b'Marine Law and Policy for Scientists and Managers\n\n\x0c\x0cMarine Law and Policy for Scientists and\nManagers\nHOLLY V. CAMPBELL\n\nOREGON STATE UNIVERSITY\nCORVALLIS, OR\n\n\x0cMarine Law and Policy for Scientists and Managers by Holly V. Campbell is licensed under a Creative Commons\nAttribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.\n\nPublication and ongoing maintenance of this textbook is possible due to grant support from Oregon State\nUniversity Ecampus.\nSuggest a correction (bit.ly/33cz3Q1)\nPrivacy (open.oregonstate.education/privacy)\nThis book was produced with Pressbooks (https://pressbooks.com) and rendered with Prince.\n\n\x0cContents\n\nTable of Contents\n\nvii\n\nAcknowledgements\n\nviii\n\nPreface\nUnit 1 - Our Public Oceans\n\nix\n1\n\nUnit 2 - Management of Protected Marine Species\n\n10\n\nUnit 3 - Managing Through Specially Designated Areas\n\n18\n\nUnit 4 - Our Fisheries\n\n26\n\nUnit 5 - Regulating Ocean Impacts\n\n41\n\nUnit 6 - Introduction to International Fisheries Management\n\n50\n\nUnit 7 - Current Problems in American Ocean Management: Illegal, Unreported, and\n\n56\n\nUnregulated (IUU) Fishing\nUnit 8 - U.S. Management of Offshore Energy\n\n64\n\nUnit 9 - Coastal Management in the United States\n\n72\n\nUnit 10 - Restoring Marine Environments: The Roles of Innovative Regulatory, Planning and\n\n80\n\nHuman Dimensions Tools\nUnit 11 \xe2\x80\x93 The Future of Ocean Management\n\n85\n\nAppendix of Unit Resources\n\n89\n\nCreative Commons License\n\n122\n\nRecommended Citations\n\n123\n\nVersioning\n\n125\n\n\x0c\x0cTable of Contents\nAcknowledgements\nPreface\nIntroduction\nUnit 1 Our Public Oceans\nUnit 2 Management of Protected Marine Species\nUnit 3 Managing Through Specially Designated Areas\nUnit 4 Our Fisheries\nUnit 5 Regulating Ocean Impacts\nUnit 6 Introduction to International Fisheries Management\nUnit 7 Current Problems in Ocean Management: Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing (IUU\nFishing)\nUnit 8 U.S. Management of Offshore Energy\nUnit 9 Coastal Management in the United States\nUnit 10 Restoring Marine Environments: The Roles of Innovative Regulatory, Planning and Human\nDimensions Tools\nUnit 11 The Future of Ocean Management\nAPPENDIX OF UNIT RESOURCES\n\nTable of Contents | vii\n\n\x0cAcknowledgements\nThe author wishes to express heartfelt thanks to Oregon State University Extended Campus, and\nparticularly to Ms. Dianna Fisher, Director of Open Oregon State, and her staff; to Professor Denise Lach\nand Ms. Sherry Faller-Crowson of the School of Public Policy, and Professor Selina Heppell and Ms. Ann Leen\nof the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife for their support and for the opportunity to provide this open\neducational resource for non-lawyers and future marine management professionals. Finally, thanks to my\nocean law colleagues worldwide, students present and former, and my generous mentor Professor Richard\nHildreth, Frank E. Nash Professor and Director of the Ocean and Coastal Program, University of Oregon\nSchool of Law, a distinguished authority on ocean law for whose encouragement the author is grateful.\n\nviii | Acknowledgements\n\n\x0cPreface\nThe author approaches marine law based on a lifelong appreciation of planetary systems and the importance\nof ocean science, effective marine resource management, and from the perspectives of student, teacher,\nresearch consultant, and scholar of ocean law and policy.\nMarine law is a vast and diverse field of evolving statutes, regulations, cases, common law precedent and\npractice that takes several years (and many volumes) to master. There are excellent, exhaustive treatises on\nthe topic that serve as a resource for legal professionals who wish to become expert in the field.\nThis open educational resource is designed for use by undergraduate and graduate ocean science, natural\nresource, fisheries and wildlife, and environmental policy students enrolled in a ten-week academic quarter.\nThe purpose of this project is to provide students and non-law professionals with a freely accessible, clearly\nwritten guide to support engaging and effective learning. As such, the book serves as a gateway and an\ninvitation to become a well informed, committed and involved ocean citizen as well as to explore the field\nbeyond our course study.\n\nPreface | ix\n\n\x0c\x0cUnit 1 - Our Public Oceans\nContents\nIntroduction\nThe Public Trust Doctrine\nBoundaries: Coastal Waters, the Territorial Sea, and the Contiguous Zone\nThe Exclusive Economic Zone or EEZ\nThe Roles of Federal and State Government in American Ocean Management\nA Closer Look at Offshore Uses and Players\n\nIntroduction\nThe oceans cover some three-quarters of the Earth. The United States (U.S.) alone governs an ocean\narea\xe2\x80\x94consisting of both water and land below the surface\xe2\x80\x93over three million square miles, more extensive\nthan the fifty states\xe2\x80\x99 land area. U.S. management spans fisheries, wildlife, energy and minerals,\ntelecommunications, shipping and transportation, weather prediction, military training and national\nsecurity on behalf of the people of the U.S., who are the ocean\xe2\x80\x99s owners. Even single-sector management,\nsuch as fisheries, is complex and involves many different laws and government players that have the\nchallenging goal of balancing conservation with resource harvest or extraction. Many different agencies\nand personnel are involved in ocean law and policy; many former students are now professionals within\nthis fascinating management mosaic. Let\xe2\x80\x99s get started on our quest to develop a foundation for ocean law\nknowledge by beginning to understand how things fit together.\nCollectively, the oceans are estimated by the United Nations to represent assets equivalent to the seventh\nlargest economy in the world. Within a single nation, such as the United States, the coasts and oceans\nrepresent a vast and diverse wealth in terms of living and nonliving resources, jobs, recreation and cultural\namenities. The ocean economy is complex and difficult to measure. According to the US Ocean\nCommission\xe2\x80\x99s 2004 Final Report, values that are critical but evade measure include intangibles such as\n\xe2\x80\x9cclean water, safe seafood, healthy habitats, and desirable living and recreational environments,\xe2\x80\x9d a lack of\ninformation the Report says have prevented full appreciation by Americans of the economic importance of\noceans and coasts. The Report also notes, for comparison, that while the US spends $100 million annually\non economic research on agriculture, ocean-related employment (two million jobs, $117 billion) is 1.5 times\nthan agricultural employment (2000) and the economic output of the ocean economy in 2000 was 2.5 times\nlarger than that of agriculture.\n\nUnit 1 - Our Public Oceans | 1\n\n\x0cFigure 1.1 The national Value of the oceans, Final Report of the US\nCommission on Ocean Policy 2004\n\nA major feature of the ocean economy pertinent to ocean law study is that the nations\xe2\x80\x99 oceans are owned by\nits citizens.\nThe Public Trust Doctrine\nOne of the most interesting and unique management aspects of the oceans is that they are ours and\ncannot be privately owned. This has several important implications for how we take care of, use, and impact\nocean ecosystems and marine resources. For public ownership of the oceans, we have an ancient legal\ndoctrine to thank: the Public Trust Doctrine. The Public Trust Doctrine began as part of the Institutes\nof Justinian, a Byzantine Roman emperor who codified (made into law) the concept in the year 533. The\nInstitutes had the force of law, and in fact served as the learning materials for first year law students for\nhundreds of years! Justinian\xe2\x80\x99s laws included, for our purposes, that no one could own the air, shoreline\n(seaward of the high water mark), the sea bed, oceans waters, running rivers or the resources of animals\ntherein. The sovereign holds these resources in trust for the people of the nation.\n\n2 | Unit 1 - Our Public Oceans\n\n\x0cFigure 1.2: Emperor Justinian I\n\nThis Public Trust carries affirmative legal duties, the same as any form of modern trust, as in a family trust\nmanaged by a financial institution. The Public Trustee (the sovereign government) has the duty to conserve\nand protect the contents of the Trust: the duty not to commit waste of the Trust\xe2\x80\x99s resources, and so forth.\nThe Public Trust Doctrine eventually became part of English common law, the basis for our own case law\nin the United States. Far from remaining a static or stale ancient doctrine, the conceptual framework of the\nPublic Trust continues to evolve. The most important thing you need to remember for our explorations in\nthis course is that the public maintains a powerful and defensible legal interest in coastal waters (where the\nsovereign trustee is the coastal state government), the oceans, their ecosystems and their resources (living\nand nonliving). For example, if a coastal state leases a parcel of its seabed for the purpose of anchoring a\ndevice to harvest ocean energy such as from wind or waves, on behalf of its citizens the state must collect\na fair rent through a lease. Similarly, for activities in federal waters petroleum companies must, under law,\nprovide a \xe2\x80\x9cfair return in value\xe2\x80\x9d of resources extracted from the outer continental shelf to the American\npeople via the United States Treasury, because these are public resources that government manages on the\npublic\xe2\x80\x99s behalf.\nBoundaries: Coastal Waters, the Territorial Sea, and the Contiguous Zone\nIn the United States, there are 35 coastal states \xe2\x80\x94 we include the states bordering the Great Lakes. In\nmost cases, each coastal state manages its waters out to three nautical miles off shore (a nautical mile is\nthe equivalent of 1.508 geographic miles). The three-mile zone is commonly understood to derive from the\npractical necessity of defending the coastline\xe2\x80\x94three miles is the distance a cannon could be effectively fired\nin the nation\xe2\x80\x99s colonial period.\nThere are narrow exceptions (Florida\xe2\x80\x99s Gulf coast and Texas have nine-mile limits, as does Puerto Rico)\ndue to particular historical foundations. If you are interested in geographical boundaries and would like to\nlearn more, take a look at the U.S. Ocean Commission\xe2\x80\x99s report: \xe2\x80\x9cAn Ocean Blueprint for the 21st-Century,\nPrimer on Ocean Jurisdictions: Drawing Lines in the Water.