the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to adopt regional and

ecosystem-based management approaches in carrying out all of its sediment-related civil

works missions and should modify USACE authorities and processes as necessary to achieve

this goal. 

Recommendation 12–3

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should ensure that its selection of the least-cost disposal

option for dredging projects reflects a more accurate accounting of the full range of economic, environmental, and other relevant costs and benefits for options that reuse dredged

material, as well as for other disposal methods.
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 12–4

The National Dredging Team should ensure vigorous and sustained implementation of the

recommendations contained in its Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the

Next Decade, moving toward more ecosystem-based approaches. Regional dredging teams,

working with regional ocean councils, should establish sediment management programs that

expand beyond single watersheds to larger regional ecosystems.

Recommendation 12–5

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, working with U.S. Department of the Interior agencies, the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, in consultation with state and local governments, should develop and implement a

strategy for improved assessments, monitoring, research, and technology development to

enhance sediment management. 

Recommendation 12–6

Congress should modify its current authorization and funding processes to require the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), or an appropriate third party, to monitor outcomes from

past USACE projects and assess the cumulative, regional impacts of USACE activities within

coastal watersheds and ecosystems. Such assessments should be peer-reviewed consistent

with recommendations from the National Research Council.

Recommendation 12–7

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working with other appropriate entities, including

state and local governments, should build upon EPA’s 2002 draft contaminated sediments 

science plan to develop and conduct coordinated strategies for assessment, monitoring, and

research to better understand how contaminated sediment is created and transported. The

strategies should also develop technologies for better prevention, safer dredging or onsite

treatment, and more effective post-recovery treatment of contaminated dredged material. 

Chapter 13: Supporting Marine Commerce and Transportation

Recommendation 13–1

Congress should designate the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as the lead federal

agency for planning and oversight of the marine transportation system and DOT should 

submit regular reports to Congress on the condition and future needs of the system. The

National Ocean Council should identify overlapping functions in other federal agencies and

make recommendations concerning the advisability of transferring those functions to DOT. 

Recommendation 13–2

Congress should codify the Interagency Committee for the Marine Transportation System and

place it under the oversight of the National Ocean Council (NOC). 

Under the oversight of the NOC’s Committee on Ocean Resource Management, the Interagency

Committee for the Marine Transportation System should:

• be chaired by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

• improve coordination among all participants in the U.S. marine transportation system.

• promote the integration of marine transportation with other modes of transportation

and with other ocean and coastal uses and activities. 

• recommend strategies and plans for: better informing the public of the importance of

marine commerce and transportation; devising alternate funding scenarios to meet

short- and long-term demands on the marine transportation system; matching federal

revenues derived from marine transportation with funding needs to maintain and

improve the system; and delineating short- and long-term priorities.

493
494 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 13–3

The U.S. Department of Transportation should draft a new national freight transportation

strategy to support continued growth of the nation’s economy and international and domestic

trade. This strategy should improve the links between the marine transportation system and

other components of the transportation infrastructure, including highways, railways, and airports. Based on the new strategy, investments of national transportation funds should be

directed toward planning and implementation of intermodal projects of national significance.

Recommendation 13–4

The U.S. Department of Transportation should conduct a thorough analysis and assessment of

the potential societal and economic benefits of increased short sea shipping. 

Recommendation 13–5

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), working with other appropriate entities,

should establish a national data collection, research, and analysis program to provide a comprehensive picture of freight flows in the United States and to enhance the performance of

the nation’s intermodal transportation system. DOT should periodically assess and prioritize

the nation’s future needs for ports and intermodal transportation capacity to fulfill the needs

of the nation’s expected future growth in marine commerce.

The freight information collection program should include: 

• economic models that project trade and traffic growth and determine the impacts of

growth on U.S. ports and waterways and the inland infrastructures connected to them.

• models and guides to identify bottlenecks and capacity shortfalls.

• consistent, nationally accepted definitions and protocols for measuring capacity.

• innovative trade and transportation data collection technology and research to fill critical

data gaps. 

• assessment of the social and economic ramifications of marine transportation investments

as compared to other transportation investments.

Recommendation 13–6

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) should incorporate emergency preparedness

requirements in developing a national freight transportation strategy. Because this will

require input from many agencies and stakeholders, DOT should work closely with the 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ports, and

marine industries. 

Emergency preparedness planning should focus on: 

• prevention of threats to national security and port operations.

• response and recovery practices, including assessments of available resources such as 

salvage and harbor clearance capacity and alternative port capacity.

• technological requirements for security screening, cargo movement and tracking, and

traffic management.

• research and development needs related to innovative technologies that can minimize

interruptions and security risks to port operations.

• identification of resources needed to implement prevention, response and recovery

strategies for the nation’s ports.
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter 14: Addressing Coastal Water Pollution

Recommendation 14–1

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), working with states, should require

advanced nutrient removal for wastewater treatment plant discharges that contribute to

degradation of nutrient-impaired waters as needed to attain water quality standards. EPA

should also determine the extent of the impact of chemicals in wastewater from residential

and industrial sources, including pharmaceuticals. 

In particular, EPA should:

• support research and demonstration projects for biological nutrient removal and other

innovative advanced treatment processes to eliminate nitrogen and phosphorus from

wastewater discharges.

• ensure that information about innovative advanced treatment processes and technologies is widely disseminated.

• support development of technologies to reduce concentrations of pharmaceuticals, 

personal care product ingredients, and other biologically active contaminants in wastewater treatment plant discharges.

Recommendation 14–2

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), working with states, should increase technical and financial assistance to help communities improve the permitting, design, installation,

operation, and maintenance of septic systems and other on-site treatment facilities. State and

local governments, with assistance from EPA, should adopt and enforce more effective building codes and zoning ordinances for septic systems and should improve public education

about the benefits of regular maintenance. 

Recommendation 14–3

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) should support research on the removal of nutrients from animal wastes that may

pollute water bodies and on the impact of pharmaceuticals and other contaminants on water

quality. EPA and USDA should also develop improved best management practices that retain

nutrients and pathogens from animal waste on agricultural lands. Where necessary to meet

water quality standards, states should issue regulatory controls on concentrated animal feeding operations in addition to those required by EPA. 

Recommendation 14–4

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), working with state and local governments

and other stakeholders, should develop and periodically review a comprehensive long-term

plan to maintain and upgrade the nation’s aging and inadequate wastewater and drinking

water infrastructure, anticipating demands for increased capacity to serve growing populations, correction of sewer overflows, and more stringent treatment in the coming decades. To

implement this plan, Congress should significantly increase the Clean Water and Drinking

Water State Revolving Funds.

Recommendation 14–5

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working with states, should experiment with tradable credits for nutrients and sediment as a water pollution management tool and evaluate

the ongoing effectiveness of such programs in reducing water pollution.

Recommendation 14–6

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working with states, should modernize the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System’s monitoring and information management system and

strengthen the program’s enforcement to achieve greater compliance with permits.

495
496 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 14–7

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) should align its conservation programs and funding with other programs aimed at reducing nonpoint source pollution, such as those of the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

In particular, USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service should:

• require that its state conservationists coordinate with representatives of federal and

state water quality agencies and state coastal management agencies, and participate in

watershed and coastal management planning processes, to ensure that funding for agricultural conservation programs complements and advances other federal and state management programs.

• provide enhanced technical assistance in the field to better support growing agricultural

conservation programs.

Recommendation 14–8

The National Ocean Council (NOC), working with states, should establish reduction of nonpoint source pollution in coastal watersheds as a national goal, with a particular focus on

impaired watersheds. The NOC should then set specific, measurable objectives to meet

human health- and ecosystem-based water quality standards. The NOC should ensure that 

all federal nonpoint source pollution programs are coordinated to attain those objectives. 

Recommendation 14–9

The National Ocean Council should strengthen efforts to address nonpoint source pollution

by evaluating the nonpoint source pollution control programs established under Section 6217

of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments and under Section 319 of the Clean

Water Act and making recommendations to Congress for improvements to these programs,

including their possible consolidation. 

Improvements to the programs should:

• require enforceable best management practices and other management measures

throughout the United States, with increased federal support for states to develop and

implement those practices and measures. 

• eliminate counterproductive financial disincentives. 

• enhance cooperation and coordination between federal and state water quality and

coastal management agencies. 

Recommendation 14–10

To ensure protection of coastal resources nationwide, Congress should provide authority

under the Clean Water Act and other applicable laws for federal agencies to establish

enforceable management measures for nonpoint sources of pollution and impose financial

disincentives related to programs that result in water quality degradation if a state persistently fails to make meaningful progress toward meeting water quality standards on its own. 

Recommendation 14–11

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

and other appropriate entities should increase assistance and outreach to provide decision

makers with the knowledge and tools needed to make sound land use decisions that protect

coastal water quality. State and local governments should adopt or revise existing codes and

ordinances to require land use planning and decision making to carefully consider the individual and cumulative impacts of development on water quality, including effects on

stormwater runoff.
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 14–12

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), working with state and local governments,

should strengthen implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Phase I and II stormwater programs. 

Improvements should include: 

• local codes or ordinances that are designed to achieve the management goals for a 

particular watershed and require use of EPA-approved best management practices. 

• monitoring to determine whether goals and state water quality standards are being met

and to identify ongoing problems.

• an adaptive management approach to ensure that efforts are effective and that best

management practices are modified as needed.

• improved public education.

• increased enforcement of legal requirements and personnel sufficient to implement

stormwater management programs.

Recommendation 14–13

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working with states, should develop and implement national and regional strategies to reduce the sources and impacts of atmospheric deposition to water bodies, building upon plans such as the EPA Air-Water Interface Work Plan. 

Recommendation 14–14

The United States should work with other nations to develop and implement international

solutions to better address the sources and impacts of transboundary atmospheric deposition,

and to initiate needed research programs. 

Chapter 15: Creating a National Monitoring Network

Recommendation 15–1

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, working with states and other appropriate entities,

should develop a national monitoring network that coordinates and expands existing

efforts, including monitoring of atmospheric deposition. The network should be built on 

a federally funded backbone of critical stations and measurements to assess long-term

trends and conditions, with additional stations or measurements as needed to address

regional characteristics or problems. 

Recommendation 15–2

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should ensure that the national monitoring network includes adequate coverage in both coastal areas and the upland areas that

affect them, and that the network is linked to the Integrated Ocean Observing System, to be

incorporated eventually into a comprehensive Earth observing system.

Recommendation 15–3

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, working with states and other appropriate entities, should

ensure that the national monitoring network has clear goals, specifies core variables and an

appropriate sampling framework, and is periodically reviewed and updated. These agencies

should also work with the regional ocean information programs to determine regional and

local information needs. 

Specifically, the national monitoring network should include the following elements:

• clearly defined goals that fulfill user needs and provide measures of management success.

• a core set of variables to be measured at all sites, with regional flexibility to measure

additional variables where needed.

497
498 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

• an overall system design that determines where, how, and when to monitor and includes

a mix of time and space scales, probabilistic and fixed stations, and stressor- and effectsoriented measurements.

• technical coordination that establishes standard procedures and techniques.

• periodic review of the monitoring network, with modifications as necessary to ensure

that useful goals are being met in a cost-effective way.

Chapter 16: Limiting Vessel Pollution and Improving Vessel Safety

Recommendation 16–1

The U.S. Coast Guard should encourage industry partners engaged in vessel management to

develop stronger voluntary measures, particularly those that reward crew member contributions, as part of a continuing, long-term effort to build a culture of safety, security, and environmental compliance in routine vessel operations. 

Recommendation 16–2

The U.S. Coast Guard should carry out sustained and strengthened performance-based inspections as a key component of vigorous enforcement of marine safety and environmental protection laws. Coast Guard activities in these areas should be coordinated with new demands

for vessel security inspections and other security requirements.

Recommendation 16–3

The United States should work with other nations to accelerate efforts at the International

Maritime Organization to enhance flag state oversight and enforcement. 

These efforts should include implementation of:

• a code outlining flag state responsibilities and obligations.

• a voluntary audit regime, to be followed by adoption of a mandatory external audit

regime for evaluating flag state performance.

• measures to ensure that responsible organizations, acting on behalf of flag states, meet

established performance standards.

• increased technical assistance, where appropriate, for flag states that participate in selfassessments and audits. 

Recommendation 16–4

The U.S. Coast Guard, working with other nations, should establish a permanent mechanism to

strengthen and harmonize port state control programs under the auspices of the International

Maritime Organization. To assist port states, the Coast Guard should also support efforts to

enhance an international vessel information database. 

Recommendation 16–5

Congress should establish a new statutory regime for managing wastewater discharges from

large passenger vessels that applies throughout the United States.

This regime should include: 

• uniform discharge standards and waste management procedures. 

• thorough recordkeeping requirements to track the waste management process.

• required sampling, testing, and monitoring by vessel operators using uniform protocols.

• flexibility and incentives to encourage industry investment in innovative treatment 

technologies.
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 16–6

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should revise the Clean Water Act marine sanitation device (MSD) regulations to require that new MSDs meet significantly more stringent

pathogen standards. Manufacturers should be required to warranty that new MSDs will meet

these standards for a specific time period.

Recommendation 16–7

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should conduct a thorough assessment,

including field inspections, to verify the availability and accessibility of functioning pumpout

facilities in existing no-discharge zones and prior to the approval of any new no-discharge

zones. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA, working with states, should coordinate

their efforts to increase the availability of adequate, accessible, and operational pumpout

facilities, particularly in no discharge zones. 

Recommendation 16–8

The United States should ratify MARPOL Annex VI and work for International Maritime

Organization (IMO) adoption of even stricter air emission standards that reflect advances in

marine engine technology, availability of cleaner fuels, and improved operational practices.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working with other appropriate entities, should

use Annex VI criteria and guidelines to evaluate U.S. ocean and coastal areas with impaired air

quality, and seek IMO designation of appropriate areas as Sulfur Oxide Emission Control Areas.

Recommendation 16–9

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working with other appropriate entities, should

investigate and implement incentive-based measures that could lead to measurable voluntary

reductions in vessel air emissions. 

Recommendation 16–10

The U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, and Minerals Management Service, in consultation with states, should conduct a riskbased analysis of all oil transportation systems that identifies and prioritizes sources of greatest risk. Based on that analysis, the agencies should develop a comprehensive, long-term plan

for action to reduce overall spill risks and the threat of significant spills. 

Recommendation 16–11

The U.S. Coast Guard, working with the spill response and marine salvage communities,

should develop comprehensive policy guidance and contingency plans for places of refuge in

the United States. The plans should clearly delineate decision-making authorities and responsibilities and provide for coordinated and timely assessments and responses to vessels seeking

a place of refuge. 

Recommendation 16–12

The National Ocean Council should coordinate federal agency efforts to reduce the release 

of air and oil pollutants from small vessel operations through a combination of outreach and

education, development of incentives to encourage early replacement of older two-stroke

engines, and support for innovative pilot programs at the federal, state, and local levels. 

Recommendation 16–13

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

U.S. Coast Guard, and other appropriate entities should support a vigorous, coordinated

research program on the fates and impacts of vessel pollution. Research results should be

used to guide management priorities, develop new control technologies, determine best

management practices, and create more effective regulatory regimes as needed.

499
500 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 16–14

In developing and implementing maritime domain awareness initiatives, the U.S. Coast Guard

should work with the National Ocean Council to ensure that, in addition to their other intended

purposes, these initiatives provide effective support for ocean and coastal management needs.

Chapter 17: Preventing the Spread of Invasive Species

Recommendation 17–1

The U.S. Coast Guard’s national ballast water management program should include a number

of important elements: uniform, mandatory national standards which incorporate sound science in the development of biologically meaningful and enforceable ballast water treatment;

a process for revising the standard to incorporate new technologies; full consultation with

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, both during and after the program’s development;

and an interagency review, through the National Ocean Council, of the policy for ships that

declare they have no ballast on board.

Recommendation 17–2

The National Ocean Council should commission a credible, independent, scientific review of

existing U.S. ballast water management research and demonstration programs and make 

recommendations for improvements. 

The review should consider the following issues:

• how federally funded research and demonstration programs can best promote technology development, support on-board ship testing, and move technologies from research

to commercial use. 

• what the best role is for industry and how industry can be engaged in onboard testing of

experimental ballast water management technologies. 

• what kind of peer review process is needed for scientific oversight of technology development, selection of demonstration projects, and testing of experimental treatment systems.

• what is an adequate funding level for a successful ballast water research and demonstration program.

Recommendation 17–3

The U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, the Interior, and Homeland Security should

more actively employ existing legal authorities to prohibit imports of known or potentially

invasive species. The National Ocean Council should recommend any changes to such legal

authorities that might result in more effective prevention efforts. 

Recommendation 17–4

The National Ocean Council, working with the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the

National Invasive Species Council, should coordinate public education and outreach efforts on

aquatic invasive species, with the aim of increasing public awareness about the importance of

prevention. 

The education and outreach effort should be pursued on several fronts:

• connect local, regional, and national outreach and education efforts, including recommendations from the U.S. Invasive Species Management Plan and programs initiated by

industries that deal with non-native species. 

• provide the public, importers and sellers, pet store and restaurant owners, divers, and

others with information about the harm caused by invasive species and safer methods of

shipping, owning, and disposing of non-native species. 

• require the aquaculture, horticulture, pet, and aquarium industries to clearly inform 

customers of the potential hazards of releasing non-native species.
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 17–5

The National Invasive Species Council and the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, working

with other appropriate entities, should establish and implement a national plan for early

detection of invasive species and a well-publicized system for prompt notification and rapid

response. 

The plan should: 

• provide risk assessments for potentially invasive species, including possible pathways of

introduction.

• conduct a comprehensive national biological survey and monitoring program for early

detection, building upon recent progress in this area by academia, the U.S. Geological

Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.

• determine the threshold needed to trigger a rapid response and develop environmentally

sound rapid-response, eradication, and control actions.

• designate resources for implementing surveys and eradication programs.

• develop partnerships among government and industry to fund and implement response

actions.

Recommendation 17–6

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should review and streamline the current proliferation 

of programs for managing aquatic invasive species in marine environments, and should 

coordinate federal, regional, and state efforts. Consolidated plans should be implemented 

to develop risk assessment and management approaches for intentional and unintentional

species introductions that minimize the potential of invasions at the lowest cost. 

Specifically, the NOC should:

• review the effectiveness of existing programs and legal authorities and clarify the lines 

of responsibility and enforcement authority, including responsibility for intentional 

introductions of non-native species.

• develop long-term goals and measures for evaluating effective performance. 

• estimate funding needs to prevent the introduction of invasive species, including support

for regional and state programs. 

• determine whether, in the long term, a single agency should be charged with preventing

the entry of, monitoring, and containing invasive species in coastal and marine waters.

Recommendation 17–7

The United States should take a leading role in the global effort to control the spread of

aquatic invasive species by working internationally to develop treaties, agreements, and 

policies to minimize the introduction and establishment of such species.

Recommendation 17–8

The National Ocean Council should coordinate the development and implementation of an

interagency plan for research and monitoring to understand and prevent the spread of

aquatic invasive species. The results should be used to improve management decisions and

avoid future economic losses. 

New research and monitoring efforts should focus on: 

• gathering baseline taxonomic information and strengthening taxonomic skills; performing quantitative assessments of ecosystems; identifying invasive pathogens and vectors of

introduction; and determining how invasive species disrupt ecosystem functions. 

• understanding the human dimensions behind species introductions, including human

behavior, decision making, and economics.

• developing new options for minimizing invasions, including innovative technologies, and

translating these findings into practical policy options for decision makers.

501
502 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Chapter 18: Reducing Marine Debris

Recommendation 18–1

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should establish a marine debris 

management program that expands on and complements the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency’s program in this area. The NOAA program should be closely coordinated with EPA’s

activities, as well as with the significant efforts conducted by private citizens, state, local, and

nongovernmental organizations.

Recommendation 18–2

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency should coordinate and implement expanded marine debris control efforts, including:

enforcement of existing laws; public outreach and education; partnerships with local governments, community groups, and industry; monitoring and identification; and research.

Recommendation 18–3

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should re-establish an interagency marine debris committee,

co-chaired by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, and placed under the oversight of the NOC’s Committee on Ocean

Resource Management. 

Recommendation 18–4

The U.S. Department of State and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, working with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and other appropriate entities, should develop a detailed plan of action to address derelict fishing gear around the

world, to be implemented within large multi-national regions.

Recommendation 18–5

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should work with all interested parties, governmental and private, to implement incentives or other effective programs for prevention, removal, and safe disposal of derelict fishing gear. 

Recommendation 18–6

The U.S. Department of State should increase efforts internationally to ensure that there are

adequate port reception facilities available for disposal of garbage from ships, particularly in

Special Areas designated under Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention

of Pollution from Ships.

Chapter 19: Achieving Sustainable Fisheries

Recommendation 19–1

Congress should amend the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

(MSFCMA) and related statutes to require Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs)

and interstate fisheries commissions to rely on their Scientific and Statistical Committees

(SSCs), incorporating SSC findings and advice into the decision-making process. In keeping

with this stronger role, SSC members should meet more stringent scientific and conflict of

interest requirements, and receive compensation.

To ensure a strengthened SSC, MSFCMA amendments should require the following:

• Each RFMC should nominate candidates for service on its SSC. Nominees should be scientists with strong technical credentials and experience, selected from federal, state, or

tribal governments or academia. Private sector scientists who are technically qualified

may also be nominated if they meet the conflict of interest requirements, although the

SSC should not be constituted as a representational body.
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

• the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should evaluate the qualifications and potential conflicts of interest of SSC nominees through an independent

review process designed by a credible, scientific organization. Ultimately, SSC appointments

should be approved by the NOAA Administrator. 

• SSC members should serve for fixed terms to allow for rotation and addition of new

members over time.

• like RFMC members, participants in the SSC (or their home institutions) should be 

compensated for time spent on RFMC business.

Recommendation 19–2

Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs) should supply Regional Fishery Management

Councils with the scientific advice necessary to make fishery management decisions. Such

information could include reports on stock status and health, socioeconomic impacts of management measures, sustainability of fishing practices, and habitat status. In particular, the SSCs

should determine allowable biological catch based on the best scientific information available.

Recommendation 19–3

Each Regional Fishery Management Council (RFMC) should set harvest limits at or below the

allowable biological catch determined by its Scientific and Statistical Committee. The RFMCs

should begin immediately to follow this practice, which should be codified by Congress in

amendments to the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Recommendation 19–4

The National Marine Fisheries Service, working with the Regional Fishery Management

Councils and the interstate fisheries commissions, should develop a process for independent

review of the scientific information relied on by Scientific and Statistical Committees.

The process should include three distinct procedures:

• a standard annual review by regional scientists to certify that the correct data and 

models are being used.

• an enhanced review to evaluate the models and assessment procedures. To ensure that

these reviews are independent, a significant proportion of the reviewers should come

from outside the region and be selected by a group such as the Center for Independent

Experts. These types of reviews should be conducted on a three- to five-year cycle, or as

needed, to help ensure that the latest methods and approaches are being used.

• an expedited review to be used when results are extremely controversial or when the

normal review process would be too slow. In these cases, all reviewers should be selected

by a group such as the Center for Independent Experts.

Recommendation 19–5

Each Regional Fishery Management Council should set a deadline for its Scientific and

Statistical Committee (SSC) to determine allowable biological catch. If the SSC does not meet

that deadline, the National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Science Director should set the

allowable biological catch for that fishery.

Recommendation 19–6

Once allowable biological catch is determined, whether by the Scientific and Statistical

Committee or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Regional Science Director, the

Regional Fishery Management Council should propose a fishery management plan in time 

for adequate review and approval by NMFS. If the plan is not in place in a timely fashion,

NMFS should suspend all fishing on that stock until it is able to review the adequacy of the

management plan. 

503
504 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 19–7

The Regional Fishery Management Councils and their Scientific and Statistical Committees

should develop an annual, prioritized list of management information needs and provide it

to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS should incorporate these needs to the

maximum extent possible in designing its research, analysis, and data collection programs. 

Recommendation 19–8

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), working with states and interstate fisheries

commissions, should require that all saltwater anglers obtain licenses to improve in-season

data collection on recreational fishing. NMFS should review existing saltwater angler licensing programs to determine which approaches best facilitate the collection of data. Based on

this review, existing programs should be modified as needed and used wherever possible,

developing new programs only if necessary. Priority should be given to fisheries in which

recreational fishing is responsible for a large part of the catch, or in which recreational fishermen regularly exceed their allocated quota. 

Recommendation 19–9

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should create an expanded,

regionally-based cooperative research program that coordinates and funds collaborative

projects between scientists and commercial, tribal, and recreational fishermen. NOAA should

develop a process for external evaluation and ranking of all cooperative research proposals

to ensure the most worthwhile projects are funded, the most capable performers are undertaking the research, and the information produced is both scientifically credible and useful

to managers. 

Recommendation 19–10

Congress should develop new statutory authority, similar to the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries

Cooperative Management Act, to support and empower the Gulf States and Pacific States

Fisheries Management Commissions. All interstate management plans should adhere to the

national standards in the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and

the federal guidelines implementing these standards. States should participate in the development of the guidelines to ensure they are applicable to interstate plans. 

Recommendation 19–11

Where a fish stock crosses administrative boundaries, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration should ensure that a single state, Regional Fishery Management Council (RFMC),

interstate marine fisheries commission, or NOAA itself is designated as the lead authority.

In general:

• for interjurisdictional fisheries that occur primarily in state waters, the state (if only one

state is involved), or the relevant interstate fisheries commission, should take the lead

within both state and federal waters.

• for fisheries that involve two or more RFMCs, NOAA should designate the lead.

• for fisheries that have substantial activities in both state and federal waters, the relevant

authorities should determine a lead; if they are unable to agree within a reasonable time

period (not more than six months), NOAA should designate the lead.

• jurisdiction for highly migratory species should remain in its current configuration.

• any other disputes regarding jurisdiction should be resolved by NOAA.
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 19–12

Congress should amend the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to

require governors to submit a broad slate of candidates for each vacancy of an appointed

Regional Fishery Management Council seat. The slate should include at least two representatives

each from the commercial fishing industry, the recreational fishing sector, and the general public.

Recommendation 19–13

Congress should give the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

responsibility for appointing Regional Fishery Management Council (RFMC) members, with the

goal of creating RFMCs that are knowledgeable, fair, and reflect a broad range of interests.

Recommendation 19–14

Congress should amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

to require that all newly appointed Regional Fishery Management Council (RFMC) members

complete a training course within six months of their appointment. The National Marine

Fisheries Service should contract with an external organization to develop and implement this

training course. After six months, a new member who has not completed the training should

continue to participate in RFMC meetings, but should not be allowed to vote. 

The training course should:

• be open to current RFMC members and other participants in the process as space permits.

• cover a variety of topics including: fishery science and basic stock assessment methods;

social science and fishery economics; tribal treaty rights; the legal requirements of the

Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the National

Environmental Policy Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and other relevant laws or

regulations; conflict of interest policies for RFMC members; and the public process

involved in developing fishery management plans. 

Recommendation 19–15

Congress should amend the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to

affirm that fishery managers are authorized to institute dedicated access privileges. Congress

should direct the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue national guidelines for dedicated

access privileges that allow for regional flexibility in implementation. Every federal, interstate, and state fishery management entity should consider the potential benefits of adopting such programs. 

At a minimum, the national guidelines should require dedicated access programs to:

• specify the biological, social, and economic goals of the plan; recipient groups designated

for the initial quota shares; and data collection protocols.

• provide for periodic reviews of the plan to determine progress in meeting goals.

• assign quota shares for a limited period of time to reduce confusion concerning public

ownership of living marine resources, allow managers flexibility to manage fisheries

adaptively, and provide stability to fishermen for investment decisions. 

• mandate fees for exclusive access based on a percentage of quota shares held. These user

fees should be used to support ecosystem-based management. Fee waivers, reductions,

or phase-in schedules should be allowed until a fishery is declared recovered or fishermen’s profits increase. 

• include measures, such as community-based quota shares or quota share ownership caps,

to lessen the potential harm to fishing communities during the transition to dedicated

access privileges. 

• be adopted only after adequate public discussion and close consultation with all affected

stakeholders, to ensure community acceptance of a dedicated access plan prior to final

Regional Fishery Management Council approval. 

505
506 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 19–16

Congress should repeal all programs that encourage overcapitalization of fishing fleets,

including the Fisheries Finance Program (formerly the Fishing Vessel Obligation Guarantee

Program) and those sections of the Capital Construction Fund that apply to fisheries. The

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should take appropriate steps to

permanently reduce fishing capacity to sustainable levels. 

The following actions will assist in reducing overcapitalization in fisheries:

• to the maximum extent practicable, capacity reduction programs should be funded by

those who profit from them—the fishermen remaining in the fishery. 

• federal contributions to capacity reduction programs should only be made where 

additional effort is prohibited from entering the fishery. The highest priority for public

funding of capacity reduction should be given to fisheries that grant dedicated access

privileges to participants.

• NOAA should monitor capacity reduction programs to determine whether they are 

meeting their objectives and to ensure that vessels removed from U.S. fisheries do not

contribute to overcapitalization in other nations. 

• fishermen should be allowed to transfer existing Capital Construction Fund accounts into

Individual Retirement Accounts or other appropriate financial instruments that do not

promote overcapitalization. 

Recommendation 19–17

The National Marine Fisheries Service should expand its use of Joint Enforcement Agreements

to implement cooperative fisheries enforcement programs with state agencies. The U.S. Coast

Guard should also be included as an important participant in such agreements.

Recommendation 19–18

The National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Coast Guard should strengthen cooperative enforcement efforts at the national level by developing a unified strategic plan for fishery enforcement that includes significantly increased joint training, and at the regional and

local levels, by developing a stronger and more consistent process for sharing information

and coordinating enforcement. 

Recommendation 19–19

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), working with the Regional Fishery Management

Councils (RFMCs), the U.S. Coast Guard, and other appropriate entities, should maximize the

use of the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) for fishery-related activities. VMS with two-way

communication capability and other features that assist personnel in monitoring and

responding to potential violations should be required over time for all commercial fishing

vessels receiving permits under federal fishery plans, including party and charter boats that

carry recreational fishermen. NMFS and RFMCs, working with state representatives, should

also identify state fisheries that could significantly benefit from VMS implementation.

Recommendation 19–20

The U.S. Coast Guard should manage the integration of a fishery Vessel Monitoring System

(VMS) database into the larger maritime operations database and should work with the

National Marine Fisheries Service to ensure effective use of VMS data for monitoring and

enforcement.
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 19–21

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) should change the designation of essential fish

habitat from a species-by-species to a multispecies approach and, ultimately, to an ecosystembased approach. The approach should draw upon existing efforts to identify important habitats and locate optimum-sized areas to protect vulnerable life-history stages of commercially

and recreationally important species. NMFS should work with other management entities to

protect essential fish habitat when such areas fall outside their jurisdiction. 

This effort should include:

• well-documented, science-based analytical methods.

• consideration of ecologically valuable species that are not necessarily commercially

important. 

• an extensive research and development program to refine existing analytical methods

and develop additional means to identify habitats critical to sustainability and biodiversity goals.

Recommendation 19–22

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Regional Fishery Management Councils, states,

and interstate fisheries commissions, should develop regional bycatch reduction plans that

address the broad ecosystem impacts of bycatch for areas under their jurisdiction. Implementation

of these plans will require NMFS to collect data on bycatch of all species captured by commercial and recreational fishermen, not only of commercially important species. The selective use

of observers should remain an important component of these efforts.

Recommendation 19–23

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) should expand its program in conservation engineering to help reduce the impacts of fishing on ecosystems. The program should give high

priority to finding ways to reduce bycatch in fisheries that interact with endangered species.

As gear and fishing methods are shown to be effective, NMFS should promote their rapid

implementation in U.S. fisheries and work with the U.S. Department of State to promote

their international adoption.

Recommendation 19–24

The U.S. Department of State, working with other appropriate entities, should encourage all

countries to ratify the Fish Stocks Agreement and the United Nations Food and Agriculture

Organization’s Compliance Agreement. In particular, the United States should condition other

nations’ access to fishing resources within the U.S. exclusive economic zone on their ratification of these agreements. The United States and other signatory nations should also develop

additional incentives to encourage all nations to ratify and enforce these agreements.

Recommendation 19–25

The U.S. Department of State, working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, should review and update regional and bilateral fishery agreements to which

the United States is a party, to ensure full incorporation of the latest science and harmonize

those agreements with the Fish Stocks Agreement. The United States should fulfill existing

international fishery management obligations, including full funding of U.S. commitments.

Recommendation 19–26

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service and U.S. Department of State, should design a national plan of action for the United

States that implements, and is consistent with, the International Plans of Action adopted by

the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and its 1995 Code of Conduct for

Responsible Fisheries. This national plan should stress the importance of reducing bycatch of

endangered species and marine mammals.

507
508 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 19–27

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should initiate a discussion on effective international

implementation of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s Code of Conduct

for Responsible Fisheries and other Plans of Action. 

In particular, the NOC’s international committee should suggest methods to encourage

nations to:

• join relevant regional fishery management organizations.

• implement and enforce regional agreements to which they are bound.

• collect and report the data necessary to manage fish stocks sustainably and to reduce

fishery impacts on habitats and protected species.

• reduce or eliminate illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing by ships flying their flag.

• reduce fishing fleet capacity, particularly on the high seas.

• reduce bycatch of non-targeted species, in particular endangered populations such as sea

turtles and marine mammals, via the use of innovative gear and management methods

such as onboard observer programs.

Chapter 20: Protecting Marine Mammals and Endangered Marine Species

Recommendation 20–1

Congress should amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to require the Marine Mammal

Commission to coordinate with all the relevant federal agencies through the National Ocean

Council (NOC), while remaining independent. The NOC should determine whether there is a

need for similar oversight bodies for other marine animals whose populations are at risk,

such as sea turtles.

Recommendation 20–2

Congress should amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to place the protection of all marine

mammals within the jurisdiction of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Recommendation 20–3

The National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with guidance from

the National Ocean Council, should significantly improve their coordination with respect to

the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, particularly for anadromous species and

sea turtles, and in circumstances where land-based activities have significant impacts on

marine species.

Recommendation 20–4

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

should expand their cooperative agreements with states under Section 6 of the ESA, including enhanced research, management, monitoring, and public information. 

Recommendation 20–5

Congress should amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to require the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration to more clearly specify categories of activities that are

allowed without authorization, those that require authorization, and those that are prohibited.

Recommendation 20–6

Congress should amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to revise the definition of harassment to cover only activities that meaningfully disrupt behaviors that are significant to the

survival and reproduction of marine mammals.
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 20–7

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should implement programmatic permitting for activities that affect marine mammals, wherever possible. Case-by-case

permitting, which is more resource intensive, should be used for activities that do not fit

within any programmatic category or when circumstances indicate a greater likelihood of

harm to marine animals. The National Ocean Council (NOC) should create an interagency team

to recommend activities appropriate for programmatic permitting, those that are inappropriate, and those that are potentially appropriate pending additional scientific information. 

To carry this out: 

• the interagency team, under the oversight of the NOC’s Committee on Ocean Resource

Management, should include representatives from NOAA, the National Science

Foundation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Minerals Management Service, and U.S. Navy,

with input from the Marine Mammal Commission.

• programmatic permits should be subject to periodic review, and remain valid for a 

limited time to ensure that the best available science can be incorporated into permit

requirements.

• enforcement efforts should be strengthened and the adequacy of penalties reviewed.

Recommendation 20–8

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Department of the Interior

agencies should develop an expanded program, coordinated through the National Ocean

Council, to examine and mitigate the effects of human activities on marine mammals and

endangered species. 

The program should focus on two areas:

• research, monitoring, and assessment to better understand the basic biology, physiology,

life history, and population dynamics of marine mammals, sea turtles, and other endangered or vulnerable marine species and to understand how disease, contaminants, harmful algal blooms, human activities, and other stressors may impact these animals. An

important goal will be to enhance the capability to respond quickly to strandings and

unusual mortality events of marine mammals and sea turtles.

• technology and engineering to eliminate or mitigate human impacts on marine mammals,

sea turtles, and other endangered species.

Recommendation 20–9

The National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.

Geological Survey, and Minerals Management Service should expand research on ocean

acoustics and the potential impacts of noise on marine mammals. These additional sources 

of support are important to decrease the reliance on U.S. Navy research in this area. The

research programs should be complementary and well coordinated, examining a range of

issues relating to noise generated by scientific, commercial, and operational activities.

Recommendation 20–10

The U.S. Department of State, working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration and the U.S. Department of the Interior, should continue to actively pursue

efforts to reduce the impacts of human activities on marine species at risk in foreign and

international waters.

509
510 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Chapter 21: Preserving Coral Reefs and Other Coral Communities

Recommendation 21–1

Congress should establish a Coral Protection and Management Act that enhances research,

protection, management, and restoration of coral ecosystems. 

The new legislation should include the following elements:

• mapping, monitoring, assessment, and research programs to fill critical information gaps,

to be carried out primarily through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration and the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force in partnership with the academic

research community.

• increased protections for vulnerable coral reefs, including the use of marine protected areas.

• liability provisions for damages to coral reefs, similar to those in the National Marine

Sanctuaries Act, but with greater flexibility to use funds in a manner that provides maximum

short- and long-term benefits to the reef.

• support for state-level coral reef management.

• outreach activities to educate the public about coral conservation and reduce human impacts.

• support for U.S. involvement, particularly through the sharing of scientific and management expertise, in bilateral, regional, and international coral reef management programs.

Recommendation 21–2

As part of the new Coral Protection and Management Act, Congress should codify and

strengthen the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force and place it under the oversight of the National

Ocean Council (NOC). 

The Coral Reef Task Force should be strengthened in the following ways:

• it should report to the NOC’s Committee on Ocean Resource Management.

• its membership should be expanded to include the U.S. Department of Energy and specify

participation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within the U.S. Department of Defense. 

• in collaboration with the states and territories, it should coordinate the development and

implementation of regional ecosystem-based plans to address the impacts of nonpoint

source pollution, fishing, and other activities on coral reef resources.

Recommendation 21–3

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should serve as the lead

agency for management of deep-water coral communities. In this role, NOAA should work

with states, academic institutions, and others to enhance national capabilities related to

deep-water corals, including expanded surveys of their distribution and abundance and

research on the major threats to their continued existence. After an appropriate review,

NOAA should make recommendations to the National Ocean Council on the advisability of

expanding the Coral Reef Task Force’s charter and membership to oversee deep-water corals or

creating a similar task force on deep-water corals.

Recommendation 21–4

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should develop national standards—

and promote adoption of international standards—to ensure that coral reef resources are 

harvested in a sustainable manner. The U.S. Department of State should implement incentive

programs to encourage international compliance with these standards.

Recommendation 21–5

The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, in coordination with the regional ocean information programs, should develop regional, ecosystem-based research plans to help protect coral reef

ecosystems. These plans should guide agency research funding and be incorporated into the

design and implementation of the national monitoring network and the Integrated Ocean

Observing System. 
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter 22: Setting a Course for Sustainable Aquaculture

Recommendation 22–1

Congress should amend the National Aquaculture Act to designate the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as the lead federal agency for marine aquaculture,

create an Office of Sustainable Marine Aquaculture in NOAA, and designate the Secretary 

of Commerce as a permanent co-chair, along with the Secretary of Agriculture, of the Joint

Subcommittee on Aquaculture. NOAA should use this authority to design and implement

national policies for environmentally and economically sustainable marine aquaculture.

Recommendation 22–2

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s new Office of Sustainable Marine

Aquaculture should be responsible for developing a comprehensive, environmentally-sound

permitting, leasing, and regulatory program for marine aquaculture.

The permitting and leasing system and implementing regulations should:

• reflect a balance between economic and environmental objectives consistent with

national and regional goals. 

• be coordinated with guidelines and regulations developed at the state level.

• include a system for the assessment and collection of a reasonable portion of the

resource rent generated from marine aquaculture projects that rely on ocean resources

held in the public trust. 

• include the development of a single, multi-agency permit application for proposed

marine aquaculture operations.

• include a permit review process that includes public notice and an opportunity for state,

local, and public comment.

• require applicants to post a bond or other financial guarantee to ensure that any later

performance problems can be remedied and that abandoned facilities can be safely

removed at no additional cost to taxpayers. 

• require the development, dissemination, and adoption of best management practices,

with periodic updates to reflect advances in research and technology.

• be well coordinated with other activities in federal waters.

Recommendation 22–3

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s new Office of Sustainable Marine

Aquaculture should expand marine aquaculture research, development, training, extension,

and technology transfer, including a socioeconomic component. The Office should set priorities for research and technology, in close collaboration with the National Sea Grant College

Program, states, tribes, academia, industry, and other stakeholders.

Recommendation 22–4

The United States should work with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization to

encourage and facilitate worldwide adherence to the aquaculture provisions of the Code of

Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. 

511
512 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Chapter 23: Connecting the Oceans and Human Health

Recommendation 23–1 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation,

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and other appropriate entities should

support expanded research and development efforts to encourage multidisciplinary studies of

the evolution, ecology, chemistry, and molecular biology of marine species, discover potential

marine bioproducts, and develop practical compounds.

These efforts should include: 

• a strong focus on discovering new marine microorganisms, visiting poorly sampled areas

of the marine environment, and studying species that inhabit harsh environments.

• encouragement for private-sector investments and partnerships in marine biotechnology

research and development to speed the creation of commercially available marine 

bioproducts.

Recommendation 23–2

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation,

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and other appropriate entities, should

support expanded research efforts in marine microbiology and virology. 

These efforts should include:

• the discovery, documentation, and description of new marine bacteria, algae, and viruses

and the determination of their potential negative effects on the health of humans and

marine organisms.

• the elucidation of the complex inter-relations, pathways, and causal effects of marine

pollution, harmful algal blooms, ecosystem degradation and alteration, emerging marine

diseases, and climate change in disease events.

Recommendation 23–3

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation,

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and other appropriate entities should

support the development of improved methods for monitoring and identifying pathogens

and chemical toxins in ocean and coastal waters and organisms. 

This effort should include: 

• developing accurate and cost-effective methods for detecting pathogens, contaminants,

and toxins in seafood for use by both state and federal inspectors.

• developing in situ and space-based methods to monitor and assess pollution inputs,

ecosystem health, and human health impacts.

• developing new tools for measuring human and environmental health indicators in the

marine environment.

• developing models and strategies for predicting and mitigating pollutant loadings, 

harmful algal blooms, and infectious disease potential in the marine environment.