\xe2\x80\x9d\nEach state governs the resources within its state waters in accordance with the Coastal Zone\nUnit 1 - Our Public Oceans | 3\n\n\x0cManagement Act (CZMA) of 1972 (16 United States Code [abbreviated USC] Sections [marked \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 1451-1464,\nChapter 33).\nThe next boundaries to be aware of are the US Territorial Sea, and the adjacent Contiguous Zone\n(the boundary is 24 miles off shore). Be aware that the term territorial sea can be confusing because\nthe states can use the term to describe coastal state waters (the three-mile zone). However, the US\nTerritorial Sea extends to 12 nautical miles and pre-dates the Truman Proclamation (Proclamation 2667,\nsee http://cclme.org/viewcontents/?f=1-USCFR-truman.txt (1945) asserting US jurisdiction beyond the\n(previous) twelve-mile limit to the United States\xe2\x80\x99 adjacent continental shelf.\n\nFigure 1.3: This illustration, courtesy of the US Coast Guard, is helpful to aid boundary\nrecognition.\n\nThe Exclusive Economic Zone or EEZ\nPresident Ronald Reagan established the United States\xe2\x80\x99 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ, 200 nautical miles\noff shore) by Proclamation 5030 following international law and custom (established by the United Nations\nConvention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS) in 1982. The 200-mile zone encompasses United States national\nwaters.\nTo view Proclamation 5030, see here. For further background on the EEZ, browse here.\nIt is staggering to realize the management and law enforcement implications of the US\xe2\x80\x99 EEZ\xe2\x80\x99s vast area,\nwhich includes not only the range within 200 miles of our continental coastline but also the 200-mile zone\n4 | Unit 1 - Our Public Oceans\n\n\x0csurrounding Hawai\xe2\x80\x99i and United States Territories (Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Wake Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands, Midway Islands, Johnston Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Kingman Reef, Jarvis Island, American\nSamoa, Navassa Island, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands). The coastline of the US is 13000 miles long;\nthe area within the US\xe2\x80\x99 EEZ is roughly 3.4 million square nautical miles. Within this area lay vast living and\nnonliving resources including fisheries, wildlife, seabed minerals, and energy potential (including wind and\nwave energy).\n\nFigure 1.4 Illustration depicting the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States. From the\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service.\n\nUnder international law, each nation has affirmative mandatory legal duties, beginning with conservation,\nin the seabed and water column within its EEZ. What rights does the Exclusive Economic Zone impart\nto the United States? There are three major categories of rights that nations possess in their EEZs.\nThese sovereign rights include exploration/exploitation (but not over-exploitation) of living and nonliving\nresources, jurisdiction for law enforcement (domestic and international), and other rights defined by\ninternational law. Regulatory rights include marine scientific research, and prevention of pollution and\ndumping. Finally, within their EEZs nations have the right to create artificial islands or other structures with\n500-meter safety zones. Unit 6 will discuss responsibilities and rights embodied in UNCLOS as it pertains\nto international fisheries management within nations\xe2\x80\x99 EEZs.\nThe open ocean beyond each nation\xe2\x80\x99s EEZ is known as the high seas, or international waters.\nHistorically, oceans all over the world were freely open to navigation and fishing for all, under a doctrine\ncalled Mare Liberum (Latin for \xe2\x80\x9cFreedom of the Seas\xe2\x80\x9d). This concept appears in a book published in 1609 by\nDutch jurist Hugo Grotius. Grotius\xe2\x80\x99 claim was, in part, made in order to justify Dutch exploration of the East\nIndies.\nToday, key points to keep in mind relevant to freedom of navigation, the Territorial Sea, and the EEZ\ninclude: 1) a federal navigation servitude derived from the commerce clause within the United States\nUnit 1 - Our Public Oceans | 5\n\n\x0cConstitution, the customary right of innocent passage, and 2) a nation\xe2\x80\x99s right to enforce its laws and protect\nits economic interests. Navigation is so critical to the public interest, that the federal government can\norder structures that impede navigation removed without compensation under the navigation servitude,\nthe authority governing navigation in all navigable waters. States may also claim state navigation servitudes\nin state waters under their police power. While state servitudes vary slightly, the main idea is that no\ncompensation is due landowners if structures were removed for a public purpose, including access to\nriparian areas or for navigation. State navigation servitudes are subject to the supremacy of the federal\nservitude.\nFreedom of navigation is still a customary right, but has been necessarily curtailed by modern\ninternational law. Prior to the US\xe2\x80\x99 establishment of a 200-mile EEZ, it was fairly common to see fishing fleets\nfrom other nations from shore with the naked eye. Civilian (not military) foreign vessels may travel (a right\nknown as innocent passage) through the 12-mile Territorial Sea or even the EEZ if they obey applicable laws\nand are not interfering with the sovereign nation\xe2\x80\x99s economic rights. The EEZ prioritizes fishing, as all other\neconomic activities, to US vessels.\nBeyond the nation\xe2\x80\x99s 200-mile EEZ lay the high seas. The high seas are interesting as a topic for research\nand discussion in terms of international law, exploration, scientific research, conservation, piracy (including\nillegal, undocumented, and unregulated, IUU fishing) and law enforcement. A good place to learn more\nabout the high seas is by viewing a TED talk by expert Kristina Gjerde. The United States Coast Guard\nis tasked with law enforcement in US waters and on the high seas. For a detailed summary of the topic\ngenerally, see the paper by Commander Jeffrey Randall, USCG, Ready for Future? The US Coast Guard and\n21st Century Law Enforcement on the High Seas at http://brook.gs/2bFmSiB. For more information on\nfisheries law enforcement on the high seas, take a look at this site http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/\nfocus/2004/47127/article_47140en.html hosted by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization\n(FAO).\nThe Roles of Federal and State Government in American Ocean Management\nCoastal states maintain jurisdiction in their coastal waters and resources, subject to preemption by the\nfederal government in constitutionally reserved jurisdictional areas that historically include navigation (via\nthe navigation servitude), energy, commerce, international treaties, military matters and national security.\nState police powers extend to persons, geographic areas, and resources within their boundaries, which\ninclude coastal waters.\nUnder the Coastal Zone Management Act\xe2\x80\x99s consistency provisions, activities offshore that require a\nfederal permit (referred to as federally permitted activities) must be consistent with the adjacent state\xe2\x80\x99s\ncoastal management plan. States may even assert concurrent jurisdiction in activities or resources beyond\ntheir own coastal waters (including federally permitted activities in adjacent states\xe2\x80\x99 waters) if they can show\nthe activities will foreseeably impact their own waters, resources or citizens. An example of when a state\nmight assert jurisdiction is for the siting of an offshore energy facility adjacent to the state but outside the\nthree nautical mile zone.\nWith regard to fisheries management, state programs maintain licensing for sport and commercial\nfisheries within their waters and also regulate mariculture (fish farming) within their waters. If the federal\nregional fisheries management agency does not have a management plan for certain fish species, states may\neven regulate their licensed vessels in the relevant fishery outside of the three-mile line.\nState fish and wildlife agencies police state coastal waters to enforce fisheries laws. In the case of species\n\n6 | Unit 1 - Our Public Oceans\n\n\x0cthat are also federally managed, such as endangered species and marine mammals, law enforcement is a\njoint effort, led by federal enforcement officials.\nAs we will see in the unit on fisheries management, states also participate in the eight national regional\nmanagement councils by having a seat at their regional decision-making table. Particularly more recently,\ncoastal states are leading in management innovations in fisheries management, ecosystem-based\nmanagement, and the establishment of marine protected areas, as well as coastal zone management and\nconservation, convening ocean science boards and other advances.\nIn state waters, coastal state and federal managers also collaborate with regard to species protected under\nfederal law, particularly under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act.\nFinally, states work together with federal authorities on matters involving coastal water quality\nmanagement: assessing pollutants, prioritizing water quality issues, reporting, and enforcing standards\nunder the Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 USC \xc2\xa71251 et seq.). States may prohibit the dumping of ballast water\ncontaining invasive species in their waters, or prohibit ships from dumping sewage under Section 402 of\nthe CWA regulating discharges from discrete sources or pipes (the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination\nSystem, NPDES, 33 USC \xc2\xa71342) as well as the Rivers and Harbors Act. Other examples of cooperative state\nand federal management will be discussed.\nA Closer Look at Offshore Uses and Players\nThe view from any beach in the United States (including those of the five Great Lakes: Lakes Eerie, Huron,\nMichigan, Ontario, and Superior included in NOAA\xe2\x80\x99s coastal management programs) seems uncluttered and\nunencumbered. Ocean law study involves becoming aware of the many activities, uses, laws and regulations,\nand management entities involved offshore.\nThe governments involved range from coastal counties (and even cities in certain instances), state\nagencies, and federal agencies. Among them, they share various significant responsibilities of governing\nliving and nonliving resources from the shore, within the state coastal zone, and federal waters beyond,\nrepresenting public and private access, coastal development, forestry, fishing, conservation, recreation,\npublic health, mineral resources such as sand and gravel, and protecting coastal communities from coastal\nhazards. The following diagram, from the Oregon Territorial Sea Plan, provides a glimpse into how these\nresponsibilities are organized and distributed within a specific coastal state context as an example.\n\nUnit 1 - Our Public Oceans | 7\n\n\x0cFigure 1.5 Illustration of the Range of Agency Programs and Authorities in State Territorial Sea and Ocean Shore: Oregon,\nfrom State of Oregon Territorial Sea Plan\n\nKey to the Acronyms in Figure 1.5\nLeft to Right in the Illustration:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nODLCD: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nUSEPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nUSCG: United States Coast Guard, also in charge of drug interdiction\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nODOGMI: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nNMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service (of NOAA)\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nUSFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service (within the US United States Department of the\nInterior, or DOI)\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nODFW: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nODSL: Oregon Department of State Lands\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nUSFAA: United States Federal Aviation Administration\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nODEQ: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nOSMB: Oregon State Marine Board\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nOPRD: Oregon Parks and Recreation Department\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nUSFS: United States Forest Service (within the US Department of Agriculture or USDA)\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nUSCOE: United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, the Corps; within the Army)\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nOHD: Oregon Health Department\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nODOA: Oregon Department of Agriculture\n\n8 | Unit 1 - Our Public Oceans\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nUSBLM: United States Bureau of Land Management (within the United States Department of the\nInterior, or DOI)\n\nAn appendix of Resources at the end of the book contains additional details about these agencies (see\nresources for unit one) as well as other information pertinent to ocean law.\n\nUnit 2 will discuss the regulation and management of specific species under the Endangered Species Act\nand Marine Mammal Protection Act.\n\nUnit 1 Study Questions\n1.\n\nWhat are some contemporary implications of public ownership of the oceans and their resources?\n\n2.\n\nWhy do you think we maintain the Public Trust Doctrine? What is the Trust property being protected?\nWho is the Trustee in state waters? Who is the Trustee in federal waters?\n\n3.\n\nWho are the Trust beneficiaries?\n\n4.\n\nWhat might be some effects if areas of the ocean were to be opened to privatization?\n\n5.\n\nCan you think of analogies to how the ocean is managed from land management?\n\n6.\n\nWhen President Reagan issued Executive Order 5030, what did the United States gain? What are some\nof the implications for law enforcement and resource management of an area that is larger than the land\narea of the fifty states? What are the significant differences between land and ocean management?\n\nUnit One Appendix\n\nUnit 1 - Our Public Oceans | 9\n\n\x0cUnit 2 - Management of Protected Marine\nSpecies\nContents\nIntroduction\nThe Endangered Species Act of 19 (ESA)\nThe Marine Mammal Protection Act of 19 (MMPA)\n\nIntroduction\nIn 2018, 2300 species are listed as threatened or endangered (1625 domestic, and 675 foreign) under the\nEndangered Species Act (ESA) according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)\nFisheries (also called the National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS).\nTwo federal agencies share the administration of the ESA and the Marine Mammal Protection Act\n(MMPA). The Secretary of the Interior, through the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), administers\nthe list of threatened and endangered species under ESA and also oversees CITES (the Convention on\nInternational Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). The USFWS manages land and\nfreshwater species as well as eight marine mammal species. The Secretary of Commerce, through (NOAA/\nNMFS) is in charge of determining listing or delisting for marine species and anadromous fish (species\nthat go back and forth between fresh and salt waters during their life cycles; examples are steelhead and\nsalmon). NMFS currently has jurisdiction over 161 threatened or endangered marine species (including 65\nforeign species).\nWith regard to both the ESA and the MMPA, there is federal preemption. The term means that, under\nthe Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution states are subject to and must obey federal law; in\norder to prevent conflict with state agencies or conflicting laws, the requirements of ESA and the MMPA are\nparamount, their policies rule management or enforcement questions pertaining to endangered and marine\nmammal species. Importantly, however, the ESA (in \xc2\xa76(f)) encourages state law to be more protective; the\nESA also contains provisions for cooperation with state partners. Also, in cases where the MMPA is more\nrestrictive than the ESA, the MMPA\xe2\x80\x99s protections take precedence.\nThe Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 USC \xc2\xa7 1531 et seq.\nIn the Endangered Species Act opening statutory section,\n(a) Findings The Congress finds and declares that\xe2\x80\x94\n(1) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct\nas a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern with\nconservation;\n10 | Unit 2 - Management of Protected Marine Species\n\n\x0c(2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in\ndanger of or threatened with extinction;\n(3) these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical,\nrecreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people; \xe2\x80\xa6 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/\nuscode/text/16/1531)\nTwo agencies administer the ESA: the US Fish and Wildlife Service under the Secretary of Interior (USFWS,\nspecies of birds, land animals, and freshwater animals, polar bears, walrus, manatee, sea otter, and sea\nturtles when on land) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under the Secretary of\nCommerce (NOAA, anadramous and marine species including fisheries, marine turtles when they are in the\nocean).\nUnder the Act, \xe2\x80\x9cthreatened\xe2\x80\x9d means a species is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.\n\xe2\x80\x9cEndangered\xe2\x80\x9d means the species is at risk of extinction throughout all of its range, or a significant portion\nof its range (SPR), which the Act does not define. To fill the gap, in 2014 NMFS and USFWS issued a policy\nguidance, after public notice and comment, to provide more precise meaning to SPR.\n\xe2\x80\x9cRange,\xe2\x80\x9d under the guidance refers to the geographical area where the species is found at the time of\nlisting. SPR, which only comes into play in certain situations, means that there is an area that contributes\nso substantially to the species\xe2\x80\x99 overall viability that\n\xe2\x80\x9cwithout the individuals in it, the species as a whole would be in danger of extinction (meriting an\nendangered status), or likely to become so in the foreseeable future (meriting a threatened status)\n(NOAA Fisheries).\nIn other words, if a species is threatened or endangered wherever it occurs, it will be listed as such (no\nneed for the SPR guidance). The purpose of the new policy, while the agencies expect it to be applied\ninfrequently, is to afford species ESA protection before \xe2\x80\x9clarge-scale declines or threats occur throughout\nthe species\xe2\x80\x99 entire range.\xe2\x80\x9d (June 27, 2014 NOAA/USFWS Policy Guidance on SPR). The SPR guidance has\nimportant implications for Distinct Population Segments (DPS).\nKey provisions of the ESA include Sections 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.\nPertinent ESA Sections, adapted from NOAA Fisheries, which contains a concise description of the\nprocedural process for listing.\nUnder ESA Section 4, listing decisions must be based solely on any one of five factors and the best scientific\nand commercial information available.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The species\xe2\x80\x99 habitat or range is at risk of present or threatened destruction, modification, or\ncurtailment.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The species is over-utilized for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The species is threatened or endangered due to disease or predation.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The species\xe2\x80\x99 continued existence is affected by other natural or human-caused factors.\nESA Section 4 covers the process and deadlines for the listing of threatened and endangered species (16\nUSC \xc2\xa71533; refer to the procedural flow graphic in the appendix of Resources for Unit 2).Section 4 of the\nESA requires the identification of habitat when the species is listed (unless such habitat is undetermined,\nUnit 2 - Management of Protected Marine Species | 11\n\n\x0cin which case critical habitat must be identified within one year) critical to the species\xe2\x80\x99 recovery, thus\nhelping focus conservation activities and funding. There are rare exceptions. If the cognizant Secretary\nconcludes that factors, including national security or economic cost of critical habitat designation are\ngreater than the benefit to the species in question, areas may be excluded or simply not designated.