Recommendation 23–4

Congress should establish a national, multi-agency Oceans and Human Health Initiative to

coordinate and sponsor exploration, research, and new technologies related to examining the

connections among the oceans, ecosystem health, and human health. The National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration’s Oceans and Human Health Initiative and the National

Institute of Environmental Health Sciences–National Science Foundation Centers for Oceans

and Human Health should be expanded and coordinated as the basis for this initiative. 

The new Oceans and Human Health Initiative should:

• be implemented through both competitively awarded grants and support of federallydesignated centers with federal, state, academic, and private-sector investigators eligible

to compete for funding.
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

• work with the National Ocean Council to review other relevant agency programs and

suggest areas where coordination could be improved. 

• transfer new technologies into management programs that protect human health and

the health of ocean and coastal ecosystems.

Recommendation 23–5

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Protection Agency,

and Food and Drug Administration, working with state and local managers, should fully

implement all existing programs to protect human health from contaminated seafood and

coastal waters. 

Particularly, the federal agencies should:

• incorporate new findings and technologies, especially those developed within the Oceans

and Human Health Initiative, into monitoring and prevention programs.

• coordinate and increase interagency public education and outreach efforts in this area. 

Chapter 24: Managing Offshore Energy and Other Mineral Resources

Recommendation 24–1

Congress should use a portion of the revenues the federal government receives from the 

leasing and extraction of outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas to provide grants to all

coastal states that can be invested in the conservation and sustainable development of

renewable ocean and coastal resources. States off whose coasts OCS oil and gas is produced

should receive a larger share of such revenue to compensate them for the costs of addressing

the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of energy activity in adjacent federal waters.

None of the programs that currently receive revenues from OCS oil and gas activities should

be adversely affected by this new allocation.

Recommendation 24–2

The U.S. Department of the Interior should expand the Minerals Management Service’s 

Environmental Studies Program.

Priorities for the enhanced Environmental Studies Program should include:

• conducting long-term environmental research and monitoring at appropriate outer

Continental Shelf (OCS) sites to better understand cumulative, low-level, and chronic

impacts of OCS oil and gas activities on the natural and human environments.

• working with state environmental agencies and industry to evaluate the risks to the

marine environment posed by aging offshore and onshore pipelines, particularly in the

Gulf of Mexico.

Recommendation 24–3

Ocean.US, working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and

Minerals Management Service (MMS), should include the offshore oil and gas industry as an

integral partner in the design, implementation, and operation of the Integrated Ocean

Observing System (IOOS), especially in areas where offshore oil and gas activities occur.

Specifically, Ocean.US, NOAA, and MMS should work with the oil and gas industry to:

• employ industry resources, such as pipelines, platforms, and vessels as part of the IOOS.

• incorporate nonproprietary data into IOOS informational products and larger environmental databases, while protecting the security of proprietary data and meeting other

safety, environmental, and economic concerns. 

513
514 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 24–4

The National Ocean Council (NOC), working with the U.S. Department of Energy and other

appropriate entities, should review the status of gas hydrates research and development to

determine whether methane hydrates can contribute significantly to meeting the nation’s

long-term energy needs. If such contribution looks promising, the NOC should recommend an

appropriate level of investment in methane hydrates research and development, and determine whether a comprehensive management regime for industry access to hydrate resource

deposits is needed. 

Recommendation 24–5

Congress, with input from the National Ocean Council, should enact legislation providing for

the comprehensive management of offshore renewable energy development as part of a

coordinated offshore management regime.

Specifically, this legislation should: 

• be based on the premise that the oceans are a public resource. 

• streamline the process for licensing, leasing, and permitting renewable energy facilities

in U.S. waters. 

• subsume existing statutes, such as the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act.

• ensure that the public receives a fair return from the use of the resource and that development rights are allocated through an open, transparent process that considers state,

local, and public concerns. 

Recommendation 24–6

The Minerals Management Service should systematically identify the nation’s offshore nonenergy mineral resources and conduct the necessary cost-benefit, long-term security, and environmental studies to create a national program that ensures the best uses of those resources. 

Chapter 25: Creating a National Strategy for 

Increasing Scientific Knowledge

Recommendation 25–1

Congress should double the federal ocean and coastal research budget over the next five

years. The new funds should be used to support a balance of basic and applied research.

Recommendation 25–2

The National Ocean Council should develop a national ocean and coastal research strategy

that reflects a long-term vision and promotes advances in basic and applied ocean science

and technology. The strategy should recognize the different ocean science sectors (government, academic, commercial, and nongovernmental), acknowledge their different roles, and

maximize the use of partnerships. 

Recommendation 25–3.

The National Ocean Council (NOC) research strategy should include a national program for

social science and economic research to examine the human dimensions and economic value

of the nation’s oceans and coasts. The NOC should direct relevant agencies to include socioeconomic research as an integral part of their efforts.

The national program should include:

• an operational socioeconomic research and assessment function within the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

• an interagency steering group, chaired by NOAA and including the Bureau of Labor

Statistics (BLS), Bureau of the Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department

of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and National Science Foundation

to coordinate ocean-related socioeconomic research.

• biennial reports by BLS and BEA on the employment, wages, and output associated with

U.S. coasts and oceans. 

• biennial reports by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics on intermodal access to U.S.

ports and maritime facilities and assessments of relevant maritime system performance

and economic data.

• periodic reports on such topics as coastal demographics, geographic patterns and trends

of ocean and coastal use, economic contributions, attitudes and perceptions, functioning

of governance arrangements, and public-private partnerships.

• establishment of partnerships to take maximum advantage of the expertise resident

within government agencies, academic institutions, and the private sector.

• increased interactions with regional, state, and local stakeholders through regional

ocean councils and regional ocean information programs so their information needs can

be met and socioeconomic changes at these levels can be documented and analyzed. 

Recommendation 25–4

Congress should significantly expand the National Sea Grant College Program as part of 

doubling ocean and coastal research funding. 

Recommendation 25–5

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should direct ocean-related agencies to develop ten-year

science plans and budgets consistent with the national strategy. The NOC should provide

additional guidance concerning granting mechanisms.

The NOC guidance should:

• require agencies to provide multi-year (greater than five-year) funding opportunities in

addition to traditional grant mechanisms.

• reiterate the importance of balancing basic and applied research projects and promote

the transition of basic research results to applied uses.

• require a system of independent review for all grant applications, including those from

federal laboratories.

• incorporate the science needs and priorities of local, state, regional, and national managers, working with the regional ocean information programs. 

Recommendation 25–6

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation

should lead an expanded national ocean exploration program, with additional involvement

from the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Research. Public outreach

and education should be integral components of the program.

Recommendation 25–7

The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) should coordinate federal ocean and coastal

mapping and charting activities with the goal of creating standardized, easily accessible national

maps. These maps should be able to incorporate living and nonliving marine resource data

along with bathymetry, topography, and other natural features, and should provide seamless

data across the shoreline, coastal zone, nearshore areas, and open ocean waters. 

To accomplish these goals, the FGDC should:

• coordinate an interagency budget strategy to accelerate the completion of mapping 

priorities throughout coastal areas, the exclusive economic zone, and continental shelf.

• establish and maintain a Web-accessible registry that allows federal agencies to coordinate mapping and charting missions.

515
516 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

• establish and maintain a single Web-based source to provide easy access to geospatial

data and integrated national maps.

• ensure that federal mapping and charting activities take full advantage of resources

available in the academic and private sectors.

• ensure that federal mapping activities take advantage of state resources and address

state information needs.

Recommendation 25–8

Congress should re-establish an Office of Technology Assessment to provide it with objective

and authoritative analyses of complex scientific and technical issues.

Chapter 26: Achieving a Sustained, Integrated Ocean Observing System

Recommendation 26–1

The National Ocean Council should make development and implementation of a sustained,

national Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) a key element of its leadership and 

coordination role. As an essential component of IOOS development, the NOC should promote

strong partnerships among federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local governments, nongovernmental organizations, industry, and academia, drawing upon the strengths and 

capabilities of each sector in the design, development, and operation of the IOOS.

Recommendation 26–2

Ocean.US should be responsible for planning the national Integrated Ocean Observing

System (IOOS). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should serve as the

lead federal agency for implementing and operating the IOOS, with extensive interagency

coordination and subject to approval of all plans and budgets by the National Ocean Council. 

Recommendation 26–3

Congress should amend the National Oceanographic Partnership Act to formally establish

Ocean.US under the National Ocean Council (NOC). 

Ocean.US should:

• report to the NOC’s Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and

Operations. 

• be provided with funding as a line item within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration’s budget, to be spent subject to NOC approval.

• have authority to bring in outside experts on rotational appointments when needed.

Recommendation 26–4

Ocean.US should proactively seek input from coastal and ocean stakeholder communities to

build cross-sector support for the national Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) and

develop a consensus on operational requirements. 

Specifically, Ocean.US should seek input on its plans from:

• agencies with homeland security responsibilities, including ideas for future research and

development to improve and enhance the system.

• state, local, territorial, and tribal agencies, industry, academia, nongovernmental organizations, and the public in the design and implementation of regional observing systems

and their integration into the national IOOS.

Recommendation 26–5

Ocean.US should develop a set of core variables to be collected by all components of the

national Integrated Ocean Observing System. This set of core variables should include appropriate biological, chemical, geological, and physical variables and be based on input from the

National Federation of Regional Associations.
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 26–6

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation

(NSF), the Office of Naval Research, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

should require investigators who receive federal funding related to ocean observatories,

including the NSF Ocean Observatories Initiative, to plan for the transfer of successful technologies to an operational mode in the Integrated Ocean Observing System.

Recommendation 26–7

Ocean.US should recommend priorities for space-based missions as an essential component of

the national Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

should work together on the development, budgeting, and scheduling of IOOS satellite 

missions, based on Ocean.US plans.

Ocean.US, NOAA, and NASA should:

• work closely with the user community and the space industry to identify the most 

important space-based ocean observation needs.

• work with the international community to ensure that requirements for the Global

Ocean Observing System are coordinated with U.S. plans for satellite remote sensing. 

• implement phased satellite missions and equipment replacement to maintain unbroken,

consistent data streams based on Ocean.US plans. 

Recommendation 26–8

Congress should transfer ongoing operation of the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) Earth environmental observing satellites to the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to achieve continuous collection of critical space-based

Earth environmental measurements. NOAA and NASA should work together to identify

research satellite missions that have operational applications and to ensure the smooth 

transition of each Earth environmental observing satellite after its launch and testing. 

Recommendation 26–9

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should improve its capacity to

calibrate, collect, and disseminate satellite data and to integrate satellite-derived information

with traditional ocean and coastal databases. NOAA should ensure that a suitable archive

exists to preserve historical satellite data, particularly those related to long-term trends such

as climate.

Recommendation 26–10

Ocean.US and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should work

with state and local governments, the Regional Associations, educators, nongovernmental

organizations, and the private sector, to ensure that information products generated from

the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) are useful to a broad user community.

In particular, Ocean.US and NOAA should:

• work with the U.S. Navy, the Regional Associations, Ocean.IT, and the private sector to

create new models and forecasting methods to meet user information needs.

• work with the Regional Associations to provide the training and tools necessary for users

to work with, and benefit from, IOOS information products.

Recommendation 26–11

Congress should fund the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) as a line item in the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) budget, to be spent subject to

National Ocean Council (NOC) direction and approval. IOOS funds should be appropriated

without fiscal year limitation. NOAA should develop a streamlined process for distributing

IOOS funds to other federal and nonfederal partners based on the NOC plan. 

517
518 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 26–12

The National Ocean Council should oversee coordination of the Integrated Ocean Observing

System with other existing and planned terrestrial, watershed, atmospheric, and biological

observation and information collection systems, with the ultimate goal of developing a

national Earth Observing System. 

Recommendation 26–13

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should promote international coordination and capacity

building in the field of global ocean observations.

Specifically, the NOC should:

• lead the interagency implementation of the 2003 Declaration on Earth Observing.

• encourage and support developing nations’ participation in the Global Ocean Observing

System.

• continue to advocate full, open, and meaningful data access policies and contribute 

technological expertise to ensure access by all participants.

Chapter 27: Enhancing Ocean Infrastructure and Technology Development

Recommendation 27–1

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should develop a national ocean and coastal infrastructure

and technology strategy, including detailed plans for funding and implementation, to support science, resource management, assessments, enforcement, and education. The strategy

should guide agency plans for facility construction, upgrading, or consolidation and for new

technology development. 

In particular, the national strategy should:

• be developed through the NOC’s Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology,

and Operations.

• set specific priorities for acquiring and upgrading ocean and coastal infrastructure,

including vessels, facilities, instrumentation, and equipment.

• build on the existing capabilities of federal, state, academic, and private entities.

• identify emerging technologies that should be incorporated into agency operations.

• promote international partnerships to deploy and share major oceanographic assets.

Recommendation 27–2

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should establish an Office of

Technology Transfer with responsibility for expediting the transition of proven ocean-related

technologies into operational applications. This office should work closely with the National

Science Foundation, the U.S. Navy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, academic institutions, regional organizations, and private industry to achieve its mission.

Recommendation 27–3

The National Ocean Council should undertake an assessment of U.S. ocean and coastal 

infrastructure and technology every five years. These assessments should account for all federal, state, academic, and private assets and should be used to create and update a national

facilities database.

The assessments should build on this Commission’s efforts (Appendix 5), including information on:

• the location, ownership, availability, remaining service life, and replacement cost for a

wide range of ocean infrastructure assets.

• maintenance and operational costs associated with these assets. 

• associated human resource needs. 

• the outcomes of past federal investments in ocean technology and infrastructure, with

recommendations for improvements.
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 27–4

Congress should create a mechanism to ensure a dedicated funding stream for critical ocean

science infrastructure and technology needs. Spending priorities should be based on the

National Ocean Council’s ocean and coastal infrastructure and technology strategy. 

High-priority areas for funding include the following:

• the renewal of the University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System fleet and other

essential air fleets and deep-submergence vehicles.

• the completion of the third and fourth dedicated fishery research vessels.

• the acquisition of vessels and infrastructure needed for an expanded national ocean

exploration program.

• the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program non-riser drilling vessel.

• the refurbishment or replacement of two U.S. Coast Guard polar ice breakers.

• the ongoing modernization of existing assets, including telecommunications assets, 

laboratories, and other facilities.

Recommendation 27–5

Congress should support the infrastructure and technology requirements related to ocean

and coastal management, operations, and enforcement. Priorities should be based on the

National Ocean Council’s ocean and coastal infrastructure and technology strategy. 

High-priority areas for funding include the following:

• recapitalization of the Coast Guard fleet based on an accelerated modernization plan.

• modernization of other federal fleets as needed.

• ongoing maintenance and upgrades of land-based operational and enforcement facilities.

• maintenance and upgrading of monitoring buoys, gages, and stations.

• coordinated satellite observing deployment.

Recommendation 27–6

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should establish four to six national

virtual marine technology centers at existing institutions to provide coordinated access,

through electronic means, to cutting-edge, large-scale research technologies. 

Chapter 28: Modernizing Ocean Data and Information Systems

Recommendation 28–1

Congress should amend the National Oceanographic Partnership Act to establish Ocean.IT 

as the lead federal interagency planning organization for ocean and coastal data and information management. Ocean.IT should consist of representatives from all federal agencies

involved in ocean data and information management. 

Ocean.IT should:

• report to the National Ocean Council’s Committee on Ocean Science, Education,

Technology, and Operations.

• create an interagency plan to improve coordination between the existing data centers

and to integrate ocean and coastal data from different agencies and from the academic

and private sectors.

• set priorities for archiving historical and nondigital data.

• coordinate shared resources and the acquisition of new hardware for use by the ocean

sciences community.

• work with existing supercomputer centers to negotiate adequate time for ocean 

science needs. 

• assess federal agency software needs and initiate interagency programs to create 

high-priority applications, such as new modeling programs.

519
520 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

• coordinate federal agency efforts to attract information technology expertise into the

ocean sciences community.

• communicate with regional, state, and local organizations, including the regional ocean

information programs, to determine user needs and feed this information back to relevant agencies. 

Recommendation 28–2

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Navy should establish an ocean and coastal information management and communications partnership to generate information products relevant to national, regional, state, and local operational needs.

The NOAA-Navy partnership should:

• prioritize products and forecasts based on input from regional ocean information programs, Ocean.IT, Ocean.US, the Regional Associations of the IOOS, and other federal,

regional, state, and local users.

• base products and forecasts on all available data sources.

• support the generation of new models and forecasts in collaboration with Ocean.IT, academia, and the private sector.

Recommendation 28–3

Ocean.IT should work with developers of the National Virtual Ocean Data System and other

innovative data management systems to implement a federally-supported system for accessing ocean and coastal data both within and outside the national data centers.

Recommendation 28–4

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should establish and enforce common requirements and

deadlines for investigators to submit data acquired during federally funded ocean research

projects.

In establishing these requirements, the NOC’s Committee on Ocean Science, Education,

Technology, and Operations should:

• develop incentives to ensure more timely submission of investigator data to the 

national centers. 

• require that a certification of data deposit be supplied to investigators who comply with

the new regulations and that this certificate be presented before subsequent federal

funding is provided. 

Recommendation 28–5

The U.S. Navy should periodically review and declassify appropriate naval oceanographic data

for access by the civilian science community. 

Recommendation 28–6

The President should convene an interagency task force to plan for modernizing the national

environmental data archiving, assimilation, modeling, and distribution system with the goal

of creating an integrated Earth environmental data and information system. 

The task force should:

• be comprised of all federal agencies with environmental data collection responsibilities.

• propose a plan for the national environmental data system that includes specific cost 

estimates and phasing requirements to ensure timely implementation.
CHAPTER 31: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter 29: Advancing International Ocean Science and Policy

Recommendation 29–1

The United States should accede to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 

Recommendation 29–2

The National Ocean Council should coordinate an expedited review and analysis of the

ocean-related components of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and 

recommend to the U.S. Department of State whether, from an ocean perspective, ratification

of this treaty would be beneficial to U.S. interests. 

Recommendation 29–3

The National Ocean Council (NOC) should establish and oversee an interagency committee to

support the development and implementation of ocean-related international policy. 

The international committee of the NOC should:

• be chaired by the U.S. Department of State.

• make recommendations to the Assistant to the President, the Secretary of State, and

other agency heads as appropriate, on international ocean policy. 

• assess the implementation status of ocean-related treaties to which the United States 

is a party and recommend appropriate actions and funding required to fulfill U.S. treaty

obligations.

• provide technical assistance to the NOC on international ocean issues.

Recommendation 29–4

The National Ocean Council should assess emerging international ocean-related management

challenges and make recommendations for either incorporating these activities under existing management regimes or developing appropriate new ones. The U.S. Department of State

should work with the international community to implement these recommendations.

Recommendation 29–5

The U.S. Department of State should improve its integration of ocean-related scientific

expertise in policy and program development and implementation.

These improvements can be accomplished by:

• conducting State Department staff training about the relevance of scientific considerations to international ocean policy. 

• increasing scientific support throughout the department to address current and emerging

ocean-related issues, particularly through the use of borrowed personnel from resource

agencies or academic institutions.

• creating mechanisms to facilitate input from the scientific community on complex oceanrelated issues. 

Recommendation 29–6

The United States should continue to participate in and support major international ocean

science organizations and programs. 

Recommendation 29–7

The U.S. Department of State should offer strong support for U.S. scientists conducting

research programs around the world. Existing international partnerships should be strengthened and new partnerships promoted to facilitate the conduct of international research. 

521
522 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Recommendation 29–8

The United States should increase its efforts to enhance long-term ocean science and management capacity in other nations through grants, education and training, technical assistance, and sharing best practices, management techniques, and lessons learned. 

Chapter 30: Funding Needs and Possible Sources

Recommendation 30–1

Congress should establish an Ocean Policy Trust Fund in the U.S. Treasury, composed of unallocated federal revenues from outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas activities, plus revenues from any new activities approved in federal waters, to support the nation’s new coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy. Trust Fund monies should be disbursed to

coastal states, other appropriate coastal authorities, and federal agencies to support improved

ocean and coastal management, based on an allocation determined by Congress with input

from the National Ocean Council. The Trust Fund should be used to supplement—not

replace—existing appropriations for ocean and coastal programs.

The Ocean Policy Trust Fund should be distributed as follows:

• $500 million in the first year, increasing to $1.0 billion in the third and subsequent years,

among all coastal and Great Lakes states, territories, and federally-recognized tribes with

coastal resource treaty rights. A larger share should go to OCS producing states to address

offshore energy impacts. The funds should be used for the conservation and sustainable

development of renewable ocean and coastal resources, including any new responsibilities that arise as a result of Commission recommendations and the expansion of programs and activities that are currently underfunded. 

• the remainder of the funds to federal agencies to address the new or expanded activities

assigned to them as a result of Commission recommendations.

Recommendation 30–2

The National Ocean Council, in cooperation with the Office of Management and Budget,

should coordinate the compilation of a biennial report from the President on ocean funding,

as required by the Oceans Act of 2000, including establishment of a consistent reporting format and a more useful classification scheme. 


PART X

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

OCEANS ACT OF 2000 .................................................................................................A 1

APPENDIX B

ACRONYMS APPEARING IN THE REPORT .............................................................B 1

APPENDIX C

LIVING NEAR...AND MAKING A LIVING FROM...

THE NATION’S COASTS AND OCEANS, BY CHARLES S. COLGAN ............C 1

APPENDIX D

GLOSSARY OF FEDERAL OCEAN AND COASTAL-RELATED

COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, COUNCILS, LAWS, AND PROGRAMS..........D 1

APPENDIX E

PROPOSED STRUCTURE FOR COORDINATION OF

FEDERAL OCEAN ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................E 1

APPENDIX F

CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES

WITH JURISDICTION OVER OCEAN AND COASTAL ISSUES .......................F 1

APPENDIX G

DETAILED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH RECOMMENDATIONS

OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY .............................................G 1

APPENDIX A

OCEANS ACT OF 2000
A 2 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Public Law 106–256, as amended

One Hundred Sixth Congress 

Of the 

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

AN ACT

To establish a Commission on Ocean Policy, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 

United States of America in Congress assembled, 

Section 1. Short Title 

This Act may be cited as the “Oceans Act of 2000.” 

Section 2. Purpose and Objectives 

The purpose of this Act is to establish a commission to make recommendations for coordinated and

comprehensive national ocean policy that will promote— 

(1) the protection of life and property against natural and manmade hazards; 

(2) responsible stewardship, including use, of fishery resources and other ocean and coastal

resources; 

(3) the protection of the marine environment and prevention of marine pollution; 

(4) the enhancement of marine-related commerce and transportation, the resolution of conflicts

among users of the marine environment, and the engagement of the private sector in innovative

approaches for sustainable use of living marine resources and responsible use of nonliving marine

resources; 

(5) the expansion of human knowledge of the marine environment including the role of the

oceans in climate and global environmental change and the advancement of education and training in

fields related to ocean and coastal activities; 

(6) the continued investment in and development and improvement of the capabilities,

performance, use, and efficiency of technologies for use in ocean and coastal activities, including

investments and technologies designed to promote national energy and food security; 

(7) close cooperation among all government agencies and departments and the private sector to

ensure— 

(A) coherent and consistent regulation and management of ocean and coastal activities; 

(B) availability and appropriate allocation of Federal funding, personnel, facilities, and

equipment for such activities; 

(C) cost-effective and efficient operation of Federal departments, agencies, and

programs involved in ocean and coastal activities; and 

(D) enhancement of partnerships with State and local governments with respect to

ocean and coastal activities, including the management of ocean and coastal resources and

identification of appropriate opportunities for policy-making and decision-making at the State

and local level; and 

(8) the preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in ocean and coastal activities,

and, when it is in the national interest, the cooperation by the United States with other nations and

international organizations in ocean and coastal activities. 
APPENDIX A: OCEANS ACT OF 2000 A 3

Section 3. Commission on Ocean Policy 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT—There is hereby established the Commission on Ocean Policy. The Federal

Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), except for sections 3, 7, and 12, does not apply to the Commission. 

(b) MEMBERSHIP— 

(1) APPOINTMENT—The Commission shall be composed of 16 members appointed by the

President from among individuals described in paragraph (2) who are knowledgeable in ocean and

coastal activities, including individuals representing State and local governments, ocean-related

industries, academic and technical institutions, and public interest organizations involved with

scientific, regulatory, economic, and environmental ocean and coastal activities. The membership of the

Commission shall be balanced by area of expertise and balanced geographically to the extent consistent

with maintaining the highest level of expertise on the Commission. 

(2) NOMINATIONS—The President shall appoint the members of the Commission, within 90

days after the effective date of this Act, including individuals nominated as follows: 

(A) 4 members shall be appointed from a list of 8 individuals who shall be nominated

by the Majority Leader of the Senate in consultation with the Chairman of the Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

(B) 4 members shall be appointed from a list of 8 individuals who shall be nominated

by the Speaker of the House of Representatives in consultation with the Chairmen of the House

Committees on Resources, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Science. 

(C) 2 members shall be appointed from a list of 4 individuals who shall be nominated

by the Minority Leader of the Senate in consultation with the Ranking Member of the Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

(D) 2 members shall be appointed from a list of 4 individuals who shall be nominated

by the Minority Leader of the House in consultation with the Ranking Members of the House

Committees on Resources, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Science. 

(3) CHAIRMAN—The Commission shall select a Chairman from among its members. The

Chairman of the Commission shall be responsible for— 

(A) the assignment of duties and responsibilities among staff personnel and their

continuing supervision; and 

(B) the use and expenditure of funds available to the Commission. 

(4) VACANCIES—Any vacancy on the Commission shall be filled in the same manner as the

original incumbent was appointed. 

(c) RESOURCES—In carrying out its functions under this chapter, the Commission— 

(1) is authorized to secure directly from any Federal agency or department any information it

deems necessary to carry out its functions under this Act, and each such agency or department is

authorized to cooperate with the Commission and, to the extent permitted by law, to furnish such

information (other than information described in section 552(b)(1)(A) of title 5, United States Code) to

the Commission, upon the request of the Commission; 

(2) may enter into contracts, subject to the availability of appropriations for contracting, and

employ such staff experts and consultants as may be necessary to carry out the duties of the

Commission, as provided by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; and 

(3) in consultation with the Ocean Studies Board of the National Research Council of the

National Academy of Sciences, shall establish a multidisciplinary science advisory panel of experts in

the sciences of living and nonliving marine resources to assist the Commission in preparing its report,

including ensuring that the scientific information considered by the Commission is based on the best

scientific information available. 

(d) STAFFING—The Chairman of the Commission may, without regard to the civil service laws and

regulations, appoint and terminate an Executive Director and such other additional personnel as may be

necessary for the Commission to perform its duties. The Executive Director shall be compensated at a rate not

to exceed the rate payable for Level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5136 of title 5, United States

Code. The employment and termination of an Executive Director shall be subject to confirmation by a majority

of the members of the Commission. 
A 4 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

(e) MEETINGS— 

(1) ADMINISTRATION—All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public, except

that a meeting or any portion of it may be closed to the public if it concerns matters or information

described in section 552b(c) of title 5, United States Code. Interested persons shall be permitted to

appear at open meetings and present oral or written statements on the subject matter of the meeting.

The Commission may administer oaths or affirmations to any person appearing before it. 

(2) NOTICE; MINUTES; PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS—1

(A) All open meetings of the Commission shall be preceded by timely public notice in

the Federal Register of the time, place, and subject of the meeting. 

(B) Minutes of each meeting shall be kept and shall contain a record of the people

present, a description of the discussion that occurred, and copies of all statements filed. Subject

to section 552 of title 5, United States Code, the minutes and records of all meetings and other

documents that were made available to or prepared for the Commission shall be available for

public inspection and copying at a single location in the offices of the Commission. 

(3) INITIAL MEETING—The Commission shall hold its first meeting within 30 days after all

16 members have been appointed. 

(4) REQUIRED PUBLIC MEETINGS—The Commission shall hold at least one public meeting

in Alaska and each of the following regions of the United States: 

(A) The Northeast (including the Great Lakes). 

(B) The Southeast (including the Caribbean). 

(C) The Southwest (including Hawaii and the Pacific Territories). 

(D) The Northwest. 

(E) The Gulf of Mexico. 

(f) REPORT— 

(1) IN GENERAL—By June 20, 2003,2 the Commission shall submit to Congress and the

President a final report of its findings and recommendations regarding United States ocean policy. 

(2) REQUIRED MATTER—The final report of the Commission shall include the following

assessment, reviews, and recommendations: 

(A) An assessment of existing and planned facilities associated with ocean and coastal

activities including human resources, vessels, computers, satellites, and other appropriate

platforms and technologies. 

(B) A review of existing and planned ocean and coastal activities of Federal entities,

recommendations for changes in such activities necessary to improve efficiency and

effectiveness and to reduce duplication of Federal efforts. 

(C) 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. 

(D) A review of the known and anticipated supply of, and demand for, ocean and

coastal resources of the United States. 

(E) A review of and recommendations concerning the relationship between Federal,

State, and local governments and the private sector in planning and carrying out ocean and

coastal activities. 

(F) A review of opportunities for the development of or investment in new products,

technologies, or markets related to ocean and coastal activities. 

(G) A review of previous and ongoing State and Federal efforts to enhance the

effectiveness and integration of ocean and coastal activities. 

1 Public Law 107–372 (section 306)

2 Public Law 107–206 (section 206)
APPENDIX A: OCEANS ACT OF 2000 A 5

(H) Recommendations for any modifications to United States laws, regulations, and the

administrative structure of Executive agencies, necessary to improve the understanding,

management, conservation, and use of, and access to, ocean and coastal resources. 

(I) A review of the effectiveness and adequacy of existing Federal interagency ocean

policy coordination mechanisms, and recommendations for changing or improving the

effectiveness of such mechanisms necessary to respond to or implement the recommendations

of the Commission. 

(3) CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS—In making its assessment and reviews and developing

its recommendations, the Commission shall give equal consideration to environmental, technical

feasibility, economic, and scientific factors. 

(4) LIMITATIONS—The recommendations of the Commission shall not be specific to the lands

and waters within a single State. 

(g) PUBLIC AND COASTAL STATE REVIEW— 

(1) NOTICE—Before submitting the final report to the Congress, the Commission shall— 

(A) publish in the Federal Register a notice that a draft report is available for public

review; and 

(B) provide a copy of the draft report to the Governor of each coastal State, the

Committees on Resources, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Science of the House of

Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate. 

(2) INCLUSION OF GOVERNORS’ COMMENTS—The Commission shall include in the final

report comments received from the Governor of a coastal State regarding recommendations in the draft

report. 

(h) ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE FOR REPORT AND REVIEW— Chapter 5 and chapter 7 of title

5, United States Code, do not apply to the preparation, review, or submission of the report required by

subsection (e) or the review of that report under subsection (f). 

(i) TERMINATION—The Commission shall cease to exist 903 days after the date on which it submits

its final report. 

(j) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out

this chapter a total of $8,500,0004 for the 3-fiscal-year period beginning with fiscal year 2001, such sums to

remain available until expended. 

Section 4. National Ocean Policy 

(a) NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY—Within 905 days after receiving and considering the report and

recommendations of the Commission under section 3, the President shall submit to Congress a statement of

proposals to implement or respond to the Commission’s recommendations for a coordinated, comprehensive,

and long-range national policy for the responsible use and stewardship of ocean and coastal resources for the

benefit of the United States. Nothing in this Act authorizes the President to take any administrative or

regulatory action regarding ocean or coastal policy, or to implement a reorganization plan, not otherwise

authorized by law in effect at the time of such action. 

(b) COOPERATION AND CONSULTATION—In the process of developing proposals for submission

under subsection (a), the President shall consult with State and local governments and non-Federal

organizations and individuals involved in ocean and coastal activities.

3 Public Law 107–372 (section 306)

4 Public Law 107–372 (section 306)

5 Public Law 107–372 (section 306)
A 6 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Section 5. Biennial Report 

Beginning in September, 2001, the President shall transmit to the Congress biennially a report that

includes a detailed listing of all existing Federal programs related to ocean and coastal activities, including a

description of each program, the current funding for the program, linkages to other Federal programs, and a

projection of the funding level for the program for each of the next 5 fiscal years beginning after the report is

submitted. 

Section 6. Definitions 

In this Act: 

(1) MARINE ENVIRONMENT—The term “marine environment” includes— 

(A) the oceans, including coastal and offshore waters; 

(B) the continental shelf; and 

(C) the Great Lakes. 

(2) OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCE—The term “ocean and coastal resource” means any

living or non-living natural, historic, or cultural resource found in the marine environment. 

(3) COMMISSION—The term “Commission” means the Commission on Ocean Policy

established by section 3. 

Section 7. Effective Date 

This Act shall become effective on January 20, 2001. 

The Oceans Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–256) was signed into law on August 7, 2000.
APPENDIX B

ACRONYMS APPEARING

IN THE REPORT
B 2 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

AAAS American Association for the Advancement

of Science

APD Application for Permit to Drill

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

APPS Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships

ARS Agriculture Research Service

ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

AUV Autonomous Underwater Vehicle

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis

BEACH Act Beaches Environmental Assessment and

Coastal Health Act of 2000

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics

CAA Clean Air Act Amendments

CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation

CALFED California Bay-Delta Program

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CDIAC Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center 

CEIP Coastal Energy Impact Plan

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act 

CIAP Coastal Impact Assistance Program

CIESIN Center for International Earth Science

Information Network

CITES Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

COOL Coastal Ocean Observation Laboratory

CORE Coastal and Ocean Resource Economics

CORM Committee on Ocean Resource

Management

COSETO Committee on Ocean Science, Education,

Technology, and Operations

COSEE Centers for Ocean Science Education

Excellence

CWA Clean Water Act

CWPPRA Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and

Restoration Act

CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund

CZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization

Amendments

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

DAACs Distributed Active Archive Centers

DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

DOC Department of Commerce

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOI Department of the Interior

DOJ Department of Justice

DOS Department of State

DOT Department of Transportation

DPA Deepwater Port Act

ECOHAB Ecological Oceanography of Harmful 

Algal Blooms

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EFH Essential Fish Habit

EHRC Estuary Habitat Restoration Council

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EOP Executive Office of the President

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EROS Earth Resources Observation Systems 

EROSDC Earth Resources Observation Systems 

Data Centers

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESP Environmental Studies Program

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FDA Food and Drug Administration

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee

FMC Federal Maritime Commission

FPA Federal Power Act

GAO General Accounting Office 

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GLFC Great Lakes Fishery Commission

GOES Geostationary Operational Environmental

Satellites

GOOS Global Ocean Observing System

GPA Global Program of Action for the Protection

of the Marine Environment from LandBased Sources

GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center 

GSMFC Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission

HAB Harmful Algal Bloom

HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point

H2O Hilltops-To-Oceans

ICRI International Coral Reef Initiative

IDOE International Decade of Ocean Exploration 

IFQs Individual Fishing Quotas

IMO International Maritime Organization

IMPROVE Interagancy Monitoring of Protected Visual

Environments Program

IOC U.N. Intergovernmental Oceanographic

Commission

IOOS Integrated Ocean Observing System

ITQs Individual Transferable Quotas

JEA Joint Enforcement Agreement

JSA Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture

LaRC Langley Research Center 

LME Large Marine Ecosystem

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas 

LOS Convention United Nations Convention on the Law of

the Sea 

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology

MARAD Maritime Administration

ACRONYMS APPEARING IN THE REPORT
APPENDIX B: ACRONYMS APPEARING IN THE REPORT

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention

of Pollution from Ships

MEDEA Measurment of Earth Data for

Environmental Analysis

MERHAB Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful

Algal Blooms

MERP Marine Entanglement Research Program

MLA Mineral Leasing Act

MMC Marine Mammal Commission

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MMS Minerals Management Service

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MPPRCA Marine Plastic Pollution Research and

Control Act

MPRSA Marine Protection, Research, and

Sanctuaries Act

M-S Act Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act

MSDs Marine Sanitation Devices

MSIs Minority Serving Institutions

MTBE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether

MTSA Maritime Transportation Security Act

NACOA National Advisory Committee on Oceans 

and Atmosphere

NANPCA Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention 

and Control Act

NAS National Academy of Sciences

NASA National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

NCDC National Climatic Data Center 

NDSF National Deep Submergence Facility

NEIC National Earthquake Information Center 

NEMO Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials

NEP National Estuary Program

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NERRS National Estuarine Research Reserve System

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NGDC National Geophysical Data Center 

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental 

Health Sciences

NIH National Institutes of Health

NIMA National Imagery and Mapping Agency

NMEA National Marine Educators Association

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NMOC Naval Meteorological and 

Oceanography Command

NMSA National Marine Sancturaries Act

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

NOC National Ocean Council

NODC National Oceanographic Data Center 

NOPA National Oceanographic Partnership Act

NOPP National Oceanographic Partnership

Program

NOPS National Ocean Policy Study

NORLC National Ocean Research Leadership Council

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System

NPS National Park Service

NRC National Research Council

NRCS National Resource Conservation Service

NRS National Response System

NSB National Science Board

NSC National Security Council

NSES National Science Education Standards 

NSF National Science Foundation

NSIDC National Snow and Ice Data Center 

NSSDC National Space Science Data Center 

NSTC National Science and Technology Council

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

NWS National Weather Service

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ONR Office of Naval Research

OOI Ocean Observatories Initiative

OPA Oil Pollution Act 

ORAP Ocean Research Advisory Panel

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

OTA Office of Technology Assessment

OTEC Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion

PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls

PODAAC Physical Oceanography Distributed Active 

Archive Centers 

POES Polar-orbiting Environmental Satellite

PSMFC Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission

RFMC Regional Fishery Management Council

ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle

SAR Synthetic Aperture Radar 

SCOR Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research

SEDAC Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center

SLA Submerged Lands Act

SSC Scientific and Statistical Committee

TAO Tropical Atmosphere Ocean array

TEU 20-foot Equivalent Units

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TOGA Tropical Global Ocean Atmosphere

TSA Transportation Security Agency

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of

the Sea

UNEP United Nations Environment Program

UNOLS University-National Oceanographic 

Laboratory System

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USEIA U.S. Energy Information Administration

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

USTR Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

VMS Vessel Monitoring Service

WRDA Water Resources Development Act

WTO World Trade Organization 

B 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................C 2

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................C 4

2. DEFINING THE COAST ..................................................................................................C 5

3. TRENDS IN POPULATION AND HOUSING ...........................................................C 6

National Trends........................................................................................................................C 6

Regional Trends in Population Growth ................................................................................C 6

Trends in Housing Growth .....................................................................................................C 7

Summary of Population and Housing Trends ......................................................................C 8

4. THE COASTAL AND OCEAN ECONOMY OF THE UNITED STATES ........C 9

5. THE COASTAL AND OCEAN ECONOMY

BEYOND THE MARKET PLACE ................................................................................C 15

6. IMPLICATIONS..................................................................................................................C 17

7. THE FUTURE OF UNDERSTANDING THE COASTAL

AND OCEAN ECONOMY ..............................................................................................C 19

TABLES ........................................................................................................................................C 21

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................C 25

ABOUT THE AUTHOR AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..............................................C 26

NOTES .........................................................................................................................................C 27

APPENDIX C

LIVING NEAR...AND MAKING

A LIVING FROM...THE NATION’S

COASTS AND OCEANS

Prepared for the United States Commission on Ocean Policy by 

Charles S. Colgan 

Professor of Public Policy and Management, Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service, 

University of Southern Maine,

Chief Economist, National Ocean Economics Project

September 2003
C 2 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

More than thirty years ago, the Stratton

Commission identified growing population

pressures on the coasts as a major reason for

increased federal government attention to managing

the resources of the coasts, oceans and Great Lakes.

Socio-economic changes have continued to affect the

nation’s oceans and coasts over the three decades

since the Stratton Commission report, but in much

more complex ways than simple population growth

alone. More people live on and near the coasts, but it

is population growth away from the coast that may

be the greatest cause for concern. Population growth

near the coast is being outstripped by even faster

employment growth, and in industries which appear

clean but whose cumulative effects on the environment are significant. 

The ocean has always been an important part of

the economic life of the nation, but this too is undergoing dramatic change. Economic activity associated

with the ocean contributed more than $200 billion to

the U.S. economy in 2000, but employment in such

traditional marine industries as fishing and marine

transportation is declining, while employment in

tourism and recreation industries is exploding. Some

industries, such as ocean minerals and maritime

transportation are producing more with fewer

employees, while others such as commercial fishing

are declining in both output and employment.

Changes in the socio-economic environment

affecting the nation’s oceans and coasts are essential

to any consideration of public policy. This is so for

three reasons:

1. Changes in how people use the ocean and coasts

have profound effects on the natural resources.

2. The changes in the resources feed back to

changes in the demographic and economic uses

altering our uses and perceptions of the coasts

and oceans.

3. To manage a resource you must manage the people who use it. Whatever form it takes, policy

affects people’s behavior, and so how people

interact with the environment is the key to the

future of the oceans. 

This report explores key changes in the socioeconomic environment of the nation’s oceans and

coasts using the latest data from the Census and a

special study of the coastal and ocean economies of

the United States prepared for the Commission by

the National Ocean Economics Project, an independent investigation of the national ocean economy

funded by NOAA and EPA. Major conclusions from

this analysis include:

1. The term “coast” requires precise definition for

measurement. The socio-economic definition of

the coast includes at least three tiers, ranging

from the near shore, the areas covered by state

coastal management programs, and the counties

that include coastal watersheds. 

2. Population growth since 1970 in coastal watershed counties exceeded 37.5 million people, but

this reflected the same rate of growth as the

nation as a whole. This means that the coasts are

not the destination of disproportionately large

growth, but the sheer increase in the population

on the same relative small land base still produces major effects.

3. Population and housing growth is shifting inland

away from the shoreline. Expensive real estate

and past growth have resulted in slow growth

near the oceans and Great Lakes, while upland

areas have absorbed more of the growth over the

past decade and will likely continue to do so.

4. The largest population growth has been along

the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, but the fastest

population growth by far has been along the

coasts of the Gulf of Mexico. The Great Lakes

have seen a slight decline in population, but

housing growth has continued.

5. Rural areas of the coast have seen much faster

growth than urban areas. The farther from cities,

the faster the population growth has been. Both

year round and seasonal population and housing

growth in rural counties have been substantial.

6. The coastal economy is different from the ocean

economy. The coastal economy is the sum of all

economic activity taking place in the coastal

area, while the ocean economy is the economic

activity using the ocean as an input.