\nThe exception applies if even identifying critical habitat could worsen a threat to the species (16 USC \xc2\xa7\n1533(b)(2); https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/1533) Recovery plans, described in 16 USC 1533(f),\nmust incorporate three factors: site-specific management actions to achieve the species\xe2\x80\x99 conservation\nand survival, objective and measurable criteria that, once met, would allow the species to be delisted, and\ntime and cost estimates to implement the necessary measures.In conjunction with Section 7\xe2\x80\x99s consultation\nbetween agencies, critical habitat designation also helps ensure, overall, that federal agencies are required\nto broadly consider the effects of their actions, avoiding actions that \xe2\x80\x9care likely to destroy or adversely\nmodify critical habitat.\xe2\x80\x9d Examples of such activities Section 4 seeks to prevent include \xe2\x80\x9cwater management,\nflood control, regulation of resource extraction and other industries\xe2\x80\x9d ensuring that federally permitted\nactivities do not inadvertently conflict with habitat goals (February 11, 2016 Rule).ESA Section 7(a)(2)\ncontains consultation provisions. Consultation, begun as early as possible in the initial phases of a federally\npermitted activity (for example, construction of a dam) is intended to allow the involved agencies and nonfederal project proponent more thorough consideration of resource conservation needs. This proactive\napproach can decrease the necessity for major project modifications later in the process. If a listed species\nis present, and that species or a designated critical habitat, will not likely be adversely affected by the\nactivity then the consultation concludes. The consultation statutory time limit is 90 days; regulations\nprovide for an extra 45 days for USFWS to prepare a biological opinion.The biological opinion contains an\nanalysis of whether the activity will likely have an adverse effect on the listed species or critical habitat. If\nadverse effects are likely, the opinion must further include any alternatives that are reasonable and prudent\nsufficient to allow the project to advance.If the proposed project could result in an \xe2\x80\x9cincidental take\xe2\x80\x9d of\nthe listed species but not to the extent of jeopardizing the species\xe2\x80\x99 existence, the USFWS must include\na statement noting that in the opinion effectively authorizing an incidental take. However, according to\nUSFWS, the agency may include an incidental take statement in either a jeopardy or non-jeopardy opinion.\nIn short, the legally imposed but collaborative process of Section 7 ESA consultation prevents foreseeable\nadverse impacts by promoting project design modifications to avoid negative effects. (For more information,\nsee https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/consultations.pdf)\n\nFigure 2.1: \xc2\xa9 flickr.com / Stuart Hamilton / 2003\n\n12 | Unit 2 - Management of Protected Marine Species\n\n\x0cAlong with Section 4, Section 10 of the ESA is perhaps the most controversial of the statute\xe2\x80\x99s provisions\nand governs how the federal government reviews and issues permits for activities that could in a \xe2\x80\x9ctaking\xe2\x80\x9d\nof a threatened or endangered species.The law defines a taking (in Section 3, Definitions, at 16 USC \xc2\xa7 1532\n(19)):The term \xe2\x80\x98take\xe2\x80\x99 means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to\nattempt to engage in any such conduct.\nThe regulations define harm (50 CFR 17.3) as \xe2\x80\x98an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an\nact may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife\nby significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.\xe2\x80\x99In the\ncourse of ordinary activities, avoiding harm to wildlife can be challenging. On land, Section 10 is frequently\nseen in development situations where listed species are present. Section 10 is available to landowners,\nstates, Tribes, counties, and companies to obtain permits for \xe2\x80\x9cincidental\xe2\x80\x9d takes, that is, takes that could\noccur in the ordinary course of otherwise legal activities. With regard to Section 10 permits in conjunction\nwith development, landowners must have an approved habitat conservation plan (HCP) that includes the\nevaluation of likely impacts on the listed species, steps to avoid the impact (or to minimize or mitigate the\nimpact) and a statement of funding set aside to ensure the steps are followed.In the ocean, as on land,\ninstances requiring Section 10 permits to take a listed species require the consideration of alternatives that\nwould result in lower impacts. In 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided a case dealing with the\nESA and similar provisions within the Marine Mammal Protection Act in the context of cetaceans and US\nNavy sonar during training missions. The case (Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. vs. Pritzker, 828 F.3d\n1125, Ninth Cir. July 15, 2016) eloquently presents the difficulty of the analyses of harm and balancing that the\nESA requires, and the exacting process that the ESA and MMPA require agencies to conduct. The Pritzker\ncase will be discussed at the end of the unit.The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 USC Ch. 31)The\nMMPA focuses on identification of species of concern and the promotion of ecosystem protection, research,\nand international cooperation.\n\nFigure 2.2: \xc2\xa9 NOAA photo library\n\nIn the Marine Mammal Protection Act opening statutory section,Sec. 2 The Congress finds and declares\nthat\xe2\x80\x94(1) certain species and population stocks of marine mammals are, or may be, in danger of extinction\nor depletion as a result of man\xe2\x80\x99s activities;\nUnit 2 - Management of Protected Marine Species | 13\n\n\x0c(2) such species and population stocks should not be permitted to diminish beyond the point at which\nthey cease to be a significant functioning element in the ecosystem of which they are a part, and \xe2\x80\xa6they\nshould not be permitted to diminish below their optimum sustainable population. Further measures should\nbe immediately taken to replenish any species or population stock which has already diminished below\nthat population. In particular, efforts should be made to protect essential habitats, including the rookeries,\nmating grounds, and areas of similar significance for each species of marine mammal from the adverse effect\nof man\xe2\x80\x99s actions\xe2\x80\xa6.(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/1361)\nMarine mammal management is consolidated under federal agency management. The MMPA works in\nconcert with the ESA. The prohibition on \xe2\x80\x9ctaking\xe2\x80\x9d in the MMPA transfers the burden of proof from agency\nmanagers on the conservation side of the equation to the party requesting a permit for incidental take,\nwho must demonstrate that the activity it plans to undertake will not cause harm to the species.Important\ndefinitions include the following. MMPA (16 usc \xc2\xa7 1362(13)) defines take as:\xe2\x80\x9cto harass, hunt, capture, or kill,\nor attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.\xe2\x80\x9d The associated enforcement regulations\nadd detail to the statutory definition (see 50 CFR \xc2\xa7 18.3).\n\nInterestingly, the Act prohibits feeding marine\n\nmammals in the wild an addition that NMFS added in 1991 to curb this practice among tour boat companies.\nThe original Act and regulations did not define harass, which in 1994 clarified that harassment includes\nsection (18)(A):\xe2\x80\xa6any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which\xe2\x80\x94\n(i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock\nin the wild; or\n(ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption\nof behavior patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or\nsheltering.\n16 USC \xc2\xa7 1362(18)(A).Military training has special relevance to marine mammal protection. The MMPA\ndedicates special harassment language with regard to this important activity in section (18)(B).In the case\nof military readiness activity\xe2\x80\xa6.or a scientific research activity conducted by or on behalf of the Federal\nGovernment\xe2\x80\xa6the term \xe2\x80\x98harassment\xe2\x80\x99 means\xe2\x80\x94\n(i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock\nin the wild; or\n(ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption\nof behavior patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or\nsheltering to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered. [emphasis added]\nIncidental (unintended) take occurring during commercial fishing is covered by special permits from the\nMarine Mammal Authorization Program. Nonfishing activities also require permits. Examples include US\nmilitary training, offshore energy development (including alternative energies), construction projects, and\nscientific research. Special permits are provided for Alaskan natives (who participate in co-management)\nfor taking for purposes of traditional subsistence, clothing, and so forth. Just as with the nation\xe2\x80\x99s fisheries,\nNOAA Fisheries conducts stock assessments for marine mammals, provides additional management details\n(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/laws-policies#marine-mammal-protection-act).The US military is\nnot required to obtain permits for taking during actual combat or times of war. Preparing for real-life\nengagements at sea requires training expeditions; for the US Navy, submarine use of sonar is part of that\ntraining.Since marine mammals communicate across vast distances, military sonar has the potential to\ninterfere with communication as well as to cause harm to these animals\xe2\x80\x99 hearing (specifically at levels at, or\nhigher than 180 decibels (dB) referred to as Level A harassment, 16 USC \xc2\xa7 1362(18)(B), (C); however exposure\n14 | Unit 2 - Management of Protected Marine Species\n\n\x0cto levels less than 180 dB (16 USC \xc2\xa7 1362(18)(B), (D) \xe2\x80\x98can cause short-term disruption or abandonment of\nnatural behavior patterns\xe2\x80\x99 (Pritzker 2016).These behavioral disruptions can cause affected marine mammals\nto stop communicating\xe2\x80\xa6,to flee or avoid an ensonified area, to cease foraging\xe2\x80\xa6, to separate from their\ncalves, and to interrupt mating. LFA sonar can also cause heightened stress responses from marine\nmammals. Such behavioral disruptions can force marine mammals to make trade-offs like delaying\nmigration,\xe2\x80\xa6reproduction, reducing growth, or migrating with reduced energy reserves. (Pritzker 2016)\nIn 2016, the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the steps that NOAA Fisheries must\nfollow before granting an incidental take permit under the MMPA for military readiness training.The case is\ninstructive (and worth reading, see Unit 2 Resources) because it demonstrates the law\xe2\x80\x99s rigorous standards\nin the context of an important and necessary activity in pursuit of national security.(Natural Resources\nDefense Council, Inc. vs. Pritzker, 828 F.3d 1125, Ninth Cir. July 15, 2016) Brief SynopsisIn 2012, the National\nMarine Fisheries Service (NMFS or NOAA Fisheries) approved a Final Rule (77 Fed. Reg. 50290, Aug. 20,\n2012) specifically dealing with incidental take permits in conjunction with peacetime uses of Low Frequency\nActive (LFA) sonar for five years (as 16 USC \xc2\xa7 1371(a)(5)(A)(i) provides).Claiming that the 2012 Rule did\nnot adequately require the \xe2\x80\x9cleast practicable adverse impact (16 USC \xc2\xa7 1371(a)(5)(A)(i)(II)(aa))\xe2\x80\x9d on marine\nmammals, the plaintiffs sued to enforce this statutory mandate within MMPA. The lower court (United\nStates District Court for Northern California) granted summary judgment to the agency. Upon review,\nthe Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit noted the following\nin its holding: The 2012 Rule failed to contain means for effecting the least practicable adverse impact\non marine mammals, stocks, and habitats, as required by law. Second, the Ninth Circuit found that the\nagency mistakenly conflated the two necessary standards (least practicable adverse impact, and negligible\nimpact (16 USC \xc2\xa7 1371(a)(5)(A)(i)(I)) and that, before authorizing any incidental take, both standards must\nbe independently analyzed.Under the regulation implementing MMPA, negligible impact is defined as an\nimpact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably\nlikely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival\n(50 CFR \xc2\xa7 216.103). If the agency finds that a proposed activity will have negligible impact, it still must\nseparately consider mitigation measures to reduce effects of the activity to the least practicable adverse\nimpact (15 USC \xc2\xa7 1371(a)(5)(A)(i)-(II) considered a stringent standard.Third, the Court noted that the agency\nwas obligated to take areas of the ocean signified as \xe2\x80\x9cbiologically important\xe2\x80\x9d by its own scientists into\naccount when reviewing permit applications, whether or not the agency judged the existing data for those\nareas as sufficient\xe2\x80\x94the agency was to rely on the data it presently has. The Court remanded the case\nfor further proceedings.An appendix of Resources at the end of the book contains additional information\nrelevant to protected species management (see resources for unit two).Unit 3 will discuss the tools for\nselecting and setting aside special geographic areas for species protection, management and conservation.\n\nUnit 2 - Management of Protected Marine Species | 15\n\n\x0c16 | Unit 2 - Management of Protected Marine Species\n\n\x0cPurpose/\nTheme\n\nSection Notes\n\nCitation\n\nListing\n\nFive factors; agencies may initiate; ANY PERSON may initiate petition. Listing\nSection\nmay ONLY be based on best scientific and commercial information. Economic\n4\nimpacts are prohibited and not considered.\n\n16 USC \xc2\xa7\n1533(a)-(c)\n\nCritical\nHabitat\nDesignation\n\nSection One year after listing unless undetermined. Unlike listing, CHD must consider\n4\neconomics.\n\n16 USC \xc2\xa7\n1533(b)(6)(C)\n\nInvolve Five-Year Reviews. Specific species information:\nhttps://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/\nendangered-species-act-5-year-reviews\n16 USC \xc2\xa7\nRecovery and Section\n1533(f) and\nMonitoring\n4\n(g)\nReports to Congress every two years; see\nhttps://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/endangered-speciesbiennial-report-2014-2016\nThe cognizant Secretary \xe2\x80\x9cshall\xe2\x80\x9d (mandatory) \xe2\x80\x9ccooperate to the maximum\nState-Federal Section\nextent practicable with the States\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\xa6including the ability to enter into formal\nCooperation 6\ncooperative agreements\n\n16 USC \xc2\xa7\n1535\n\nInteragency\nConsultation\n\nThe Secretary \xe2\x80\x9cshall\xe2\x80\x9d review other programs s/he administers\xe2\x80\xa6all other\nSection federal agencies \xe2\x80\x9cshall\xe2\x80\x9d \xe2\x80\x9cutilize their authorities in furtherance of the\n7\npurposes of this chapter by carrying out programs for the conservation of\nendangered and threatened species\xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\x9d making sure efforts are consistent\n\n16 USC \xc2\xa7\n1536\n\nInternational\nCooperation\n\nContains provisions authorizing the President to use various examples of\nSection\nfunds and tools to provide assistance to other nations to develop and manage\n8\nprograms that support the species in question\n\n16 USC \xc2\xa7\n1537\n\nProhibited\nActs\n\nSection Contains actions that are prohibited: import, export, take, possess, sell,\n9\ndeliver, carry, transport, ship etc. species in violation of the Act\n\n16 USC \xc2\xa7\n1538\n\nPermits\n\nPermits may only be issued under certain circumstances; requires applicant\nSection\nto provide specific information regarding impact, mitigation, alternatives;\n10\nrequires Notice and Comment opportunity to the Public\n\n16 USC \xc2\xa7\n1539\n\nPenalties/\nEnforcement\n\nSection\n11\n\nCivil penalties, criminal violations,\n\n16 USC \xc2\xa7\n1540\n\nprovision for citizens to sue for enforcement\n\nUnit 2 Study Questions\n1.\n\nWould simply listing species as threatened or endangered alone under ESA be enough?\n\n2.\n\nWhat are some proactive examples of management of species to avoid listing in the first place?\n\n3.\n\nDoes the ESA include international species protection? What is the relationship of ESA to the\nConvention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)?\n\n4.\n\nArticulate the difference between the analytical steps that NOAA Fisheries must undergo before\nauthorizing an incidental take under MMPA. Why does the difference matter?\n\nUnit Two Appendix\n\nUnit 2 - Management of Protected Marine Species | 17\n\n\x0cUnit 3 - Managing Through Specially\nDesignated Areas\nContents\nIntroduction\nEcosystem Based Management (EBM)\nIncorporating EBM and Prioritizing Conservation Objectives in Marine Planning\n\nIntroduction\nRocky reefs support a wide variety of species quite different from those that depend on sand flats. The\ncoastal ocean teems with abundance and biodiversity and is a nursery for brooding and rearing for many\nspecies, including economically valuable fish, which, in their adult stages, are important for supporting\ncommercial fisheries. The open ocean supports an entirely different complement of living organisms. The\ndeep ocean contains unique species adapted to extreme conditions, including life on hydrothermal vents.\nEcosystem-based management pertains to a movement toward holistically understanding the ocean\nas a system, rather than a collection of species to exploit and manage. Species prefer certain types of\nocean habitats, and cannot survive without the food and shelter that their particular ecosystems provide.\nConceptually, then, the ocean is many different ecosystems nested into one large and dynamic system.\nAdvances in our understanding of the inseparability of habitats and the species that depend on them\nare reflected in contemporary environmental law (protection of habitat, ESA, Unit 2) and science alike.\nTechnology, including ocean sampling, monitoring (both shipboard and satellite), and the spatial information\nprovided by sophisticated Geographic Information Systems and Science (GIS) continue to support the\nrevolution from single-species management to higher resolution ecosystem-based management. Now we\ncan see the forest for the trees, to revise an old expression.\nEcosystem Based Management (EBM)\nThere are many different definitions of ecosystem-based management (EBM). Here are two useful\ndescriptions. The first is from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization\n(UNESCO) in 2009. The entire report is available at msp.ioc-unesco.org\nan integrated approach to management that considers the entire ecosystem, including humans. The\ngoal of ecosystem-based management is to maintain an ecosystem in a healthy, productive and\nresilient condition so that it can provide the goods and services humans want and need. Ecosystembased management differs from current approaches that usually focus on a single species, sector,\nactivity or concern; it considers the cumulative impacts of different sectors.\n\n18 | Unit 3 - Managing Through Specially Designated Areas\n\n\x0cThis concept of EBM emphasizes connectivity between all systems (the ocean, atmosphere, and land)\nnecessarily founded upon protection of the whole: structure, functions, and processes. The UNESCO vision\nrecognizes that human dimensions are part of ecosystems: social, economic, and governance structures are\nalso integrated into ecological systems. Finally, because we cannot realistically focus on the entire system\nat once, EBM is place-based, necessitating adapting the approach to specific ecosystems and their human\nimpacts or influences.\nA major concept in support of robust EBM (universally, not just in marine settings) is adaptive\nmanagement. Informed decision-making moves forward with caution, even when data are incomplete.\nNOAA describes adaptive management in the following passage (NOAA 2018)\nAdaptive management is an essential aspect of EBM; it is a way of managing the dynamic nature\nof ecosystems in the face of uncertainty by considering a broad range of influences within a\nregion, including external influences, factors, and stressors. To increase effectiveness, adaptive\nmanagement is often based on an open and mutually agreed upon process for monitoring and\nassessing the outcome of management actions; a process that allows for mid-course corrections to\nachieve desired outcomes.\nAdaptive management also takes into account socioeconomic considerations, stakeholder\nparticipation, conflict resolution, legal and policy barriers, and institutional challenges. Being\nadaptive requires people and institutions to be flexible, innovative, and highly responsive to new\ninformation and experiences. Adaptive management succeeds when there are clear linkages among\ninformation, actions, and results and a strong climate of trust among partners. Considering local,\nstate, federal, and international actions and sharing data are also critical to success.\nAt least three major points stand out in regard to EBM.