7. While coastal populations have been growing

consistent with national trends, the coastal economy has been growing faster. And while population has been growing more slowly near the

shore than in the nation, the economy has been
APPENDIX C: LIVING NEAR...AND MAKING A LIVING FROM...THE NATION ’ S COASTS AND OCEANS C 3

growing much faster. The region nearest the

shore also accounts for 11% of the U.S. economy,

while comprising just 4% of its land area.

8. The ocean economy, comprised of the living

resources, minerals, construction, transportation,

and tourism & recreation sectors, also grew

slightly faster than the national economy over

the last decade. But tourism and recreation was

the only ocean economy sector to show employment growth; all other sectors saw declines in

employment in the last decade.

9. The ocean economy is overwhelmingly urban in

location, with over 90% of the jobs in the ocean

economy located in metro areas. But the ocean

economy is proportionately twice as important in

rural counties as a proportion of the economy.

In addition to the importance of the ocean and

coasts to the national economy, recent research on

the value of ocean and coastal resources has also

begun to reveal the huge economic values that lie

beyond what is reflected in measures such as

employment and industrial output. While no single

number can encapsulate these values, these studies

show additional evidence of the importance of the

oceans and coasts for recreation, and has begun to

make clear how important resources such as coral

reefs and estuaries are to the economic life of the

nation.

There are numerous implications of these trends

for the management of the nation’s coastal and ocean

resources. Policy responses to the impacts of

“sprawl” development must address different types of

sprawl in different parts of the coast. Population

growth trends indicate continued large increases in

population density on the coast, but at different rates

in different parts of the coast. Population and housing impacts in recent years are focused more on the

upland areas of the coastal watersheds and less on

the near shore areas. But exactly the opposite trend is

occurring in commercial and overall employment

growth, where the near shore areas growing more

rapidly—and more intensely—than upland areas. 

Attempts to improve the “land-side” aspects of

coastal and resource management must therefore

focus on a number of issues about which there has

been relatively little discussion. Economic growth in

the near shore area has tended to focus in the trade

and service industries (like the rest of the economy),

which uses more land per unit of output than other

types of activity. Managing the impacts of such commercial growth is very important, particularly

because a high proportion is directly related to

tourism and recreation uses of the coast. The coasts,

particularly the near shore areas, are also the location

for very high short-term population growth—from

commuters, seasonal vacationers, day-use recreationists, and others. The population pressures on the

near shore area are many times those implied by the

year-round populations measured by the Census and

reported here.

The changes in the ocean economy will also

require thinking about how we use the ocean in

some new ways. Clearly rebuilding the fish stocks to

sustainable levels is a vital part of improving both the

natural and economic health of the oceans. Other

economic uses of the ocean, such as offshore oil and

gas and maritime transportation, will play important

even growing roles in the national economy, but will

likely do so with stable or even shrinking employment levels. And tourism and recreation, which has

come to dominate much of the ocean economy, will

only grow further in economic importance—and

impacts on coastal and ocean resources, as society

gains in wealth and leisure and moves towards a

huge increase in retirees over the next two decades.

The insights offered by the data analyzed in this

report are useful but still incomplete. Our understanding of the economic values of coasts and oceans

economies is weak. In contrast to areas like agriculture where the federal government spends over $100

million a year on economic research, the federal government makes no sustained or significant effort to

monitor and expand our understanding of the economic values associated with the coasts and oceans.

A sustained effort of $8–10 million a year is needed

to catalyze a cooperative effort among NOAA, the

federal statistical agencies, related federal agencies

(NSF and EPA), and the university and private

research community to develop data and analysis to

improve our understanding in this area.
C 4 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

1. INTRODUCTION

Aconstant theme in discussions of the nation’s

coasts and oceans, including the Great Lakes, is

what the Stratton Commission called the “intensifying use of coastal area”(Commission on Marine

Science Engineering and Resources 1969). One particular concern has been a large and steadily increasing population. A frequently cited figure is that the

coast contains over half of the population of the U.S.,

but just over 11% of the area. ((Rappaport, J. and

Sachs, J. D. 2001);(Bookman, C. A. et al. 1998))

Another concern has been the level of economic

activity taking place in coastal areas and its effects on

resources. There is no doubt that the pressure of population and economic activity on the limited

resources of the coasts and oceans is large and growing. The U.S. Ocean Policy Commission received

substantial input to this effect. But the socioeconomic forces at work are at once more subtle and

dramatic than are usually cited. 

Reshaping America’s policies towards the oceans

in the future must rest on an understanding of those

forces. This report examines major trends over the

past one to three decades in the socio-economic

forces affecting America’s coasts and oceans. The

report uses primary Census and economic data from

federal and state sources to explore how population,

housing, employment and earnings, and production

in the coastal regions are changing. The data in this

report includes standard Census data as well as special analyses of economic data prepared for the

Commission by the National Ocean Economics

Project, an independent research effort funded by

NOAA and EPA. This data on the coastal and ocean

economy has not been previously available.

The report begins by examining the term “coast”

to provide some definitional clarity to a term that has

been used with so many different meanings that it is

almost impossible to compare one study to another.

Next, it explores population and housing trends,

both over the thirty years since the Stratton

Commission report as well over the most recent

decade. It then explores the coastal and ocean economy, making a distinction between the myriad of

economic activities that take place in coastal regions

and those that are directly tied to the oceans and

Great Lakes. This analysis focuses on the measurement of economic activity involving market transactions and measured by widely-used statistical series.

Beyond these measures, researchers are uncovering

important evidence that the size of the economic values associated with the coasts and oceans are much

larger than conventional measures capture. 

The report then examines the implications of

these trends for coastal and ocean resource management policy, and concludes with a discussion of the

need for future commitments to maintain and

improve our understanding of the socio-economic

environment of the oceans.
APPENDIX C: LIVING NEAR...AND MAKING A LIVING FROM...THE NATION ’ S COASTS AND OCEANS C 5

What is meant by the “coast”? The figures cited

above that more than 50% of the U.S. population is “on the coast” includes the population in all

counties1 within 50 miles (80 km) of the shoreline.

The 50 mile boundary reflects both the resident population of the coast and those who live “within a

day’s drive” and thus are likely to be frequent visitors

to the shore. This definition of the coast encompasses a substantial amount of inland geography that

would not be immediately recognized as coastal by

either residents or visitors. To get a better picture of

the population trends affecting the coast requires

three different perspectives on the idea of “coast”:

• Near shore. The population in the region closest

to the shore area and thus the population with

the greatest effect on the fragile shoreline. In this

report, the near shore population is measured by

the population living in zip codes adjacent to the

shore as defined by the Census Zip Code

Tabulation Areas. (Bureau of the Census 2003)

Employment, wages, and output of the near

shore area is defined by the zip code of reporting

establishments in the Bureau of Labor Statistics

employment data.

• Coastal Zone Counties. This is the population

living in the counties which are included in

whole or in part in the coastal zone as defined by

the states for purposes of the Coastal Zone

Management Act.2 The coastal zone defined by

the states varies significantly from state to state.

In four states,3 the coastal zone includes the

entire state. In other states the coastal zone is

defined by political jurisdictions such as towns

and counties4 and while still others define it by

natural features. This wide variation makes the

“coastal zone” a difficult basis for comparison,

but as the Coastal Zone Management Program is

one of the most significant accomplishments

stemming from the Stratton Commission, it

requires examination.

• Coastal Watershed Counties. The boundaries of

the near shore and coastal zone are largely determined for political and administrative purposes,

and thus intersect natural regions only by chance

or in those states that explicitly define their

coastal zone to match natural boundaries.

Another important perspective is to look at

counties that include the watersheds of coastal

areas, since the effects of population growth in

upland areas sooner or later flow to the sea down

coastal rivers and streams. Coastal watershed

counties have been defined by NOAA as a means

of more closely aligning political and natural

boundaries. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration 2001)

2. DEFINING THE COAST
C 6 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

3. TRENDS IN POPULATION AND HOUSING

National Trends 

Population growth pressures are probably the most

frequently cited socioeconomic force affecting the

coast. Analysis of Census data from 1970 to 2000

shows that population growth in coastal areas has

indeed been substantial, but as the coast is more

complicated than a single term can encompass, so

have been the population and housing dynamics.

Table C.1 (all tables may be found on pages C 21–

C 24) provides the data overview of the most important changes. These include:

• From 1970–2000, the population in coastal

watershed counties increased by more than 37.5

million people, an amount equivalent to adding

the total (year 2000) populations of California

and Oregon to the United States.

• Coastal Zone counties grew by more than 28

million people, an amount larger than the 2000

populations of Texas and Virginia.

• The population growth rates of coastal zone and

coastal watershed counties have not been consistently more rapid than the nation as a whole. In

fact, over the thirty year period, both tiers of

coastal counties grew slightly more slowly than

the nation. Both types of coastal counties did

grow more rapidly than the nation during the

1980s, but not in the 1970s or 1990s. In the

1970s, population growth was rapid in inland

areas associated with energy development. In the

1990s population growth was rapid in the intermountain west and southeast in the wake while

the coastal regions endured the effects of a prolonged slump in growth.

• Over the last decade, population growth has

been fastest away from the shoreline but also in

the counties adjacent to the shore. When all three

tiers are examined in the 1990s (data for the near

shore area is available only for 1990 and 2000),

the slowest growth was in the near shore tier,

while the fastest growth was in the coastal zone

counties. This inland shift of population results

from the fact that much of the coastline is

already developed and tends to be among the

most expensive real estate. But rapid population

growth has not yet shifted towards the farther

reaches of the watersheds. Growth remains concentrated near, but not on, the shoreline.

The proportion of the total United States population in the coastal watershed and coastal zone counties has declined slightly over the past thirty years,

but the proportion of population in these counties

remains nearly twice their proportion of the land

area of the country. (Table C.2) The proportion of

the population in the near shore coastal area in 2000

is more than three times the proportion of land area

of the near shore.

This means the population density of the coastal

regions is significantly higher than the nation as a

whole. The national density of 79 persons per square

mile of land area (in 2000) is exceeded substantially

in the near shore area, where there were more than

230 persons per square mile.5 While the population

density increased by 22 people per square mile

nationally from 1970 to 2000, it increased by 43 people per square mile in the coastal counties.

Regional Trends in Population Growth

Trends in population growth in coastal regions have

not been consistent across the nation. Figure C.2

summarizes the population change from 1970 to

2000 by region.6 (See also Table C.3)

• The Atlantic and Pacific regions show the largest

population growth, but the Gulf of Mexico

region shows by far the fastest population

growth. The coastal zone counties along the Gulf

Figure C.1 Population and Housing Growth 

1970–2000

■ United States ■ Coastal Counties

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Population Housing

Source: U.S. Census
APPENDIX C: LIVING NEAR...AND MAKING A LIVING FROM...THE NATION ’ S COASTS AND OCEANS C 7

almost doubled in population over the past thirty

years. Much of this growth occurred in Florida.

• The Great Lakes region saw a population decline

in the coastal zone counties from 1970–2000,

primarily due to trends in the 1970s. This was

due in large part to population declines in cities

such as Detroit and Cleveland.

• Population growth trends differed in each region

across the three decades, but the 1990s saw the

greatest absolute amount of growth in all regions.

• Growth accelerated across the decades in the

Atlantic region and the Great Lakes, recovered

from a population loss in the 1970s to a gain in

the 1990s. Growth rates were faster in the 1980s

in the Pacific. The Gulf of Mexico saw the fastest

growth in coastal zone counties in all three

decades.

• The fastest growth in the near shore region over

the past decade was in the Gulf of Mexico, the

slowest in the Great Lakes.

Trends in the large regions examined here illustrate some of the major variations in population

growth across the country. Important additional variations exist within each of the regions between and

within states. One of the most important of these

variations is the different rates of growth in urban

and rural areas (Table C.4).7

Over the past thirty years, the population growth

rate in rural areas substantially exceeds that of urban

areas. Rural coastal zone counties grew by more than

57% from 1970 to 2000, compared with 38% growth

in urban coastal zone counties. Population growth

has been most rapid in those urban region counties

which are furthest from the central city and in those

rural counties furthest from the city with at least one

large community.8

Trends in Housing Growth

The potential for population growth’s impact on

coastal and ocean resources extends beyond the

sheer number of people who reside in coastal areas.

That potential is also driven by the growth in the

number of housing units in a region, which is a principal source of demand for land that may otherwise

be used for wildlife habitat, wetlands, etc. Much of

the growth in America takes place in a pattern which

has come to be called “sprawl”, which involves

extensive spreading out of housing and economic

activity across the landscape. Coastal areas are very

much characterized by sprawling patterns of growth.

(Beach, D. 2003)

Figure C.3 shows the comparative growth rates of

housing and population in coastal watershed and

coastal zone counties from 1970–2000. Over the

whole period, housing growth has substantially

exceeded population growth, although the differences

in rates diminished by the 1990s. The trends of faster

housing growth than population growth is particularly

strong in the Great Lakes region, which saw a slight

decline (0.4%) in the population in Coastal Zone

counties of over the three decades, but an increase in

housing in the same counties of nearly 25%. 

Rural coastal zone counties also grew substantially faster in housing than urban coastal zone counFigure C.2 Population Growth 1970–2000

■ Coastal Watershed Counties ■ Coastal Zone Counties

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Great

Lakes

Gulf of Pacific

Mexico

U.S. Atlantic

Source: U.S. Census

Figure C.3 Population and Housing Growth 

1970–2000 for Coastal Regions and the 

United States

■ United States

■ Coastal Watersheds Counties

■ Coastal Zone Counties

■ Near Shore (Not available 

1970–2000)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Population Housing Population Housing

Source: U.S. Census

1970–2000 (Average 

Growth per Decade)

1990–2000
C 8 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

ties. From 1970–2000, the number of housing units

in rural coastal counties more than doubled (a 107%

growth rate), while housing grew 63% in urban

counties over the same period. Smaller coastal zone

counties in urban regions saw very fast housing

growth rates. Coastal zone counties at the fringe of

urban areas had the fastest rate of housing growth in

any of the urban-rural county types, with an increase

of over 150% from 1970–2000. 

Two major factors drive these trends in housing

relative to population growth. A certain amount of

housing growth is required for population growth,

but a major factor is the falling size of U.S. households. In 1970 the average household consisted of

3.14 persons; by 2000 this was reduced to 2.59 persons. (Bureau of the Census 2001) This change alone

accounts for more than half of the growth in housing. Another factor that heavily influences rapid

growth in coastal regions is the growth in seasonal

housing, which tends to be concentrated in rural

counties. 

Summary of Population and 

Housing Trends

Population growth continues to place significantly

increased pressure on coastal regions. Total population growth has not been disproportionately located

in coastal counties, but the sheer magnitude of that

growth on the limited land area of coastal regions

creates a much heavier “footprint” than in other

parts of the country. Population densities in coastal

areas are two to three times as high as in the nation

as a whole, reflecting both the attraction of the coast

and the intensity of use.

The population of coastal regions is shifting

inland, away from the shore and towards the upland

areas of coastal watersheds. This trend is most

noticeable in the counties closest to the shore. The

fastest population growth is occurring in the counties bordering the Gulf of Mexico, particularly in

Florida. The largest population growth has been

occurring in the Pacific, particularly in California.

Population growth has been occurring much more

rapidly in rural coastal zone counties than urban

coastal zone counties, and in those counties at the

fringe of urban regions. 

Housing growth exceeds population growth in

the coastal areas, especially in the Great Lakes region

and in rural coastal zone counties. This pattern of

growth puts stresses on natural resources well in

excess of that suggested by simple measurement of

population growth. In 1969, the Stratton

Commission noted that the pressures on the coastal

zone were expanding seaward. While this is true, the

expansion of population pressures inland and away

from the urban areas may be the most important

trend over the past thirty years. These trends will

almost certainly continue well into the future, since

they reflect both fundamental economic forces such

as land value that affect where housing is affordable. 

Restoring and enhancing the nation’s coastal

resources will require increased attention not only on

the land forms, such as the Big Sur coast of

California or the beaches of the Atlantic that form

the coast of the popular imagination. It will require

increased attention on the less populated rural parts

of the coast where change is occurring most rapidly

and on the upland areas of watersheds where the

accumulation of subtle changes are magnified in the

water rivers, streams, and lakes of the area as water

flows to the sea.
APPENDIX C: LIVING NEAR...AND MAKING A LIVING FROM...THE NATION ’ S COASTS AND OCEANS C 9

I

t is no exaggeration to say that the American economy began on the coasts and oceans. Of course all

the early European settlements were along the coast,

and from these sprouted not only many of America’s

great cites but America itself. But even before the

first permanent settlements in Virginia and

Massachusetts, Europeans were venturing across the

Atlantic to fish. (Innis, H. 1940) Native Americans

were using the shore as their summer home centuries

before the mansions of Newport were built.

(Larrabee, B. W. et al. 1998) The nation grew around

the ports, and trade they made possible. So the connection of the economy to the sea has been, and

remains a vital one in the livelihood of the nation.

Seeing the importance of the ocean in America’s

past is not difficult. Understanding the role of the

ocean and coasts in today’s huge and complex economy is more difficult. There are many isolated facts

that have been collected about the nation’s ocean and

coastal economy which attest to the continued

importance of the ocean to the economy, but little in

the way of systematic measurement has been available.9 A major effort to develop a systematic and consistent measurement of economic activity associated

with the coasts and ocean, the National Ocean

Economics Project, has provided new insights into

how the nation’s economy depends on its coasts and

oceans—and how that dependence is undergoing

dramatic changes.10

The terms “ocean” and “coastal” economy are

often applied in a way that implies they are synonymous, but they are not.

The ocean economy is that portion of the economy

which relies on the ocean as an input to the production process or which, by virtue of geographic location, takes place on or under the

ocean. 

The coastal economy is that portion of economic

activity which takes place on or near the coast.

The reason for this distinction stems from the

fact that the “ocean” and “coast” are two different

resources. The “ocean” provides a variety of products

and services such as food, recreation, and transportation. The “coast”, on the other hand is a region

which provides access to the services of the ocean as

well as being a specific economy within larger

regions. The coast contains both ocean and many

non-ocean related economic activities, and is much

larger than the ocean economy. The coast economy

describes the category of economic activity that creates much of the impact on coastal resources, while

the ocean economy is the direct connection between

the sea, the Great Lakes, and the nation’s overall economic growth.

Table C.5 shows establishments, employment,

wages, and output (share of gross state product) for

the total economy of the coastal regions (the near

shore zip-code defined regions plus the coastal zone

and coastal watershed counties) in 1990 and 2000.11

4. THE COASTAL AND OCEAN

ECONOMY OF THE UNITED STATES

The ocean economy can be divided into the following broad sectors and industries:*

• Living resources (fisheries harvesting and 

processing, aquaculture, seaweed harvesting)

• Marine construction (construction of piers and

wharves, dredging, beach reconstruction)

• Ship and boat building

• Marine transportation (transportation of both

freight and passengers)

• Minerals (oil and gas, sand and gravel, miscellaneous other mineral resources)

• Tourism and recreation (restaurants, lodging,

recreation services, marinas, boat dealers)

• Scientific Research (oceanographic, biological, 

ecological)

• Government (Federal, state, and local agencies

that use or manage ocean resources).

Some of these industries are related to the ocean 

by what they do, such as marine transportation of

goods and people. Other industries are ocean-related

because of where they are. Tourism and recreation

industries such as hotels or recreation services are

ocean related when located in the near shore area,

defined by being in a shore-adjacent zip code.

* The data used in this analysis are based on the ES–202 data

employment and wage data series collected by the U.S.

Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics.
C 10 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Major conclusions from Table C.5 include:

• The coastal states account for about three quarters of the U.S. economy measured by employment and value added in 2000.

• The proportion of the U.S. economy in the

coastal states increased from 1990 to 2000.

• Coastal watershed counties account for just

under half of the U.S. economy and coastal zone

counties for about one-third of the economy.

• All of the tiers of the coast, from the near shore

area to the coastal states, grew faster than the

U.S. economy over the past decade.

• With 4.6% of the U.S. land area, the coastal near

shore region had more than 11% of the U.S.

economy in 2000.

• The near shore area was also the fastest growing

area of the coast from 1990 to 2000, which grew

faster in employment, wages, and value added

than coastal zone or coastal watershed counties. 

This comparatively rapid growth in the economy

of the near shore area is in marked contrast to the

relatively slower growth of the population in this area,

suggesting the socio-economic pressures on the near

shore area arise from more than population growth.

From 1990–2000, the population of the near shore

region grew by 3.6 million (see Table C.1), but the

number of jobs grew by more than 3.8 million.

In sum, the economic trends over the past

decade have generally shown greater emphasis on

coastal regions, with the fastest growth occurring in

the areas near the shore. While much of the discussion of the relationship between socioeconomic

trends and the health of coastal and ocean resources

has concentrated on population growth, the effects of

growth in economic activity have been ignored. But

economic activity, the growth in employment and

output in the near shore area may be even more

important than pure population growth. To understand why requires understanding of the composition of growth. 

From 1990–2000 the United States gained 22

million jobs.12 Despite overall economic growth,

manufacturing jobs declined by over 600,000, while

trade (wholesale and retail) plus services grew by

nearly 17 million, accounting for nearly 80% of the

job growth. The decline in manufacturing industries

such as steel production, ship building, and chemicals reduced (often at great expense to local communities) the source of many major environmental

impacts in the coastal area. Their replacement by

hundreds of thousands of smaller establishments in

the services and trade industries has allowed employment growth to continue, and even accelerate. But

the sum total of those additional establishments has

required more and more land for buildings, parking,

roads, and other infrastructure, placing proportionately an even heavier demand on coastal lands and

resources than the “old” economy.

This shift in the nature of the economy has also

greatly affected how we earn our living from the

ocean. Table C.6 shows the data for the private sector

ocean economy of the United States for 1990–2000,

while Figure C.5 highlights changes in the ocean

economy over the same period. The government and

scientific research sectors are not included in the

ocean economy because of data limitations, so the

discussion in this paper is limited to the private

ocean economy.13

Overall in 2000, the ocean economy accounted

directly for 1.6% of employment and 1.4% of the

total U.S. private economy. While these may seem

like small proportions, they should be considered in

context:

• The ocean economy would be the 27th largest

state economy in the nation in 2000. 

• In 2000, the ocean economy was almost 2.5

times larger than the agricultural economy in

terms of output, and over 150% larger than

employment in the farm sector. This employment figure for the ocean sector does not include

employment in fisheries harvesting.14

• In employment, the ocean sector is larger than

every manufacturing industry.15

Figure C.4 Economic Growth 1990–2000 

By Inland and Near Shore

■ Manufacturing Inland

■ Manufacturing Near Shore

■ Trade and Services Inland

■ Trade and Services 

Near Shore

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Gross State

Product

Establishments Employment Wages

Source: BLS, NOEP
APPENDIX C: LIVING NEAR...AND MAKING A LIVING FROM...THE NATION ’ S COASTS AND OCEANS C 11

The ocean economy has followed this overall

pattern of growth in the U.S. economy, shifting away

from goods-oriented and towards service oriented

production. From 1990 to 2000 there were sharp

declines in establishments and employment in the

living resources, minerals, and ship and boat building industries, while there was a substantial increase

in the establishments and employment in the

tourism and recreation sector. The marine construction sector also grew slightly in output, but declined

in employment from 1990–2000, although it should

be noted that this sector is poorly measured under

the Standard Industrial Classification system and is

subject to strong influence from the business cycle

when measured at any two particular years.

The dramatic shift towards tourism and recreation and away from the goods producing sectors has

many causes. The growth in tourism and recreation

is clearly consistent with long term increases in overall affluence and increases in leisure time. The enduring appeal of the ocean as a source of recreation has

not only been sustained, but enhanced by the rise of

such industries as cruise ships.16 At the same time

there have been substantial changes in the goods

producing sectors.

• The ship building industry was at a post-World

War II peak in employment in 1990 as the end of

the Reagan-era naval expansion was occurring.

Since almost all ship building in the United

States is done for the Navy, the end of the Cold

War and the subsequent reduction in ship procurement for the Navy had a profound effect on

this industry. Shipbuilding employment declined

by 38% between 1990 and 2000, while output

declined by 12%. There was a significant increase

in boat building employment (32%) and output

(81%), primarily for the recreational market. But

this was not enough to offset the decline in

employment in ship building.

• The living resources sector saw dramatic

declines as overfishing in key areas such as New

England, the Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico led to

enforced reductions in fishing effort. While the

fisheries harvesting sector is not fully reflected in

these figures,17 the overall trend towards declines

in employment and output in this sector is clear.

Seafood processing employment, which will mirror trends in seafood harvesting, declined by

12%. The value of output in the seafood processing industry rose (by 30%) as declining catches

resulted in higher prices. Those declines were

only slightly offset by the growth of aquaculture,

which grew by 27% in employment and 23% in

output, but remains a small industry.

• Minerals production, primarily offshore oil and

gas, declined somewhat over the decade as older

fields in the Gulf of Mexico were played out.

Employment fell by 35% while contribution to

gross state product fell by 6%. More importantly,

there was a reduction in the number of employees needed in the oil and gas industry as more

and more technology was employed to find and

produce the ocean’s mineral resources.

• Ocean related transportation declined in

employment, but grew in importance. The

declines in employment were primarily in deep

Figure C.5 Changes in the Ocean Economy 1990–2000

■ Establishments ■ Employment 

(Number of Jobs)

■ Nominal wages 

(Millions)

■ Nominal GSP 

(Millions)

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Tourism & Transportation

Recreation

Ship &

Boat

Building

Living Minerals

Resources

TOTAL Construction

OCEAN

ECONOMY

Source: BLS, NOEP
C 12 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

sea freight handling (down 14%) and in search

and navigation equipment (down 41%). In the

case of freight, while the volume of ocean-going

trade increased over the decade, the number of

people required to handle the trade declined as

containers and automation allowed fewer people

to work the docks. The decline in search and

navigation equipment was heavily related to

post-Cold War military procurement reductions.

Ocean related passenger transportation increased

significantly (up 47% in employment and 130%

in GSP), from cruise ships, ferry services and

tour boats.18

The changes in the ocean economy away from

goods-producing activities should, not, however,

obscure the continued importance of goods-related

activities. Figure C.6 compares the distribution of

establishments, employment, wages, and output

from the ocean sectors for 2000. Tourism and recreation dominates the number of establishments and

employment, with three quarters or more of the

ocean economy accounted for by this sector. When

wages and output are considered, the goods producing industries are much more important, particularly

the minerals sector. Accounting for 2% of employment, minerals accounts for nearly ten times the proportion of ocean economy output.

Figure C.6 Composition of the Private Sector Ocean Economy by Different Measures: 2000

■ Construction

■ Living Resources

■ MInerals

■ Ship & Boat Building

■ Tourism & Recreation

■ Transportation

Source: BLS, NOEP

51%

50%

73%

82%

23%

29% 13%

8%

12%

7%

7%

2% 4%

4% 13%

3%

3%

4%

2%

1

2 2

3%

2

Establishments

Employment

Wages

GSP
APPENDIX C: LIVING NEAR...AND MAKING A LIVING FROM...THE NATION ’ S COASTS AND OCEANS C 13

This difference in importance based on which

measure is used also influences which of the coastal

regions of the U.S. can claim the largest share of the

ocean economy. Figure C.7 shows the distribution of

the ocean economy in 2000 by both employment and

output. The Pacific region is the largest region on

both measures, with 38% of employment and 34% of

output. The Gulf of Mexico region accounts for 12%

of employment and 32% of output. 

The geographic distribution of the ocean must

also be considered in terms of the ocean economy’s

role in both urban and rural locations. (Figure C.8)

The ocean economy is overwhelmingly an urban

economy; 93% of employment in the ocean industries is in metropolitan area counties, and two thirds

of employment is in counties in metropolitan areas

with a total population of one million or more.19 It is

perhaps not surprising that the ocean economy is

very much an urban economy given the large number of America’s principal cities that exist on the

coast, but the extent of the concentration of what is a

natural-resource based economy in the urban centers

of the U.S. speaks to a unique role of the ocean in the

American economy. Of all the major natural

resources such as farmland and forests, the oceans

and Great Lakes are the only resource so intimately

connected to the cities, rather than just the country.

However, the importance of the ocean economy

to rural economies should not be lost. While the

employment in the ocean economy is overwhelmingly urban, it comprises less than 8% of the economy in urban areas, but more than 12% of the economy in rural counties. Moreover, the growth rate in

ocean sector employment in rural counties over

1990–2000 was one third faster than in urban counties (16% in rural counties v. 12% in urban counties).

Recalling that almost all of the growth in employment occurred in the tourism and recreation sector,

the increasing importance of the ocean economy in

rural counties is closely tied to their roles of providing an escape for urban dwellers looking for recreation.

Summary of Economic Trends

Total economic activity on the coast accounts for a

substantial portion of the American economy. Over

three quarters of U.S. domestic economic activity

takes place in the coastal states, and nearly half in

the coastal watershed counties. The proportion of

economic activity in the near shore area is more than

twice the proportion of land area, and the total volume of economic activity in the near shore area may

have a more profound effect on coastal resources

than the more frequently cited figures about population pressures.

The ocean economy is a small proportion of

America’s huge 10 trillion dollar economy, but it is

still larger than all but the largest state economies. At

over $117 billion in 2000, it represents a significant

level of economic activity. But the way in which we

use the ocean is changing dramatically and rapidly. 

Mirroring larger trends in the economy, the services of tourism and recreation have provided almost

all the growth in employment and much of the

Figure C.7 Regional Distribution of the 

Private Ocean Economy 2000

■ Pacific

■ Gulf

■ Great Lakes

■ Atlantic

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Gross State Product

(Millions)

Employment

(Number of Jobs)

718,582 $39,099

$25,496

$17,781

$27,135

316,233

414,331

624,534

Figure C.8 Metro vs. Non-metro 

Distribution of Ocean Economy

■ Metro ■ Non-metro

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Ocean

Economy

Employment

Growth

1990–2000

Ocean

Economy

Percent of

County

Employment

Ocean

Economy

Employment

Source: BLS, NOEP
C 14 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

growth in wages and output, while goods related sectors such as the fisheries, transportation, ship and

boat building, and minerals have declined in employment and their growth in wages and output have

lagged behind the overall economy. All of the ocean

economy sectors remain important to the nation, and

a major focus of policy towards the use of the ocean

must be to balance the demands of a fast growing

tourism and recreation sector with the needs of stillvital uses of the sea for living resources, minerals and

fuel, transportation, and ship and boat building.

Conflicts over the uses of the scarce coastal and

ocean resources will only increase in intensity in the

future given these trends.

Most of the employment in the ocean economy is

to be found in urban areas, where the competition

for land and the impacts of human activity are at

their greatest, but where the ocean provides a key

component making our cities both competitive and

livable. At the same time, the ocean economy plays a

proportionately much larger role in the rural regions

of the U.S., where overall economic growth has been

much slower. The vitality of rural areas on the coast

remains very much tied to the sea.
APPENDIX C: LIVING NEAR...AND MAKING A LIVING FROM...THE NATION ’ S COASTS AND OCEANS C 15

The preceding analysis examines the role of ocean

and coastal economic activity using the conventional measures of employment, wages (income), and

output. These measures tell a vital, but incomplete

story of the role of ocean and coastal resources in the

economic life of the nation. What is left out is are the

economic values associated with a family spending a

day at the local beach, or of surfers or sailors who are

passionate about their use of the oceans, which may

result in little spending each year that winds up

being measured in the national income accounts but

is an essential part of peoples’ economic lives. Also

missing are the economic values that natural

resources such as estuaries or coral reefs perform as

nurseries for fisheries as natural pollutant cleansing

mechanisms and buffers against storm damage. 

These economic values are very real, but are not

measured as systematically as with market transaction-based economic activity. Economists have made

substantial progress in developing methods to measure these values, but studies of these “non-market”

values are sporadic. Some types of resources, such as

recreational resources, have been studied regularly,

but only some coastal regions have been studied and

many areas have never been examined. Other

resources are studied only when damaged by events

such as an oil spill for purposes of federal law.20 The

result is that it is not possible to provide an overview

of these economic values of the ocean and coasts, but

only to provide examples of these values and why

they are important.

Estuaries are perhaps the most diverse of coastal

environmental systems, and so are recognized as

being among the most valuable. A number of studies

have been done of the economic values associated

with estuaries, particularly those which are covered

by the National Estuary Program administered by

EPA. One such study of the Indian River Lagoon area

of Florida examined the economic values associated

with recreational fishing in the region, as well as resident’s willingness to pay to restore and enhance the

Lagoon’s environmental quality. (Apogee Research

and Resource Economic Consultants 2000) Estimates

of the value of marine recreational fishing in excess

of expenditures range from $100 to $589 per angler,

resulting in an estimate of $140 million per year in

recreational fishing values. This figure is limited to

the residents of the five-county region around the

Lagoon, and does not include recreational anglers

from other areas. 

This study also examined the willingness to pay

to improve the environmental quality of the estuary

through programs such as stormwater management,

protection of wetlands, and acquisition of lands for

conservation purposes. The median values of these

actions per household were estimated to be $40, $25,

$19, and $29 respectively. These values were

reported whether or not those asked actually used

the Lagoon or not. Aggregated across the population

of the five-county region, the value of the environmental quality of the Indian River Lagoon was found

to range between $14.6 million to $25.9 million

depending on which package of environmental

improvements residents were asked to value.

Coral Reefs are also one the most important

marine resources and one of the most threatened.

Understanding the economic value of the reefs has

become an important element in developing restoration and management strategies. A recent study

(Cesar, H. et al. 2002) of parts of the reef systems in

the Hawaiian Islands estimates the values of the rich

coral reefs of that state to be at least $384 million per

year. The vast majority if this benefit is from tourism

and recreation, but it also derives from the enhanced

value of real estate in areas bordered by coral reefs,

the value of the biodiversity of the reef ecosystems,

and the values of enhanced commercial and recreational fisheries productivity.

Estimating the value of lost resources from

events such as oil spills has become an integral part

of the response to such disasters. One of the most

important of such estimates was the study of the

value lost to Americans from the damages caused by

the grounding of the tanker Exxon Valdez in 1989.

Studies done for the State of Alaska (Carson, R. T. et

al. 1992) found that Americans were highly aware of

the damage from that spill, and were willing to pay to

avoid the losses caused by that oil spill. These studies found a median willingness to pay to avoid the

damages of $31 per household, or about $2.8 billion

for the U.S. as a whole. This study became the basis

for the litigation and a settlement arising from what

was the largest oil spill in U.S. waters.

5. THE COASTAL AND OCEAN

ECONOMY BEYOND THE MARKET PLACE
C 16 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

The value of beach recreation Beaches are among

the coast’s most important recreational resources.

Their economic value is comprised of the expenditures that visitors make to visit the beach and the

value to the beach-goer over and above what they

spend. A significant body of research has attempted

to measure these values. While the research methods

and approaches have differed, most of the research

has shown that the non-market values of the use and

enjoyment of beaches are significant. 

Southern California has among the most famous

beaches in the world. The beaches of Orange County

attract upwards of 150,000 visits per day in the summer. Studies of the value of use and enjoyment21 of

southern California beaches range from $18.00 per

day for Santa Monica beaches to $23.00 per day for

Huntington Beach. (Hanneman, M. 2001) The

beaches of Ohio are less well known, but just as

important to the residents and visitors. Studies of the

northern Ohio beaches of Headlands State Park and

Maumee Bay found values similar to California of

$15.60 per day for the former and $25.60 per day for

the latter. (Sohngen, B. et al. 1999) Summed over a

year, the value of using Santa Monica beach is estimated at over $200 million for the 12 million visitors

to these beaches. The comparable value for

Huntington Beach is over $12 million, while the

Ohio beaches are valued at $6.1 million (Maumee

Bay) and $3.5 million (Headlands) based on the

lower number of visitors. These studies illustrate

both the potential size of the non-market values of

beaches, and the lack of data which exists in many

other beach-oriented coastal regions from Maine to

Hawaii.

Because of the complexities in estimating these

non-market values, it will probably never be possible

to compile a single picture of these values of the

ocean and coasts in the same way we can with measures such as employment, wages, and output. But

these illustrations show that these non-market values

are often large and understanding them is vital to our

ability to manage ocean and coastal resources to best

advantage.
APPENDIX C: LIVING NEAR...AND MAKING A LIVING FROM...THE NATION ’ S COASTS AND OCEANS C 17

The changes in the coastal and ocean socio-economic environment that have been underway

will shape policy for the coasts and oceans in a number of important ways. Much of the health of the

oceans depends on what happens on the land, as the

Stratton Commission recognized. Shaping policy

towards the management of the land and water

resources of the coastal areas will have to take into

account the increases in population density throughout the coast, but also the faster population growth

in upland areas and the faster economic and employment growth near the shore. The upland areas of

watersheds require more attention as a result of the

first trend, while the impacts of rapid commercial

growth near the shore require attention as a result of

the second.

Population impacts must also be reconsidered as

resulting from more than the people who live on the

coast. The real population growth on the coasts is

not from permanent residents near the shore but the

large number of people who come to the shore for

short periods of time. These include the large number of employees who must commute into the nearshore region to take the growing number of jobs

there but who cannot live there because of high real

estate prices. It also includes people who commute

to the near shore area for shopping or to utilize the

growing retail and service industries there. Finally, it

includes large numbers of tourists and recreationists

who increase the population in coastal areas several

fold, primarily in the summer. These populations are

poorly measured, but are clearly implied by the

trends in the economy and housing.

The sum of the “short term” and “resident” populations means that the public must plan for and

build a transportation infrastructure to serve a much

larger population in coastal areas than actually live

there. Because of rapid employment growth in near

shore areas, transportation infrastructure must have

the capacity to move employees on a daily basis and

tourists on a seasonal basis. This large transportation

infrastructure must be provided in such a way that it

minimizes impacts on the very resources that make

the coast special, and allows community character to

be maintained. 

The complex dimensions of population, housing,

and economic changes are clearly challenging federal, state, and local agencies. Inevitably questions

arise about whether the high degree of both functional and geographic fragmentation in the jurisdictions of public agencies is a barrier to effective policy.

Such concerns lead often lead to calls for new

“regional” levels of government, in which jurisdictions match appropriate ecological and socio-economic boundaries. The question of matching jurisdictions with responsibilities is an important one. 

While new forms of organizations may be

needed in some cases, there are a number of organizations integrating federal, state and local governments with responsibilities appropriate to managing

coastal and ocean resources. These include coastal

zone management agencies under the Coastal Zone

Management Act, the National Estuary Programs

established under the Clean Water Act, and the

Metropolitan Planning Organizations established

under the Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act. These organizations can play an

important role in addressing many of the issues

raised by the evolution of socio-economic trends discussed here and the changes in the natural environment noted in other information provided to the

Commission.

The changes in the ocean economy point to a

number of different conclusions:

Fisheries It is clear that the severe problems with

America’s fisheries resources have had significant

negative effects on the economy of many communities. The losses in jobs reflected in the processing

industry figures reported here are magnified several

times in the unreported employment figures of harvesting sector employment. While many fisheries

remain vital sources of employment and economic

output, a significant restoration of abundance in fish

stocks to sustainable levels will provide important

economic boosts to many regions. Aquaculture is

also an important new industry, but it does not

appear to be replacing the employment levels lost in

the capture fisheries.

Maritime Transportation The role of the maritime transportation industry in the economy is

changing dramatically. While the volume of goods

being moved across the oceans and along the coasts

comprises a large and growing share of the American

economy, competitive pressures on the transportation industry and improved technologies are reducing the demand for labor, particularly in the handling

6. IMPLICATIONS
C 18 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

of freight. Expansions and improvements to maritime

freight transportation will continue to be a key to the

success of the ocean and national economies.

The rapid growth of the cruise ship industry, now

operating in virtually all coastal regions, represents

both an important new dimension to the marine

transportation industry and is a part of the rapidly

growing tourism and recreation industry. The cruise

ship industry offers both significant economic development opportunities to the communities served by

the industry and new challenges in community planning and environmental management as the equivalent

of major resort hotels move up and down the coast.

Minerals The offshore oil and gas industry

remains an important source of energy for the nation,

albeit a controversial one. Like maritime transportation, employment in this industry is declining as 

efficiency improvements and changing output levels

affect the industry. Also like maritime transportation,

offshore oil and gas will continue to play an important

part in the economy. Uses of other ocean minerals,

like sand and gravel, are not currently large enough

to play a significant role in the ocean economy, but

may play a larger role in the future.

Tourism and Recreation The explosive growth of

coastal and ocean tourism and recreation dominates

the story of the ocean economy over the last decade,

and this is likely to be the case for the foreseeable

future. The growth in tourism and recreation is part

of the reason for the rapid growth in employment

and economic activity in the near shore regions,

meaning that the issues discussed above concerning

those trends are part of the story of tourism and

recreation growth. Seasonal population and housing

growth is also part of the story. While much attention

has been devoted to promoting sustainable forms of

“ecotourism” in coastal regions, it is clear that it is

the overall growth of tourism and recreation activities

in coastal areas that requires the greatest attention.

There is also likely to be an increasing tie between

population growth and tourism and recreation growth

in coastal areas. As the baby boom generation moves

into retirement in the next two decades, many will

seek to permanently re-locate to the coastal regions

where they have previously enjoyed vacations. Many

coastal regions will develop sharp age structure

imbalances, coming to be dominated by retirees 

and the aged.
APPENDIX C: LIVING NEAR...AND MAKING A LIVING FROM...THE NATION ’ S COASTS AND OCEANS C 19

Despite the size and importance of the ocean and

coastal economy, the Federal government invests

very little in trying to monitor and understand it.

While the National Marine Fisheries Service and the

Special Projects Office have ongoing economic research

programs, they are limited to generating information

directly related to NOAA programs. There is no organization with a general purpose economic research program or funding within NOAA comparable to the

Economic Research Service in the Department of

Agriculture, which has an annual budget of over $100

million. None of the major economic statistics agencies

of the Federal government, including the Department

of Commerce’s Bureau of the Census and Bureau of

Economic Analysis or the Department of Labor’s

Bureau of Labor Statistics, have either mandate or

money to study the ocean and coastal economy. 

The economic statistics cited in this report are

the result of a NOAA and EPA-sponsored National

Ocean Economics Project, a multi-year research

study being conducted at several universities. This

research program is providing critical information,

but research is not a substitute for the kind of ongoing commitment to generating data that can be used

to monitor and study the coastal and ocean economy.