\nFirst, adaptive management is a priority. According to McLeod and Leslie (2009), ecosystem-based\nmanagement in the ocean context requires a transition in focus from purely monitoring conventional\nindicators to including the monitoring of changes in processes (such as those that impact biodiversity) in\norder to understand reasons for the change.\nSecond, EBM realistically involves identifying and confronting potential resource tradeoffs. A prime\nexample exists in establishing a management area where lower harvest levels are permitted in order to\nallow fish species to rebound. Explicitly considering trade-offs in a transparent decision-making process is\nintended to reduce surprises (unintended consequences) over time that could be damaging to ecosystems\nand their functions, and heighten tension and confusion among stakeholders. Trade-offs can be examined\nthrough a variety of options. One option involves assigning different values to the functions of the system\n(financial values \xe2\x80\x9cmonetized\xe2\x80\x9d or non-monetized). Another approach is known as the ecological endpoints\napproach that measures production functions within a system. This approach uses two kinds of functional\nrelationships (supply functions, or ecological production functions, or demand functions, an approach that\nanalyzes relevant aspects of a user group, such as commercial or recreational fishing).\nThird, holistic systems management anticipates cooperation and collaboration between governing\nentities. This is sometimes known as vertical or horizontal EBM. Vertical EBM is the coordination for\nconsistent management from the bottom up, or the top down. Imagine vertical EBM as information sharing\nand planning across nested but discrete governance entities; for example, consistent cooperation and\ncoordination throughout coastal city, county, state, region, national and international entities.\nBy contrast, horizontal EBM describes the collaboration and cooperation between entities at comparable\nUnit 3 - Managing Through Specially Designated Areas | 19\n\n\x0cgovernance levels: for example, in Oregon (as in many states), six to nine state agencies may be involved in\na coastal decision. At the federal level, similarly several agencies may consult with each other over an ocean\nmanagement decision, also consulting the appropriate state and regional authorities. Horizontal EBM can\nand often does include industry sectors as well. For example, the siting of an offshore alternative energy\nfacility can include consultation with several different agencies at the state and federal levels, as well as a\nvariety of permits and permit conditions. While each agency has individual (and complementary, sometimes\noverlapping or joint) legal and public resource stewardship responsibilities, they must coordinate their\nreview and licensing of the proposed energy facility.\nThe energy-siting example would involve placing artificial structures in the ocean, requiring the\ndesignation of a certain kind of special area. The vast majority of special area management decisions are\nmade in conjunction with restoring, maintaining or preserving areas important for species life stages,\nbiodiversity, or other aspects of habitat structure and function. Each management area must be founded\naccording to its species, resources, needs, stresses, and intended management purposes and goals.\nIncorporating EBM and Prioritizing Conservation Objectives in Marine Planning\nAs long ago as 1972, Congress established the National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) System (in\nthe Coastal Zone Management Act). This program can perhaps be seen as an early example of ecosystem\nthinking. The Reserve system contains 1.3 million acres and 29 estuaries where fresh water systems interact\nwith salt water. The purpose of the program, administered by NOAA Office for Coastal Management, is to\npromote stewardship through research and education. Through the program, Congress recognized that\nestuaries are unique, economically critical environments that contain abundant ecosystem functions and\nservices, including habitat (food, nesting, migration corridors, breeding) nurseries for important fisheries,\nwater filtration, and buffering from coastal storms. The national reserves are collaboratively managed with\ncoastal states. (NOAA Office of Coastal Management 2018)\nWithin Section 320 of the federal Clean Water Act, Congress established complementary non-regulatory\nestuary conservation program overseen by the US Environmental Protection Agency: the National Estuary\nProgram (NEP). NEP protects water quality and ecosystems in 28 estuaries, managed by individual\nComprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs). The NEP is centered on collaborative public\ninvolvement; the priorities and objectives in the CCMPs are community based: determined by stakeholders\nspanning local, city, state, federal, private and nonprofit sectors according (EPA 2018).\nA prime example of EBM-influenced spatial planning from a coastal state can be seen in the\nCommonwealth of Massachusetts. In 2008, Massachusetts passed the Oceans Act (Session Laws, Acts 2008,\nChapter 114). In 2009, the state passed the Ocean Management Plan, where one of the key planning purposes\nwas for the proper siting of offshore wind energy. By engaging powerful fishing interests, the environmental\nand recreation communities, among other stakeholders, Massachusetts underwent an offshore planning\nand mapping process that took several years to complete.\nThe Massachusetts map reflects an off-limits area, two wind energy areas, and a multi-use area. The\ngeneral division and labeling of offshore space was based on directing new ocean development away from\necologically sensitive areas (termed SSU for special, sensitive, or unique), in order to decrease competition\nand conflict between ecosystems and human uses of the areas. Logically, then, the planning and mapping\nprocess was preceded by data-gathering toward the establishment of an inventory of species and habitats\noffshore, but also including evaluations of resource areas most promising (and suitable) for wind energy.\nMassachusetts revised the 2009 offshore maps in 2015. The data, process documents, and 2015 edition\n\n20 | Unit 3 - Managing Through Specially Designated Areas\n\n\x0cof the Ocean Plan are available at mass.gov. Volume 1 contains information relevant to management and\nadministration; Volume 2 features the baseline assessment and science framework.\nTwo core habitats for whales (the North Atlantic Right Whale, and the Humpback Whale) were both\nincreased based on data (effort-corrected sightings dating back to 1970 and running through 2014), using\nthe adaptive management approach described above as a key part of EBM. North Atlantic Right Whales\nare protected under the ESA, MMPA, and Canada\xe2\x80\x99s Species At Risk Act because they are among the most\nendangered in the world.\nAs a practical application of EBM, marine planning is flexible and adaptable. While it requires a major\ninvestment of time, funding, expert technical staff, scientific inquiry, and community involvement, marine\nplanning is essential to marine conservation and the future provision of ecosystem services to society,\nparticularly as resources shrink and human populations grow. The oceans seem vast to us, but they are\nnot limitless. As with all Earth systems, oceans are dynamic and undergoing constant change. Impacts\non the oceans from a warming planet make proactive, science-based marine planning more urgent. A\nmajor conservation-focused aspect of marine planning involves the establishment of marine protected areas\nworldwide.\nMarine Protected Areas (MPAs) generally describe a wide range of levels of protection (including no-take\nareas known as marine reserves). In 1999, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)\ndefined an MPA as:\nany area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora,\nfauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to\nprotect part or all of the enclosed environment (Kelleher and Phillips 1999).\nIn the United States (by Executive Order 13158), a marine protected area is:\nany area of the marine environment that has been reserved by Federal, State, territorial, tribal or\nlocal laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for all of the natural and cultural resources\ntherein.\nAs defined by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an MPA is\nAn area designated and effectively managed to protect marine ecosystems, processes, habitats,\nand species, which can contribute to the restoration and replenishment of resources for social,\neconomic, and cultural enrichment.\nJust as with habitat protection on land, connectivity is crucial; linking MPAs multiplies positive outcomes.\nMost species move, many migrate long distances, and all species use particular areas when breeding or\nrearing young.\nMPAs are conservation centered, with levels of protection that are permanent and constant. Areas may\nbe designated as closed to human activity altogether, or allow one or more activities such as diving, or even\nlimited fishing.\n\nUnit 3 - Managing Through Specially Designated Areas | 21\n\n\x0cFigure 3.1: The Great Barrier Reef, Australia \xc2\xa9 J\xc3\xbcrgen Freund / WWF\n\nUnited States waters cover 1.4 times the nation\xe2\x80\x99s terrestrial area. As of 2017 (NOAA publication, Conserving\nOur Oceans, One Place at a Time) in the US, more than 12oo MPAs cover more than 3.2 million square\nkilometers\xe2\x80\x9426% of US waters. Commercial fishing is prohibited in 23% of the US protected area. Only\n3% of all MPAs in US waters provide the highest level of protection by banning all extractive uses. From\n2005-2016, the quantity of area protected in the US increased by more than 20 times.\n\nFigure 3.2 Graphic depicting locations and coverage of US Marine Protected Areas. Image by the National Marine\nProtected Areas Center.\n22 | Unit 3 - Managing Through Specially Designated Areas\n\n\x0cAs EBM continues to be refined, the approach is major tool for holistic ocean planning around the world.\nAdvancing the application of EBM spatially across eight national regions, NOAA is developing a program\nof integrated ecosystem assessments (IEAs). The initial eight regions are tied to eight Large Marine\nEcosystems (LME).\nThirty years ago, the concept of LMEs was developed by NOAA and the University of Rhode Island as\na means to implement EBM approaches to LME systems. Of the 64 global LME, 11 are in the US EEZ\n(NOAA Office of Science and Technology 2018). NOAA defines a large marine ecosystem is defined as \xe2\x80\x9clarge\nareas of ocean space (200,000 km2 or greater) adjacent to the continents in coastal waters where primary\nproductivity in generally higher than open ocean areas.\xe2\x80\x9d (NOAA 2018 (inactive link as of 05/21/2021))\n\nFigure 3.3 Diagram showing North American LMEs, sites of high biodiversity ( from Fautin et al. 2010)\n\nIntegrated Ecosystem Assessments (IEAs) collect essential information to inform better management\ndecisions. Below are examples of data gathered or tools included in an IEA.\n\nUnit 3 - Managing Through Specially Designated Areas | 23\n\n\x0cData Examples\nASSESSMENTS\nStatus and trends of ecosystem condition\nEcosystem services\nActivities or elements constituting stressors\n\nPREDICTIONS\nFuture condition of the ecosystem under stress if no action taken\nFuture condition under variety of management options or scenarios\nEvaluation of potential for success of various management options\nNOAA Fisheries 2018\n\nDesigning and finalizing an IEA to determine ecosystem status involves deriving outputs from five\ndifferent modules of indicators (spatial and temporal) illustrated below.\n\nFigure 3.4 Indicators that go into an Integrated Ecosystem Assessment\n(NOAA 2018 (inactive link as of 05/21/2021)). Currently, IEA work is\nunfolding in five of the regions: Alaska Complex, California Current, Gulf\nof Mexico, Northeast US Shelf, and the Pacific Islands. As the IEA program\ngrows, the agency will move on to add assessments for the Caribbean, Great\nLakes and Southeast US Shelf (NOAA 2018).\n\nThe appendix of Resources at the end of the book contains additional details relevant to managing\nthrough specially designated areas (see resources for unit three).\n24 | Unit 3 - Managing Through Specially Designated Areas\n\n\x0cUnit 3 Study Questions\n1.\n\nWhat does Ecosystem Based Management require to be effective? Robust?\n\n2.\n\nWhat are the benefits of managing the marine environment through specially designated areas?\n\n3.\n\nTheorize and describe examples of technical or economic issues that managers could confront in\nstewardship of specially designated areas.\n\n4.\n\nFrom the perspective of managing present and future (often competing) human uses and impacts, what\nare the implications of ocean zoning and planning for society? For managers?\n\nUnit Three Appendix\n\nUnit 3 - Managing Through Specially Designated Areas | 25\n\n\x0cUnit 4 - Our Fisheries\nContents\nIntroduction\nHistory and Overview of The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) 16 USC Ch.\n38, and the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA)\nThe Rise of Best Available Science, and the Role of Nonprofit Organizations\n\nIntroduction\nPrior to 1976, fisheries management almost exclusively performed by the 35 coastal states; now the states\nmanage cooperatively with federal government.\nThe Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (or MSA, or Fisheries\nConservation Management Act FCMA, as amended 2006) covers all commercial and recreational fishing\nbeyond state waters (three nautical miles offshore). Highly migratory species were added in 1990. Over the\npast forty years, the MSA has adapted to the times, conservation methodology, and developments in marine\nscience and technology. In many respects the MSA is a successful piece of legislation, which will continue\nto grow and adapt.\nHistory and Overview of The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) 16\nUSC Ch. 38, and the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA)\nFindings, Purpose and Policy (16 USC \xc2\xa7 1801; excerpts only)\na) FINDINGS The Congress finds and declares the following:\n(1) The fish off the coasts of the United States, the highly migratory species of the high seas,\nthe species which dwell on or in the Continental Shelf appertaining to the United States, and\nthe anadromous species which spawn in United States rivers or estuaries, constitute valuable and\nrenewable natural resources. These fishery resources contribute to the food supply, economy, and\nhealth of the Nation and provide recreational opportunities.\n(2) Certain stocks of fish have declined to the point where their survival is threatened, and other\nstocks of fish have been so substantially reduced in number that they could become similarly\nthreatened as a consequence of (A) increased fishing pressure, (B) the inadequacy of fishery resource\nconservation and management practices and controls, or (C) direct and indirect habitat losses which\nhave resulted in a diminished capacity to support existing fishing levels.\n(3) Commercial and recreational fishing constitutes a major source of employment and contributes\nsignificantly to the economy of the Nation. Many coastal areas are dependent upon fishing and\nrelated activities, and their economies have been badly damaged by the overfishing of fishery\nresources at an ever-increasing rate over the past decade. The activities of massive foreign fishing\n26 | Unit 4 - Our Fisheries\n\n\x0cfleets in waters adjacent to such coastal areas have contributed to such damage, interfered with\ndomestic fishing efforts, and caused destruction of the fishing gear of United States fishermen.\n(4) International fishery agreements have not been effective in preventing or terminating the\noverfishing of these valuable fishery resources. There is danger that irreversible effects from\noverfishing will take place before an effective international agreement on fishery management\njurisdiction can be negotiated, signed, ratified, and implemented.\n(5) Fishery resources are finite but renewable. If placed under sound management before\noverfishing has caused irreversible effects, the fisheries can be conserved and maintained so as to\nprovide optimum yields on a continuing basis.\n(6) A national program for the conservation and management of the fishery resources of the United\nStates is necessary to prevent overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks, to insure conservation,\nto facilitate long-term protection of essential fish habitats, and to realize the full potential of the\nNation\xe2\x80\x99s fishery resources. \xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\xa6\n(b) PURPOSES It is therefore declared to be the purposes of the Congress in this chapter\xe2\x80\x94\n(1) to take immediate action to conserve and manage the fishery resources found off the coasts of\nthe United States, and the anadromous species and Continental Shelf fishery resources of the United\nStates, by exercising (A) sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and\nmanaging all fish, within the exclusive economic zone established by Presidential Proclamation\n5030, dated March 10, 1983, and (B) exclusive fishery management authority beyond the exclusive\neconomic zone over such\nanadromous species and Continental Shelf fishery resources; \xe2\x80\xa6\n(c) POLICY It is further declared to be the policy of the Congress in this chapter\xe2\x80\x94\n(1) to maintain without change the existing territorial or other ocean jurisdiction of the United\nStates for all purposes other than the conservation and management of fishery resources, as\nprovided for in this chapter;\n(2) to authorize no impediment to, or interference with, recognized legitimate uses of the high\nseas, except as necessary for the conservation and management of fishery resources, as provided for\nin this chapter;\n(3) to assure that the national fishery conservation and management program utilizes, and is based\nupon, the best scientific information available; involves, and is responsive to the needs of, interested\nand affected States and citizens; considers efficiency; draws upon Federal, State, and academic\ncapabilities in carrying out research, administration, management, and enforcement; considers the\neffects of fishing on immature fish and encourages development of practical measures that minimize\nbycatch and avoid unnecessary waste of fish; and is workable and effective; \xe2\x80\xa6(end of excerpt)\n(law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/1801)\n\nUnit 4 - Our Fisheries | 27\n\n\x0c1976-1996\n\nSenator Theodore (Ted) Stevens (Alaska, 1968-2009) and Senator (Washington State, 1955-1977)\nWarren Magnuson (NOAA Fisheries)\n\nUnder MSA, the eight US regional fisheries management councils determine the annual allowable catch\nfor each fishery (Maximum Sustained Yield or MSY) and develop a Fishery Management Plan (FMP).\nSubsequently authors of the FMP determine Optimum Sustained Yield (OSY). OSY = MSY as modified\nby any relevant social, economic, or ecological factor, and must provide the \xe2\x80\x9cgreatest overall benefit to the\nNation, with particular reference to food production and recreational opportunities.\xe2\x80\x9d\nBefore MSA, foreign fleets could fish up to 12 nm offshore. In accordance with international law since\n1983, Coastal States (in this context, we mean nations) have sovereign rights out to the limits of their\nExclusive Economic Zones (200 nm) to explore, exploit, and conserve living and nonliving resources. These\nrights cover every aspect of marine environmental management, including transport, military, pollution,\nresearch, and fisheries management.\nDuring 1976-1996, the eight US Regional Fishery Management Councils had broad discretion to meet the\nshort-term needs of the fishing industry; the goal in this early period was Americanization due to increased\n\n28 | Unit 4 - Our Fisheries\n\n\x0cpressure from foreign fleets. In keeping with the International Law of the Sea, in 1983 Reagan Proclaimed\n200 nm EEZ for the United States.\nBy 1996, US fisheries had become depleted, and the American public became angry. In response, Congress\nenacted the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA, Public Law PL 104-294), which substantially revised FCMA\nto refocus efforts toward goals of conservation and ecosystem protection. The Sustainable Fisheries Act\nrequires the eight regional fisheries management councils to make conservation (i.e. rebuilding of stocks)\nthe nation\xe2\x80\x99s the top priority.\nIt is important to note that fisheries conservation and ecosystem protection as a statutory mandate\nmarks a significant departure from business as usual. Over the short duration of two decades, the post\nWorld War II period of scaled-up fishing (driven by protectionism and population-driven consumption)\nwas transformed by lower yields and the practical need to regulate and conserve stocks. It was a national\npriority to put MSA in place in 1976, before the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unit 6)\nwas finalized by nations (including the US) in 1983, establishing the 200 nm EEZ as international customary\nlaw.