As part of its recommitment to ocean policy, the

Federal government needs to establish an ongoing

program of using its existing statistical resources to

continue the measurement of the coastal and ocean

economy and to generating additional data resources

and analysis in this field.

A sustained effort to monitor and improve

understanding of the coastal and ocean economy

requires a cooperative approach among a number of

different federal and nonfederal organizations. Seven

organizations will play key roles.

1 NOAA. As the principal federal agency with

responsibility for the oceans, NOAA must play the

lead role, working with other agencies to set agendas for research and publication of data, as well as

enhancing the use of economic data to assist decision making at the federal, state, and local levels.

2. The Bureau of Labor Statistics. BLS, in cooperation with the states, collects the most basic

employment and wage data on the economy. 

The economic data presented here is based on

the Longitudinal Data Base maintained by the

Bureau. This data will continue to be the fundamental element of monitoring the coastal and

ocean economy from national to local levels. 

3. The Bureau of the Census is the other major collector of primary data on the economy, including

the censuses of population and housing and of the

major sectors of the economy. The Department of

Agriculture has responsibility for the Census of

Agriculture, which includes data on aquaculture.

4. The Bureau of Economic Analysis. BEA uses data

inputs from the data collecting agencies to maintain the most important measure of annual economic activity, the national income and product

accounts, the best-known element of which is

the gross domestic product. Related measures

such as the gross state product are key to understanding regional economies, as is the measurement of self employment.

5. EPA. The Environmental Protection Agency

undertakes substantial economic research in the

fields of land, water, and air pollution that affect

ocean and coastal resources at many points. EPA’s

economic research focuses particular attention

on nonmarket values, and provides an important

supplement to NOAA’s work in this area.

6. The National Science Foundation is the provider of

support for much of the basic research in the sciences, including the social sciences. It has recently

undertaken new initiatives to better link the natural

and social sciences in the aid of improved management of the environment and natural resources,

which fits well within the framework of socioeconomic research on the coasts and oceans.

7. Universities and Other Researchers. As with

marine science in general, the key research in

measuring the coastal and ocean economy is a

cooperative arrangement between the federal

government and researchers in the nation’s universities and in private research organizations.

The interaction among federal, academic, and

private researchers, with the federal government

providing a key catalytic role with funding, takes

advantage of the strengths of multiple perspectives and organizational missions.

The future of socio-economic information for the

coasts and oceans will require the successful creation

7. THE FUTURE OF UNDERSTANDING

THE COASTAL AND OCEAN ECONOMY
C 20 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

of a network among these and other organizations

who are concerned with the coasts and oceans. That

network must be built around the following functions:

• Data Collection. Standard measures of employment, income, and output for the ocean and

coastal economy need to be developed and maintained. The work by the National Ocean

Economics Project provides the foundation for

this work. In addition, special measures must be

developed for the unique aspects of the coastal

and ocean economy. In particular, the influence of

the coasts and ocean on land values needs to be

understood throughout the range of different

coast types. The vital role of the oceans in tourism

and recreation needs to be better understood in

terms of both market and nonmarket values, and

the economic values of the ecosystem service roles

of the coasts and oceans better measured.

• Data Distribution. Data must be collected, but

they must also be widely distributed both to be

available to policy makers to factor into decisions and to spur further research. The availability of contemporary database and Internet delivery systems makes this function easier and

cheaper than ever. 

• Data Analysis. Data are only useful when they

are transformed into information through analysis. Data analysis should be driven in large part

by the needs to support decision making at the

federal, state, and local levels about the management of ocean and coastal resources. This will

mean both analysis of socio-economic trends on

their own, and, increasingly, the ability to analytically link changes in the socio-economic sphere

to changes in the environment, and vice versa.

• Education and Research. Outside of the fields of

fisheries and mineral economics, the field of

ocean and coastal socio-economic studies is still

relatively new and confined to a fairly small

group of specialists. There must be an expansion

of the field through training of both researchers

and policy specialists to generate and use this

information. Research must also continue to

improve our measurement of non-market values,

to develop measures of the use of coastal and

ocean resources such as beaches, and to improve

the data systems for standard measures such as

employment and output. Current work in these

areas represents a beginning, not an end to these

endeavors. The advent of geographic information

systems also substantially eases the integration of

socio-economic with natural resource data, and

this integration needs to be another focus of

research so that the interactions between the

human and natural environments in the coastal

areas can be better understood.

Given these resources and needs, the federal government should commit to an ongoing program of

socio economic research of trends and values of the

nation’s coasts and oceans. That program should

include the following elements:

• Designation of a specific socioeconomic research

and data collection function within NOAA.

• An interagency group, chaired by NOAA, of

researchers and data providers in the federal agencies concerned with data for the coasts and oceans.

• An Advisory Board, reporting to NOAA and the

interagency group, of outside researchers with

appropriate expertise, to help set agendas, design

programs, and evaluate progress.

• A statutory requirement that the Bureau of

Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic

Analysis prepare an annual report on the

employment, wages, and output associated with

the coasts and oceans of the United States.

• A special effort to make available key data that

are missing from the current suite of economic

statistics, particularly employment and incomes

in the fisheries harvesting sector.

• Regular funding for research into improved

measures of both the market and non-market

economic values of the coasts and oceans. An

area of particular importance is establishing the

economic value of the nation’s ocean and coastal

resources as assets in which we invest. 

• An Internet based data archive and distribution

system that links key sources of coastal and

ocean socioeconomic data and research.

Funding for these efforts should be in the $8–10

million range annually, with funds provided to both

data using and data providing agency for sufficient

staff and other costs. This is particularly the case for

the data providing agencies such as the Bureau of

Labor Statistics, Bureau of the Census and Bureau of

Economic Analysis who cannot play their roles without additional resources. Partnership arrangements

with nonfederal organizations like the National Ocean

Economics Project should be maintained and expanded. 

It should be noted that at a time of scarce budgetary resources, this amount may seem like a substantial sum. But it is less and than 1/10th of what the

federal government currently spends on economic

research in the agriculture sector, which is actually

smaller than the ocean sector in the overall economy.
APPENDIX C: LIVING NEAR...AND MAKING A LIVING FROM...THE NATION ’ S COASTS AND OCEANS C 21

Table C.1 Population Change in the Three Tiers of the Coast

United States 202.55 225.90 248.16 280.85

Coastal Watershed

Counties 107.99 117.56 130.89 145.49

Coastal Zone 

Counties 75.51 82.87 92.94 103.59

Near Shore* 35.26 39.11

1970 1980 1990 2000

* Data available only for 1990 and 2000

Source: US Census

United States 23.36 11.5% 22.25 9.9% 32.69 13.2% 78.30 38.7%

Coastal Watershed

Counties 9.58 8.9% 13.33 11.3% 14.60 11.2% 37.50 34.7%

Coastal Zone 

Counties 7.36 9.7% 10.08 12.2% 10.64 11.5% 28.08 37.2% 

Near Shore* 3.85 10.9%

Percent

N

(millions) Percent

N

(millions) Percent

N

(millions) Percent

N

(millions)

1970–1980 1980–1990 1990–2000 1970–2000

* Data available only for 1990 and 2000.

** In Square Miles. Excludes surface water area such as wetlands, lakes, and rivers.

Source: US Census

United States 3,537,377 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 57.3 79.4

Coastal Watershed Counties 871,216 24.6% 53.3% 51.8% 124.0 167.0

Coastal Zone Counties 663,528 18.8% 37.3% 36.9% 113.8 156.1 

Near Shore* 164,113 4.6% 13.6% 232.6

Land Area**

Population 

1970 1970 2000

Population 

Area 2000

Percent of U.S.

Population Density 

(Persons per Square Mile)

Table C.2 Population Density in the Coastal Regions

Change

Population (Millions)
C 22 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Table C.3 Population in Coastal Tiers by Coastal Region

Total 23.36 11.5% 22.25 9.9% 32.69 13.2% 78.30 38.7%

Coastal Watershed Counties 2.10 5.4% 4.17 10.1% 4.92 10.8% 11.19 28.5%

Coastal Zone Counties 2.07 7.3% 3.67 12.0% 4.26 12.5% 10.00 35.1%

Near Shore* 1.50 10.3%

Coastal Watershed Counties 2.52 19.1% 2.10 13.4% 3.15 17.7% 7.77 59.0%

Coastal Zone Counties 2.20 35.9% 1.63 19.6% 1.82 18.3% 5.65 92.3%

Near Shore* 1.10 18.3%

Coastal Watershed Counties 4.11 18.0% 6.26 23.2% 4.71 14.2% 15.08 66.0%

Coastal Zone Counties 3.57 17.1% 5.19 21.3% 3.70 12.5% 12.46 59.8%

Near Shore* 0.80 9.9%

Coastal Watershed Counties -0.04 -0.1% 0.06 0.2% 1.68 5.5% 1.70 5.6%

Coastal Zone Counties -0.39 -1.9% -0.46 -2.3% 0.78 4.1% -0.07 -0.3%

Near Shore* 0.12 2.2%

* Data available only for 1990 and 2000

Source: US Census 

1970–1980 1980–1990 1990–2000 1970–2000

N

(millions) Percent

N

(millions) Percent

N

(millions) Percent

N

(millions) Percent

Atlantic

United States

Gulf of Mexico

Pacific

Great Lakes

Change

Total 202.55 225.90 248.16 280.85

Coastal Watershed Counties 39.22 41.32 45.49 50.41

Coastal Zone Counties 28.47 30.54 34.21 38.47

Near Shore* 14.2 15.7

Coastal Watershed Counties 13.18 15.70 17.80 20.95

Coastal Zone Counties 6.12 8.32 9.95 11.77

Near Shore* 6.0 7.1

Coastal Watershed Counties 22.84 26.95 33.21 37.92

Coastal Zone Counties 20.84 24.41 29.6 33.30

Near Shore* 8.1 8.9

Coastal Watershed Counties 30.34 30.30 30.36 32.04

Coastal Zone Counties 20.06 19.67 19.21 19.99

Near Shore* 5.40 5.52

1970 1980 1990 2000

Atlantic

United States

Gulf of Mexico

Pacific

Great Lakes

Population (Millions)
APPENDIX C: LIVING NEAR...AND MAKING A LIVING FROM...T H E NATION ’ S COASTS AND OCEANS C 23

Table C.4 Population Growth by Coastal Tier and Urban/Rural County

Urban Rural

* Data available only for 1990 and 2000

Source: US Census 

Coastal Watershed Counties 100.82 121.69 135.13 7.16 9.19 10.36

Coastal Zone Counties 73.15 90.69 101.38 3.75 5.12 5.89

Near Shore* 31.58 34.87 2.97 3.29

Table C.5 Total Coastal Economy 

Population (Millions)

Change

1970 1990 2000 1970 1990 2000

Coastal Watershed Counties 34.31 34.0% 13.44 11.0%

Coastal Zone Counties 28.23 38.6% 10.69 11.8%

Near Shore* 3.29 10.4%

Coastal Watershed Counties 3.20 44.7% 1.17 12.7%

Coastal Zone Counties 2.14 57.1% .77 15.0% 

Near Shore* .32 10.8% 

1970–2000 1990–2000

N (millions) Percent N (millions) Percent

Urban

Rural

Gross State

Establishments Product (Millions)

Wage & Salary

Employment

Wages

(Millions) 

Total U.S. Economy NA 109,043,000 $2,743,643 $5,706,658

Total Coastal States 4,998,116 76,477,272 $1,850,303 $3,887,225

Coastal Watershed Counties 3,101,001 49,068,567 $1,246,219 $2,584,802

Coastal Zone Counties 2,267,894 36,359,010 $884,366 $1,865,741

Near Shore* 776,991 10,784,785 $264,346 $558,634

Total U.S. Economy NA 131,720,000 $4,834,254 $9,415,552

Total Coastal States 6,495,532 100,452,156 $3,632,333 $7,023,413

Coastal Watershed Counties 3,831,358 60,696,525 $2,334,920 $4,512,357

Coastal Zone Counties 2,906,685 44,659,916 $1,698,336 $3,264,539

Near Shore* 1,065,576 14,574,973 $536,196 $1,058,596

Total U.S. Economy NA 20.8% 76.2% 65.0%

Total Coastal States 30.0% 31.3% 96.3% 80.7%

Coastal Watershed Counties 23.6% 23.7% 87.4% 74.6%

Coastal Zone Counties 28.2% 22.8% 92.0% 75.0%

Near Shore* 37.1% 35.1% 102.8% 89.5%

Percent Change 1990–2000

2000

1990

* Data available only for 1990 and 2000

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Ocean Economics Project.
C 24 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Table C.6 Private Ocean Economy

Ocean Economy Sector

Gross State

Product 

Establishments Employment (Millions Current $)

Wages

(Millions Current $) 

TOTAL 91,203 1,924,014 $38,064 $87,074

Construction 2,144 30,198 $937 $1,854

Living Resources 5,098 71,819 $1,540 $4,421

Minerals 1,829 45,099 $1,860 $15,043

Ship & Boat Building 3,192 230,097 $6,564 $9,769

Tourism & Recreation 71,958 1,182,809 $13,447 $29,978

Transportation 6,982 363,992 $13,716 $26,008

TOTAL 116,736 2,279,006 $55,704 $117,318

Construction 2,064 31,835 $1,364 $2,594

Living Resources 4,580 62,184 $1,838 $4,714

Minerals 1,984 40,097 $2,432 $15,414

Ship & Boat Building 3,684 176,098 $6,952 $8,089

Tourism & Recreation 95,850 1,672,156 $27,292 $59,497

Transportation 8,572 296,634 $15,826 $27,009

1990

2000

Ocean Economy Sector

Nominal GSP

Establishments Employment (Millions)

Nominal Wages

(Millions) 

TOTAL 25,533 354,993 $17,640 $30,244

Construction (80) 1,638 $427 $740

Living Resources (518) (9,636) $298 $293

Minerals 155 (5,002) $572 $371

Ship & Boat Building 492 (53,999) $388 -$1,680

Tourism & Recreation 23,892 489,346 $13,845 $29,519

Transportation 1,590 (67,357) $2,110 $1,001

TOTAL 28.0% 18.5% 46.3% 34.7%

Construction -3.7% 5.4% 45.6% 39.9%

Living Resources -10.2% -13.4% 19.3% 6.6%

Minerals 8.5% -11.1% 30.8% 2.5%

Ship & Boat Building 15.4% -23.5% 5.9% -17.2%

Tourism & Recreation 33.2% 41.4% 103.0% 98.5%

Transportation 22.8% -18.5% 15.4% 3.8%

Change 1990-2000

Percent Change 1990-2000

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Ocean Economics Project
APPENDIX C: LIVING NEAR...AND MAKING A LIVING FROM...T H E NATION ’ S COASTS AND OCEANS C 25

Apogee Research and Resource Economic

Consultants (2000). The Estimated Economic

Value of Indian River Lagoon. Palm Bay Florida,

Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program.

Beach, D. (2003). Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of

Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems. Arlington,

VA, Pew Oceans Commission.

Bookman, C. A., T. J. Culliton, et al. (1998). Trends

in U.S. coastal regions 1970–1998:addendum to

the proceedings. Trends and future challenges for

U.S. national ocean and coastal policy. Silver

Spring, MD, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration Special Projects Office.

Bureau of the Census (2001). Statistical Abstract of

the United States. Washington DC, U.S. Bureau of

the Census.

Bureau of the Census (2003). Zip Code Tabulation

Areas.

Carson, R. T., R. C. Mitchell, et al. (1992). A

Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use

Values Resulting from the Exxon Valdez Oil

Spill. Juneau, AK, Attorney General of the State 

of Alaska.

Cesar, H., P. v. Beukering, et al. (2002). Economic

Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawaii. Arnhem,

Netherlands.

Colgan, C. S. (2003). Methodological Notes for 

Estimating the Ocean and Coastal Economy,

National Ocean Economics Project.

Colgan, C. S. and J. Plumstead (1993). 

Economic Prospects for the Gulf of Maine.

Augusta, ME, Gulf of Maine Council on the

Marine Environment.

Commission on Marine Science Engineering and

Resources (1969). Our Nation and the Sea: 

A Plan for National Action. Washington, U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Hanneman, M. (2001). The Economic Value of Beach

Recreation in Southern California. Berkeley, CA.,

University of California at Berkeley.

Innis, H. (1940). The cod fisheries : the history of an

international economy. New Haven, Conn, Yale

University Press.

Larrabee, B. W., W. M. Fowler, et al. (1998). 

American and the sea: A maritime history. Mystic,

Conn, Mystic Seaport.

Luger, M. (1991). “The Economic Value of the

Coastal Zone.” Environmental Systems 21(4):

278–301.

Moller, R. and J. Fitz (1997). California’s Ocean

Resources: An Agenda for the Future. 

Sacramento CA, California Resources Agency.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(2001). Spatial Patterns of Socioeconomic Data

from 1970–2000: A national research dataset

aggregated by watershed and political boundaries. Silver Spring, MD, NOAA.

Pontecorvo, G., M. Wilkinson, et al. (1980). 

“Contribution of of the Ocean Sector to the 

U.S. Economy.” Science 208(30): 1000–1006.

Rappaport, J. and J. D. Sachs (2001). The U.S. as 

a Coastal Nation. Kansas City, MO., 

Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City: 35.

Sohngen, B., F. Lichtkoppler, et al. (1999). 

The Value of Lake Erie Beaches. Columbus Ohio,

Ohio State University Sea Grant Program.

REFERENCES
C 26 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Charles S. Colgan is Professor of Public Policy and

Management in the Edmund S. Muskie School of

Public Service at the University of Southern Maine.

He is also Associate Director of the USM Center for

Business and Economic Research. He serves as Chief

Economist of the National Ocean Economics Project.

Prior to joining the University of Southern Maine he

served with the Maine State Planning Office, where

he was a Director and Treasurer of the Coastal States

Organization. He served on the Outer Continental

Shelf Policy Committee of the Department of the

Interior from 1977–1986.

Comments on earlier drafts of this paper were

provided by Tom Kitsos and Peter Hill of the Ocean

Commission Staff, Dr. Linwood Pendleton of the

University of Wyoming, Dr. Karen Polenske of the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Michael

Hanemann of the University of California-Berkeley,

and Dr. Rodney Weiher, Chief Economist of the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Dr. Judith Kildow of California State UniversityMonterey Bay and Principal Investigator of the

National Ocean Economics Project coordinated the

overall research project. 

The fundamental research into the ocean and

coastal economy is funded primarily by the Coastal

Services Center, National Ocean Service, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Margaret

Davidson, the Director of the Coastal Services

Center, has provided the assistance required to sustain the research.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics Office of

Employment and Unemployment Statistics has provided access to its data files in order to build the

unique data sets used in the project under their

Research Fellowship Program. Richard Clayton,

David Tallan, and Amy Knaup of OEUS have provided much assistance in creating and managing the

data sets.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR AND

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
APPENDIX C: LIVING NEAR...AND MAKING A LIVING FROM...THE NATION ’ S COASTS AND OCEANS C 27

1 “Counties” in this context includes not only political jurisdictions

that function as counties, including parishes in Louisiana and boroughs in Alaska. It also includes Census-designated areas in some

states. These are areas defined by the Census bureau as sub-state

regions for statistical purposes even though there is no governmental function. Counties in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and

Massachusetts, along with some regions in Alaska fall into this

category. In Virginia, independent cities, which have functions to

similar to counties, but are not classified as counties under state

law, are included when they fall within defined coastal areas.

2 Boundaries of coastal zone are provided by the Office of Coastal

Resource Management, NOAA.

3 The four states which define the entire state as the coastal zone

are Florida, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Hawaii.

4 Examples of states using county boundaries include Washington,

South Carolina, Mississippi, and North Carolina. States using

municipal boundaries include Maine and Connecticut. In New

York, the coastal zone includes counties along the Hudson River

as far north as Albany, as well as counties along both the

Atlantic and Great Lakes coasts. Pennsylvania defines its coastal

zone only along Lake Erie and not along the Delaware River. In

this analysis, Cook County Illinois is included in the coastal zone

county definition, although Illinois does not participate in the

CZM program to provide complete coverage of the nation.

5 This figure is based on the decennial census, which measures

population on April 1 of the year. It does not include seasonal

peak populations, which can be orders of magnitude higher in a

number of coastal regions.

6 The Atlantic region is defined as coastal zone and coastal watershed counties from Washington County, Maine to Miami-Dade

County, Florida, including the Chesapeake Bay counties of

Maryland and Virginia. New York counties exclude counties on

the Hudson River, beginning with New York County. Monroe

County, Florida is counted in the Gulf of Mexico region. The

Pacific region includes Hawaii and Alaska. Cook county is

included in Illinois in the coastal zone definition, although

Illinois does not participate in the CZM program.

7 For purposes of defining urban and rural, the Urban Influence

Codes of the Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research

Service are used. These codes define counties as urban or rural

based on the population of the largest city or town, the location

within a Census-defined metropolitan area, and the adjacency of

the county to largest central city (if in a metro area) or to a

metro area. For more information, see

http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/rurality/UrbanInf/.

8 “Large community” is defined as a population in 1990 of 20,000

or more.

9 There have been periodic attempts over the past three decades

to define an ocean economy, beginning in the 1970’s when the

Bureau of Economic Analysis sponsored the first estimation of

the “ocean economy”. This work was updated by Pontecorvo

See Pontecorvo, G., M. Wilkinson, et al. (1980). “Contribution of

of the Ocean Sector to the U.S. Economy.” Science 208(30):

1000–1006.}and extended somewhat in a later study of the

coastal economy by Luger See Luger, M. (1991). “The Economic

Value of the Coastal Zone.” Environmental Systems 21(4):

278–301.A number of state and regional agencies have undertaken studies of local coastal economies in order to better

understand the role of the ocean and coasts in their areas (e.g.

Colgan, C. S. and J. Plumstead (1993). Economic Prospects for the

Gulf of Maine. Augusta, ME, Gulf of Maine Council on the

Marine Environment, Moller, R. and J. Fitz (1997). California’s

Ocean Resources: An Agenda for the Future. Sacramento CA,

California Resources Agency.).

10 The National Ocean Economics Project is funded by NOAA and

EPA. It involves researchers at the University of Southern

California, University of Vermont, and University of Southern

Maine. For more information see www.oceaneconomics.org

11 Establishments are “places of business”, not firms. A firm may

operate many establishments. Employment is defined as wage

and salary employment in industries covered by the unemployment insurance laws. This definition excludes self employment,

many of the employees in the railroad industry (who are covered

under a separate federal statute), and farm employment. It also

excludes harvesting sector employment in the fisheries. The Living

Resources sector excludes harvesting sector employment, which is

not collected nationally. Data for 1990 and 2000 are the only two

years for which data on the ocean economy is currently available.

12 Wage and salary jobs. Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.

13 Government employment is measured as total employment in

government agencies and does not differentiate by type of function. Thus it is not possible to distinguish ocean related from

non-ocean related government activities. Marine science organizations are, for the most part, separately reported from other

science and research organizations and universities.

14 Measured as farm proprietors. Source: BEA.

15 Defined as two-digit SIC classifications.

16 The cruise ship industry is also poorly measured in the economic

statistics. The cruise ships themselves are foreign owned and foreign crewed thus do not show up in the U.S. gross state product

figures. The principal measure of the cruise ship industry is thus

the shore-side employment of support organizations who provide food, fuel, and other services. Consumer expenditures on

cruise ships are measured in the gross domestic product within

overall consumption, but cannot be separated out in this analysis of production.

17 Employment in the harvesting sector of the commercial fishing

industry is not included in any government statistics programs

because this industry is excluded from the unemployment insurance laws. Occasional estimates of harvesting employment have

been made for various fisheries and regions, but there is no regular measurement of employment in this sector.

18 Tour boats should more properly be counted under tourism and

recreation, and some are. But the SIC system does not separate

ferry services from tour boats if the establishment is classified as

waterborne passenger transportation.

19 Metro and nonmetro are based on the 1990 designation of

counties. The distribution by the size of the Urban Influence

Codes of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research

Service. See http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/rurality/UrbanInf/.

20 A number of federal laws, including the Clean Water Act, the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act, and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act require

that economic damages from events such as oil spills be

assessed.

21 The economic term is consumer surplus, the value represented

by what one would be willing to pay to use a beach less what

someone actually pays to use the beach.

NOTES

APPENDIX D

GLOSSARY OF FEDERAL

OCEAN AND COASTAL -

RELATED COMMISSIONS ,

COMMITTEES , COUNCILS ,

LAWS , AND PROGRAMS

SECTION 1

PURPOSE OF THIS GLOSSARY...........................................................................................D 4

SECTION 2

OCEAN AND COASTAL-RELATED FEDERAL COMMISSIONS, 

COMMITTEES, AND COUNCILS .......................................................................................D 5

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force .......................................................................................D 5

Arctic Research Commission.....................................................................................................D 5

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission ..........................................................................D 5

Coral Reef Task Force................................................................................................................D 5

Council on Environmental Quality...........................................................................................D 6

Estuary Habitat Restoration Council ........................................................................................D 6

Great Lakes Fishery Commission..............................................................................................D 6

Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission ................................................................................D 6

Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture .........................................................................................D 6

Marine Mammal Commission ...................................................................................................D 6

National Invasive Species Council ............................................................................................D 7

National Ocean Research Leadership Council..........................................................................D 7

National Science and Technology Council—Committee on Environment 

and Natural Resources and Committee on Science ...........................................................D 7

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission ............................................................................D 7

Regional Fishery Management Councils...................................................................................D 7
SECTION 3

OCEAN AND COASTAL-RELATED FEDERAL LAWS ...........................................D 8

Abandoned Shipwreck Act....................................................................................................D 8

Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships.....................................................................................D 8

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act....................................................D 8

Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act................................................................................D 8

Clean Air Act.........................................................................................................................D 8

Clean Vessel Act....................................................................................................................D 8

Clean Water Act....................................................................................................................D 9

Coastal Barrier Resources Act...............................................................................................D 9

Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act ...............................................D 9

Coastal Zone Management Act.............................................................................................D 9

Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments.................................................................D 9

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ..................D 10

Coral Reef Conservation Act..............................................................................................D 10

Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act.........................................................................D 10

Deep Water Royalty Relief Act...........................................................................................D 10

Deepwater Port Act ............................................................................................................D 10

Disaster Mitigation Act ......................................................................................................D 10

Endangered Species Act .....................................................................................................D 10

Estuary Restoration Act .....................................................................................................D 10

Farm Bill 1985—Food Security Act...................................................................................D 11

Farm Bill 1990—Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act ..................................D 11

Farm Bill 1996—Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act...............................D 11

Farm Bill 2002—Farm Security and Rural Investment Act ..............................................D 11

Federal Water Pollution Control Act.................................................................................D 11

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act......................................D 11

Marine Mammal Protection Act.........................................................................................D 11

Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act..........................................................D 12

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act............................................................D 12

Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act ............................................................D 12

National Aquaculture Act ..................................................................................................D 12

National Environmental Policy Act ...................................................................................D 12

National Invasive Species Act of 1996...............................................................................D 12

National Marine Sanctuaries Act .......................................................................................D 12

National Oceanographic Partnership Act ..........................................................................D 13

National Sea Grant College Act .........................................................................................D 13

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act .......................................D 13

Ocean Dumping Act...........................................................................................................D 13

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act ............................................................................D 13
Oceans Act of 2000 .................................................................................................................D 13

Oil Pollution Act of 1990........................................................................................................D 13

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.........................................................................................D 14

Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 .........................................................................................D 14

Submerged Lands Act..............................................................................................................D 14

Sustainable Fisheries Act ........................................................................................................D 14

Water Resources Development Act.........................................................................................D 14

SECTION 4

OCEAN AND COASTAL-RELATED FEDERAL PROGRAMS..................................D 15

Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring Programs .....................................................................D 15

Centers for Ocean Science Education Excellence ..................................................................D 15

Civil Works Program of USACE .............................................................................................D 15

Clean Water Act—Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act..................D 15

Clean Water Act—Discharge of Dredged and Fill Material (Section 404)............................D 15

Clean Water Act—National Estuary Program (Section 320).................................................D 16

Clean Water Act—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (Section 402)...........D 16

Clean Water Act—Nonpoint Source Pollution Program (Section 319) ................................D 16

Clean Water Act—Marine Sanitation Devices (Section 312).................................................D 16

Clean Water Act—State Revolving Fund................................................................................D 16

Clean Water Act—Total Maximum Daily Load Program (Section 303(d))...........................D 17

Clean Water Act—Water Quality Certification Program (Section 401)................................D 17

Coastal Barrier Resources System ...........................................................................................D 17

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program .......................................................................D 17

Coastal Program of USFWS ....................................................................................................D 17

Coastal Zone Management Program.......................................................................................D 17

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program ...........................................................D 17

Farm Bill Conservation Programs...........................................................................................D 18

National Estuarine Research Reserve System.........................................................................D 18

National Flood Insurance Program ........................................................................................D 18

National Marine Sanctuary Program ......................................................................................D 18

National Oceanographic Partnership Program.......................................................................D 18

National Park System..............................................................................................................D 19

National Sea Grant College Program......................................................................................D 19

National Status and Trends Program ......................................................................................D 19

National Stream Quality Accounting Network ......................................................................D 19

National Streamflow Information Program ............................................................................D 19

National Water Quality Assessment .......................................................................................D 19

National Wildlife Refuge System ............................................................................................D 19
D 4 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

This glossary is intended to provide additional context or information on the origins of many of the federal

commissions, committees, councils, laws, and programs noted in the report of the U.S. Commission on

Ocean Policy. Glossary entries meet the following criteria for inclusion: 

• The entry is mentioned in the report.

• The entry has a significant impact on ocean and coastal policy.

• The entry provides additional information not appropriate for the report text.

• The entry is authorized by federal legislation or an executive action of the President.

Where appropriate, the entries include cross-references to related items, legal citations, and Web site addresses. 

SECTION 1

PURPOSE OF THIS GLOSSARY
APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY OF FEDERAL OCEAN AND COASTAL-RELATED COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, COUNCILS, LAWS, AND PROGRAMS

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force

Established in 1990 by the Nonindigenous Aquatic

Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (Pub. L.

101–646; 16 U.S.C. §§ 4701 et seq.) and expanded

by the National Invasive Species Act in 1996 (Pub. L.

104–332), the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force

convenes regional panels and issue-specific committees to coordinate governmental efforts dealing with

aquatic nuisance species in the United States. Its

activities include research, formulation of strategies

to prevent species introductions and dispersal,

species control and monitoring, dissemination of

information, and the development of state management plans. NOAA and USFWS co-chair the task

force, which includes seven federal agency representatives, an observer from Canada, and twelve nonfederal stakeholders. 

Web: <http://www.anstaskforce.gov>.

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Nonindigenous Aquatic

Nuisance Prevention and Control Act; National

Invasive Species Act.

Arctic Research Commission

Created by the Arctic Research and Policy Act of

1984 (Pub. L. 98-373; 15 U.S.C. §§ 4102 et seq.), the

Arctic Research Commission’s five members,

appointed by the President, review federal research

programs in the Arctic, make recommendations, and

publish a report to the President and Congress.

Members are drawn from academia, indigenous residents, and private industry. 

Web: <http://www.arctic.gov>.

Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission

In 1942, fifteen Atlantic Coast states, stretching from

Maine to Florida and including Pennsylvania, formed

the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

(ASMFC), a Congressionally-chartered interstate

compact agency. The ASMFC assists in managing and

conserving coastal fishery resources in state waters

through the development of interstate fishery management plans that rely on state authorities for

implementation. Congressional legislation in 1984

and 1993 made compliance with the plans, which

was originally voluntary, enforceable by giving the

Secretary of Commerce authority to close a state’s

fishery upon the recommendation of the ASMFC.

The ASMFC’s other program areas are research, habitat conservation, sport fish restoration, and law

enforcement.

Web: <http://www.asmfc.org>.

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Atlantic Coastal

Fisheries Cooperative Management Act.

Coral Reef Task Force

Established in 1998 by Executive Order 13089, the

Coral Reef Task Force has a mandate to map and

monitor U.S. coral reefs, research the causes and

solutions to coral reef degradation, reduce and mitigate coral reef degradation from pollution, overfishing and other causes, and implement strategies to

promote conservation and sustainable use of coral

reefs internationally. Co-chaired by the Departments

of Commerce and the Interior, other members

include CEQ, USDA, DOD, DOJ, DOS, DOT, EPA,

NASA, NSF, USAID, USCG and affected U.S. states

and territories. 

Web: <http://coralreef.gov>.

D 5

SECTION 2

OCEAN AND COASTAL-RELATED

FEDERAL COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES,

AND COUNCILS
D 6 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Council on Environmental Quality

Created by the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (NEPA; Pub. L. 91–190; 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et

seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

in the Executive Office of the President has a mandate to ensure that federal agencies meet their NEPA

obligations and to report to the President on the state

of the environment. CEQ also oversees federal agency

implementation of the environmental impact assessment process and mediates disagreements between

agencies over the adequacy of such assessments. 

Web: < http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq>. 

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): National Environmental

Policy Act.

Estuary Habitat Restoration Council

The Estuary Habitat Restoration Council (EHRC),

created by the Estuary Restoration Act (Pub. L.

106–457; 33 U.S.C. §§ 2901 et seq.), includes the

USACE, NOAA, EPA, USFWS, and USDA. The

EHRC is required to develop a strategy for restoring

estuaries, and published a final strategy for restoring

estuaries in thirty states and U.S. territories in

December 2002. The goal of the strategy is to restore

one million acres of habitat by 2010. 

Web: <http://www.usace.army.mil/estuary.html>. 

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Estuary Restoration Act.

Great Lakes Fishery Commission

The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) was

established in 1955 by the Convention on Great

Lakes Fisheries, a bilateral treaty between the United

States and Canada. The GLFC coordinates fisheries

research, implements programs to control the invasive sea lamprey, and facilitates cooperative fishery

management among state, provincial, tribal, and federal management agencies. 

Web: <http://www.glfc.org>.

Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission

In 1949, five states bordering the Gulf of Mexico

(AL, FL, LA, MS, and TX) formed the Gulf States

Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC), a congressionally-chartered interstate compact agency. The

GSMFC assists in managing and conserving coastal

fishery resources in state waters through the development of interjurisdictional fishery management plans

that rely on state authorities for implementation, and

coordinates state and federal programs regarding

marine fisheries resources. The GSMFC’s other program areas are data collection, habitat conservation,

and sport fish restoration. 

Web: <http://www.gsmfc.org>.

Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture

Established by the National Aquaculture Act of 1980

(Pub. L. 96–362; 16 U.S.C. §§ 2801 et seq.), the Joint

Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA) operates under

the aegis of the National Science and Technology

Council of the Office of Science and Technology

Policy in the Executive Office of the President. The

Subcommittee reviews national needs related to

aquaculture, assesses the effectiveness of federal

efforts, and recommends actions on aquaculture

issues. The Secretary of Agriculture is the permanent

chair of the JSA. Members include approximately a

dozen federal agencies. 

Web: <http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/aquanic/jsa

/index.htm>.

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): National Aquaculture Act. 

Marine Mammal Commission

The Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) was 

created by the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(Pub. L. 92–522; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1401 et seq.) to provide independent oversight of the marine mammal

conservation policies and programs carried out by

federal regulatory agencies. The MMC is charged

with developing, reviewing, and making recommendations on domestic and international actions and

policies of all federal agencies with respect to marine

mammal protection and conservation and with carrying out a research program. The President appoints

the MMC’s three members. 

Web: <http://www.mmc.gov>.

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Marine Mammal

Protection Act.
APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY OF FEDERAL OCEAN AND COASTAL-RELATED COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, COUNCILS, LAWS, AND PROGRAMS

National Invasive Species Council

National and international concern about invasive

species led to the issuance of Executive Order 13112

in February 1999. The Executive Order established

the National Invasive Species Council, consisting of

ten federal departments and agencies, to provide

national leadership on terrestrial and aquatic invasive

species. 

Web: <http://www.invasivespecies.gov/council/

main.html>.

National Ocean Research 

Leadership Council

The National Ocean Research Leadership Council

(NORLC) is the governing body of the National

Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP), both

created by the National Oceanographic Partnership

Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–201) to support research

and education that advances ocean understanding.

The NORLC consists of the heads of twelve federal

agencies involved in funding or setting policy for

ocean research. The NORLC is advised by a group of

nonfederal experts in ocean matters, whose members

represent the National Academy of Sciences, academic oceanographic research institutions, state governments, and others. 

Web: <http://www.coreocean.org/Dev2Go.web?id=

207765&rnd=5303>. 

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): National Oceanographic

Partnership Act.

See also Section 4 (Federal Programs): National

Oceanographic Partnership Program.

National Science and Technology

Council—Committee on Environment

and Natural Resources and Committee 

on Science

The National Science and Technology Council

(NSTC) was established in 1993 by Executive Order

12881 with a mandate to coordinate scientific

research and development activities throughout the

federal government and ensure their consistency

with presidential priorities. Members include the

President, Vice President, an Assistant to the

President for Science and Technology, the Cabinet

secretaries, and heads of agencies with significant

science and technology responsibilities. The NSTC

created the Committee on Environment and Natural

Resources and the Committee of Science to advise

and assist the NSTC and provide a formal mechanism for interagency coordination relevant to domestic and international environmental and natural

resources issues. Within this structure, a Joint

Subcommittee on Oceans was established to coordinate national ocean science and technology policy.

Web: <http://www.ostp.gov/NSTC/html/committee/

cenr.html>.

Pacific States Marine 

Fisheries Commission

Authorized by Congress in 1947, the Pacific States

Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) is an interstate compact agency that includes five western

states (AK, CA, ID, OR, and WA). PSMFC programs

include fisheries data collection, research, and monitoring, information dissemination, and facilitation of

interstate agreements on fishery management issues. 

Web: <http://www.psmfc.org>. 

Regional Fishery Management Councils

In 1976, the Fishery Conservation and Management

Act (now titled the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act) created eight

Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs) to

manage the living marine resources within the

nation’s exclusive economic zone as later defined by

the Act. The RFMCs operate in the Caribbean, Gulf

of Mexico, Mid-Atlantic, New England, North

Pacific, Pacific, South Atlantic, and Western Pacific

regions. Each RFMC consists of a NMFS regional

director, directors of the state marine management

agencies, and members nominated by state governors

and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. In

addition, there are at least three nonvoting members

representing USCG, USFWS, and DOS; other nonvoting members may also be appointed. 

Web: <http://www.noaa.gov/nmfs/councils.html>. 

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

D 7
D 8 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Abandoned Shipwreck Act

The Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (Pub. L.

100–298; 43 U.S.C. §§ 2101 et seq.) vests title to certain abandoned shipwrecks in state submerged lands

to the federal government which, with certain exceptions, immediately transfers ownership to the state

whose submerged lands contain the shipwreck.

States are encouraged to develop policies to allow for

public and private sector recovery of shipwrecks consistent with the protection of historical values and

environmental integrity and with guidelines issued

by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships

In 1980, Congress enacted the Act to Prevent

Pollution from Ships (APPS; Pub. L. 96–478; 33

U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq.). Together with subsequent

amendments, APPS prohibits the discharge of oil and

noxious liquids and the disposal of various types of

garbage in offshore waters consistent with the

International Convention for the Prevention of

Pollution from Ships (known as MARPOL).

Requirements vary based on the form of the material

and the vessel’s location and distance from shore.

The law applies to all ships, whether U.S. or foreign

flag, that are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative

Management Act

In 1993, Congress enacted the Atlantic Coastal

Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Pub. L.

103–206; 16 U.S.C. §§ 5107 et seq.), which provides

a mechanism to ensure state compliance with mandated conservation measures of interstate fishery

management plans approved by the Atlantic States

Marine Fisheries Commission. 

See Section 2 (Federal Commissions, Committees, and

Councils): Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 

Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act

In 1984, Congress enacted the Atlantic Striped Bass

Conservation Act (Pub. L. 98–613; 16 U.S.C. §§

1851 et seq.), requiring the Secretary of Commerce to

impose a moratorium on fishing for striped bass in

any state that is not in compliance with the Atlantic

States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) interstate fisheries management plan for striped bass.

Such action must be recommended by the ASMFC,

and noncompliance confirmed by the Secretary. 

See Section 2 (Federal Commissions, Committees, and

Councils): Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Clean Air Act

Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1970 (CAA; Pub. L. 91–604; 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 

et seq.) to regulate pollution from stationary and

mobile sources. Administered by EPA, the bulk of

the CAA is concerned with establishing a regulatory

program for controlling air pollution, although it

does address the goal of improving air quality

through federal subsidies, technical assistance, 

studies, training, and other methods. Managing

atmospheric deposition of pollutants to water bodies

is the principal nexus between the CAA and ocean

and coastal management concerns. 

Clean Vessel Act

Under the Clean Vessel Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 102–587;

33 U.S.C. §§ 1322 et seq.), the USFWS administers a

program to issue grants to coastal and inland states

for pumpout stations and waste reception facilities to

dispose of recreational boater sewage.

SECTION 3

OCEAN AND COASTAL-RELATED

FEDERAL LAWS
APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY OF FEDERAL OCEAN AND COASTAL-RELATED COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, COUNCILS, LAWS, AND PROGRAMS

Clean Water Act

Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92–500;

33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.), more commonly known

as the Clean Water Act (CWA), to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity

of the Nation’s waters” in order to support “the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife

and recreation in and on the water.” The CWA,

implemented primarily by EPA and amended numerous times, employs a number of regulatory and nonregulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant discharges

into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. 

See Section 4 (Federal Programs): Descriptions of a

number of CWA programs.

Coastal Barrier Resources Act

The Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 (CBRA;

Pub. L. 97–348; 16 U.S.C. §§ 3501 et seq.) established the Coastal Barrier Resources System that currently consists of nearly 1.3 million acres of coastal

barrier islands along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts,

Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Great

Lakes. USFWS, which administers the program, submits recommendations to Congress for new sites;

Congress acts to add or exempt sites. The system

seeks to preserve natural resources and minimize the

loss of human life and property resulting from poorly

located coastal barrier development by restricting the

developer and property owners from obtaining federal financial assistance, such as flood insurance coverage or infrastructure expenditures, with exceptions

for military and Coast Guard use.

Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection,

and Restoration Act

Congress enacted the Coastal Wetland Planning,

Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA; Pub. L.

101–646; 16 U.S.C. §§ 3951 et seq.), also known as

the Breaux Act after its chief legislative sponsor, in

1990 to address wetland loss in coastal states

through acquisition, protection, and restoration projects. The CWPPRA is jointly administered by the

EPA and USFWS and includes annual funding of

approximately $50 million for Louisiana and

between $11 and $15 million awarded through a

competitive grant process for other states. 

Coastal Zone Management Act

Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act

of 1972 (CZMA; Pub. L. 92–583; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451

et seq.) to promote the sustainable development of

the nation’s coasts by encouraging states and territories to balance the conservation and development of

coastal resources using their own management

authorities. Implemented by NOAA, the CZMA provides financial and technical assistance incentives for

states to manage their coastal zones consistent with

the guidelines of the Act. States with federally

approved programs also receive “federal consistency”

authority to require that federal activities affecting

their coastal zone are consistent with the state’s

coastal management program. The CZMA also established the National Estuarine Research Reserve

System, and is associated with the coastal nonpoint

pollution control program established under the

Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments. 

See: Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments 

See Section 4 (Federal Programs): Coastal Zone

Management Program and National Estuarine

Research Reserve System.

Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization

Amendments

The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments

of 1990 (CZARA; Pub. L. 106–580; 16 U.S.C.

§1455b), enacted as section 6217 of the Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 amending the

Coastal Zone Management Act, established the

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program to

improve coastal water quality. Jointly administered by

NOAA and EPA, the program requires every state with

a federally-approved coastal management program to

identify management measures to address nonpoint

source pollution of coastal waters. State programs

must include enforceable policies and mechanisms to

ensure implementation of the measures. 

See: Coastal Zone Management Act.

D 9
D 10 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

Enacted in 1980, the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA; Pub. L. 96–510; 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq.)

gives the federal government broad authority to

respond to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health

or the environment. EPA is the lead implementing

agency. CERCLA also sets requirements concerning

closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, including for liability of persons responsible for releases of

hazardous waste at such sites. 

Coral Reef Conservation Act

The Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 (Pub. L.

106–562; 16 U.S.C. §§ 6401 et seq.) requires NOAA to

develop a national coral reef action strategy, initiate a

matching grants program for reef conservation, and

create a conservation fund to encourage public-private

partnerships that promote the purposes of the Act.

Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act

The Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of

1980 (Pub. L. 96–283; 30 U.S.C. §§ 1401 et seq.)

authorizes NOAA to establish a domestic regulatory

regime covering the exploration and commercial

recovery by U.S. citizens of minerals seaward of the

natural resource jurisdiction of any nation.

Deep Water Royalty Relief Act

The Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995 (Pub. L.

104–58; 42 U.S.C. § 1337) amends the OCSLA to

provide incentives in the form of royalty reductions

for oil and gas leases in deep water areas of the Gulf

of Mexico to encourage leasing and exploration and

help spur the development of advanced new technologies for production of oil and gas in these areas.

Deepwater Port Act

The Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93–627; 33

U.S.C. §§ 1501 et seq.), as amended in 2002, authorizes and regulates the location, ownership, construction, and operation of deepwater ports (defined as a

non-vessel, fixed or floating manmade structure that

is used as a port or terminal for the loading, unloading, or handling of oil or natural gas for transportation to a state) in waters beyond the U.S. state seaward boundaries, sets requirements for the protection

of marine and coastal environments from adverse

effects of such port development, and promotes safe

transport of oil and natural gas from such locations. 

Disaster Mitigation Act

The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Pub. L.

106–390; 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121 et seq.) requires FEMA

to impose more stringent hazard mitigation planning

on states. States that fail to meet new criteria developed by FEMA are denied disaster assistance awards

and other types of funding, while states that exceed

requirements are eligible to use a greater proportion

of any post-disaster funding they receive to implement hazard mitigation projects.

Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; Pub. L.

93–205; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq.) protects species of

plants and animals listed as threatened or endangered. NOAA or USFWS determine the species that

are endangered or threatened and are directed to designate critical habitat and develop and implement

recovery plans for threatened and endangered

species. Once a species is listed, federal agencies

must ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or

carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of any endangered or threatened species or

result in the destruction or adverse modification of

their critical habitat. 

Estuary Restoration Act

The Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–457;

33 U.S.C. §§ 2901 et seq.) created an Estuary Habitat

Restoration Council (EHRC) that includes USACE,

NOAA, EPA, USFWS, and USDA. The Act charges

EHRC to develop and implement a strategy for

restoring the nation’s estuaries. 

See Section 2 (Commissions, Committees, and

Councils): Estuary Habitat Restoration Council. 
APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY OF FEDERAL OCEAN AND COASTAL-RELATED COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, COUNCILS, LAWS, AND PROGRAMS

Farm Bill 1985—Food Security Act

The Farm Bill Congress enacted in 1985, formally

known as the Food Security Act of 1985 (Pub. L.

99–198; 7 U.S.C. §§ 1631 et seq.), is landmark legislation in terms of its conservation provisions, establishing the so-called Sodbuster, Swampbuster, and the

Conservation Reserve and Wetland Reserve programs. 

See Section 4 (Federal Programs): Farm Bill

Conservation Programs.

Farm Bill 1990—Food, Agriculture,

Conservation, and Trade Act

The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade 

Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–624; 14 U.S.C. §§ 1401 

et seq.) maintained, with certain amendments, the

conservation provisions of the 1985 Farm Bill and

created new conservation programs applying to

forestry activities. 

See Section 4 (Federal Programs): Farm Bill

Conservation Programs. 

Farm Bill 1996—Federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform Act

The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform

Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–127; 7 U.S.C. §§ 793 et

seq.) made modifications to the Sodbuster,

Swampbuster, and Conservation Reserve and

Wetland Reserve programs, and created several new

programs to address high-priority environmental

protection goals, including the Environmental

Quality Incentives Program, Wildlife Habitat

Incentives Program, Flood Risk Reduction Program,

Farmland Protection Program, Conservation Farm

Option, and Conservation of Private Grazing Lands

initiative. 

See Section 4 (Federal Programs): Farm Bill

Conservation Programs. 

Farm Bill 2002—Farm Security and Rural

Investment Act

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002

(Pub. L. 107–171) greatly expanded overall funding

for Farm Bill conservation programs and shifted the

emphasis of funding from land retirement programs

to supporting conservation measures on working

agricultural lands. 

See Section 4 (Federal Programs): Farm Bill

Conservation Programs. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

See: Clean Water Act.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation

and Management Act

When Congress passed the Fishery Conservation and

Management Act in 1976 (Pub. L. 94–265; 16 U.S.C.

§§ 1801 et seq.), it claimed for the nation sovereign

rights and exclusive fishery management authority

over all fishery resources within 200 miles of the

coast, and over certain continental shelf and anadromous fishery resources even beyond 200 miles. Later

renamed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act (M-S Act), the

Act as amended established national standards for

fishery conservation and management in U.S. waters.

The M-S Act also created eight Regional Fishery

Management Councils composed of state and federal

officials and fishing industry representatives that prepare and amend fishery management plans for certain fisheries requiring conservation and management. The Act also requires that fishery management

plans identify essential fish habitat and protection

and conservation measures for each managed

species. In 1996, the Sustainable Fisheries Act

amended the M-S Act to require NMFS to undertake

a number of science, management, and conservation

actions to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished

stocks, protect essential fish habitat, minimize

bycatch, enhance research, and improve monitoring. 

See Section 2 (Commissions, Committees, and

Councils): Regional Fishery Management Councils.

Marine Mammal Protection Act

Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

(MMPA; Pub. L. 92–522; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361 et seq.),

NOAA has responsibility for ensuring the protection

of cetaceans (whales, porpoises, and dolphins) and

pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), except walruses.

USFWS is responsible for ensuring the protection of

walruses, sea otters, polar bears, and manatees.

NOAA and USFWS are required to consult with the

Marine Mammal Commission, also created by the

MMPA. With several exceptions, the MMPA establishes a moratorium on the taking and importation of

marine mammals and marine mammal products. 

See Section 2 (Commissions, Committees, and

Councils): Marine Mammal Commission. 

D 11
D 12 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Marine Plastic Pollution Research 

and Control Act

Congress enacted the Marine Plastic Pollution

Research and Control Act (Pub. L. 96–478; 33 U.S.C.

§§ 1901 et seq.) in 1987 as an amendment to the Act

to Prevent Pollution from Ships to prohibit garbage

and plastic disposal in U.S. navigable waters or by

U.S. flag ships. 

See: Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships.

Marine Protection, Research, and

Sanctuaries Act

The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act

of 1972 (Pub. L. 92–532; 33 U.S.C. §§ 1401 et seq.)

established programs to regulate ocean dumping,

conduct ocean dumping research, and set aside areas

of the marine environment as national marine sanctuaries. Title I is also known as the Ocean Dumping

Act and seeks to prevent or strictly limit the dumping into ocean waters of any material that would

adversely affect human health, welfare, or amenities,

or the marine environment, ecological systems, or

economic potential. Under Title I, the USACE is

authorized to issue permits for dredged material disposal, and the EPA is authorized to designate appropriate dump sites, and to issue permits for dumping

of material other than dredged material. Title III is

also known as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act

and authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate discrete areas of the marine environment as

national marine sanctuaries to protect distinctive

natural and cultural resources. NOAA administers

the National Marine Sanctuary Program. 

See Section 4 (Federal Programs): National Marine

Sanctuary Program. 

Methane Hydrate Research and

Development Act

Congress enacted the Methane Hydrate Research and

Development Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–193) to promote the research, identification, assessment, exploration, and development of methane hydrate

resources by creating a federal research and development program and establishing a Methane Hydrate

Advisory Committee. 

National Aquaculture Act

Congress enacted the National Aquaculture Act of

1980 (Pub. L. 96–362; 16 U.S.C. §§ 2801 et seq.) to

promote aquaculture development in the United

States by mandating a national aquaculture development plan and federal coordination of aquaculture

activities through a Joint Subcommittee on

Aquaculture.

See Section 2 (Commissions, Committees, and

Councils): Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture.

National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; Pub.

L. 91–190; 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.) requires all federal agencies to include a detailed statement of the

environmental impact of a major federal action significantly affecting the human environment. A

“major” federal action is one that requires substantial

planning, time, resources, or expenditure that the

federal agency proposes or permits. Through

Environmental Assessment and Environmental

Impact Statement reviews, federal agencies are

required to consider environmental impacts before

action is taken. In addition, NEPA mandates coordination and collaboration among federal agencies.

NEPA also created the Council on Environmental

Quality in the Executive Office of the President. 

See Section 2 (Commissions, Committees, and

Councils): Council on Environmental Quality.

National Invasive Species Act of 1996

The National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (Pub. L.

104–332; 16 U.S.C. §§ 4701 et seq.) substantially

amended the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance

Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (Pub. L.

101–646), which is the primary federal law dealing

with aquatic invasive species and ballast water management, and is the basis for Coast Guard regulations and guidelines to prevent introductions of

non-native species through the uptake and discharge

of ships’ ballast water. 

See: Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention

and Control Act 

See also Section 2 (Commissions, Committees, and

Councils): Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act

See: Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act.
APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY OF FEDERAL OCEAN AND COASTAL-RELATED COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, COUNCILS, LAWS, AND PROGRAMS

National Oceanographic Partnership Act

Enacted as part of the 1997 National Defense

Authorization Act, the National Oceanographic

Partnership Act (Pub. L. 104–201) created the

National Oceanographic Partnership Program and its

governing body, the National Ocean Research

Leadership Council, to promote the national interest

in natural security, economic development, quality of

life, and strong science education and communication through improved knowledge of the ocean. 

See Section 2 (Commissions, Committees, and

Councils): National Ocean Research Leadership

Council. 

See also Section 4 (Federal Programs): National

Oceanographic Partnership Program. 

National Sea Grant College Act

The National Sea Grant College Act of 1966 (Pub. L.

89–688; 33 U.S.C. §§ 1121 et seq.) established a network of programs at universities and scientific institutions focused on ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes

research, education and outreach activities, and was

modeled on the research and extension activities of

the nation’s land grant universities. Sea Grant administration was originally housed at the National Science

Foundation, but was transferred to the newly created

NOAA in the Department of Commerce in 1970. 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance

Prevention and Control Act

The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and

Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA; Pub. L. 101–646; 16

U.S.C. §§ 4701 et seq.) created a broad new federal

program to prevent the introduction of aquatic nuisance species and control their spread. The Act established the federal interagency Aquatic Nuisance

Species Task Force, whose members include USFWS,

USCG, EPA, USACE, and NOAA, to develop a program of prevention, monitoring, control, and study.

NANPCA was reauthorized and expanded by the

National Invasive Species Act of 1996. 

See: National Invasive Species Act of 1996. 

See also Section 2 (Commissions, Committees, and

Councils): Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. 

Ocean Dumping Act

See: Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act.

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act

The Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act of 1980

(Pub. L. 96–320; 42 U.S.C. §§ 9101 et seq.), administered by NOAA, established a program to license

facilities and plantships designed to convert thermal

gradients in the ocean into electricity.

Oceans Act of 2000

The Oceans Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–256; 33 U.S.C.

§ 857–19) established the U.S. Commission on

Ocean Policy to carry out a comprehensive review of

marine-related issues and laws and make recommendations to Congress and the President for a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy and

system of ocean governance. 

Oil Pollution Act of 1990

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA; Pub. L.

101–380; 33 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq.), enacted after the

Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska’s Prince William

Sound, addresses oil discharges to navigable waters

and shorelines. The Act seeks to harmonize oil spill

response mechanisms from the Clean Water Act, the

Deepwater Port Act of 1974, the Trans-Alaska

Pipeline Act, and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands

Act and other federal laws with state laws, international conventions, and the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). OPA requires that

emergency response plans be prepared, raises liability

limits, and creates an Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to

pay for removal costs and damages if the government

is unable to collect cleanup costs from the liable

party.

D 13
D 14 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953

(OCSLA; Pub. L. 83–212; 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331 et seq.)

asserted United States jurisdiction over and ownership of the mineral resources of the continental shelf

seaward of state boundaries (generally three miles

offshore). The OCSLA authorizes the Secretary of the

Interior to lease offshore tracts through competitive

bidding, collect royalties on production of oil and

natural gas, cancel leases if continued activity is

likely to cause serious harm to life, including fish

and other aquatic life, and consider economic, social,

and environmental values of renewable and nonrenewable resources in managing the outer Continental

Shelf (OCS). In 1978, Congress significantly revised

the OCSLA with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands

Act Amendments, requiring the Secretary of the

Interior to balance energy needs with the protection

of human, marine, and coastal environments, provide greater opportunities for coastal states and competing user concerns to be taken into account, and to

integrate improved environmental procedures into

the OCS process.

Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (30

Stat. 1151; 33 U.S.C. §§ 403 et seq.) prohibits the

unauthorized obstruction of navigable waters of the

United States or on the outer Continental Shelf

(OCS). Construction of any structure or excavation

or fill in U.S. navigable waters, including the OCS, is

prohibited without a permit from USACE. Courts

have also interpreted such obstructions to include

pollution if it destroys the navigable capacity of a

navigable waterway.

Submerged Lands Act

Congress enacted the Submerged Lands Act of 1953

(SLA; Pub. L. 83–31; 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301 et seq.) to

grant to the U.S. coastal states title to the natural

resources located within three nautical miles of their

coastlines (nine nautical miles for Texas and the Gulf

Coast of Florida). For purposes of the SLA, the term

“natural resources” comprise oil, gas, and all other

minerals, and all fish and other marine animal and

plant life. The SLA also preserves the control of the

seabed and its resources beyond state boundaries for

the federal government. 

Sustainable Fisheries Act

See: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act. 

Water Resources Development Act

Congress enacts a Water Resources Development Act

(most recent WRDA at Pub. L. 108–137; 33 U.S.C.

§§ 2201 et seq.) approximately every two years.

WRDAs authorize USACE to study or implement

individual projects around the nation, including navigation improvements, flood and shoreline erosion

control, hurricane and storm damage reduction,

emergency stream bank and shoreline stabilization,

recreation, and more. WRDAs also contain provisions of general applicability to USACE activities,

such as directives that establish environmental protection and no-net-loss of wetlands as USACE goals,

and also authorize funding for technical assistance

and studies for state, local, and tribal governments. 
APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY OF FEDERAL OCEAN AND COASTAL-RELATED COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, COUNCILS, LAWS, AND PROGRAMS D 15

Atmospheric Deposition 

Monitoring Programs

Numerous federal agencies, including EPA, NOAA,

and a number of agencies within the Departments of

Agriculture, the Interior, and Energy collaborate with

dozens of academic, research, industry, and state and

local government entities in a variety of networks

that monitor the atmospheric deposition of pollution

to water bodies. The preeminent national deposition

monitoring network is the National Atmospheric

Deposition Program, which monitors more than 200

sites nationwide. EPA administers the Clean Air

Status and Trends Network, measuring deposition at

about 80 sites. 

Web: <http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu>. 

Centers for Ocean Science 

Education Excellence

The Centers for Ocean Science Education Excellence

(COSEE) promote partnerships between research scientists and educators to advance ocean sciences education. The centers are a network of seven regional

centers and a central coordinating office funded by

the National Science Foundation with additional

support from the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval

Research and NOAA’s National Sea Grant Program,

National Ocean Service, and Office of Ocean

Exploration. Launched in 2002, each center has multiple participating academic, research, and educational institutions. 

Web: <http://www.geo.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/geo/showprog.

pl?id=109&div=oce>.

Civil Works Program of USACE

The USACE Civil Works Program encompasses a

vast array of programs that affect ocean and coastal

resources, including permitting and implementation

of wetland fill projects, offshore dumping and structures, navigational and other types of dredging, flood

control projects, beach nourishment and other shoreline protection projects, invasive species control,

regional sediment management, dam removal, disaster response, and more. 

Web: <http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/>. 

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Water Resources

Development Act.

Clean Water Act—Beaches Environmental

Assessment and Coastal Health Act

The Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal

Health Act of 2000 amends section 303(a) and several other sections of the Clean Water Act to require

states to set certain types of water quality standards

for their coastal recreational waters. It also authorizes

EPA to award grants to eligible states, territories,

tribes, and local governments to support testing and

monitoring of coastal recreational waters.

Web: <http://www.epa.gov/beaches/>.

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Clean Water Act.

Clean Water Act—Discharge of Dredged

and Fill Material (Section 404)

EPA and the USACE jointly administer the program

created by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which

prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material

into waters of the United States, including wetlands,

without a permit. Such discharges may occur only

when there is no alternative that is less damaging to

the aquatic environment. The applicant must demonstrate efforts to avoid and minimize potential adverse

impacts, and, where relevant, must provide compensation for any remaining, unavoidable impacts

through activities to restore or create wetlands. EPA

can veto a USACE permit decision.

Web: <http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/

fact10.html>. 

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Clean Water Act.

SECTION 4

OCEAN AND COASTAL-RELATED

FEDERAL PROGRAMS
D 16 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Clean Water Act—National Estuary

Program (Section 320) 

Created by 1987 amendments to the Clean Water

Act, the National Estuary Program was established to

improve the quality of estuaries of national importance. EPA administers the program, providing funds

and technical assistance to local stakeholders to

develop plans for attaining or maintaining water

quality in a designated estuary. Stakeholders create a

comprehensive conservation and management plan

that includes measures for protection of public water

supplies, protection and propagation of shellfish,

fish, and wildlife populations, allowance for recreational activities in and on the water, and control of

point and nonpoint sources of pollution that supplement existing pollution control measures. There are

currently twenty-eight estuaries in the program. In

addition to the National Estuary Program, the Clean

Water Act also authorizes several other important

regional estuary programs such as the Chesapeake

Bay Program and the Great Lakes Program.

Web: <http://www.epa.gov/nep>. 

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Clean Water Act .

Clean Water Act—National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System 

(Section 402) 

Established by the Clean Water Act in 1972, the

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by

regulating point sources (e.g., pipes or constructed

ditches) that discharge pollutants into waters of the

United States. Industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go

directly to surface waters. In most cases, the NPDES

permit program is administered by authorized states.

Web: <http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes>.

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Clean Water Act. 

Clean Water Act—Nonpoint Source

Pollution Program (Section 319)

Under the Clean Water Act Nonpoint Source

Pollution Program, EPA provides matching grants to

states to develop and implement statewide programs

for managing nonpoint sources of water pollution,

such as runoff from farms, parking lots, and lawns.

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. 

Web: <http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/cwact.html>. 

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Clean Water Act.

Clean Water Act—Marine Sanitation

Devices (Section 312)

Section 312 of the Clean Water Act requires vessels

that operate in U.S. navigable waters and that have

installed toilet facilities to have operable marine sanitation devices certified as meeting certain standards.

Section 312 also allows establishment of zones where

discharge of sewage from vessels is completely prohibited. Section 312 does not apply beyond three

nautical miles offshore. 

Web: <http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/

vessel sewage>.

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Clean Water Act.

Clean Water Act—State Revolving Fund 

The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)

provides matching grant funds to states to establish

revolving loan programs that provide below-market

interest rates on loans and other financial incentives

to towns, counties, nonprofit organizations, farmers,

and homeowners for water quality improvement

projects. The funds, which may finance only capital

costs (not operations and maintenance costs) are

mostly used for constructing wastewater treatment

plants. From its inception in 1988 to 2002, the funds

have provided an average of $3.8 billion per year for

water quality improvement. Since the program’s

inception, $38.7 billion has been disbursed. 

Web: <http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/index.htm>.

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Clean Water Act.
APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY OF FEDERAL OCEAN AND COASTAL-RELATED COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, COUNCILS, LAWS, AND PROGRAMS

Clean Water Act—Total Maximum Daily

Load Program (Section 303(d))

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act created the

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program to

address waters in the nation that still do not meet the

Clean Water Act goal of “fishable, swimmable” after

implementing pollution control technology at point

sources of pollution. Under the TMDL program,

states must identify and develop TMDLs for such

waters with EPA oversight. A TMDL is the maximum

amount of a pollutant, from both point and nonpoint

sources, that can be accommodated while still meeting 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. 

Web: <http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl>. 

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Clean Water Act.

Clean Water Act—Water Quality

Certification Program (Section 401)

The Clean Water Act Section 401 program, administered by EPA, requires federal agencies to obtain certification, or to require permit applicants to do so, from

the state, territory, or Indian tribes 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 water quality standards. States may

grant, deny, or condition these certifications. 

Web: <http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/regs/

sec401.html>.

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Clean Water Act. 

Coastal Barrier Resources System

Web: <http://www.fws.gov/cep/cbrtable.html>.

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Coastal Barrier

Resources Act. 

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control

Program

Web: <http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/czm/6217>. 

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Coastal Zone Act

Reauthorization Amendments. 

Coastal Program of USFWS

The USFWS Coastal Program focuses efforts to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats in support

of healthy coastal ecosystems in bays, estuaries and

watersheds around the U.S. ocean coastline and

Great Lakes. The program targets funding to sixteen

high priority coastal ecosystems. The program provides assessment and planning tools to identify priorities for habitat protection and restoration, conserves

pristine coastal habitats through voluntary conservation easements and locally initiated land acquisition,

and forms partnerships to restore degraded habitat. 

Web: <http://www.fws.gov/cep/cepcode.html>.

Coastal Zone Management Program

The Coastal Zone Management Program created by

the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 encourages coastal and Great Lakes states to develop and

implement programs to manage the use and protection of their coastal zones. NOAA is the federal

agency with oversight. States with approved programs become eligible for matching grants and also

gain “federal consistency” review authority. 

Web: <http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/czm>. 

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Coastal Zone

Management Act. 

Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment Program

The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

Program is a research program within EPA that

develops the tools necessary to monitor and assess

the status and trends of national ecological resources. 

Web: <http://www.epa.gov/emap>.

D 17
D 18 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Farm Bill Conservation Programs

Congress has enacted Farm Bills since the 1920s.

Since 1985, the laws, passed approximately every five

years, have included an increasing conservation

focus. The programs, administered primarily by the

USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, provide farmers and ranchers incentives to implement

conservation actions and disincentives against taking

actions that harm natural resources. Programs created and modified in the conservation titles of the

1985, 1990, 1996, and 2002 Farm Bills encourage

compliance with minimum conservation practices,

promote land retirement, and create incentives for

improved farming and ranching practices to address

environmental problems. Additional Farm Bill programs affecting natural resource protection include

those that prevent conversion of farmland and grassland to urban uses, and a variety of programs that

encourage watershed protection efforts. The 2002

Farm Bill raised anticipated spending for conservation and environmental programs over ten years to

$38.6 billion. While funding to all programs

increased, the 2002 bill shifted the funding emphasis

from land retirement to conservation efforts on

working lands. 

Web: <http://www.usda.gov/farmbill>. 

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Farm Bill 1985, 1990,

1996, 2002. 

National Estuarine Research 

Reserve System

Established by the Coastal Zone Management Act in

1972, the program encourages coastal states and territories to set aside representative estuaries for longterm research, education, and stewardship purposes.

Once an area is designated as a reserve, federal financial assistance is available for acquisition of property,

and management, research, and education activities.

NOAA is responsible for overseeing state management of the twenty-six reserves.

Web: <http://nerrs.noaa.gov>. 

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Coastal Zone

Management Act.

National Flood Insurance Program

In 1968, Congress enacted the National Flood

Insurance Program (NFIP), administered by FEMA.

The NFIP maps flood-prone regions throughout the

nation. Communities that voluntarily adopt NFIP

building standards and land use controls intended to

minimize flood damages and property losses in those

areas make their residents and businesses eligible for

guaranteed flood insurance coverage. About 19,000

communities participate in the program.

Web: <http://www.fema.gov/nfip>.

National Marine Sanctuary Program

NOAA administers the National Marine Sanctuary

Program, created by Title III of the Marine

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.

The Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to

designate discrete areas of the marine environment as

national marine sanctuaries to protect distinctive

natural and cultural resources. There are currently

thirteen national marine sanctuaries in the program. 

Web: <http://www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov>.

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): Marine Protection,

Research, and Sanctuaries Act. 

National Oceanographic 

Partnership Program

The National Oceanographic Partnership Program

(NOPP) promotes and funds research partnerships

among federal agencies, academia, industry, and

other members of the oceanographic scientific community to further ocean knowledge. Among NOPP

programs is Ocean.US, which coordinates the development of the Integrated Ocean Observing System.

NOPP is governed by the National Ocean Research

Leadership Council. 

Web: <http://www.coreocean.org/Dev2Go.web?

Anchor=nopp_home_page&rnd=5308>. 

See Section 2 (Federal Commissions, Committees, and

Councils): National Ocean Research Leadership Council. 

See also Section 3 (Federal Laws): National

Oceanographic Partnership Act.
APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY OF FEDERAL OCEAN AND COASTAL-RELATED COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, COUNCILS, LAWS, AND PROGRAMS

National Park System

The National Park System, administered by the

National Park Service, includes a number of national

parks in coastal or ocean areas, including in Florida,

Alaska, Maine, Michigan, California, U.S. Virgin

Islands, and American Samoa. Other ocean and

coastal elements of the system include national

seashores (ten national seashores on the Atlantic,

Gulf and Pacific coasts), national lakeshores (four, all

on the Great Lakes), and a number of national monuments (landmarks, structures, and other items of historic or scientific interest situated on federal lands). 

Web: <http://www.nps.gov>.

National Sea Grant College Program

The National Sea Grant College Program’s ocean,

coastal, and Great Lakes research, education, technology transfer, and outreach activities are implemented by a network of programs at thirty universities and scientific institutions around the nation. The

program was modeled on the research and extension

activities of the nation’s land grant universities.

NOAA administers the program. 

Web: <http://www.nsgo.seagrant.org>.

See Section 3 (Federal Laws): National Sea Grant 

College Act.

National Status and Trends Program

The objective of NOAA’s National Status and Trends

Program is to evaluate and detect changes in the

environmental quality of the nation’s estuarine and

coastal waters. The program conducts monitoring of

contaminants and other environmental conditions at

approximately 350 sites nationwide. 

Web: <http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov>.

National Stream Quality 

Accounting Network

USGS conducts long-term water quality and quantity

monitoring through the National Stream Quality

Accounting Network at fixed locations on large

rivers around the country. Currently, this program

focuses on monitoring the water quality of the nation’s

largest rivers—the Mississippi, Columbia, Colorado,

Rio Grande, and Yukon. Consequently, most coastal

regions are left out of the monitoring network. 

Web: <http://water.usgs.gov/nasqan>.

National Streamflow Information Program

USGS operates the National Streamflow Information

Program, a network of about 7,000 stream gages

nationwide. (About 6,000 of these stations are

telemetered by an Earth-satellite-based communications system.) The majority of the stream-gaging stations are jointly funded in partnerships with more

than 800 state, local, and tribal governments or other

federal agencies. 

Web: <http://water.usgs.gov/nsip>.

National Water Quality Assessment

USGS operates the National Water Quality Assessment,

which uses a regional focus to study status and trends

in water, sediment, and biota in forty-two major river

basins and aquifer systems. This effort has made considerable progress toward assessing current water

quality conditions and long-term trends.

Web: <http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa>.

National Wildlife Refuge System

The National Wildlife Refuge System, administered

by the USFWS, encompasses over 95 million acres

on more than 540 refuges and waterfowl production

areas dedicated to the protection and conservation of

the nation’s wildlife resources. In 1966, legislation

(Pub. L. 89–669; 16 U.S.C. § 668dd) codified the

system, which was first established by executive

order of President Theodore Roosevelt as a network

of wildlife refuges and ranges, areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife threatened

with extinction, game ranges, wildlife management

areas, and waterfowl production areas. 

Web: <http://refuges.fws.gov>.

D 19

APPENDIX E

PROPOSED STRUCTURE FOR

COORDINATION OF FEDERAL

OCEAN ACTIVITIES

APPENDIX E: PROPOSED

STRUCTURE FORCOORDINATION OFF EDERALOCEANACTIVITIES E 3

Proposed Structure for Coordination of Federal Ocean Activities

President's Council of 

Advisors on Ocean Policy

Co-Chairs: National Ocean

Council Chair and

one nonfederal member

Membership: Broad, nonfederal

Council on

Environmental Quality

Independent ocean

and coastal advisory 

commissions or councils

Committee on Ocean Resource Management

Chair: CEQ Chair

Membership: Undersecretary/assistant secretary 

level of relevant agencies

Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and 

Operations

Chair: OSTP Director

Membership: Current NORLC members and others, 

as decribed in Recommendation 4–7

National Ocean Council

Chair: Assistant to the President

Membership: Cabinet secretaries of 

departments and directors of independent 

agencies with ocean and coastal 

functions; others, as needed

Staff: Office of Ocean Policy

Executive Office 

of the President

President's Council 

of Advisors on 

Science and Technology

National Science & 

Technology Council

and the

Office of Science and 

Technology Policy 

Shown here are the institutional components that should be established in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) to improve federal leadership and coordination of the nation’s oceans and coasts. This diagram also illustrates the organizational relationship between these new components and certain existing units in the EOP. The National Ocean Council, the President's Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, the Committee on Ocean Resource Management and the Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations are discussed in Chapter 4. The new and existing components located under the Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations are outlined in Chapter 8 (educational components) and Chapter 25 (research and operational components).

Committee on Ocean Science, Education, 

Technology, and Operations

(formerly NORLC)

Chair: OSTP Director

Membership: Current NORLC members and others

Advisory Panel

(formerly ORAP)

Ocean.US Interagency 

Committees and 

Task Forces

Ocean.IT

Federal 

Oceanographic 

Facilities 

Committee

Ocean.ED

(including the existing 

COSEE Central 

Coordinating Office)

Regional

COSEE

Centers

Staff Staff

Education Sub-Panel Interagency Working Group

Staff

■ Existing Entities■ New Entities

Reporting lines

Communication Lines

Advisory Lines

APPENDIX F

CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES

AND SUBCOMMITTEES WITH

JURISDICTION OVER OCEAN

AND COASTAL ISSUES
A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES AND

SUBCOMMITTEES WITH JURISDICTION

OVER OCEAN AND COASTAL ISSUES

F 2

The primary institutions for policy and legislative

development in Congress are the standing committees of the House and Senate. As the level of

assertiveness of Congress has fluctuated over the

years, its committee structure and power have also

been subject to change. Congressional policy activism

of the 1970s and 1980s, for example, resulted in the

proliferation of the number of standing committees

and subcommittees in both chambers. In the 100th

Congress (1987–88), there were over 280 permanent

jurisdictional entities in the House and Senate.

Reform in the mid-1990s realigned and consolidated

a significant portion of the committee system; in the

108th Congress (2003–04), there are slightly more

than 200 standing committees and subcommittees.

Despite the reduction in the number of jurisdictional entities overall, the legislative and oversight

responsibilities with respect to ocean and coastal

issues in the United States Congress are spread across

more than one-quarter of its committees and subcommittees. Some panels exercise more direct and broader

jurisdiction over ocean policy than others, but all

listed in this appendix have an important role in the

collective and cumulative programmatic and budgetary decisions of Congress that define such policy. 

It should be noted that the following identification and characterization of congressional committee

ocean policy jurisdiction in the 108th Congress is

not intended to be authoritative. Committee jurisdiction, although defined by the rules of each chamber,

is an evolving concept affected by years of bill referral precedents and changing procedures occasioned

by periodic reorganization and reform efforts. At a

minimum, practically every Congress experiences

some realignment in the subcommittee structure of

one or more standing committees. 

The built-in tension in the modern-day Congress

between its representational role and agenda-setting

and legislative responsibilities affect many different

congressional processes, including the policy coherence of its committee structure. This appendix is

illustrative of the breadth of committee and subcommittee involvement in ocean and coastal policy oversight and management in the 108th Congress. The

current distribution of authority over the laws and

policies of the nation’s ocean and coastal activities

among a broad suite of fifty-eight congressional committees and subcommittees highlights the difficulty

of policy coordination in the legislative branch of the

federal government similar, perhaps, to that experienced in the executive branch. 

In addition to the jurisdictional entities listed

below, there are other standing committees in the

Senate and House that indirectly impact ocean and

coastal policy through important legislative authority

over broader governmental and cross-cutting issues,

such as: executive branch organization; taxes, customs, duties, and trade policies; health sciences;

Indian affairs; labor standards and safety regulations;

and other related matters. 

There have been efforts from time to time to better coordinate ocean policy development in Congress.

In the 1970s, a temporary select committee composed

of members from the various standing units of jurisdiction was established in the House to rewrite the

federal offshore oil and gas law. Also, around the same

time, the Senate authorized the Commerce

Committee to establish the National Ocean Policy

Study (NOPS), a non-legislative cross-Senate entity

that included ex officio representation by Members

from other committees with similar jurisdictional

interests. Operated in many ways as a broad ocean

policy oversight subcommittee, NOPS has been inactive since 1994. A more recent initiative was the

establishment in the 106th Congress of the House

Oceans Caucus, composed of a broad bipartisan

membership of the House of Representatives. Like

other congressional caucuses, it possesses no legislative authority but provides a voice within the House

for Members interested in ocean and coastal issues. 
APPENDIX F: CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES WITH JURISDICTION OVER OCEAN AND COASTAL ISSUES

United States Senate Committees

And Subcommittees With OceanAnd Coastal-related Jurisdiction:

108th Congress

In the 108th Congress, of the seventeen standing

committees and sixty-eight subcommittees in the

Senate, seven committees and twenty-one subcommittees are involved in ocean- and coastal-related

policy and legislative issues. Selective examples of

ocean-related programs, activities, and agencies

under the jurisdiction of the applicable full authorizing committees and appropriations subcommittees

are provided for illustrative purposes. 

Authorizing Committees

Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation

Jurisdiction includes ocean and atmospheric policy, generally: NOAA, NASA, U.S. Coast Guard, MARAD, and

Marine Mammal Commission programs and activities;

coastal zone management; marine fisheries; merchant

marine and ocean navigation, including transportation

and safety; science, engineering, and technology

research, development, and policy; transportation and

commerce aspects of outer Continental Shelf lands; and

elements of climate change. 

• Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard 

• Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space

• Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and

Merchant Marine

Committee on Environment and Public Works

Jurisdiction includes environmental protection, generally:

EPA; CEQ; FEMA (Hazards Mitigation); USACE civil

works programs for navigation, environmental restoration, and shoreline protection; DOI wildlife and fisheries

programs, including endangered species; air and water

pollution and water resources; environmental aspects of

outer Continental Shelf lands; environmental policy

(including NEPA), regulation and research; and ocean

dumping. 

• Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change,

and Nuclear Safety

• Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water

• Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Jurisdiction includes energy resource development, generally: DOI leasing program for oil, gas, and other minerals on the outer Continental Shelf and deep seabed;

national parks, refuges, forests, and the Land and Water

Conservation Fund; DOE and energy policy, research,

development and regulation (including hydroelectric

and renewable energy); energy-related aspects of deepwater ports; and U.S. territorial possessions.

• Subcommittee on Energy

• Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

• Subcommittee on Water and Power

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

Jurisdiction includes: USDA Forest Service, Natural

Resources Conservation Service programs, including

watershed conservation on agricultural lands and nonpoint source pollution activities as they relate to agriculture practices; and inspection of marine mammals in

captivity. 

F 3

Number with Ocean- and Coastal-related Jurisdiction, 108th Congress

Table F.1 Congressional Committees and Subcommittees

U.S. Senate 17 7 41% 68 21 31% 85 28 33%

U.S. House 19 8 42% 98 22 22% 117 30 26%

Total 36 15 42% 166 43 26% 202 58 29%

Standing Committees

Subcommittees of 

Standing Committees

Number of 

Jurisdictional Entities*

Total

Number

with oceanand coastalrelated

jurisdiction 

Percent with

ocean- and

coastalrelated

jurisdiction Total

Number

with oceanand coastalrelated

jurisdiction 

Percent with

ocean- and

coastalrelated

jurisdiction Total

Number

with oceanand coastalrelated

jurisdiction 

Percent with

ocean- and

coastalrelated

jurisdiction

* total of full committees and subcommittees
F 4 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

• Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and

Rural Revitalization

• Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition, and 

General Legislation

Committee on Armed Services

Jurisdiction includes: DOD naval operations, research

and development, and related environmental issues. 

• Subcommittee on Seapower

Committee on Foreign Relations

Jurisdiction includes: DOS oceans and international

environmental and scientific affairs, including treaties

and agreements; boundaries of the United States; and

U.S. activities related to the United Nations Convention

on the Law of the Sea.

Appropriations Committee

Committee on Appropriations

Jurisdiction of the full Committee includes appropriation of the revenue and the provision of new spending

authority for the support of the government.

• Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural

Development, and Related Agencies

Funding for USDA and FDA

• Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and

the Judiciary

Funding for NOAA, DOS, and MMC

• Subcommittee on Defense

Funding for the Navy 

• Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

Funding for USACE Civil Works and DOI/BOR

• Subcommittee on Foreign Operations

Funding for USAID and DOS

• Subcommittee on Homeland Security

Funding for USCG and FEMA

• Subcommittee on the Interior and Related Agencies

Funding for DOI agencies (USGS, MMS, FWS,

NPS) and LWCF

• Subcommittee on Transportation/Treasury and

General Government

Funding for Executive Office of the President,

MARAD and FMC

• Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing and

Urban Development and Independent Agencies

Funding for NSF, EPA, NASA, NIH/NIEHS, CEQ,

and OSTP

United States House Of

Representatives Committees 

And Subcommittees With OceanAnd Coastal-related Jurisdiction: 

108th Congress

Of the nineteen standing committees and ninetyeight subcommittees in the U.S. House of 

Representatives, eight committees and twenty-two

subcommittees are involved in ocean- and coastalrelated policy and legislative issues. Selective examples of ocean-related programs, activities, and agencies under the jurisdiction of the applicable full

authorizing committees and appropriations subcommittees are provided for illustrative purposes. 

Authorizing Committees

Committee on Resources

Jurisdiction includes: most of NOAA’s marine related

activities, such as living marine resource management,

conservation, and regulation; coastal zone management;

marine sanctuaries and oceanography; DOS’ international fisheries agreements; MMS’ conservation and

development of oil and gas resources on the outer

Continental Shelf; management of federal lands in the

coastal zone (national parks, refuges, and forests); and

relations with federally-recognized Indian tribes and

U.S territorial possessions.

• Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

• Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,

Wildlife and Oceans

• Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and

Public Lands 

Committee on Science

Jurisdiction includes: oceanic, atmospheric, environmental, and climatic research and development activities of

NOAA, NSF, EPA, NASA, DOE, and USGS, including

water and air pollution, renewable energy and fossil

energy; ocean science policy and technology; earth remote

sensing research and policy; and science education.

• Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and

Standards

• Subcommittee on Research
APPENDIX F: CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES WITH JURISDICTION OVER OCEAN AND COASTAL ISSUES F 5

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Jurisdiction includes: Coast Guard safety, enforcement

and environmental protection programs; FMC and merchant marine and navigation matters; USACE civil

works programs for navigation, environmental restoration, and shoreline protection; water and oil pollution;

ocean dumping; and FEMA (hazards mitigation).

• Subcommittee on Economic Development, 

Public Buildings and Emergency Management 

• Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Marine

Transportation

• Subcommittee on Water Resources and 

Environment

Committee on Energy and Commerce

Jurisdiction includes: national energy policy, generally,

including renewable energy resources; environmental

regulatory programs of EPA, generally; air pollution;

clean-up of hazardous wastes; public health; and travel

and tourism.

• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality

• Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous

Materials

Committee on Agriculture

Jurisdiction includes: USDA Forest Service, Natural

Resources Conservation Service programs, including

watershed conservation on agricultural lands and nonpoint source pollution activities as they relate to agriculture practices; seafood inspection; and inspection of

marine mammals in captivity.

• Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural

Development and Research

• Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture

Committee on Armed Services

Jurisdiction includes: naval operations, research, and

development, and related environmental issues; and

MARAD. 

• Subcommittee on Projection Forces

Committee on International Relations

Jurisdiction includes: DOS oceans and international

environmental and scientific affairs, including treaties

and agreements other than international fisheries agreements; boundaries of the United States; and U.S. activities related to the United Nations Convention on the

Law of the Sea.

Appropriations Committee

Committee on Appropriations

Jurisdiction of the full Committee includes appropriation of the revenue and the provision of new spending

authority for the support of the government.

• Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural

Development, Food and Drug Administration,

and Related Agencies

Funding for USDA and FDA

• Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State,

the Judiciary, and Related Agencies

Funding for NOAA, DOS, DOJ, and MARAD

• Subcommittee on Defense

Funding for the Navy 

• Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

Funding for USACE Civil Works and DOI/BOR

• Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Exported

Financing, and Related Programs

Funding for USAID and DOS

• Subcommittee on Homeland Security

Funding for USCG and FEMA

• Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies

Funding for DOI agencies (USGS, MMS, FWS,

NPS) and LWCF

• Subcommittee on Transportation and Treasury,

and Independent Agencies

Funding for Executive Office of the President 

and FMC 

• Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs and Housing and

Urban Development, and Independent Agencies

Funding for NSF, EPA, NASA, NIH/NIEHS, CEQ,

and OSTP

APPENDIX G

DETAILED COSTS ASSOCIATED

WITH RECOMMENDATIONS

OF THE U.S. COMMISSION

ON OCEAN POLICY
G 2 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

1st Year Cost

(millions of

dollars)

Ongoing

Annual Cost

(millions of

dollars) Comments

Detailed Costs Associated with Recommendations

of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

“TBD” to be determined, indicates that future funds are likely to be required, but the amount can only be determined after further review

“min” indicates that the cost is either zero or small enough to be absorbed within existing budgets

* indicates that some or all of the costs are included in another recommendation

# indicates that some or all of the recommendation’s costs are of national scope and are not included here

($xx) numbers in parentheses are not included in totals

Rec.

no recommendations N/A N/A

no recommendations N/A N/A

no recommendations N/A N/A

4–1 create the National Ocean Council, the Assistant to the $0.162 $0.324

President, and the President’s Council of Advisors on 

Ocean Policy (travel)

4–2 define duties for the National Ocean Council min min

4–3 promote ecosystem-based management approaches min min

4–4 define duties for the Assistant to the President min min

4–5 define duties for the President’s Council of Advisors 

on Ocean Policy min min

4–6 create the Office of Ocean Policy (small staff and budget) $0.900 $1.800

4–7 create a Committee on Ocean Science, Education, min min

Technology, and Operations

4–8 create a Committee on Ocean Resource Management min min

4–9 review ocean-related councils and commissions min min

Chapter 4 Total $1.062 $2.124

5–1 design and apply a regional ocean council process $3.000 $12.000 $1M per region

5–2 improve federal agency regional coordination min min

5–3 adopt common federal regions TBD TBD cost will depend on the nature

and timing of the transition

5–4 establish regional ocean information programs $9.000 $36.000 $3M per region

5–5 conduct regional assessments $0.750 $0.750 $250K per assessment on a four 

year rotation among regions

5–6 revise NEPA guidelines to incorporate regional min min

ecosystem assessments 

Chapter 5 Total $12.750 $48.750

6–1 select a lead agency for each offshore activity min min

6–2 create a coordinated offshore management regime $0.900 $1.800

(small staff and budget)

6–3 design marine protected area guidelines min min

6–4 implement and assess marine protected areas $6.000 $20.000

Chapter 6 Total $6.900 $21.800

Chapter 1: Recognizing Ocean Assets and Challenges

Chapter 2: Understanding the Past to Shape a New National Ocean Policy

Chapter 3: Setting the Nation’s Sights

Chapter 4: Enhancing Ocean Leadership and Coordination

Chapter 5: Advancing a Regional Approach

Listed below are the estimated new costs, in millions of dollars, associated with each recommendation in this report. 

These amounts should be added to existing federal expenditures in each area. Additional caveats, context, and discussion 

are provided in Chapter 30.

Chapter 6: Coordinating Management in Federal Waters
APPENDIX G: DETAILED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY G 3

7–1 establish an organic act for NOAA min min

7–2 review NOAA’s budget within OMB’s Natural Resources 

Programs directorate min min

7–3 review ocean and coastal programs and recommend 

opportunities for consolidation min min

7–4 authorize presidential reorganization authority min min

7–5 consider long-term reorganization of federal 

resource agencies min min

Chapter 7 Total $0.000 $0.000

8–1 create Ocean.ED (small staff and budget) $0.900 $1.800

8–2 establish the Ocean.ED budget as a line item in NOAA min min NOAA line item would include

funds to support Recs. 8–1, 8–4, 

8–7, 8–8, 8–9, and 8–17

8–3 strengthen ocean education in NOAA, NSF, NASA, and ONR $10.000 $20.000

8–4 evaluate K-12 programs (grants and workshops) $0.500 $2.040

8–5 expand the Centers for Ocean Science $0.000 $29.100 $1.5M per year for existing and

Education Excellence new centers 

8–6* increase Sea Grant education efforts * * * funds included in Rec. 25–4

8–7 coordinate K-12 materials to meet existing education $0.000 $1.000

standards (grants)

8–8 establish researcher/educator collaborations (grants) $0.000 $10.000

8–9 promote ocean experiences outside school $11.000 $3.000 larger first year costs cover the

(traveling exhibits and grants) creation of traveling exhibits

8–10 support undergraduate ocean science course $0.000 $5.000

development and implementation (grants)

8–11* promote development of the ocean workforce * * * funds included in Recs. 8–13,

8–14, and 8–15

8–12 establish an ocean workforce database with regular $0.500 $2.000

reporting and convene periodic summit meetings

8–13 enhance NOAA support for undergraduates, $0.000 $18.000

graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows

8–14 enhance NSF support for undergraduates, 

graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows $0.000 $18.000

8–15 reinvigorate ONR support for graduate students $0.000 $10.000

8–16 promote diversity in the ocean-related workforce (stipends) $1.000 $3.930

8–17 promote community education (grants) $1.250 $12.500

Chapter 8 Total $25.150 $136.370

9–1 strengthen the Coastal Zone Management Act $35.000 $95.000

9–2 consolidate area-based programs min min

9–3 discourage growth in fragile areas min min

9–4 support watershed initiatives $20.000 $60.000

Chapter 9 Total $55.000 $155.000

Detailed Costs Associated with Recommendations 

of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (continued) 

“TBD” to be determined, indicates that future funds are likely to be required, but the amount can only be determined after further review

“min” indicates that the cost is either zero or small enough to be absorbed within existing budgets

* indicates that some or all of the costs are included in another recommendation

# indicates that some or all of the recommendation’s costs are of national scope and are not included here

($xx) numbers in parentheses are not included in totals

Chapter 7: Strengthening the Federal Agency Structure

Chapter 8: Promoting Lifelong Ocean Education 

Chapter 9: Managing Coasts and Their Watersheds

1st Year Cost

(millions of

dollars)

Ongoing

Annual Cost

(millions of

dollars) Rec. Comments
G 4 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Detailed Costs Associated with Recommendations 

of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (continued) 

“TBD” to be determined, indicates that future funds are likely to be required, but the amount can only be determined after further review

“min” indicates that the cost is either zero or small enough to be absorbed within existing budgets

* indicates that some or all of the costs are included in another recommendation

# indicates that some or all of the recommendation’s costs are of national scope and are not included here

($xx) numbers in parentheses are not included in totals

10–1 review and improve the USACE Civil Works Program TBD TBD cost will depend on the nature

of the changes

10–2 improve hazards-related data collection TBD TBD costs to be determined after

assessment of needs and 

capabilities

10–3 recommend changes to the National Flood min min

Insurance Program

10–4 support state and local hazards mitigation plans $2.500 $10.000

Chapter 10 Total $2.500 $10.000

11–1# increase coastal and estuarine land conservation funds $35.000 $70.000 # these estimates do not cover

flagship projects such as restoration of the Florida Everglades,

Louisiana coastline, Chesapeake

Bay, and other areas of national

significance

11–2 set national and regional goals for habitat conservation min min

and restoration

11–3 allow discretion in the use of conservation funds min min

11–4 digitize and update the National Wetlands Inventory $5.000 $5.000

11–5 coordinate a comprehensive wetlands program TBD TBD costs will depend on the extent

of programmatic changes needed

Chapter 11 Total $40.000 $75.000

12–1 develop a national sediment management strategy min min

12–2 adopt ecosystem-based management approaches min min

at USACE

12–3 improve cost/benefit analyses for dredging projects min min

12–4 implement a streamlined, ecosystem-based min min

dredging program

12–5* develop and implement improved sediment research, $12.500 $72.500 * funds for monitoring included

monitoring, assessments, and technology in Rec. 15–1 and for development

research in Rec. 25–1

12–6 review USACE project outcomes min min

12–7* improve contaminated sediment management, TBD TBD * funds for monitoring included

assessments, monitoring, and research at EPA in Rec. 15–1 and for research in

Rec. 25–1. Costs for improved

management will depend on

the methods available.

Chapter 12 Total $12.500 $72.500

Chapter 10: Guarding People and Property Against Natural Hazards

Chapter 11: Conserving and Restoring Coastal Habitat

Chapter 12: Managing Sediment and Shorelines

1st Year Cost

(millions of

dollars)

Ongoing

Annual Cost

(millions of

dollars) Rec. Comments
APPENDIX G: DETAILED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY G 5

Detailed Costs Associated with Recommendations 

of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (continued) 

“TBD” to be determined, indicates that future funds are likely to be required, but the amount can only be determined after further review

“min” indicates that the cost is either zero or small enough to be absorbed within existing budgets

* indicates that some or all of the costs are included in another recommendation

# indicates that some or all of the recommendation’s costs are of national scope and are not included here

($xx) numbers in parentheses are not included in totals

13–1 designate DOT as the lead agency for marine transportation min min

13–2 codify the Interagency Committee for the Marine min min

Transportation System

13–3# create a national freight strategy to plan and min TBD # the new strategy will help 

implement intermodal projects determine the extent of intermodal improvements needed 

13–4 analyze and assess short sea shipping $1.500 $0.000

13–5# create a national freight flow information collection ($1M) ($7.05M)

and analysis program

13–6 incorporate emergency preparedness in the freight min min

flow strategy

Chapter 13 Total $1.500 $0.000

14–1* require advanced nutrient removal in wastewater min min * funds for research included

and study the impact of chemicals in wastewater in Rec. 25–1

14–2 provide assistance to improve septic systems $0.000 $2.000

14–3* support research and develop best management $0.000 $2.000 * funds for research included

practices for removal of nutrients and pathogens in Rec. 25–1

from agricultural lands

14–4# maintain and upgrade wastewater and drinking water ($30B) ($30B)

infrastructure

14–5 experiment with tradeable credits for nutrients min min

and sediments

14–6 modernize the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination $2.000 $4.500

System’s monitoring and information management and 

strengthen enforcement (staff and budget)

14–7 coordinate USDA programs aimed at reducing min min

nonpoint source pollution with those of other agencies

14–8 set goals and objectives for reducing nonpoint min min

source pollution

14–9 review CZARA section 6217 and CWA section 319 min min

programs and consider consolidation

14–10 provide authority for imposing disincentives against min min

programs that degrade water quality

14–11 help local governments improve land-use planning $0.000 $12.500

to maintain water quality

14–12* implement National Pollutant Discharge Elimination $5.000 $17.300 * funds for monitoring included

System stormwater programs (additional staff in Rec. 15–1

plus grants to state and local governments)

14–13 develop regional approaches for reducing atmospheric $3.000 $12.600

deposition (staff and grants)

14–14* implement international solutions for addressing $1.000 $3.000 * funds for research included

atmospheric deposition in Rec. 25–1

Chapter 14 Total $11.000 $53.900

Chapter 14: Addressing Coastal Water Pollution

Chapter 13: Supporting Marine Commerce and Transportation

1st Year Cost

(millions of

dollars)

Ongoing

Annual Cost

(millions of

dollars) Rec. Comments
G 6 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Detailed Costs Associated with Recommendations 

of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (continued) 

“TBD” to be determined, indicates that future funds are likely to be required, but the amount can only be determined after further review

“min” indicates that the cost is either zero or small enough to be absorbed within existing budgets

* indicates that some or all of the costs are included in another recommendation

# indicates that some or all of the recommendation’s costs are of national scope and are not included here

($xx) numbers in parentheses are not included in totals

15–1*# develop a national monitoring network $10.000 $60.000 * funds for infrastructure

included in Ch. 27

# the estimates shown cover

only coastal and watershed

monitoring; funds needed to

achieve improved monitoring

nationwide are not included

15–2 coordinate the monitoring network with the IOOS min min

15–3 set goals and design elements for the national min min

monitoring network

Chapter 15 Total $10.000 $60.000

16–1 encourage industry to adopt improved voluntary measures min min

16–2# increase safety and environmental inspections $25.000 $65.000 # these estimates are for 

(staff and budget) enhancement of existing vessel

inspection activities to better

address safety and environmental

concerns

16–3 work with the International Maritime Organization min min

to enhance flag state oversight and enforcement

16–4 enhance port state control and international vessel min min

information database

16–5 establish a new regime for managing wastewater from $1.000 $1.000

passenger vessels

16–6 review and revise the CWA regulations on marine $1.500 $0.000

sanitation devices

16–7 assess and increase the availability of pumpout facilities $10.000 $10.000

16–8 ratify MARPOL Annex VI to adopt stricter air emission min min

standards

16–9 develop incentives for voluntary reduction of air emissions min min

16–10 conduct risk analysis of all oil transportation systems $1.500 $0.000

16–11 develop policies and plans for places of refuge min min

16–12 reduce air and water pollution from small vessels $1.000 $2.000

16–13* study and reduce impacts of vessel pollution TBD TBD * funds for research included in

Rec. 25–1. Costs of improvement

will depend on the strategies

employed.

16–14# support ocean and coastal management needs while $0.000 $10.000 # these estimates are for

implementing Maritime Domain Awareness enhancement of existing

Maritime Domain Awareness

activities to better address ocean

and coastal management needs

Chapter 16 Total $40.000 $88.000

Chapter 15: Creating a National Monitoring Network

Chapter 16: Limiting Vessel Pollution and Improving Vessel Safety

1st Year Cost

(millions of

dollars)

Ongoing

Annual Cost

(millions of

dollars) Rec. Comments
APPENDIX G: DETAILED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY G 7

Detailed Costs Associated with Recommendations 

of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (continued) 

“TBD” to be determined, indicates that future funds are likely to be required, but the amount can only be determined after further review

“min” indicates that the cost is either zero or small enough to be absorbed within existing budgets

* indicates that some or all of the costs are included in another recommendation

# indicates that some or all of the recommendation’s costs are of national scope and are not included here

($xx) numbers in parentheses are not included in totals

17–1* improve the national ballast water management program min min * funds for research included in

Rec. 25–1

17–2 review and improve ballast water research and $1.500 TBD first year cost covers a review of

demonstration programs existing R&D which will determine

the scope of the ongoing program

17–3 employ existing legal authorities to prohibit imports of min min

invasive species

17–4* coordinate public education and outreach efforts * * * funds included in Rec. 8–17

17–5* implement early detection and notification plans $30.000 $50.000 * funds for monitoring included

in Rec. 15–1

17–6 coordinate, consolidate, and improve invasive species TBD TBD costs of improvement will depend

programs on the strategies employed

17–7 lead international actions to control invasive species min min

17–8* coordinate interagency research and monitoring to * * *funds for monitoring included

address invasive species in Rec. 15–1 and for research in 

Rec. 25–1

Chapter 17 Total $31.500 $50.000

18–1 establish a marine debris management program in NOAA $1.000 $2.000

18–2 coordinate and implement expanded marine debris 

control efforts $1.000 $3.000

18–3 re-establish an interagency marine debris committee min min

18–4 develop an international plan of action for addressing min min 

derelict fishing gear

18–5 create incentives to dispose of derelict fishing gear min min

18–6 ensure availability of adequate port reception facilities min min

Chapter 18 Total $2.000 $5.000

19–1 expand the role of SSCs (SSC stipends) $3.600 $7.200

19–2 require SSCs to supply needed information min min

19–3 set harvest levels at or below allowable biological catch min min

19–4 ensure peer review of SSC findings $0.400 $1.600

19–5 set deadline for SSCs to determine allowable min min

biological catch

19–6 require that proposed fishery management plans be min min

submitted with enough time for sufficient review

19–7 develop and communicate annual RFMC min min

information needs

19–8 require licenses for saltwater anglers to improve min min

data collection

19–9 expand cooperative fishery research $3.000 $10.000

19–10 develop new statutory authority to support the $3.000 $7.500

Gulf States and Pacific States Fisheries Management 

Commissions

19–11 designate lead authorities for interjurisdictional fisheries min min

Chapter 17: Preventing the Spread of Invasive Species

Chapter 18: Reducing Marine Debris

Chapter 19: Achieving Sustainable Fisheries

1st Year Cost

(millions of

dollars)

Ongoing

Annual Cost

(millions of

dollars) Rec. Comments
G 8 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Detailed Costs Associated with Recommendations 

of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (continued) 

“TBD” to be determined, indicates that future funds are likely to be required, but the amount can only be determined after further review

“min” indicates that the cost is either zero or small enough to be absorbed within existing budgets

* indicates that some or all of the costs are included in another recommendation

# indicates that some or all of the recommendation’s costs are of national scope and are not included here

($xx) numbers in parentheses are not included in totals

19–12 require governors to submit a broad slate of candidates min min

for vacant RFMC seats

19–13 give the NOAA Administrator responsibility for min min

appointing RFMC members

19–14 require all new RFMC members to complete a training $0.650 $0.250

course (new course developed, course offered 4 times/

year, participant travel covered)

19–15 authorize RFMC use of dedicated access privileges min min

19–16 repeal programs that encourage overcapitalization of TBD TBD costs to permanently reduce

fishing fleets and take steps to permanently reduce capacity will depend on the 

fishing capacity strategies employed

19–17 increase funding for Joint Enforcement Agreements $6.000 $12.000

19–18 strengthen cooperative fishery enforcement efforts $0.300 $0.300

19–19 require Vessel Monitoring Systems on all fishing boats min min

19–20 integrate the Vessel Monitoring System database into min min

the larger maritime operations database

19–21* improve essential fish habitat designations $5.000 $15.000 * funds for research included 

in Rec. 25–1

19–22 develop and implement regional bycatch reduction plans $5.000 $30.000

19–23 expand the NMFS program in conservation engineering $1.000 $2.000

19–24 encourage all countries to ratify the Fish Stocks min min

Agreement and the UN FAO Compliance Agreement

19–25 review and update regional and bilateral fishery $1.000 $2.000

agreements; fully fund U.S. fisheries treaty commitments

19–26 implement International Plans of Action in the TBD TBD implementation costs will depend

United States on the scope of the U.S. plan

19–27 improve implementation of international TBD TBD implementation costs will depend

fisheries treaties on the strategies employed

Chapter 19 Total $28.950 $87.850

20–1 require the Marine Mammal Commission to coordinate min min

with the National Ocean Council

20–2 place the protection of all marine mammals within min min

the jurisdiction of NOAA

20–3 improve coordination between NMFS and USFWS min min

with respect to the Endangered Species Act

20–4 expand cooperative agreements with states under $1.000 $4.000

Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act

20–5 clarify Marine Mammal Protection Act permitting min min

20–6 revise the Marine Mammal Protection Act definition min min

of harassment

20–7 implement programmatic permitting under the MMPA $1.000 $2.000

(staff and budget)

20–8* examine and mitigate the effects of human activities $5.000 $10.000 * funds for research included

on marine mammals and endangered species in Rec. 25–1

Chapter 19 (continued): Achieving Sustainable Fisheries

Chapter 20: Protecting Marine Mammals and Endangered Marine Species

1st Year Cost

(millions of

dollars)

Ongoing

Annual Cost

(millions of

dollars) Rec. Comments
APPENDIX G: DETAILED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY G 9

Detailed Costs Associated with Recommendations 

of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (continued) 

“TBD” to be determined, indicates that future funds are likely to be required, but the amount can only be determined after further review

“min” indicates that the cost is either zero or small enough to be absorbed within existing budgets

* indicates that some or all of the costs are included in another recommendation

# indicates that some or all of the recommendation’s costs are of national scope and are not included here

($xx) numbers in parentheses are not included in totals

20–9* expand research on ocean acoustics and the potential ($10M) ($20M) * this entire research budget is 

impacts on marine species included in Rec. 25–1

20–10 improve international efforts min min

Chapter 20 Total $7.000 $16.000

21–1* establish a Coral Protection and Management Act to $5.000 $20.000 * funds for research included

enhance research, protection, management, and in Rec. 25–1

restoration of coral ecosystems

21–2 codify and strengthen the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force min min

21–3* designate NOAA as the lead agency for managing $1.000 $3.000 * funds for research included

deep-water corals in Rec. 25–1

21–4 develop standards for the sustainable harvest of $1.200 $2.200

coral reef resources

21–5 develop regional, ecosystem-based research plans min min

Chapter 21 Total $7.200 $25.200

22–1 designate NOAA as the lead agency for marine aqua- $1.000 $2.000

culture and create an Office of Sustainable Marine 

Aquaculture in NOAA (small staff and budget)

22–2 develop a comprehensive aquaculture permitting, min min

leasing, and regulatory program 

22–3* expand marine aquaculture research, development, $2.000 $5.000 * funds for research included

training, extension, and technology transfer in Rec. 25–1

22–4 work with the UN FAO to encourage and facilitate min min

international standards

Chapter 22 Total $3.000 $7.000

23–1* expand research and development on marine bioproducts * * * funds included in Rec. 23–4

23–2* expand research on marine microbiology and virology * * * funds included in Rec. 23–4

23–3* support development of technologies to detect * * * funds included in Rec. 23–4

pathogens and toxins

23–4* establish an expanded Oceans and Human Health ($10M) ($14M) * this entire research budget is 

Initiative included in Rec. 25–1

23–5* fully implement programs to ensure seafood safety and $2.000 $10.000 * cost shown here covers

coastal water quality expanded seafood monitoring;

costs of improving and monitoring water quality are included in

Chapters 14 and 15

Chapter 23 Total $2.000 $10.000

24–1* provide a portion of OCS revenues to states for * * * funds included in Rec. 30–1

conservation and sustainable development of 

renewable resources

24–2* expand the MMS Environmental Studies Program ($12M) ($38M) * this entire research budget is 

included in Rec. 25–1

Chapter 21: Preserving Coral Reefs and Other Coral Communities

Chapter 22: Setting a Course for Sustainable Marine Aquaculture

Chapter 23: Connecting the Oceans and Human Health

Chapter 24: Managing Offshore Energy and Other Mineral Resources

Chapter 20 (continued): Protecting Marine Mammals and Endangered Marine Species

1st Year Cost

(millions of

dollars)

Ongoing

Annual Cost

(millions of

dollars) Rec. Comments
G 10 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

“TBD” to be determined, indicates that future funds are likely to be required, but the amount can only be determined after further review

“min” indicates that the cost is either zero or small enough to be absorbed within existing budgets

* indicates that some or all of the costs are included in another recommendation

# indicates that some or all of the recommendation’s costs are of national scope and are not included here

($xx) numbers in parentheses are not included in totals

24–3 include the oil and gas industry as partners in min min

developing and implementing the IOOS

24–4 review the status of methane hydrates research TBD TBD future investments in methane

and development hydrates research and development will depend on the outcome of the review

24–5 enact legislation to manage offshore renewable $0.900 $1.800

energy development (additional staff and budget)

24–6 identify offshore non-energy mineral resources and $1.000 $7.000

examine possible uses (additional staff and budget)

Chapter 24 Total $1.900 $8.800

25–1 double ocean research funding $200.000 $650.000 includes all of Recs. 20–9, 23–4,

24–2, 25–3, 25–4, and 29–6 and

parts of other recommendations

in Chapters 12, 14, 16, 17, 19,

20, 21, and 22

25–2 develop a national ocean research strategy min min

25–3* create a national program for social science and ($5M) ($10M) * this entire budget is included

economic research in Rec. 25–1

25–4* expand the National Sea Grant College Program ($20M) ($60M) * this entire budget is included

in Rec. 25–1

25–5 improve federal research funding processes min min

25–6* expand ocean exploration efforts $30.000 $110.000 * funds for infrastructure

included in Rec. 27–4

25–7 coordinate and complete federal mapping and $50.000 $200.000

charting missions and data integration

25–8# re-establish the Office of Technology Assessment ($4M) ($18M) 

Chapter 25 Total $280.000 $960.000

26–1 make the IOOS a NOC priority min min

26–2 designate Ocean.US as the lead for planning and min min

NOAA as the lead for operating the IOOS

26–3 codify Ocean.US (small staff and budget) $3.000 $3.000

26–4 seek input from ocean and coastal stakeholder min min

communities

26–5 specify core variables for IOOS min min

26–6 require plans for transitioning research results 

to operations min min

26–7 coordinate priorities and schedules for satellite missions min min

26–8 transfer the ongoing operation of Earth observing $40.000 $150.000

satellites to NOAA

26–9* improve satellite data management at NOAA * * * funds included in Rec. 26–8

26–10* create information products based on broad user needs * * * funds included in Recs. 26–11

and 28–2

Chapter 24 (continued): Managing Offshore Energy and Other Mineral Resources

Chapter 25: Creating a National Strategy for Increasing Scientific Knowledge

Chapter 26: Achieving a Sustained, Integrated Ocean Observing System

Detailed Costs Associated with Recommendations 

of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (continued) 

1st Year Cost

(millions of

dollars)

Ongoing

Annual Cost

(millions of

dollars) Rec. Comments
APPENDIX G: DETAILED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY G 11

Detailed Costs Associated with Recommendations 

of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (continued) 

“TBD” to be determined, indicates that future funds are likely to be required, but the amount can only be determined after further review

“min” indicates that the cost is either zero or small enough to be absorbed within existing budgets

* indicates that some or all of the costs are included in another recommendation

# indicates that some or all of the recommendation’s costs are of national scope and are not included here

($xx) numbers in parentheses are not included in totals

26–11 implement the IOOS (including ongoing technology $188.000 $600.000 current IOOS implementation 

development) plans call for a 5 year ramp-up

to full operation

26–12 integrate the IOOS into broader Earth observations min min

26–13 promote international coordination and capacity building min min

Chapter 26 Total $231.000 $753.000

27–1 develop a national ocean and coastal infrastructure min min

and technology strategy

27–2 create an Office of Technology Transfer in NOAA $0.900 $16.800

(small staff and grants)

27–3 conduct periodic assessments of U.S. ocean and coastal min min

infrastructure and technology

27–4 improve science-related infrastructure (includes UNOLS $200.000 $150.000

fleet renewal@$445M over 20 yrs., 2 Coast Guard 

icebreakers@$1.2B, ocean drilling ship@$100M, 2 deep 

submergence vehicles@$25M, 2 NOAA fisheries research

vessels@$104M, ocean exploration platforms and 

equipment@$160M, renewal of NOAA airfleet@$264M 

over 20 yrs., and the modernization of laboratories 

and other facilities, major instruments, and 

telecommunications)

27–5# improve operational ocean and coastal infrastructure # #

(includes Coast Guard fleet@$17B over 20 yrs., other

agencies’ fleets, operational satellites, monitoring 

stations, and other federal facilities)

27–6 establish virtual marine technology centers (five centers) $5.000 $25.000

Chapter 27 Total $205.900 $191.800

28–1 create Ocean.IT (small staff and budget) $1.000 $3.000

28–2 establish a NOAA–Navy ocean and coastal information $5.000 $20.000

management and communications partnership 

28–3 improve access to ocean and coastal data by creating $8.000 $1.000 a total of $34M will be needed 

software for data discovery and transport over the first five years for the

design and implementation of

new software, with lower ongoing operational costs

28–4 establish data reporting requirements and deadlines min min

28–5 review and declassify appropriate Navy min min

oceanographic data

28–6 plan for an integrated Earth environmental data system TBD TBD costs of implementing the new 

system will depend on the 

strategies employed

Chapter 28 Total $14.000 $24.000

Chapter 27: Enhancing Ocean Infrastructure and Technology Development

Chapter 28: Modernizing Ocean Data and Information Systems

covers new construction and

upgrades to critical science facilities, estimated at around $3B

over the next 20 years. Actual

annual spending levels will

depend on the scheduling of

these major purchases

estimates for ongoing maintenance and improvement of

operational infrastructure have

not been provided and are not

included in Commission totals

Chapter 26 (continued): Achieving a Sustained, Integrated Ocean Observing System

1st Year Cost

(millions of

dollars)

Ongoing

Annual Cost

(millions of

dollars) Rec. Comments
G 12 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

“TBD” to be determined, indicates that future funds are likely to be required, but the amount can only be determined after further review

“min” indicates that the cost is either zero or small enough to be absorbed within existing budgets

* indicates that some or all of the costs are included in another recommendation

# indicates that some or all of the recommendation’s costs are of national scope and are not included here

($xx) numbers in parentheses are not included in totals

29–1 accede to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea min min

29–2 review ocean-related components of the UN 

Convention on Biological Diversity min min

29–3 establish an interagency committee within the National min min

Ocean Council focused on international ocean policy

29–4 assess emerging international ocean-related min min

management challenges

29–5 improve the State Department’s integration of $0.900 $1.950

scientific expertise in ocean-related fields (staff training 

and borrowed personnel)

29–6* participate in international ocean science organizations * * * funds included in Rec. 25–1

and programs

29–7 assist U.S. scientists conducting research in international $0.360 $0.900

or foreign waters (staff and budget)

29–8 enhance ocean science and management capacity $2.000 $5.000

in other nations

Chapter 29 Total $3.260 $7.850

30–1 a) create the Ocean Policy Trust Fund min min

b) provide support for state, territorial, and tribal $500.000 $1,000.000

ocean and coastal responsibilities

30–2 compile biennial ocean budget reports min min

Chapter 30 Total $500.000 $1,000.000

GRAND TOTAL $1,536.072 $3,869.944

Chapter 29: Advancing International Ocean Science and Policy

Chapter 30: Funding Needs and Possible Sources

Detailed Costs Associated with Recommendations 

of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (continued) 

1st Year Cost

(millions of

dollars)

Ongoing

Annual Cost

(millions of

dollars) Rec. Comments
INDEX
H 2 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

academic/academia, 260

aquaculture support, 333

data management, 437

socioeconomic research, 383,

384

research community linkages,

49, 124, 125, 129, 130, 132,

133, 135–136, 137, 139, 335,

347

acoustic research programs,

315–316, 377

Act to Prevent Pollution from

Ships, 266

Administrative Procedures Act,

287

Agreement to Promote

Compliance with

International Conservation

and Management Measures by

Fishing Vessels on the High

Seas, 300, 301, 446

agriculture (see also U.S.

Department of Agriculture)

conservation programs, 213,

214, 219

economic value compared to

oceans, 31

pollution from, 39, 54, 159,

183, 206, 213, 214, 215, 216,

219

air pollution (see also atmosphere/atmospheric)

from vessels, 244–245

and water quality, 64, 206

Alaska, 282, 299, 317

Community Development

Quota Program, 288, 289

Marine Conservation Council,

298

mineral deposits, 368

oil and gas development, 354,

357, 359, 365

Synthetic Aperture Radar

Facility, 430

vessel pollution, 241, 242

albatross, 299, 308

algal blooms (see harmful algal

blooms)

allowable biological catch,

277–278, 279, 280, 287

Alvin, 418, 419

American Samoa, 34, 70, 135,

170, 321, 325

Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, 254, 260

animal feeding operations, 39,

206, 211 (see also concentrated animal feeding operations)

aquaculture

coordinated action, 66, 100,

101, 333–334, 336

environmental impacts, 40,

331–332, 336

fishery impacts, 40, 331–332,

334

health concerns, 346, 349

infrastructure, 330

international cooperation,

302, 336

and invasive species, 40, 256,

257, 258, 261, 331–332, 336

management structure,

332–333

offshore, 33, 54, 100, 101,

332, 336

permitting and leasing system,

101, 332, 334

regulatory regime, 101,

332–333

research and development

needs, 335, 380

sustainable management,

333–335

value of, 32, 330–331

aquariums, 35, 125, 136, 143,

144, 151, 316

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task

Force, 253, 259, 259–260, 478

archaeology, 37, 102, 387

Arctic Ocean, 73, 364

Argo float program, 395, 414

artificial reefs, 33, 99

Ash Council, 109, 116

Asrar, Ghassem, 404

assessments (see ecosystem assessments; evaluation)

Assistant to the President, 80–81,

114, 449, 475

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries

Cooperative Management Act,

284

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission, 284, 298

atmosphere/atmospheric (see also

air pollution)

deposition of pollutants, 39,

210, 211, 223–224

monitoring, 229, 230, 232,

408

pollution control, 223–224

Australia, ocean policy, 79, 288,

308

bacteria, 35, 39, 210, 229, 241,

341, 346 (see also human

health)

ballast water discharges, 41, 253,

254, 255, 256, 257–258, 259,

260–261, 345

barrier islands, 155, 165, 187

beaches and shorelines

cleanups, 265, 268

closings and advisories, 39,

210, 217, 226, 264, 349–350

debris management, 264, 265,

268

economic value, 35

erosion, 42, 44, 163, 166, 167,

168

nourishment, 150, 157,

163–164, 181, 184, 186, 187,

307, 369

water quality monitoring,

233, 349–350

Beaches Environmental

Assessment and Coastal

Health Act, 213, 229, 266

Bering Sea, 49, 73, 288

best management practices, 151,

211, 214, 215, 218, 219, 221,

232, 335

biodiversity

coral ecosystems, 37, 307,

321, 326–327

INDEX
I NDEX

ecosystem–based management, 62, 66–67, 104, 473

ecosystem diversity, 66, 379

education needs, 136, 138, 140

and human health, 33, 35,

339–340

genetic diversity, 66, 379

human impacts, 66–67, 206

international convention, 54

and marine animal models for

human research, 339

in marine protected areas, 104

microbial, 341

monitoring, 228

public support for, 309

research needs, 66, 379, 380

species diversity, 66, 379

bioproducts

economic value, 33, 35, 339

industrial uses, 340–341

investments in, 340

managing discovery and

development, 54, 341, 343

molecular probes, 340

nutrients, 33, 340

pharmaceuticals, 33, 339,

340, 341

bioprospecting, 100, 343

Bush (G.H.W.) administration, 54,

178, 354

Bush (G.W.) administration, 56,

93, 475

business (see employment)

bycatch (see also fishery management), 40, 264, 287, 288,

298–299, 302, 303, 306–307,

308, 314, 317, 318

Caldwell, Jack C., 178

CALFED, 89, 159

California

beach–related activities, 35,

151, 182

coastal economy, 151

coastal zone, 154

invasive species, 41, 256, 257,

259

mineral resources, 368

offshore management, 160,

354, 357, 358

water management projects,

182

wetlands, 40, 170

California Bay–Delta Authority

(see CALFED)

Canada, ocean policy, 79, 87, 93,

223, 224, 261, 275, 284, 301,

358

cancer, 33, 35, 340, 341, 342

Capital Construction Fund, 275,

290, 291

carbon sequestration, 33, 37,

67–68, 450

Caribbean Sea

coral reefs, 41, 323

pollution management, 223,

224, 270, 455

Carter administration, 117

Centers for Disease Control, 339,

341, 347

Centers for Ocean Sciences

Education Excellence, 124,

129, 130, 132, 134

channels, 186, 196, 200

chart/charting (see mapping and

charting activities)

Chesapeake Bay, 41, 86–87, 88,

89, 159, 171, 173, 209, 223,

261, 332, 422

Childers, Dorothy, 298

cholera, 43, 346–347 (see also

human health)

CITES, 303, 326–327, 448

Clean Air Act, 157, 224, 245, 366

Clean Vessel Act, 243

Clean Water Act, 73, 101, 171,

214, 224, 241, 243, 266, 324,

366

amendments, 156, 157, 160,

213

NPDES program, 207, 211,

221

Section 319 program, 218,

219–220

Section 404 program,

178–179

State Revolving Funds, 207,

212, 217, 219

climate (see also global climate

change)

Global Climate Observing

System, 414

global system studies, 387,

395

and oceans, 37, 387

Clinton administration, 54, 72, 354

Coastal America, 84, 173

Coastal and Ocean Resource

Economics Program, 382

coastal areas (see also beaches and

shorelines)

defining, 34, 35

dune ecosystems, 307

economy, 31, 32, 34–36, 150,

151, 382–384

monitoring, 176–177,

231–232

population pressures, 36,

41–42, 43, 150–152

real estate, 36, 37

water quality, 233, 204–205,

349–350

watersheds, 31, 32, 34, 154

Coastal Barrier Resources Act,

155, 163

Coastal Barrier Resources System,

153, 155

coastal habitats, 170–179 (see also

habitat restoration; wetlands;

other specific habitats)

Coastal and Estuarine Land

Conservation Program, 172

conservation programs,

155–156, 171–172, 176

ecosystem–based approach,

173, 175, 176, 177

funding for, 172, 176

inventories and assessments,

176–177

losses, 40–41, 151, 170, 172

regional coordination, 177

research needs, 380

restoration, 156, 172–176

threats to, 151, 170–171

value of, 36, 170, 173

vulnerability to natural hazards, 42, 165

coastal planning and management,

150–161 (see also development)

boundary/jurisdictional considerations, 153–154, 155, 157

consolidation and coordination of programs, 156–157,

173, 175

decision–making layers,

152–153, 184

existing programs, 152,

153–155, 158–159

H 3
H 4 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

federal area–based programs,

34, 150, 152–157, 159

funding, 152, 153, 154, 156,

157

goal setting, 155

hazards–related programs and,

150–151, 157, 162, 163, 169

incentives for participation,

155, 158

information needs and

sources, 157, 159–160

obstacles to, 157

offshore management linked

to, 158, 160

performance measures and

evaluations, 155

permitting and planning

delays, 184

resource assessments, 154

state–federal relationship,

153, 158–159

watershed approaches, 150,

154, 157, 159–160, 169

coastal states (see also individual

states)

defined, 34, 462

education and outreach,

124–125, 127, 132

federal partnerships with,

153, 158–159, 311, 357, 360,

361

fishery management, 292,

332, 334

GDP, 32

jobs, 32

jurisdiction, 49, 284, 332,

334, 352–354

offshore management, 99,

101, 102, 158, 332, 334,

352–354, 361

recommendations to,

473–474, 479

revenue sharing on energy

resources, 359–360

seaward boundaries, 70–71

coastal watershed counties, 31,

32, 36, 41–42, 150

Coastal Wetlands Planning,

Protection, and Restoration

Act (Breaux Act), 175

coastal zone, defined, 153–154

coastal zone counties, 34

Coastal Zone Management Act,

324

amendments, 54, 154–155,

160, 214

Coastal Energy Impact

Program, 354, 360

Coastal Zone Management

Program, 53, 54, 153–155,

156, 163, 181, 228, 459

definition of coastal state, 34

enactment, 50

federal consistency provisions,

51, 54, 153, 158–159, 160,

362, 367

goals, 172

and offshore energy development, 353, 354, 360, 366

Reauthorization Amendments,

214, 218, 219

Code of Conduct for Responsible

Fisheries, 293, 302, 303, 336

collaborative approaches (see also

partnerships)

education and outreach network, 124–130, 132, 133,

134, 144

international research, 454

watershed management, 222

Coloma–Agaran, Gilbert, 269

commercial fishing industry (see

also fisheries; fishery management; fishing gear)

adversarial relationship with

government, 275–276

cooperative research, 281–282

cultural value, 32

debris from, 264, 265, 267,

268, 269–270

economic value, 31

impacts of, 295–297,

306–307, 308

longline, 303, 308

overcapitalization of fleets,

275, 290–291

safety issues, 287, 288, 292,

293

Commission (see U.S.

Commission on Ocean Policy)

Commission on Marine Science,

Engineering and Resources

(see Stratton Commission)

Commission on the Limits of the

Continental Shelf, 390, 445

Committee on Ocean Resource

Management (proposed),

83–84, 166, 198, 313, 326, 476

Committee on Ocean Science,

Education, Technology, and

Operations, 82–83, 126, 127,

375–376, 437, 475

Commonwealth of the Northern

Mariana Islands, 34, 170, 321,

325

community quotas, 288

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and

Liability Act, 183

concentrated animal feeding operations (see also animal feeding

operations), 211

Congress, 55, 87, 219, 266–267

(see also legislation; individual

statutes)

information analysis for,

391–392

and OCS revenue sharing, 360

recommendations to, 222,

246, 284, 286, 290, 310, 348,

368, 474, 475

Connaughton, James, 41

Conservation Security Program

(see also U.S. Department of

Agriculture), 159, 214

consolidation of ocean and coastal

programs, 112–115

Consortium for Oceanographic

Research and Education, 139,

420

contiguous zone, 72, 73

continental shelf, 72–73, 103, 390

Convention Concerning the

Protection of World Cultural

and Natural Heritage, 448

Convention on Biological

Diversity, 54, 448

Convention on International Trade

in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora (see CITES)

Convention on Long–Range

Transboundary Air Pollution,

224
I NDEX

Convention on the Conservation

and Management of Highly

Migratory Fish Stocks in the

Western and Central Pacific

Ocean, 301

Convention on the Conservation

of Antarctic Marine Living

Resources, 447

Convention on the Continental

Shelf, 72–73

Convention on the Law of the Sea

(see LOS Convention)

Convention on the Prevention of

Marine Pollution by Dumping

of Wastes and Other Matter

(see London Convention)

Convention on the Territorial Sea

and the Contiguous Zone, 70

Convention on Wetlands of

International Importance,

Especially as Waterfowl

Habitat, 448

Cooksey, Sarah, 153

Coral ecosystems, 320–328

biodiversity, 37, 307, 321,

326–327

bleaching, 41, 44, 322

climate change and, 44, 320,

325, 327

debris management, 264, 266,

323

deep–water (cold–water), 320,

321–323, 326

distribution, 320–321

federal agency roles and

responsibilities, 323–324

fisheries, 37, 322, 323

interagency and intergovernmental initiatives, 87,

324–325

International Coral Reef

Action Network, 451

International Coral Reef

Initiative, 327

international initiatives,

326–327

legislation, 323–324, 325–326

management, 323–326

monitoring, 324, 327–328

research needs, 327–328, 380

restoration, 323, 324

shallow–water (warm–water),

171, 321

status, 41, 171, 320–323

sustainable harvesting practices, 327

threats to, 41, 186, 208, 210,

322–323, 324, 325, 326, 450

value, 35, 37, 41, 321–322,

325

white band disease, 263, 323

Coral Protection and Management

Act, 326

Coral Reef Conservation Act, 323,

325

Coral Reef Task Force (see U.S.

Coral Reef Task Force)

COSEE (see Centers for Ocean

Sciences Education

Excellence)

COSETO (see Committee on

Ocean Science, Education,

Technology, and Operations)

cost–benefit analyses, 164, 179,

185–188, 295, 382–385

costs (see also economic issues;

funding)

beyond scope of report, 463

deferred, 462–463

implementation of USCOP

recommendations, 459–462

Council on Environmental

Quality, 41, 77, 84, 96, 476

Cousteau, Jean–Michel, 125

cruise industry, 31, 32, 35, 151,

194, 236, 241–243, 244, 264

cultural heritage/resources

coral reefs, 322, 325

exploration of submerged

sites, 387

fishery management and, 32,

282

ownership of submerged

resources, 102

promotion through education,

136, 141

value of oceans, 32, 36, 37

curriculum (see also education

and outreach)

field and laboratory experiments, 125, 130, 135–136

graduate school, 123, 124,

134, 136, 137, 138–139

K–12 programs, 37, 122, 124,

127, 128, 129, 130–136, 144

remote–access technologies,

135

science literacy, 69, 123, 125,

131–132

teacher preparation, 124, 125,

128, 130, 133–135

undergraduate programs, 124,

125, 127, 133, 136–141

CZMA (see Coastal Zone

Management Act)

Danson, Ted, 65

data (see also information)

academic research, 437

classified, 431, 435, 437–438

communication networks, 33,

99, 396, 428

defined, 428

long–term time series, 435,

438

raw, 436–437

redundant, 389, 390

visualization tools, 433,

436–437

data centers

discipline–based world collections, 431

distributed active archive, 433

military, 432, 433

national civilian, 431, 432

types, 431–433

data management, 428–438 (see

also information)

analysis, 266, 268–269, 384

challenges, 428–429, 438

collection of data, 163,

164–166, 266, 268–269, 276,

280–281, 292–294, 295, 298,

384, 389, 396, 429–431

computer hardware, 433

coordination of, 389, 429–431

distribution to users, 230,

234, 266, 268–269, 384, 386,

432, 434, 435–437

growth of data holdings, 432

human resources, 433–434

improvements in, 432–438

incorporating data in national

data centers, 433, 437–438

infrastructure, 433–434, 438

H 5
H 6 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

integration of multiple

sources, 234, 384, 389, 390,

406, 428–429, 431, 433, 434,

436, 438

interagency planning,

432–435

Intergovernmental

Oceanographic Data

Exchange program, 437

IOOS and, 405, 407–408, 434,

435, 437

maps and charts, 436

national monitoring system

and, 230, 234, 434, 435

ocean and coastal, 431

OPeNDAP technology, 436

research needs, 384

review and declassification,

437–438

software and modeling, 89,

433, 435

standardized procedures, 233

structure, 429–431

terminology, 429

DDT, 223, 264, 349

dead zones, 39, 87, 206

Dearry, Allen, 349

debris, marine, 264–271

cleanups, 264, 265, 268

coral reef damage, 264, 266,

323

community involvement, 268

data management, 266,

268–269

derelict fishing gear, 264, 265,

267, 268, 269–270

education and outreach, 266,

267–268, 269, 270

and endangered species, 264,

307

existing programs, 265–266

funding for programs, 266

impacts, 264–265, 266, 267,

307

incentive–based management,

270

industry cooperation, 268

interagency coordination, 269

international cooperation,

265–266, 270

monitoring and identification

of sources, 266, 268–269

national programs, 265–269

plastic materials, 264–265,

266, 267, 307

port reception facilities, 270

research needs, 380

sources, 264–265, 270

dedicated access privileges (see

also fishery management),

288–290, 293

deep ocean environments

carbon sequestration, 33, 37,

67–68, 450

coral communities, 320,

321–323, 326

hydrothermal vents, 33, 37,

341, 387

mining, 53, 54, 444, 446

oil and gas production, 357,

363–364, 387, 445

technology, 387, 417–418

Deepwater Port Act, 358

Delaware, 88, 153, 154, 159, 252

Department of Natural Resources

prior proposals, 116, 117, 310

recommended, 109, 115

development (see also coastal

planning and management)

disincentives, 155, 157, 163

environmental impacts, 40,

41–42, 43, 94, 150, 151–152,

175, 182, 215, 307, 308

in high–hazard areas, 150,

162, 163–164, 165, 167–169,

184

floodplain, 165, 166, 167, 168

inappropriate federal incentives for, 157, 163–164, 167,

168, 186, 210

infrastructure policies and

programs, 163–164

land subsidence, 40, 166, 174

low–impact, 220

sustainable redevelopment,

169, 184

tradable rights, 172

urban sprawl, 152

and water quality, 42, 151,

215, 216–217

DeVoe, Richard, 384

dioxins, 223, 346, 349

disaster assistance, 168–169

Disaster Mitigation Act, 168–169

dolphins, 303, 306–307, 308, 316,

350

DOT (see U.S. Department of

Transportation)

dredging

Action Agenda, 188

beneficial uses of materials

from, 181, 186, 187

contaminated sediments, 183,

186, 187

coordination of programs, 99,

184–185

cost–benefit analysis, 185–188

delays in planning and permitting, 186

disposal of materials, 181,

182, 187

expenditures, 196

national and regional teams,

187–188

navigational, 181, 183,

185–186, 187, 196, 217

outer Continental Shelf, 369

drinking water, 38, 211, 215, 217

(see also water quality; water

supply)

Earle, Sylvia, 387

Earth Observation Summit, 409

Earth Summit, 54, 79, 300, 301,

445, 448

ECOHAB (see Ecology and

Oceanography of Harmful

Algal Blooms)

Ecology and Oceanography of

Harmful Algal Blooms, 339,

345

economic issues

bioproducts, 33, 35, 339

coastal, 31, 32, 34–36, 150,

151, 382–384

data management, 383–384

energy and mineral resources,

33

fishery management, 31,

32–33, 289, 296–297, 382

impact of human activities,

38–44, 382

marine transportation system,

31, 32, 192–193, 194, 195, 200

pollution–related, 38–40, 204,

206, 209, 211, 217

research needs, 31, 382–384

tourism and recreation, 31,

35–36, 150, 151, 264
I NDEX H 7

value of oceans, 30–36

ecosystem assessments, 96, 99,

104, 157, 316, 350, 379, 381,

459

ecosystem–based management

(see also large marine ecosystems)

adaptive approach, 62, 64,

65–66, 104, 226, 232, 317,

473

biodiversity considerations,

62, 66–67, 62, 66–67, 104,

473

climate change and, 67–68

coordination of decision making, 64–65, 67, 84, 99–100,

103, 173

of endangered species, 310,

311, 315, 316–318

of fisheries, 280, 295–299

geographic boundaries for,

63–64, 90

goals and objectives, 66, 296

governance, 62, 68, 473

guiding principles, 62, 103,

472–473

habitat preservation, 173, 175,

176, 177

hazards component, 169

international coordination,

318, 473

marine transportation system,

196, 249–250

monitoring component, 226

multiple–use perspective, 62,

66, 67, 80, 92, 97, 100–101,

105, 249, 296–297, 333, 369,

473

precautionary approach,

65–66, 80

reorganization of federal agencies for, 108, 118

science–based decision making, 62, 65–66, 67–68, 94,

97–98, 104, 242, 248–249,

276–282, 473

sediment management, 184

watershed approach, 150,

154, 157, 159–160, 169, 205,

213

education and outreach, 122–146

(see also curriculum; National

Sea Grant College Program;

Ocean.ED)

biodiversity, 136, 138, 140

collaborative network,

124–130, 132, 133, 134, 144

coordination of, 83, 90, 124,

125–128, 134, 143–144, 258

cross–cutting themes, 124

cultural/ethnic considerations,

136, 141

debris management, 266,

267–268, 269, 270

endangered species, 316

exploration program and, 387,

388

evaluation and assessment of

efforts, 128–129, 130

existing efforts, 125–126, 145

federal programs, 124–125,

126–128, 136, 137, 139–141,

143, 144

fishery management, 136, 291

funding, 125, 128, 129–130,

136–142, 143, 144, 214

habitat restoration, 173, 176

health–related, 350

informal, 122, 124, 125, 127,

142–145

invasive species, 255,

258–259

for leadership of ocean workforce, 122, 123, 136, 137, 143

of managers and decision

makers, 220

mentoring, 135, 141

message design and delivery,

128, 143–144

natural hazard risks, 163,

164–166

outreach, 130, 136, 137–138,

139, 143, 144–145, 221

participants, 124–125, 132

and public awareness, 68–69,

90, 122–124, 130, 142–143,

213, 220

recruitment of students,

137–138

research community linkages,

124, 125, 129, 130, 132, 133,

135–136, 139, 335

scientists’ roles, 132, 133–136

standards, 131–132, 144

state initiatives, 124–125, 127,

132

and stewardship, 69, 123,

142, 144, 173, 176

underrepresented and underserved groups, 130, 136,

141–142, 145

value of oceans, 37, 122, 130

vessel pollution, 243, 248

water pollution control, 69,

138, 213, 214, 220, 221, 243,

248, 350

workforce training, 69, 123,

136–142

EEZ (see exclusive economic

zone)

El Niño–La Niña, 275, 296, 395,

408, 409, 424, 453

emergency preparedness, 200–201

(see also hazard management;

natural hazards)

employment (see also economic

issues; jobs; socioeconomic

considerations; workforce)

data needs, 139, 384

economic value, 30–32

endangered species, 306–319 (see

also marine mammals; individual species)

behavior, 312, 314–315

coordination of programs, 311

domestic action, 316–318

debris threats, 264, 307

ecosystem–based management, 310, 311, 315, 316–318

education and outreach, 316

fishery management and,

298–299, 306–307, 308, 314,

317, 318

funding for, 311

habitat losses, 308

human impacts, 307, 314,

315–316

international coordination,

303, 308, 318

jurisdiction and authority,

306, 309, 310–311

legislation, 309–310

permitting and review standards, 311–314
H 8 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

programmatic permitting,

312–314

protection gaps, 310–314

research needs, 314–316, 380

state–federal cooperation, 311

takes, 311–312

threats to, 264, 306–308,

314–315–317

Endangered Species Act, 73, 101,

118, 306, 307, 309–310, 316,

318, 324, 343, 366, 367

energy and mineral resources, 48

(see also natural gas; oil, offshore)

bonus bid and royalty payments, 33, 103, 359

deep–water production, 357,

363–364, 387, 445

economic value, 33

environmental issues, 51, 174,

353–354, 361–364, 366, 369

exploration and development

process, 51, 354–357

federal consistency provision,

158, 362, 367

federal revenues from, 33,

102–103, 357, 359–360

federal–state partnerships,

158, 357, 360, 361

incentive–based approach, 357

IOOS information and

resource sharing, 364

jurisdiction, 49, 70, 71, 72,

352–352, 367, 445

leases, 49, 53, 54, 71,

353–357, 359, 366, 369

legislation, 49, 353–354, 360,

366

management, 99, 100, 158,

352–364, 368

methane hydrates, 33, 341,

364–365, 450

offshore development, 53, 98,

100, 343, 352–370

production trends, 353, 357

renewable, 33, 105, 182,

365–368

research needs, 365, 381

resource rents, 102–103, 359,

366

state revenue sharing, 359–360

state decision–making role, 361

sustainable development, 360

technology, 417

enforcement

fishery management, 288–289,

291–295, 297, 300, 301

of permitting for marine

mammals, 312

pollution control measures,

212, 218, 220, 238, 239,

242–243, 257

vessel pollution, 238, 239,

242–243, 257

vessel safety and security, 236,

237–240

entanglement of marine animals,

264, 266–267, 306–307, 331

environmental impacts

assessments, 189, 295,

363–364, 366

of aquaculture, 40, 331–332,

336

of coastal development, 40,

41–42, 43, 94, 150, 151–152,

175, 182, 215

commercial fishing, 295–297,

306–307, 308

cumulative, 96, 242, 267, 295,

363

energy and mineral resource

development, 51, 174,

353–354, 361–364, 366, 369

invasive species, 41, 252–253

marine debris, 264–265, 266,

267

of nutrient pollution, 39, 175,

206, 208–209, 210, 215, 216

of offshore oil and gas production, 366

of population growth, 41–42,

43, 170

of tourism and recreational

activities, 42

of vessel pollution, 242

weather–related, 42

environmental movement, 51–52,

353

Environmental Protection Agency

(see also individual programs)

aquaculture responsibilities,

334

budget support, 112

coordination efforts, 125

creation, 115

debris management, 266, 267,

269

educational programs, 124, 125

Environmental Monitoring

and Assessment Program, 229

existing ocean and coastal

programs and responsibilities,

78, 114

habitat conservation/restoration programs, 88, 113, 153,

171, 173, 177

health–related activities, 339,

341

Gulf of Mexico Program

Office, 89

international contributions,

222

invasive species control, 256,

257, 260

mapping and charting activities, 389, 390

marine transportation–related

programs, 196, 197, 245

monitoring programs, 228,

229, 230, 231, 424

Office of Water, 113

Office of Wetlands, Oceans,

and Watersheds, 113, 220

offshore responsibilities, 358,

361–364, 366

recommendations, 478

regional boundaries, 92–93, 94

reorganization proposals, 116,

117

research infrastructure, 416,

422

sediment management, 113,

181, 182, 183, 186, 188, 189,

190

socioeconomic research,

382–383, 384

vessels, 422

water quality management,

101, 113, 182, 183, 204–205,

206, 207, 210, 211, 212, 213,

214, 217, 220, 221, 222, 224,

241, 295, 324, 326, 449

watershed focus, 113, 159

EPA (see Environmental

Protection Agency)
I NDEX H 9

erosion, 40, 182

beaches, 42, 44, 163, 166,

167, 168

control, 150, 157, 163–164,

181, 183, 184, 186, 187, 307,

369

runoff and, 216

estuary/estuarine

nutrient overenrichment, 39

sanctuaries, 103–104, 153, 155

water quality, 38, 204–205

Estuary Habitat Restoration

Council, 173, 175, 176, 177

Estuary Restoration Act, 173

European Community, 245, 409,

413

evaluation

of coastal management 

programs, 155

of restoration programs,

176–177

of education programs,

128–129, 130

of hazard mitigation 

programs, 165

Evans, Christopher J., 232

exclusive economic zone, 53, 443

exploration of, 387–388

defined, 72, 73

fishery management in, 275,

283, 291, 300

foreign research in, 72, 454

invasive species control in, 256

mineral production in, 352,

368

pollution permits, 101

size of U.S. territory, 30–31

Executive Office of the President,

leadership and coordination

role, 77–79, 81–82, 389

exploration, 386–388

education and outreach

through, 387, 388

energy and mineral resources,

51, 354–357

of exclusive economic zone,

387–388

funding, 388

national program, 387–388

technology, 419

unexplored areas, 35, 122, 387

value of, 37, 386, 387

FAO (see Food and Agriculture

Organization)

farm (see agriculture; aquaculture)

Farm Service Agency, 215, 260

Federal Aviation Act, 366

Federal Aviation Administration,

197, 366

federal consistency provisions (see

Coastal Zone Management

Act), 51, 54, 153, 158–159,

160, 362, 367

Federal Emergency Management

Agency, 157, 162, 163,

165–166, 168–169, 201, 389,

477

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 358, 367

Federal Geographic Data

Committee, 166, 389, 478

Marine and Coastal Spatial

Data Subcommittee, 390

Federal Highway Administration,

197, 199, 260

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,

and Rodenticide Act, 256

Federal Land Policy and

Management Act, 365

Federal Oceanographic Facilities

Committee, 82, 375, 417

Federal Power Act, 367

federal waters (see offshore)

FEMA (see Federal Emergency

Management Agency)

Fenical, William, 340

fertilizers, 206, 216 (see also nutrient pollution)

FHA (see Federal Highway

Administration)

fish

diseases, 331–332

habitat protection, 39, 99,

104, 295, 323

harvests, 274–275

and human health, 32, 183,

210

kills, 206, 344

migratory species, 283–285,

300

ornamental/aquarium trade,

31–32, 41

Fish and Wildlife Coordination

Act, 367

Fish Stocks Agreement, 300–302,

446

fisheries

aquaculture impacts, 40,

331–332, 334

Chignik salmon, 40, 288

collapse, 40, 275

coral reef, 37, 322, 323

depletion, 38, 40, 49, 54, 275,

299

economics, 32–33

flounder, 276, 281

halibut/sablefish, 287, 288,

289, 297

international, 298, 299–303

invasive species, 41, 331–332

monkfish, 282

New England groundfish,

276, 287–288, 290, 296

North Atlantic cod, 40, 275

Peruvian anchoveta, 275

pollock, 288

recovery, 276, 277, 281

regime shifts, 296

striped bass, 276, 281

surf clam/ocean quahog, 288,

289

whiting, 288

world stocks, 40

wreckfish, 288

fishery management, 274–304 (see

also fisheries; commercial

fishing; Regional Fishery

Management Councils)

allocation decisions, 277, 278,

279

allowable biological catch,

277–278, 279, 280, 287

assessment decisions, 277,

278

authority, 52, 283–285

bycatch, 40, 264, 287, 288,

298–299, 302, 303, 314, 317,

318

catch–and–release programs,

281

closures, 39, 99, 104, 284,

291, 293, 294, 299, 314

conservation, 51–52, 54, 63,

101, 297–299, 302

cooperative research, 281–282
H 10 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

coordination and cooperation

in, 100, 284–285, 288, 291,

292–293, 301–303

data collection and sharing,

276, 280–281, 292–294, 295,

298

dedicated access privileges,

288–290, 293

ecosystem–based approach,

280, 295–299

education and outreach, 136,

291

and endangered species,

298–299, 306–307, 308, 314,

317, 318

enforcement of restrictions,

288–289, 291–295, 297, 300,

301

funding, 291, 292

global climate change and, 43,

296

governance, 283–287

habitat protection, 295,

297–298

history of, 274–276

incentive–based approaches,

275, 287, 303

indigenous knowledge, 282

international cooperation,

284, 291, 293, 298, 299–303,

318, 445, 446, 451

interstate commissions, 277,

278, 279, 283, 284, 299

jurisdiction, 49, 51–52, 53,

275, 283–285, 300

lawsuits, 276, 279, 286, 317

leadership, 284–285

legislation, 51–52, 54, 275

management areas, 63, 295

monitoring, 291, 293–294,

298, 408

overcapitalization of fishing

fleets, 275, 290–291

partnerships, 292–293

permits, 287–288

political pressures, 277, 278,

287

“race for the fish” approach,

287–291

recreational fishing, 275, 281

regional concerns linked to,

295–297

research priorities, 40,

280–283, 295, 380

safety issues, 287, 288, 292,

293

science–based, 276–282

socioeconomic considerations, 289, 296–297, 382

state role, 292, 332, 334

stock assessments, 276–277,

279, 282, 296–297

subsistence harvesting, 282

trade sanctions, 303

traditional approaches,

287–288

sustainable, 104, 276–282

Vessel Monitoring System,

291, 293–294

fishing gear

circle hooks, 299

derelict, 265, 268, 269–270,

288

entanglement of marine animals in, 264, 266–267,

306–307

research needs, 282, 299

sensors on, 293

turtle excluder devices, 308

fishing industry (see commercial

fishing; recreational fishing)

Fishing Vessel Obligation

Guarantee Program, 275, 290,

291

flag state, 236, 238–239, 300

flame retardants, 183, 209, 234

Fletcher, Madilyn, 420

flood control, 42, 88, 89, 113,

163–164, 165, 166, 174, 175,

179, 182, 184, 369

flood insurance, 155 (see also

National Flood Insurance

Program)

floodplain development, 165, 166,

167, 168

flooding, 40, 42, 44, 165, 217

Florida, 89, 316

coastal planning and management, 152, 160

coastal zone, 34, 154

coral reefs, 41, 321

endangered species, 307

Everglades, 173, 175

habitat losses, 41, 171

invasive species, 259

mineral deposits, 368

offshore management, 160,

354, 368

recreation and tourism, 151

seaward boundary, 70

water quality issues, 210

Florida Keys, 151, 322

food (see seafood)

Food and Agriculture

Organization, 269, 450, 451

Code of Conduct for

Responsible Fisheries, 293,

302, 303, 336

Committee on Fisheries, 300

Compliance Agreement, 300,

301

Fish Stocks Agreement,

300–302

International Plans of Action,

302, 303

Food and Drug Administration,

332–333, 339, 341, 347, 349,

351, 477

Framework Agreement on Climate

Change, 54, 445, 448

Freely Associated States of

Micronesia, 409–410

funding (see also costs)

budget assessment and review,

469–470

national ocean policy framework, 463–464

nonfederal authorities and,

466–467

Ocean Policy Trust Fund,

468–469

partnerships, 418

with revenues from ocean

uses, 467–469

GAO (see General Accounting

Office)

gas (see natural gas)

General Accounting Office, 93,

238, 246, 259, 392

General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade, 303

Georges Bank, 51, 297

Georgia, 358, 368

global climate change

abrupt, 44, 67, 378
I NDEX

coral ecosystem effects, 44,

320, 325, 327

costs of, 40, 43–44, 307

and fishery regime shifts, 43,

296

and human health, 43, 338,

346–347

Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change, 43

and invasive species, 253

and marine transportation

system, 197

monitoring, 229, 408, 409,

453

polar melting, 44, 450

process, 378

regional coordination, 87, 94

research needs, 44, 67–68,

378–379, 380, 453

sea level rise, 40, 42, 44, 54,

171, 378

and sediment flows, 181

temperature increases, 43,

338, 346–347

vulnerability of coastal areas,

162, 171

Global Environmental Affairs

Policy Coordinating

Committee, 449

Global Ocean Observing System,

397, 409–410, 414, 425, 434,

453

Global Positioning System, 195,

293, 385, 389

Global Program of Action for the

Protection of the Marine

Environment from

Land–Based Sources, 222,

447, 451, 455

governance (see also National

Ocean Council)

framework, 61, 68

guiding principles, 62, 473

international structure,

449–450, 451

national coordination and

leadership, 76–84

participatory, 62, 68, 102, 473

timeliness, 62, 473

Great Lakes

beach–related activities, 35

coastal watershed counties, 34

coastal zone, 34

coordination of regional

approaches, 87, 90, 92, 93

fisheries, 252

habitat restoration, 173

International Joint

Commission, 93

invasive species, 41, 252, 254,

257

national lakeshores, 104

pollution, 28, 223

population density, 38

value of, 35, 38

Great Lakes Commission, 93, 159

Great Lakes Fishery Commission,

93, 283, 284

Great Lakes Interagency Task

Force, 92, 93

Griffin, Robert, 185

gross domestic product, 31, 32,

192

Guam, 34, 70, 321, 325

guiding principles

in ecosystem–based approach,

62, 103, 472–473

international ocean policy,

444, 448, 473

national ocean policy, 60–69,

97

offshore management, 97–98

for recommendations,

472–473

stewardship, 61, 472

sustainability, 61, 472

watershed management, 63

Gulf of Maine, 296, 297

Council on the Marine

Environment, 87, 159

Gulf of Mexico

atmospheric deposition, 223

coastal watershed counties, 34

chemosynthetic communities,

387

coral reefs, 323

debris management, 268, 270

hypoxia (“dead zone”), 39,

87, 206, 216

oil and gas development, 354,

357, 363

U.S. continental margins, 73

Gulf States Marine Fisheries

Commission, 284

habitat restoration, 89

coastal programs, 156,

172–176

coastal Louisiana, 173,

174–175

coordination of activities, 173,

175, 176, 177, 179, 295

coral reefs, 323, 324

education and outreach, 173,

176

Florida Everglades, 173, 175

Heeia State Park, 177

funding, 172, 176, 177

large–scale efforts, 172–175

legislation, 175

monitoring, 177

public–private partnerships,

173

small–scale efforts, 177

tools, 171–172

training program, 138

habitats (see coastal habitats; habitat restoration; marine habitats; wetlands; other specific

habitats)

Hanna, Susan, 288

harbors, 186, 196, 200

harmful algal blooms

causes, 206, 208, 344

costs of, 39, 344

and human health, 39,

338–339, 344–345, 346, 349

management, 165, 344–345,

349

and marine mammal mortality, 307, 315

monitoring, 228, 344,

345–346

nature of the problem, 204,

338–339

outbreak trends, 54, 344, 345,

346

research needs, 344

Hartwig, William F., 259

Hawaiian Islands

aquaculture, 332, 335

coastal management program,

160

coastal zone, 154

coral reefs, 35, 41, 264, 321,

323, 325

debris management, 264, 270

H 11
H 12 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Department of Education 

initiative, 135

endangered species, 264

habitat restoration, 177

mineral deposits, 368

monk seals, 264, 266

offshore management, 160

recreation and tourism, 151

water quality issues, 210

hazard management (see also

weather; individual types of

hazards)

beach erosion mapping and

rating, 167

in coastal areas, 150–151,

157, 162–169

costs, 162, 163, 164, 165

data collection and analysis,

163, 164–166

disaster assistance, 168–169

ecosystem–based approach,

169

education and outreach, 163,

164–166

federal programs, 163–169

floodplain development, 165,

166, 167, 168

infrastructure policies and

programs, 163–164

mapping and charting,

165–166

mitigation planning, 163,

168–169

National Flood Insurance

Program, 163, 166–168

offshore, 99

repetitive–loss properties,

167–168

health (see human health)

heavy metals, 183, 210, 223, 229,

340–341

Hilltops to Oceans (H2O) initiative, 222–223, 455

Hogarth, William T., 104

horseshoe crab, 33, 342

human health, 338–351

animal models for human

research, 339

aquaculture and, 346, 349

bacteria and viruses and, 39,

341, 346

biodiversity and, 33, 35,

339–340

bioproducts related to, 33,

339–343

coordination of federal programs, 339, 348, 350

education and outreach, 350

funding, 339, 341

global climate change and, 43,

338, 346–347

harmful algal blooms and, 39,

338–339, 344–345, 346, 349

interdisciplinary biomedical

research, 341, 343

links between oceans and,

338–339

microbiological testing and

monitoring, 229, 233, 344,

347–348, 349–350

pathogenic marine microorganisms and, 343–348,

349–350

Oceans and Human Health

Initiative, 339, 462

Pfiesteria piscicida, 344

protection of, 229, 348–351

regional dimensions, 183,

350–351

research and development

needs, 344, 345, 346,

347–348, 381

seafood contamination,

32–33, 210, 39, 222, 346,

348–349, 350

sediment contamination and,

183, 348–349

Vibrio cholerae, 346–347

water pollution and, 206, 210,

213, 217, 340–341, 344, 346,

349–350

hurricanes

Andrew, 42, 164

Betsy, 165

Hugo, 164

Floyd, 164

Isabel, 201

losses, 42, 164

hydrothermal vents, 33, 37, 341,

387

hypoxia, 39, 87, 204, 208

IFQ (see individual fishing quota)

IMO (see International Maritime

Organization)

incentive–based approaches

agriculture, 219

coastal planning and management, 155, 158

debris management, 270

education, 270

fishery management, 275,

287, 303

inappropriate, 157, 162,

163–164, 167, 168, 186, 210,

275, 287

oil and gas production, 357

vessel pollution, 243, 245

vessel safety and security, 237,

240

water pollution control, 212,

214, 217, 218, 219–220, 243,

245

individual fishing quotas, 288,

289

individual transferable quotas,

288, 289

informal education, 122, 124, 125,

127, 142–145

information (see also data;

research needs)

accessibility to users, 434

coastal ecosystems, 157,

159–160, 176–177

coordination of, 159–160,

176, 386, 390

defined, 428

fishery–related, 276, 280–281,

292–294, 295, 298

geospatial, 390

hazards–related, 163, 164–166

IOOS end products, 95,

405–406

products and forecasts, 160,

234, 249–250, 386, 390, 406,

428, 435–436

regional needs, 94–95, 157,

159–160, 176, 386

sharing, 177, 240, 268–269,

293, 295, 389, 392–393, 436,

451

workforce supply and

demand, 139

infrastructure (see also research

infrastructure and technology)

aquaculture, 330

marine transportation system,

186, 193–196, 198–199, 200
I NDEX

oil, 236, 246, 362–363

science and technology 

components, 416–425

wastewater treatment, 207,

211–212, 219–220

inland waterways, 186, 196, 200

Integrated Ocean Drilling

Program, 414, 417, 454

Integrated Ocean Observing

System, 394–410

capacity building, 409–410

coastal and ocean systems,

395–396

commitment to creation of,

396–397

components, 82, 269, 396

cost estimates, 407–408

data management, 405,

407–408, 434, 435, 437

design elements 397, 400–406

Earth Observation Summit,

409

end product development, 95,

405–406

environmental variables,

400–402

existing systems, 327, 328,

394, 395–396, 409, 420

fishery data, 281, 408

funding, 397, 404, 406–408,

459, 462

governance structure,

397–399

implementation steps,

396–397

international cooperation, 396

397, 403, 409–410, 453

national planning, 397–398

as national monitoring system

component, 231–232, 234

Ocean.US and, 127, 398, 375,

397, 398–399, 400, 402, 407

offshore infrastructure and,

364

outreach to user community,

399–400

partnerships, 396 397, 405,

406, 409–410

potential benefits, 164–165,

394–395, 408

product development, 95, 110

397, 406

regional structure, 95,

398–399, 400, 405–406, 436

research observatories and, 402

satellite observations, 395,

403–405, 407–408, 423, 424,

425

sensors, 346, 364, 402–403,

423

space–based observation missions, 403–404

user input for planning,

405–406

value of, 395–396, 408

Interagency Committee for the

Marine Transportation

System, 84, 197–198, 478

Intergovernmental Oceanographic

Commission, 449–450, 451,

453

intermodal connections, 196,

198–199, 200

internal waters, defined, 70

International Coastal Cleanup,

264, 266, 268

International Convention for the

Conservation of Atlantic

Tunas, 445, 446

International Convention for the

Control and Management of

Ships’ Ballast Water and

Sediments, 261

International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from

Ships, 244, 245, 265, 270, 447

International Convention for the

Regulation of Whaling, 448

international cooperation, 90 (see

also international ocean policy; LOS Convention)

aquaculture, 302, 336

biodiversity convention, 54

conservation, 327

coral reef management,

326–327, 451

debris management, 265–266,

270

in ecosystem–based approach,

318, 473

endangered species, 303, 308,

318

fishery management, 284,

291, 293, 298, 299–303, 318,

445, 446, 451

Great Lakes region, 87, 93

invasive species control,

261–262

on IOOS, 396 397, 403,

409–410, 453

pollution control, 222–223,

224

port state control, 240

on research, 380, 454

on trade policy, 445, 451

vessel pollution control, 239,

244, 245, 247, 451

vessel safety and security, 237,

238, 239, 240, 451

International Maritime

Organization, 237, 238, 239,

244, 247, 261, 450, 451

international ocean policy (see

also international cooperation;

LOS Convention)

agreements and treaties,

444–449

capacity building, 453,

454–455

challenges, 442–443, 449,

450, 452

collaboration, 291, 449–450

developing and implementing,

443–452

Earth Summit and, 445, 448

evolution of, 443

freedom of the seas, 53, 72,

99, 105, 443, 450, 454

funding issues, 449

GOOS and, 453

governance structure,

449–450, 451

guiding principles, 444, 448,

473

recommendations, 479

responsible international 

bodies, 451

science programs, 452–454

U.S. coordination, 300,

449–450, 451

U.S. research contributions,

454

interstate fisheries commissions,

277, 278, 279, 283, 284, 299,

334, 479

intracoastal waterways, 186, 196,

200

H 13
H 14 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

invasive species, 252–263

aquaculture and, 40, 256, 257,

258, 261, 331–332, 336

in ballast water discharge, 41,

253, 254, 255, 256, 257–258,

259, 260–261, 345

Caulerpa taxifolia, 41, 259

climate change and, 253

costs of, 252, 259

coordination of programs,

258, 260–261

Crassostrea ariakensis, 261

defined, 253

detection and response, 177,

259–260

domestic port–to–port contamination, 257

education and outreach, 255,

258–259

European green crab, 41, 253

federal and state programs,

255–256, 260–261

funding for control, 252, 255,

256, 258, 259

hydrilla, 252, 259

impacts, 41, 252–253, 308,

345

intentional introductions,

256, 261

international partnerships,

261–262

legislation, 253–255

management, 253–256,

260–261

monitoring, 260, 262

pathways for introduction, 41,

253, 254, 256–257, 264

prevention, 257–259

regional approach, 254, 255

research needs, 255, 262, 380

trade in marine organisms

and, 31, 41, 256, 257, 258

IOC (see Intergovernmental

Oceanographic Commission)

IOOS (see Integrated Ocean

Observing System)

ITQ (see individual transferable

quotas)

Japan, 274, 301, 340, 409, 413,

418

Jason II, 418–419

jobs (see also employment; workforce)

ocean–related, 31, 32, 322,

353

losses, 40, 41

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier

Resources System, 155, 156

Johnson administration, 50, 53

jurisdictions

baseline, 70

and coastal planning and

management, 153–154, 155,

157

contiguous zone, 72, 73

continental shelf, 72–73

endangered species, 306, 309,

310–311

energy and mineral resources,

49, 70, 71, 72, 352–352, 367

exclusive economic zone,

30–31, 72, 73, 454

fishery, 49, 51–52, 53, 275,

283–285, 300

high seas, 73, 454

inconsistencies and ambiguities in laws, 73

and land use planning, 152

marine mammal and endangered species protection

offshore energy and mineral

resources, 49, 70, 445

primer on, 70–73

sediment management, 181

state, 49, 70–71, 284, 332,

334, 352–354

territorial sea, 53, 72, 73

Kennedy administration, 49, 53,

88

laboratories and instrumentation,

420

Lacey Act, 254–255, 324

Lake Erie, 206, 344 (see also Great

Lakes)

Lake Michigan, 34, 183 (see also

Great Lakes)

Land and Water Conservation

Fund, 172, 359

land use planning, 217, 220–221,

395 (see also development)

Landsat satellite system, 395, 425,

431

large marine ecosystems, 63–64,

90, 295 (see also

ecosystem–based management)

Law of the Sea Convention (see

LOS Convention)

lease/leasing, offshore, 382

for aquaculture, 101, 332, 334

oil and gas, 49, 53, 54, 71,

353–357, 359, 366, 369

legislation (see also individual

statutes)

conservation, 51–52, 54, 63,

101

coral reef management,

323–324, 325–326

debris management, 266

endangered species, 101,

309–310

energy and resource minerals,

49, 353–354, 360, 366

environmental protection, 51,

54, 222

fishery management, 51–52,

54, 275

guiding principles, 62, 473

invasive species control,

253–255

presidential reorganization

authority, 114, 115

resource development, 52

territorial jurisdiction, 52

Leinen, Margaret, 418

levees (see flood control)

London Convention, 265–266,

446

LOS Convention, 53, 54, 300,

444–445, 390, 446, 451, 454

jurisdictional definitions, 70,

72, 73

Louisiana, 89

flood control measures, 165,

174, 369

habitat restoration, 173,

174–175, 369

offshore oil and gas production, 353, 358

vulnerability to natural hazards, 164, 165, 168

wetlands, 40, 165, 174, 178

Loy, James M., 200
I NDEX

Magnuson–Stevens Fishery

Conservation and

Management Act, 51–52, 54,

63, 101, 275, 277–279,

283–286, 289–291, 296, 297,

323, 366, 382

Maine, 152, 160, 332

Malone, Thomas, 397

mammal (see marine mammals)

manatees, 307, 309, 313, 317

mangrove forests, 41, 44, 171

mapping and charting activities,

118

continental shelf, 390

Electronic Navigational

Charts, 195

erosion risks, 167

federal, 389–392

flood hazards, 165–166, 167

funding, 177, 189, 213, 228,

229, 231, 465

integrated maps and assessments, 388, 389, 436

value of, 388

MARAD (see Maritime

Administration)

marine debris (see debris)

marine habitats (see also coastal

habitats; marine protected

areas)

areas of particular concern,

297

losses, 40, 308

protection, 104, 295, 297–298

value of, 37

Marine Mammal Commission, 84,

267, 309, 310

Marine Mammal Protection Act,

101, 309, 310, 311–313, 316,

317, 353, 366, 367

marine mammals, 48 (see also

endangered species; individual

species)

commercial harvesting, 307

harassment, 312

interactive education programs, 316

legislation, 101, 309

noise effects, 307, 315–316

permitting and review standards, 312–314

research, 312, 380

status of stocks, 309

strandings, 315

threats to, 266–267, 306–307,

331

marine operations

coordinating and consolidating, 388–391

defined, 388

federal mapping and charting,

390–392

mapping and assessing

resources, 389

Marine Plastic Pollution Research

and Control Act, 266, 269

marine protected areas (see also

National Marine Sanctuary

Program)

biodiversity in, 104

defined, 103

federal efforts, 103–104, 171

fishery management and, 295

international agreements, 450

as management tool, 103–106

national interests and, 105

stakeholder input, 90, 99, 106

research in, 343

role, 104

Marine Protection, Research, and

Sanctuaries Act, 266, 325, 353

Marine Resources and

Engineering Development

Act, 50

marine sanitation devices, 241,

243

Marine Transportation Security

Act, 238

marine transportation system,

192–201

components, 193–196

coordination of, 196,

197–198, 200

economic value, 31, 32,

192–193, 194, 195, 200, 236

ecosystem–based management, 196

emergency preparedness,

200–201

federal roles, 197–198

global climate change and,

197

harbors, channels, and waterways, 186, 196, 200

information needs, 199–200,

390

interagency committee,

197–198, 199

intermodal connections, 196,

198–199, 200, 384

National Advisory Council,

198, 199

national interests, 238

navigational aids, 195, 390

personnel, 196

ports, 186, 193–194, 196,

198, 200–201

security, 32, 200, 238

services provided, 193

shipbuilding and repair,

194–195, 198

vessel characteristics, 194

Maritime Administration, 51, 199,

358

maritime domain awareness,

249–250

MARPOL (see International

Convention for the Prevention

of Pollution from Ships)

Marshall Islands, 44, 321,

409–410

Maryland, 88, 344, 358

Smart Growth and

Neighborhood Conservation

Initiative, 152

Massachusetts, 160, 236, 358, 367

McCreary, Richard, 239

mentoring, 135, 141

Merchant Marine Act (Jones Act),

194, 195

mercury, 223, 224, 346, 348, 349

(see also heavy metals)

MERHAB (see Monitoring and

Event Response for Harmful

Algal Blooms)

metadata, 429, 436

methane hydrates, 33, 341,

364–365, 387, 450

Methane Hydrate Research and

Development Act, 365

Mexico, 224, 261, 358, 454

Mineral Leasing Act, 359

minerals, non–petroleum (see also

energy and mineral resources)

commercial interest in, 352

H 15
H 16 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

common heritage of mankind,

53

deep seabed mining, 53, 54,

444, 446

economic value, 33

management, 368–369

Minerals Management Service,

113, 124, 181, 199, 246, 260,

268, 314, 316, 341, 347, 354,

361, 362, 363, 364, 369, 382,

383, 389, 390, 424, 431, 477

Environmental Studies

Program, 363–364

minorities, education of underrepresented and underserved

groups, 130, 136, 141–142,

145

minority–serving institutions, 141

Mississippi River Basin, 39, 87,

174, 206, 216, 229

Mississippi Sound, habitat losses,

41, 171

MMS (see Minerals Management

Service)

monitoring, 89 (see also Integrated

Ocean Observing System;

national monitoring network;

individual programs)

atmospheric deposition, 229,

230, 232

baseline, 230

biodiversity, 228

climate change, 229, 409

coastal margin, 176–177,

231–232

compliance–related, 213, 294,

298

conservation and restoration

efforts, 177

contaminants, 228, 229, 230,

232

coral ecosystems, 324,

327–328

costs of, 298

effects–based, 233

federal programs, 227–230

fishery–related, 291, 293–294,

298

funding, 177, 189, 213, 228,

229, 231

harmful algal blooms, 228,

344–345

health–related, 229, 349

interagency coordination,

230–231

invasive species, 260, 262

land–cover characteristics,

228

local efforts, 177, 228

marine debris, 266, 268–269

needs, 104, 177, 189,

231–232

nonpoint–source pollution,

217, 220, 213, 214, 220, 221

offshore, 294, 382

pathogens, 344–345, 346

priority pollutants, 234

sampling protocols, 233

satellites, 294, 345, 346, 424

sediment, 189, 229

ship–based, 423

shortcomings in programs,

229–230

state–based, 229

stations and buoy arrays, 424

streamflow, 228, 229

stressor–based, 233

Vessel Monitoring System,

293–294

visual environments, 229

water quality, 165, 177, 213,

214, 217, 221, 224, 228, 229,

230–231, 233

weather, 228

Monitoring and Event Response

for Harmful Algal Blooms,

228, 345

museums, 35, 125, 136, 143, 144

NACOA (see National Advisory

Committee on Oceans and

Atmosphere)

NASA (see National Aeronautics

and Space Administration)

National Academy of Sciences, 58,

289

National Advisory Committee on

Oceans and Atmosphere, 81,

84, 117, 387–388

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, 50, 341, 347,

402, 403, 410, 419

data collection, 429–431

Earth Science Enterprise, 113

education programs, 124, 127,

128, 132, 140, 142, 220

existing ocean and coastal

responsibilities, 78, 112, 114,

395

hazards–related role, 164

mission, 404

recommendations, 478

National Aquaculture Act, 333,

334

National Atmospheric Deposition

Program, 229, 230

National Coastal Condition Report,

204–205

National Dredging Team, 84, 188,

478

National Environmental Policy

Act, 51, 73, 77, 96, 157,

286–287, 295, 313, 324, 353,

354, 366, 367, 379

National Environmental Satellite,

Data, and Information Service,

110, 118

National Estuarine Research

Reserve System, 103–104,

153, 155, 156, 171

Coastal Training Program,

138, 220

Graduate Research Fellowship

Program, 140

System–wide Monitoring

Program, 228

National Estuary Program, 153,

156, 171, 229

National Flood Insurance Program

erosion mapping and rating,

167

flood hazard mapping,

165–167

incentives for development,

168

premiums, 167

repetitive–loss payments, 165,

167–168

National Geographic Society, 132,

387

National Geophysical Data Center,

430, 437

National Geospatial–Intelligence

Agency, 199, 389, 390

National Historic Preservation

Act, 359, 367
I NDEX

National Ice Center, 402, 424, 430

National Institute of

Environmental Health

Sciences, 82, 339, 341, 347,

348, 477

National Institutes of Health, 82,

137, 140, 341, 347

National Invasive Species Act, 253

National Invasive Species Council,

84, 254, 259–260

National Marine Educators

Association, 125, 132, 136

National Marine Fisheries Service,

101, 110, 117, 118, 181,

267–269, 414, 424

Cooperative Enforcement

Program, 292, 414

endangered species jurisdiction, 309, 311

fishery management, 275,

276, 278–283, 286, 290–299,

366

recommendations, 476

socioeconomic research,

379–380

National Marine Sanctuaries Act,

323, 325

National Marine Sanctuary

Program, 99, 103, 104, 144,

153, 155–156, 171, 343, 382

national monitoring network (see

also monitoring)

coordination of existing programs with, 230–232, 346

critical factors tracked in, 227

data accessibility and usefulness, 230, 234, 434, 435

design, 233

goals and objectives, 189, 232

IOOS linked to, 231–232,

234, 327, 328, 346, 347

new contaminants, 209, 233,

234

review and modification,

233–234

stakeholders, 227

technical coordination, 233,

347–348

user input, 234

value, 226–227

National Ocean Council (proposed)

Committee on Ocean

Resource Management, 83–84,

166, 198, 313, 326, 476

Committee on Ocean Science,

Education, Technology, and

Operations, 82–83, 126, 127,

375–376, 437, 475

composition, 79

Ocean.ED, 126–128, 139,

160, 475

Ocean.IT, 375, 476

Ocean.US, 82, 364, 375, 476

functions, 79–80

interagency team, 313–312

International Committee, 302,

303, 476

recommendations, 475

research strategy, 384

structure, 129

National Ocean Economics

Project, 31, 382–383

national ocean policy, 48–55,

60–69 (see also international

ocean policy)

accountability in, 63, 197, 473

activism and, 51–52

consensus for change, 55

developing and implementing,

63–69

enclosure of the oceans, 48

exploitation, 48, 53

formative years, 48–49

fragmentation, 50–51, 52, 55,

65, 77–78, 93, 109–110, 112,

114, 125, 197

framework, 61, 76–118

guiding principles, 60–69, 97

international cooperation, 53,

63, 473

post–World War II period,

49–50

science and, 49–50, 54, 67–68

Soviet Union and, 49

stewardship ethic, 51

Stratton Commission and,

50–51, 52, 274

USCOP mandate, 55–56

vision, 60–61

National Ocean Research

Leadership Council, 82, 126

National Ocean Service, 110, 117,

118, 382, 414, 435

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration,

79, 159, 197, 199, 306

aquaculture programs,

332–335

biotoxin program, 345

budget support, 54, 112

Bureau of Commercial

Fisheries, 51

coastal management program,

153–155, 181

coral reef programs, 266, 321,

323, 324, 326, 327

creation, 50, 55, 115

data collection, 139, 164, 364,

389, 390, 429–432, 435–435

debris research and management programs, 266, 267,

269, 270

defining coastal watershed

counties, 34

education role, 124, 127–128,

134, 137, 138, 139–140, 141,

142, 143, 144, 221, 222

endangered species programs,

309–315, 317, 318

energy resource management,

362

exploration programs, 388

fellowships, 140

fishery management, 279,

282, 285, 286, 291, 297, 302

(see also National Marine

Fisheries Service)

habitat conservation programs, 101, 103–104, 153,

155–156, 171, 177

human health initiatives, 339,

341, 345, 347–349, 351

international contributions,

222

invasive species management,

253, 255, 258, 259–260

line offices, 110 (see also individual offices)

marine protected areas,

103–104, 153, 449

mission and responsibilities,

110 397–398, 431, 449

H 17
H 18 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

monitoring programs, 228,

230, 231, 345, 349, 395, 399,

424

natural hazards management,

163, 164

navigation products, 195

observing system, 163,

402–406, 410 (see also

Integrated Ocean Observing

System)

Office of Oceanic and

Atmospheric Research, 110,

117, 118

Office of Program Planning

and Integration, 110

prior proposed changes in,

116–118

recommendations, 476

research funding, 137, 379

research capabilities, 416–418,

420, 422

Science Advisory Board, 382

sediment management, 181,

189

socioeconomic research,

382–384

status and authority, 51, 52

structural strengthening,

110–112, 115, 117, 156

successful programs, 110

water pollution control, 205,

214, 215, 217, 220, 221

weather forecasting, 163

workforce development, 139,

142

National Oceanographic Data

Center, 430, 437

National Oceanographic

Partnership Act, 82, 127

National Oceanographic

Partnership Program, 82, 125,

126–128, 375, 414, 417, 436

National Park Service, 104, 113,

124, 159, 260, 343

National Parks and Seashores,

171, 229

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System, 101, 207,

210, 211, 212, 221

National Research Council, 39,

49, 54, 77, 94–95, 104, 123,

131, 133, 134, 157, 164, 178,

183, 186, 187, 189, 197, 206,

229, 238, 246, 248, 261, 267,

268, 276, 278, 289, 309–310,

312, 317, 332, 339, 341, 349,

361, 362, 365, 390, 418, 419,

452

National Science and Technology

Council, 77, 82, 125, 231

Joint Subcommittee on

Aquaculture, 84, 333–334

National Science Education

Standards, 131–132

National Science Foundation, 49,

50, 142, 181, 313–314, 316,

365, 376, 389

biomedical research funding,

341

budget support, 112

data collection, 431

education programs, 127, 128,

129, 134, 137–142, 339 (see

also Centers for Ocean

Sciences Education

Excellence)

existing ocean and coastal

responsibilities, 78, 112, 113,

124, 260, 334, 375

exploration program, 388

health–related programs, 339,

347, 348

infrastructure funding, 413,

419, 420

National Science Board, 413

observing initiatives, 402,

403, 420

recommendations, 478

socioeconomic research, 383,

384

National Science Teachers

Association, 125, 132

National Sea Grant College

Program, 50, 51, 53, 54, 95,

124, 129–130, 132, 134, 140,

220, 255, 335, 379, 385, 386,

476

National Security Council, 449

Global Environment Policy

Coordinating Committee, 77

National Status and Trends

Program, 228, 230

National Stream Quality

Accounting Network, 228,

229, 230

National Streamflow Information

Program, 228, 229, 395

National Survey of Fishing,

Hunting, and

Wildlife–Associated

Recreation, 275, 281

National Virtual Ocean Data

System, 436–437

National Water Quality

Assessment, 228, 229

National Water Quality

Monitoring Council, 230–231

National Weather Service, 110,

118, 163, 228, 394, 395, 398,

405, 406, 408, 435

National Wildlife Refuge System,

104, 171, 256

Native Americans (see also

tribe/tribal), 183, 312

Miccosukee tribe, 175

Seminole tribe, 175

natural gas (see also energy and

mineral resources)

demand, 358

LNG ports, 33, 358

methane hydrates, 341,

364–365, 387, 450

offshore resource management, 353, 358

production trends, 33, 353,

357

royalty relief, 357

shallow–water supply, 357

natural hazards, 162–169 (see also

hazard management)

costs of, 162–163, 164, 165

and navigation and port operations, 200–201

and offshore management,

362

research needs, 381

vulnerability of coastal populations, 42, 165

navigation/navigational, 101 (see

also mapping and charting)

aids, 195, 390
I NDEX

dredging, 181, 183, 185–186,

187, 196, 217

freedom of, 53, 72, 99, 105,

443, 450, 454

impacts of projects, 179, 366

invasive species and, 41, 256

offshore activities and, 332

safety requirements, 101, 200

Netherlands, ocean policy, 79, 223

New Jersey, 88, 134, 187, 368

debris management, 264

Division of Watershed

Management, 157, 159

New York, 88, 159, 187

Nichols, Mary, 92

NIEHS (see National Institute of

Environmental Health

Sciences)

NIH (see National Institutes of

Health)

nitrogen, 212, 219, 223, 224 (see

also nutrient pollution)

nitrogen oxide emissions, 224,

244

Nixon administration, 52, 109,

115, 353

NMEA (see National Marine

Educators Association)

NMFS (see National Marine

Fisheries Service)

no–discharge zones, 241, 243, 244

noise, 307, 315–316

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance

Prevention and Control Act,

253–254, 258

non–native species, 177, 252, 253,

256–257 (see also invasive

species)

nonpoint source pollution

agricultural, 54, 213, 214,

215, 216, 219

coordination of programs, 90,

94, 214, 217–218, 222

enforcement programs, 212,

213, 218, 220

financial disincentives, 217,

219–220

incentive–based controls, 214,

217, 218, 219–220

international cooperation,

222–223

land use planning and, 217,

220–221

major sources, 213, 215–217

management tools, 213–214,

326

monitoring, 217, 220, 213,

214, 220, 221

public education on, 69, 213,

214, 220

State Revolving Funds, 217, 219

stormwater runoff, 54,

215–217, 220, 221

watershed approaches, 177,

213, 214, 219, 222

North Atlantic right whales, 264,

298–299, 317

North Carolina, 167, 368

NOS (see National Ocean Service)

NPDS (see National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination

System)

NPS (see National Park Service)

NSF (see National Science

Foundation)

nutrient pollution, 39, 88, 89

control, 205, 206, 208–209,

212

ecological effects, 39, 175,

206, 208–209, 210, 215, 216,

345, 346

monitoring, 229, 232

sources, 204, 210, 211, 216,

223

tradable credits, 212, 219

nutritional bioproducts, 33, 340

NWS (see National Weather

Service)

observing systems (see also

Integrated Ocean Observing

System; monitoring; national

monitoring network; satellite

observations)

Earth Observing System Data

and Information System, 431,

438

Earth Resources Observation

Systems Data Center, 430

funding, 177, 189, 213, 228,

229, 231, 465

Global Climate Observing

System, 414

Global Ocean Observing

System, 397, 409–410, 414,

425, 434, 453

Group on Earth Observations,

409

Long–term Ecosystem

Observatory, 402

Marine Observation Network,

424

Monterey Bay Aquarium

Research Institute Ocean

Observing System, 402

National Water Level

Observation Network, 424

NOAA system, 163, 402–406,

410 

NSF initiatives, 402, 403, 420

Ocean Observatories

Initiative, 402, 420

weather, 228, 293, 394, 404

Ocean Dumping Act (see Marine

Protection, Research, and

Sanctuaries Act)

ocean economy (see also economic

issues)

defined, 31

service–oriented activities, 36,

42

ocean education (see curriculum;

education and outreach;

Ocean.ED)

ocean–land–atmosphere connection, 37, 61–62, 387, 453, 472

(see also global climate

change)

Ocean Policy Trust Fund (proposed), 459, 468–469

Ocean Research Advisory Panel,

82, 125, 126–127

ocean science and technology (see

also exploration; marine operations; research infrastructure

and technology; research

needs)

components, 374–375, 376

defined, 374–375

exploration program, 357,

386–388

federal leadership, 375–376

and fishery management,

293–294

funding, 376–377, 379,

385–386

guiding principles, 62

international programs,

452–454

H 19
H 20 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

jurisdiction issues, 72, 454

national strategy, 377–378

and ocean policy making, 54,

62

U.S. activities abroad

value of, 374–375

Ocean Thermal Energy

Conversion Act, 368

Ocean.ED (proposed), 160, 475

community outreach, 136, 145

evaluation of education programs, 129

funding for, 127, 459

recommendations, 475

responsibilities, 127, 128, 129

science literacy promotion,

132, 135

workforce preparation, 139,

142

Ocean.IT (proposed), 375,

434–435, 476

Ocean.US, 82, 127, 364, 398, 375,

397, 398–399, 400, 402, 407,

420, 434, 436, 476

description, 127, 398

Oceans Act of 2000, 55, 58, 59

Office of Education and

Sustainable Development,

127–128, 140

Office of Management and Budget,

81, 112, 389, 476

Natural Resources Program,

112

Office of Naval Research, 113,

124, 128, 137, 138, 139, 141,

142, 181, 341, 347, 375, 377,

385, 388, 402, 418, 419, 477

Office of Ocean Policy (proposed),

459

description, 81–82

Office of Science and Technology

Policy, 77, 82, 84

Office of Sustainable Marine

Aquaculture (proposed), 334,

335

Office of Technology Assessment,

391–392, 413

offshore (see also energy and mineral resources; Outer

Continental Shelf Lands Act)

aquaculture, 33, 54, 100, 101,

332, 336

bioprospecting, 343

coastal management linked to,

158, 160

coordinating management in,

90, 98–106, 160, 332, 343,

361, 368

compensation for resources,

102–103

current authorities and

responsibilities, 98, 100, 101

defined, 98

energy and mineral resources,

53, 98, 99, 100, 158, 174,

343, 352–369

hazard management, 99

international cooperation, 336

jurisdiction, 352, 355

leasing, 101, 332, 334,

353–357

movable activities, 100, 101

no–leasing buffer zones, 53

petroleum industry, 264, 268

planning areas, 355–356

site–specific activities, 100,

101

states responsibilities, 99, 101,

102, 158, 332, 334, 352–354,

361

oil (see also energy and mineral

resources)

bioremediation of spills, 35

deep–water production, 357,

363

demand, 357

embargoes, 52, 353

environmental issues,

361–364

infrastructure aging, 246,

362–363

leases, 49, 53, 54, 71,

353–357, 359, 366, 369

offshore resource management, 99, 158, 174, 352–364

political issues, 353–354

pollution prevention and

response, 39, 54, 236, 237,

245–248, 268, 362–363

production trends, 353, 357

from recreational vessels, 248

royalty relief, 357, 359

safety issues, 361

spills, 35, 39, 51, 54, 210,

236, 237, 245–248, 353,

361–363

tankers and barges, 39, 54,

194, 245–246

supplies, 33

Oil Pollution Act, 54, 246, 247

OMB (see Office of Management

and Budget)

Orbach, Michael, 435

Oregon, 152, 157, 160, 257, 354,

368

Outer Continental Shelf Lands

Act, 49, 354, 355, 359, 362,

366, 369

Amendments of 1978, 53,

360, 361, 382

outreach (see education and outreach)

overfishing (see also fishery management), 40, 41, 276, 281,

285, 297, 299, 308, 323, 452

oysters, 41, 252, 261, 332

Pacific Decadal Oscillation, 296,

409

Pacific Freely Associated States,

135, 321

Pacific States Marine Fisheries

Commission, 284

Panetta, Leon, 51

partnerships (see also National

Oceanographic Partnership

Program)

conservation, 172

educational, 134, 141

in energy and mineral

resource development, 158,

357, 360, 361

federal–state, 153, 158–159,

311, 357, 360, 361

in fishery management,

281–282, 292–293

funding, 418

industry–research community,

364

information management,

435–436

international, 93, 223, 380,

454

IOOS, 396 397, 405, 406,

409–410
I NDEX

in marine transportation,

192–193, 237

NOAA–Navy, 435–436

public–private, 172, 173, 176,

192–193, 222, 237, 242, 270,

323, 384, 405, 418

research community and academia, 49, 124, 125, 129, 130,

132, 133, 135–136, 139

watershed management, 222

passenger ferries, 194, 236

PCBs, 183, 210, 223, 264, 349

peer review, 187, 278

Pennsylvania, 88, 159

permitting

aquaculture, 333, 335

for bioprospecting, 343

coastal construction and

restoration, 184

fishery, 287–288

for marine mammals,

311–314

for offshore activities, 100,

343

pollution, 101, 207, 210, 211,

212, 221

programmatic, 312–314

for research, 343, 454

pesticides, 223, 234

Pew Oceans Commission, 51, 55,

77

pharmaceuticals

bioproducts, 33, 339, 340,

341

pollutants, 209, 234, 349

phosphates, 33, 368

phytoplankton, 37, 229

places of refuge, 247–248

Plant Protection Act, 254

plastic debris materials, 264–265,

266, 267, 307

point source pollution

animal feeding operations,

211

enforcement programs, 212

incentive–based controls, 212

industrial facilities, 207, 210

infrastructure investments,

211–212

major sources, 208–211

management tools, 207

septic systems, 210

sewer system overflows, 39,

208, 209–210, 211

wastewater treatment plants,

207, 208–209, 210, 211–212

Polar–orbiting Operational

Environmental Satellites, 404,

424

polar regions, 297, 346–347, 364,

365, 378, 387, 417, 450

pollution (see nonpoint source

pollution; point source pollution; water pollution)

population growth

coastal pressures, 36, 41–42,

43, 150–152

environmental impacts,

41–42, 43, 170

porpoises, 306, 309

ports

closures, 200–201

commerce flows, 193–194

economic value, 31, 32,

193–194

garbage reception facilities,

270

infrastructure, 193–194

LNG, 33, 358

planning and management,

186, 193–194, 196, 198,

200–201

pollution control, 245, 270

security, 32, 200

sediment management, 187

stewardship programs, 196

precautionary approach, 65–66,

80

President’s Council of Advisors on

Ocean Policy (proposed), 79,

80, 81, 87, 90, 102, 114, 115,

476

public awareness, education and,

68–69, 90, 122–124, 130,

142–143, 213, 220

Puget Sound, habitat losses, 41,

171

Puerto Rico, 34, 70, 155, 164,

321, 325

Radonski, Gilbert, 281

Reagan administration, 53–54, 72,

354, 387

recommendations

to Congress, 475

context for, 472–474

to Executive Branch leadership, 475–476

to federal government agencies, 476–478

on international policy implementation, 479

guiding principles for,

472–473

index to, 475–479

list, by appearance in report,

480–522

to regional bodies, 479

to states, 473–474, 479

recreation/recreational, 99, 105

boating, 32, 39, 66, 236, 241,

243, 245, 248, 264, 267

debris, 267

diving, 37

economic value, 31, 32,

35–36, 150, 151, 382

environmental impacts, 39,

42, 248

fishing, 31, 217, 275, 281, 321

jobs, 31

losses, 39

shipwreck sites, 102

threats to, 183

vessel pollution, 236, 241,

243, 245, 248

water quality and, 213, 229,

349–350

reefs (see artificial reefs; coral

ecosystems)

Regional Fishery Management

Councils, 90, 101 (see also

commercial fishing; fishery

management)

authority and jurisdiction,

283–285

creation, 52, 275

delays in management plans,

279–280, 280

ecosystem–based approach,

295–297, 326

government relationship with,

286, 291, 294

Gulf of Mexico, 286

input on research, 280–281

membership, 285–286

H 21
H 22 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Mid–Atlantic, 276, 278, 288

mission, 275

multispecies plans, 295, 298

National Bycatch Strategy, 299

New England, 276, 278, 297

North Pacific, 278, 285, 288,

297, 326

peer review programs, 278

recommendations, 479

scientific and statistical committees, 277–278, 280, 479

South Atlantic, 288

successes, 285

training new members,

286–287

Western Pacific, 285

regional ocean councils (proposed)

boundaries, 90, 92–94

ecosystem assessments, 96,

100, 160, 176, 350

existing initiatives, 86–87,

88–89, 91, 93

federal agency coordination,

92–93, 157, 160, 350

national support and guidelines, 87

nature and functions, 90–91,

102, 103, 106, 222

recommendations, 479

research and information

needs, 94–95, 160, 176, 234

Reilly, William, 327

renewable energy, 33

hydropower, 367

management regime, 368

thermal energy conversion

technology, 367–368

wave or tidal energy technology, 366–367

wind power, 99, 365–366, 367

Reorganization Act of 1949, 115

reorganization of federal agencies

(see also specific agencies)

consolidation of ocean and

coastal programs, 112–115

for ecosystem–based

approach, 108, 115

NOAA, 108, 110–112

presidential authority,

114–115

previous proposals, 109–110,

116–118

repetitive–loss properties,

167–168

research infrastructure and technology, 33 (see also monitoring; national monitoring network)

academic community linkages, 49, 124, 125, 129, 130,

132, 133, 135–136, 137, 139,

335, 347

airborne ocean science platforms, 419, 422–423

collaboration to maximize

resources, 281–282, 347–348,

414, 418, 419

essential components,

412–413, 416–425

federal commitment to, 50,

421

funding for, 137, 335, 340,

376, 385–386, 418, 420, 424,

425, 459

gaps in, 413

health–related, 339, 340,

347–348

interdisciplinary, 339, 376,

414, 426, 426

international cooperation, 380

inventory of facilities, 413,

414, 415–416

laboratories and instrumentation, 420

land–based facilities, 423–424

leadership and coordination,

82, 89, 95, 105, 365

maintenance and upgrades,

425

modernization, 137, 416–425

monitoring station and buoy

arrays, 424

national strategy, 414–415

Navy role, 49–50, 385, 390

ocean exploration platforms,

419

Ocean Observatories

Initiative, 402, 420

planning to support ocean

activities, 425

periodic review and assessments, 415–416

permits and licenses, 343

review process for grants, 386

satellites, 424–425

surface vessels, 49, 117,

281–282, 416–417, 422–423,

452

telecommunications, 420–421

undersea vessels, 417–418

virtual technology centers,

426

research needs

aquaculture, 335, 380

basic research, 385

biodiversity, 66, 379, 380

coastal habitats, 380

climate change, 44, 67–68,

378–379, 380, 453

coral ecosystems, 327–328,

377, 380

cooperative, 281–282

data management, 384

economic, 31, 382–384

endangered species, 314–316,

380

energy and mineral resources,

365, 381

evaluation of programs,

128–129, 130

fisheries, 40, 280–283, 295,

377, 380

harmful algal blooms, 344

human health–related, 344,

345, 346, 347–348, 381

interdisciplinary, 341, 343,

385

invasive species, 255, 262,

380

marine debris, 380

marine mammal behavior, 380

marine transportation,

199–200, 248–249

natural hazards, 381

regional ecosystem dynamics,

96, 99, 104, 157, 316, 350,

379, 381

sediment, 381

socioeconomic, 377, 379,

381–384

vessel pollution, 248–249,

381

water pollution, 381
I NDEX

revenues from resources, 33,

102–103, 357, 359–360,

467–469

Reynolds, John E., III, 314

RFMC (see Regional Fishery

Management Councils)

Rheault, Robert, 333

Rhode Island, 154, 414

Rivers and Harbors Act, 101, 366,

367

royalty payments, 33, 103, 359

runoff (see also nutrient pollution;

water pollution, nonpoint

source pollution)

agricultural, 39, 54, 159, 183,

206, 213, 214, 215, 216, 219

development and, 42, 151,

183

impervious surfaces and, 151,

215, 216–217

management of, 213, 220

stormwater, 39, 54, 151, 179,

206, 208, 209, 215–217, 220,

221

safety (see also security)

in oil and gas production, 361

seafood, 346, 348–349, 350

vessel, 237–238, 292

salmon, 33, 40, 43, 87, 288, 306,

308, 311, 318, 331–332, 335,

408

saltwater intrusion, 40, 44

salvage, 102, 423

San Francisco Bay, 41, 171, 253

San Francisco Bay–Delta estuary,

89, 173

sand and gravel resources, 368,

369

sanitary sewer systems, 210, 221,

350

Santa Barbara Channel oil spill,

51, 353, 361

Sartou, Cynthia, 295

satellite observations

civilian, 403–405

collaborative, 425

coordination with IOOS, 395,

403–405, 407–408, 423, 424,

425

data management, 390, 405,

407, 438

Earth observing, 404–405,

407–408, 424–425, 438

Geostationary Operational

Environmental Satellites, 404,

424

National Polar–orbiting

Operational Environmental

Satellite System, 425

sensor development, 402–403,

414

Schwartz, Suzanne E., 267

science (see also ocean science and

technology)

centers, 143

decision making based on, 62,

65–66, 67–68, 94, 97–98, 104,

242, 248–249, 276–282, 473

for diplomacy, 452

education standards, 131–132

literacy, 69, 123, 125,

131–132

peer–reviewed, 187, 278

Scientific and Statistical

Committees (see also fishery

management), 277–278, 280,

479

Scientific Committee for

Oceanographic Aircraft

Research, 419, 453

Sea Grant (see National Sea Grant

College Program)

sea hare, 35, 342

sea lamprey, 252, 284

sea lions, 309, 317

sea level rise, 40, 42, 44, 54, 151,

166, 171, 174, 378 (see also

global climate change)

sea sponge, 33, 342

sea turtles, 264, 266, 298–299,

303, 306, 307–308

seabirds, 299, 303, 306, 308

seafood

contaminated, 32–33, 210,

222, 39, 346, 348–349, 350

demand for, 330

safety measures, 346,

348–349, 350

seagrass beds, 39, 41, 88, 171,

208, 264, 307

seals, 307, 309

seamounts, 326, 452

security, 105, 449

energy supply, 53

and funding for other programs, 291

marine transportation system,

32, 200, 249, 390

sediment (see also dredging)

climate change and, 181

composition, 180

contaminated, 39–40, 183,

186, 187, 189–190, 340–341,

348–349

disposal of dredged materials,

181, 182, 187

dual nature, 180–181, 204,

215

federal management role,

181–182, 187–188, 189

human activities and,

182–183, 184, 215

legislation, 183

monitoring, 189, 229

quality changes, 39–40, 183

quantity changes, 42, 151,

174, 182

regional management strategies, 181, 184–185, 212

remediation, 183

research, 181, 188–189, 381

transport, 180, 215, 217

sensors, 293, 345, 346, 347, 364,

388, 390, 396, 402–403, 414,

423, 426

septic systems, 39, 210, 350

sewer system

construction funding, 155

debris management, 268

overflows, 39, 208, 209–210,

211, 350

shipbuilding and repair industry,

194–195, 198

ships (see also vessel activities)

Automated Identification

System, 249

collisions and groundings,

195, 200, 236, 237, 324, 362

container ships, 194

cruise liners, 194

domestic marine fleet, 194,

237

foreign flag vessels, 194,

236–237, 239

navigation aids, 195

oil tankers and barges, 39, 54,

194, 245–246

open registries, 239

passenger ferries, 194, 236

H 23
H 24 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

single–hull vessel phase–outs,

54, 245–246

shipwrecks, 37, 100, 102, 156,

246, 387

Shore Protection Act, 266

shrimp, 303, 308, 331, 335

shorelines (see beaches and shorelines)

Sikes Act, 324

Small Business Administration,

169, 334

Smithsonian Institution, 83, 140,

260

socioeconomic considerations

in fishery management, 289,

296–297

research needs, 381

South Carolina, 164, 292, 368,

414

Soviet Union, 49, 52, 274

Stahl, James, 168

State Fish and Wildlife

Consumption Advisories, 349,

350

states (see also coastal states; individual states)

disaster assistance, 168–169

monitoring programs, 229

recommendations, 473–474,

479

water quality management,

206, 207, 211, 217, 219

Steller sea lion, 309, 317

stewardship

coordination of decision making and, 64

education and, 69, 123, 142,

144, 173, 176

existing programs, 159, 196,

214, 281

guiding principles, 61, 472

legislation, 51

local community involvement,

177, 214

recreational fishing, 281

Stockholm Convention on

Persistent Organic Pollutants,

224

storm surges, 42, 167

stormwater

flooding, 166

management, 217, 220

runoff, 39, 151, 179, 208, 220

Stratton Commission, 50–51, 52,

54, 55, 79, 81, 109, 117, 153,

274, 275, 414

Our Nation and the Sea

(report), 50

Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 49,

70, 353

subsidence, 40, 166, 174

sustainability

aquaculture, 333–335

coral harvesting practices, 327

economic development, 89

fishery management, 104,

274–304

funding for, 360

guiding principles, 61, 472

international efforts, 223, 445,

448

redevelopment in

hazard–prone areas, 169, 184

resource management, 138,

360

science–based, 276–282

Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996,

54

swamps (see wetlands)

Tampa Bay, 41, 171, 209, 223

Taylor Grazing Act, 359

teachers

preparation, 124, 125, 128,

130, 133–135

professional development programs, 134

Teachers–at–Sea program, 134

unqualified, 133

technology (see also ocean science

and technology; research

infrastructure and technology)

costs, 209, 294

deep ocean, 387

enforcement, 293–294

and jurisdictional definitions,

73

sensor, 293, 388, 402–403

surface vessels for research,

49, 117, 281–282, 416–417,

422–423, 452

undersea research vessels,

417–418

virtual centers, 426

telecommunications, 33, 99, 396,

428

Tennessee Valley Authority, 159,

334

territorial sea, 53, 72, 73

terrorism, 55, 200, 238, 249 (see

also emergency preparedness;

security)

Texas, 34, 70, 89, 168, 200, 248,

353

TMDL (see Total Maximum Daily

Load Program)

Total Maximum Daily Load

Program, 207, 209, 217

tourism

debris and, 264, 267

education role, 144

economic value, 31, 35–36,

150, 151, 264

environmental impacts, 42

jobs, 31

seafood poisonings and, 344

losses, 39, 217, 264, 344, 349

water quality and, 349–350

toxic pollutants, 183, 204, 210,

212, 223, 224, 232, 241, 242

tradable

development rights, 172

pollution credits, 212, 245

quota program for fishing,

288

trade, 105 (see also marine transportation system)

conservation linked to, 303

coral, 327

in endangered species, 303

environmental policy and,

303, 451

international, 192–193, 194,

196, 244, 303, 327

in marine organisms, 31, 41,

256, 257, 258, 291

ornamental fish, 31–32

projections, 32, 244

sanctions, 303

seafood, 330–331

traditional knowledge, 282, 325

transportation (see also marine

transportation system)

infrastructure, 155, 157

trawling, 52, 274

treasure, 100, 102
I NDEX

treaty/treaties (see also agreement;

convention)

Antarctic Treaty, 447

Boundary Waters Treaty, 447

Pacific Salmon Treaty, 301

Yukon River Treaty, 301

tribe/tribal (see also Native

Americans), 87, 95, 256, 380,

462, 466

aquaculture management,

333, 335

collaboration with state and

federal governments, 92, 93,

94, 103, 104, 360, 389, 397

conservation, 171, 175, 178,

222

education and outreach, 81,

95, 104, 141

enforcement role, 291, 292

feedback, 59, 399

fisheries management, 277,

282, 284, 286, 289, 291, 292,

318

funding to, 468-469

health issues, 349

international cooperation, 444

monitoring role, 226, 228,

230-231, 232, 233, 234, 346

ocean observing, 397, 398,

399, 400

sovereignty, 90, 91, 286

water pollution control, 205,

207, 213, 222, 228

watershed management, 152,

159

Tropical Atmosphere Ocean, 395,

408, 424, 425

Truman administration, 49, 72

Trust Territories of the Pacific

Islands, 34

tsunamis, 42, 165

turtles (see sea turtles)

UNCLOS (see LOS Convention)

UNEP (see United Nations

Environment Program)

United Nations (see also

Convention; Food and

Agriculture Organization;

Framework Agreement)

Atlas of the Oceans, 451

Commission on the Limits of

the Continental Shelf, 390,

445

Conference on Environment

and Development, 300, 301,

445

Conference on the Human

Environment, 51, 445

Convention on Law of the Sea

(see LOS Convention)

Division for Ocean Affairs and

Law of the Sea, 451

United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural

Organization, 451

United Nations Environment

Program, 222, 445, 450, 451,

453, 455

United Nations Development

Program, 451

University–National

Oceanographic Laboratory

System, 416, 417, 419, 420

U.S. Agency for International

Development, 78, 113, 222,

326, 334, 454–455

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 88

Civil Works Program, 112,

113, 114, 117, 163–164, 179

coral reef management, 325,

326

cost–benefit analyses for proposed projects, 164, 179, 295

development projects, 155,

219

hazards–related programs,

157, 163–164

invasive species programs,

255–256, 260

mapping and charting, 389,

390

monitoring programs, 228

offshore responsibilities, 333,

366

permitting program, 65, 101,

171, 178, 179, 186, 366

project–by–project approach,

185, 189

reorganization proposals, 116,

117, 118

recommendations, 477

regional boundaries, 93, 94

research funding, 382, 420

sediment management, 181,

182, 183, 185, 187, 188, 189,

197, 199, 423

stewardship and restoration

program, 171, 173, 177

vessels, 423

water pollution control, 205,

217, 219

wetlands protection, 65, 178,

179

U.S. Coast Guard, 389

assets, 417, 421–422, 423,

425

fishery management, 52,

291–294, 333

invasive species control,

253–254, 256

jurisdiction, 49, 72, 256

and marine transportation and

commerce, 197, 199, 200, 390

offshore responsibilities, 52,

101, 358, 366

recommendations, 477

reorganization, 50, 55

vessel safety and environmental responsibilities, 101, 113,

236–238, 240, 241, 246,

248–250, 257–258, 260, 268,

269, 288, 408, 449

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

mandate, 55–56

members, 56

outreach efforts, 59

regional meetings, 56–58

report development, 59

science advisory panel, 58

working groups, 58

U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, 84,

324–325, 326, 327, 328, 478

U.S. Customs and Border

Protection, 197, 199, 260

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Research Service,

260

aquaculture responsibilities,

332, 334

budget support, 112

conservation/restoration programs, 159, 171, 172, 173,

177, 182, 214, 215, 219

Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension

H 25
H 26 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

Service, 215, 260

Economic Research Service,

260

Environmental Quality

Incentives Program, 214

existing ocean and coastal

responsibilities, 78, 112, 113,

199

invasive species control, 252,

254, 258

monitoring programs, 228,

231

Natural Resources

Conservation Service, 159,

182, 215, 260

proposed reorganization, 116,

117

recommendations, 476

socioeconomic research, 383,

384

water pollution control, 205,

211, 214, 215, 217, 219, 220,

324, 326

U.S. Department of Commerce

(see also National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration),

51, 78, 112, 116–118, 258,

324, 334, 358, 362, 365, 476

Bureau of Economic Analysis,

383, 384

Bureau of Export

Administration, 199

Bureau of the Census, 34, 383

U.S. Department of Defense, 78,

112, 113, 116, 164, 260, 324,

325, 326, 365, 425, 431, 435,

477

U.S. Department of Education,

124, 127

U.S. Department of Energy, 78, 112,

113, 325, 326, 365, 429, 430

Federal Energy

Administration, 116

U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, 78, 112, 113,

334, 477

U.S. Department of Homeland

Security, 55, 78, 112, 113,

165–166, 200, 201, 258, 260,

358, 477

U.S. Department of the Interior,

324

aquaculture responsibilities,

332, 334

budget support, 112

Bureau of Indian Affairs, 260

Bureau of Land Management,

117, 260, 365

Bureau of Reclamation, 117,

182, 260

conservation/restoration funding, 33, 171, 177

endangered species management, 309, 315, 318

energy resource management,

53, 354, 358, 361, 362, 364,

365

existing ocean and coastal

responsibilities, 78, 104, 112,

113, 114

exploration programs,

387–388

invasive species management,

254–255, 256, 258, 259, 260

recommendations, 477

reorganization proposals, 109,

116–118

research infrastructure, 416

U.S. Department of Justice

existing ocean and coastal

responsibilities, 77, 78, 112,

113

U.S. Department of Labor, 78,

112, 113, 139, 477

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 383

U.S. Department of State, 52, 78,

112, 113, 260, 269, 270, 301,

302, 318, 326, 327, 390, 448,

449, 452, 454, 477

U.S. Department of Transportation

Bureau of Transportation

Statistics, 199, 383, 384

existing ocean and coastal

responsibilities, 78, 112, 113,

260, 358

recommendations, 477

reorganization proposals, 116

Transportation Administrative

Services Center, 118

U.S. Department of the Treasury,

260

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

113, 124, 220, 389

Coastal Program, 153, 156

coral reef initiatives, 326

endangered species management, 306, 309–312, 366

fishery management, 275,

281, 302

habitat conservation and

restoration, 101, 104, 153,

155, 171, 173, 181

invasive species management,

253, 255, 260

natural hazards management,

163

recommendations, 477

regional boundaries, 93, 94

reorganization proposals, 117

sediment management, 181

vessel pollution management,

243, 244

U.S. Forest Service, 116, 117, 159,

260

U.S. Geological Survey, 113, 124,

420

Coastal and Marine Geology

program, 424

data collection, 429–431

exploration, 388

hazards–related role, 164, 209

mapping activities, 34, 389,

390

monitoring programs, 228,

229, 230, 231, 260, 395, 424

recommendations, 477

reorganization proposals, 116,

117

research assets, 422, 424

sediment research, 181, 189

U.S. Merchant Marine, 49, 198

U.S. Navy, 112, 124, 199, 269,

314, 316, 385, 389, 390, 399

(see also Office of Naval

Research)

data management, 435–436,

437–438

education support, 137, 140,

141

Fleet Numerical Meteorology

and Oceanography Center,

402, 430, 435

Meteorological and

Oceanography Command,

113, 402

Oceanographic Office, 435
I NDEX

oceanographic research,

49–50, 375, 376, 402, 403,

431

recommendations, 477

research vessels, 416

technology transfer, 415

USACE (see U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers)

USAID (see U.S. Agency for

International Development)

USCOP (see U.S. Commission on

Ocean Policy)

USDA (see U.S. Department of

Agriculture)

USFS (see U.S. Forest Service)

USFWS (see U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service)

USGS (see U.S. Geological Survey)

vessel activities, 236–251 (see also

commercial fishing industry;

marine transportation system;

ships)

benefits and risks, 236–237

commercial, 236–237, 287,

288, 292, 293

cruise industry, 194, 236

debris from, 264–265

flag state responsibilities, 236,

238–239

hazardous cargo, 200

incentive–based controls, 237,

240

international controls, 237,

238, 239, 240

and marine mammal mortality, 307, 317

maritime domain awareness,

249–250

merchant fleet characteristics,

194

oversight and enforcement,

236, 237–240, 291–295

passenger ferries, 194, 236

port state control, 240

recreational boating, 236

safety culture, 237–238, 292

short sea shipping, 198

third–party audits, 237, 239

traffic management, 249, 314

Vessel Monitoring System,

293–294, 434

vessel pollution

air emissions, 244–245

ballast water discharge and,

41, 253, 254, 255, 256,

257–258, 259, 260–261, 345

commercial ships, 244–245

cruise ships, 241–243, 244

debris, 264

education and outreach programs, 243, 248

incentive–based controls, 243,

245

infrastructure–related, 236,

246

international cooperation,

239, 244, 245, 247, 452

invasive species introductions,

41, 253, 254, 255, 256,

257–258, 259, 260–261

no–discharge zones, 241, 243,

244

oil releases, 39, 54, 236, 237,

245–248

oversight and enforcement,

238, 239, 242–243

places of refuge, 247–248

prevention and response,

246–247

recreational vessels, 39, 241,

243, 245, 248

research needs, 248–249, 381

single–hull vessel phase–outs,

54, 245–246

Sulfur Oxide Emission

Control Areas, 244

tradable credits, 245

waste pumpout facilities,

243–244

waste stream discharges, 41,

183, 187, 210, 241–248

Virgin Islands (U.S.), 34, 70, 155,

164, 321, 325

viruses (see also human health),

33, 39, 342, 346, 349–350

Volcker Commission, 109, 114

Walker, Sharon H., 139

Washington, 152, 257, 354, 366,

367

waste pumpout facilities, 243–244

wastewater

industrial, 209, 210, 221

innovative treatment technologies, 242

pumpout facilities, 243–244

re–use, 209

stormwater discharges, 215,

350

tertiary treatment, 209

tradable credits, 212, 245

treatment plants, 39, 163,

206, 207, 208–209, 210,

211–212, 219

vessel discharges, 41, 183,

187, 210, 241–248

water pollution, 204–225 (see also

nonpoint source pollution;

nutrient pollution; point

source pollution)

aquaculture and, 331

atmospheric deposition, 39,

210, 211, 223–224, 349

control measures, 151, 156,

205, 211–212, 217–222, 224,

295

coordination of programs,

205, 214, 215, 217–218, 222,

295

costs of, 38–40, 204, 206,

209, 211, 217

education and training, 214,

220, 221

and endangered species, 314

energy–related, 39, 54, 236,

237, 245–248, 268, 362–363

extent of degradation, 38, 88,

151, 204–205

funding for programs, 207,

208, 213, 214, 215, 218, 219

human health effects, 206,

210, 213, 217, 340–341, 344,

346, 349–350

incentive–based approaches,

212, 214, 217, 218, 219–220,

243, 245

international efforts, 222–223,

224

management tools, 35, 101,

207, 213–214

modeling, 224

monitoring, 165, 214, 217,

221, 224

permits, 101, 207, 210, 211,

212, 221

H 27
H 28 A N OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21S T CENTURY

pharmaceuticals and antibiotics, 209

research needs, 381

thermal, 210

watershed approaches, 64,

151, 156, 206, 213, 214, 219,

222

water quality (see also debris;

invasive species; national

monitoring network; vessel

pollution; water pollution)

coastal areas, 233, 204–205,

349–350

development and, 42, 151,

215, 216–217

education needs, 138

funding, 211–212

and human health, [23]

infrastructure improvement,

207, 211–212, 219–220

inventory of coastal waters,

204–205

monitoring, 177, 228, 233,

349–350

regional initiatives, 87, 88, 89,

156

standard setting, 213, 217

threats to, 38, 40, 183

water conservation and, 209

water supply, 38, 87, 88, 89

projects, 155, 163, 175, 182

watersheds (see also specific watersheds)

airsheds corresponding to,

223

coastal management

approach, 150, 154, 157,

159–160, 169

collaborative approaches, 222

defined, 154

existing management initiatives, 86–87, 88, 157, 158,

159, 184, 214

funding, 157, 159

guiding principles for management, 63

impervious areas in, 151, 215

information needs and

sources, 159–160

mapping, 34

monitoring, 230

upland, 172

USACE boundaries, 93, 94

water pollution control, 64,

151, 156, 172, 177, 206, 213,

214, 219, 222

wave or tidal energy technology,

366–367

Wayland, Robert, III, 220

weather (see also global climate

change)

economic and environmental

impacts, 42

observing and forecasting,

228, 293, 394, 404

West, Mary Beth, 445

wetlands, 151, 155

policy changes, 178

compensatory mitigation, 178

conservation and restoration,

171, 178–179, 181, 183, 187,

214, 369gol

constructed, 220

defined, 178

inventory, 178

legislation, 178–179

losses, 40–41, 42, 165, 170,

174, 178, 180

National Wetlands Inventory

Program, 178

permitting program, 65, 171,

178–179

sediments and, 180, 181, 183,

187

value and functions of, 178

whales and whaling, 264, 282,

298–299, 306–307, 309, 313,

316, 317

White, Robert, 55

White Water to Blue Water initiative, 223, 455

wind power, 99, 100

Withee, Gregory, 425

Wiygul, Robert, 361

WMO (see World Meteorological

Organization)

World Summit on Sustainable

Development, 79, 222–223

World Trade Organization, 303,

451

workforce (see also jobs; employment)

data management, 433–434

education of, 69, 123,

136–142

marine transportation system,

196

minority representation, 141,

142

needs assessment, 139

recruitment of students for,

137–138

professional development and

continuing education, 138

WTO (see World Trade

Organization)

zebra mussels, 41, 256, 259 (see

also invasive species)

zoos, 125, 143, 151