\n\n1996-2006\nDuring the period following 1996, US fisheries management underwent a remarkable, if gradual, statutory\n(r)evolution to an enforceable conservation emphasis, with accountability and standards built in. The new\nmanagement paradigm was made possible by technical and scientific advances in ocean and fisheries data\navailability and sophisticated research methods.\nIn 1996, Congress revised the MSA with the Sustainable Fisheries Act. The revision incorporated\nimportant new definitions, including \xe2\x80\x9coverfishing,\xe2\x80\x9d a set of ten enforceable National Standards, and a new\nmandate balancing industry with conservation requirements. Litigation, such as NRDC v Daley, 209 F.3d\n747 (DC Cir 2000, discussed later in this Unit) clarified interpretations within the new requirement. The\nchanges introduced in the Sustainable Fisheries Act also required greater management accountability (16\nUSC \xc2\xa7 1854(e)(1)) via mandatory annual reporting to Congress by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS,\nNOAA Fisheries; recent reports are available at nmfs.noaa.gov) (inactive link as of 05/19/2021).\nUnder the new definitions, overfished means: existing below a prescribed biomass threshold. In a state of\nbeing overfished means: Being harvested at a rate above a prescribed fishing mortality threshold (16 USC \xc2\xa7\n1802(34)).\nThe term \xe2\x80\x9coptimum\xe2\x80\x9d \xe2\x80\xa6 means the amount of fish which\xe2\x80\x94\n(A) will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food\nproduction and recreational opportunities, taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems;\n(B) is prescribed on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by any\nrelevant social, economic, or ecological factor; and\n(C) in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing\nthe maximum sustainable yield in such fishery.\n\nUnit 4 - Our Fisheries | 29\n\n\x0cMSA National Standards 1 and 2\nThe enforceable Ten US National Standards (16 USC \xc2\xa7 1651; regulations at 50 CFR Chap. VI, Part 600,\nSubpart D, \xc2\xa7600.305) state the following.\nAny fishery management plan \xe2\x80\xa6 shall be consistent with the following national standards:\n1) \xe2\x80\xa6 measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield\nfrom each fishery for the US fishing industry.\n(2) \xe2\x80\xa6 measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available.\nNational Standard Two, requiring actions to be founded on best scientific information available, generates\na lot of litigation. Resulting cases provide examples of how the federal courts\xe2\x80\x99 interpretations of statutory\nterms and phrases can clarify legislative meanings.\nBecause of precedent (Motor Vehicles Mfrs Assoc., 463 US 29 1983) courts have required plaintiffs to\ndemonstrate that the Councils and Agency relied on no scientific basis whatsoever, a very difficult claim for\nplaintiffs to prove. Nonetheless, in rare cases plaintiffs have been able to show that a fishery management\nplan was based purely on political motivations. In cases involving National Standard Two, courts have\nrequired that the Councils must expressly provide the scientific rationale they relied on for both\nconservation and allocation decisions.\nMSA National Standards 3 and 4\n(3) To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its\nrange, and interrelated stocks shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination.\n(4) Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different\nStates. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United States\nfishermen, such allocation shall be\n(A) fair and equitable to all such fishermen;\n(B) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and\n(C) carried out in such manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity\nacquires an excessive share of such privileges.\nNote that 4(C) does not provide details on methods to prevent shares from concentrating in an individual or\ncorporation, nor what to do if shares in a fishery do tend toward or result in a monopolistic entity. However,\ndetails to implement fairness could be embedded within individual fisheries\xe2\x80\x99 quota agreements, or other\nprograms for fairly distributing access privileges.\nMSA National Standards 5 through 10\n(5) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the\nutilization of fishery resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its\nsole purpose.\n(6) Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations\namong, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.\n(7) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid\nunnecessary duplication.\n(8) Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements\n\n30 | Unit 4 - Our Fisheries\n\n\x0cof this chapter (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take\ninto account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by utilizing economic and\nsocial data that meet the requirements of paragraph (2), in order to\n(A) provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and\n(B) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.\n(9) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable,\n(A) minimize bycatch and\n(B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.\n(10) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety\nof human life at sea.\n\nFigure 4.1: Summer Flounder, tagged, photo from VA\nMarine Institute\n\nUnit 4 - Our Fisheries | 31\n\n\x0cFigure 4.2: Summer Flounder Commercial Landings & Recreational Harvest\n\nThe case NRDC v Daley, 209 F.3d 747 (DC Cir 2000) involved National Standard One, which provides that\nconservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis,\nthe optimum yield from each fishery.\nHow much certainty must the Regional Fisheries Management Councils have in order to assert that their\nproposed actions will end overfishing? In balancing between conservation and short-term cost avoidance,\nthe two goals are not equal; conservation comes first. The Daley court held that in order to comply with the\nMSA, Councils must have >51% certainty that their proposed actions will end overfishing. In the Daley case\nNMFS (that reviews and authorizes the eight councils\xe2\x80\x99 decisions) had argued that an 18% chance would be\nsufficient.\nIn the Daley case (2000): The court said, \xe2\x80\x9cThe Government concedes, and we agree, that, under the\nFishery Act, the Service (NMFS) must give priority to conservation measures. It is only when two different\nplans achieve similar conservation measures that the Service takes into consideration adverse economic\nconsequences.\xe2\x80\x9d\nThe 2000 Daley court continued, \xe2\x80\x9cWhere two alternatives achieve similar conservation goals, the\n\n32 | Unit 4 - Our Fisheries\n\n\x0calternative that minimizes the adverse impacts on fishing communities would be preferred.\xe2\x80\x9d The regulation\nthat the court was interpreting is 50 CFR Section 600.345(b)(1)\nThat conservation is a mandatory priority over short-term cost avoidance was confirmed again in NRDC\nv. NMFS, 421 F.3d 872(9th Circuit 2005). Once again, the NMFS had lost\xe2\x80\x94having claimed that the Pacific\nCouncil could establish a 47-year rebuilding period for the dark-blotched rockfish (sebastes crameri).\nNMFS had underestimated the severity of the rockfish\xe2\x80\x99s depletion. This triggered statutory language\nrequiring the stock to be rebuilt in \xe2\x80\x9cas short a time as possible,\xe2\x80\x9d taken to be a 14-year period plus one mean\ngeneration time, except for the fact that the dark-blotched rockfish lives 33 years. The standard period by\nregulation must not exceed 10 years\xe2\x80\x93 with exceptions.\nIn summary, the statutory, regulatory and case law of 1996-2006 displays efforts to further refine the\nMSA, to prioritize conservation, and to make the law\xe2\x80\x99s requirements to more concrete and transparent. The\nnew mandate for best available science underlying FMPs requires Councils to explain the scientific bases for\ntheir decisions. This period also marks the first time MSA provisions included Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)\nand bycatch.\n\nUS Fisheries Management 2006-Present\nThis section presents a brief overview of the rise of science-based management, the reduction of fishing\ncapacity to reverse overfishing, and the increasing prominence of an interesting new player: the rise of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in at least two roles: first, as a convener and coordinator of scientific\nsupport, and second as legislative initiators and collaborators on fisheries and habitat conservation.\nFisheries management since 2006 represents the further development of the emphasis on conservation.\nIn 2007, the reauthorized MSA was implemented to include further emphasis on scientific management,\nadditional conservation and accountability mandates in all Fishery Management Plans (FMPs), Annual Catch\nLimits (ACLs), and the introduction of an option known as Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs). The\nnew provisions were required to be implemented in all FMPs by 2010 for all overfished species, and in 2011\nin all others. FMPs are based on stock assessments.\n\nFishery management plans must specify objective and measurable criteria, or reference points, to\ndetermine when a stock is subject to overfishing or overfished. A scientific analysis of the abundance and\ncomposition of a fish stock and the rate of fishing mortality is called a stock assessment. Typically, a stock\nassessment undergoes peer review by independent scientists before it is accepted as the best scientific\ninformation available.\nThe councils use information from stock assessments to develop and recommend ACLs and other\nconservation and management measures. While catch limits are set annually, assessments are often done\nless frequently. To determine whether catch limits have successfully ended or prevented overfishing, NOAA\nFisheries may use either the results of a stock assessment or a comparison of catch to the overfishing limit\n(OFL). If the catch to OFL comparison is used, an overfishing determination is made annually. If a stock\n\nUnit 4 - Our Fisheries | 33\n\n\x0cassessment is used, due to timing of the next stock assessment, several years may pass before we are able to\ndetermine if catch limits successfully ended overfishing (Stocks Status 2016).\n\nFrom 2007-on, all Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) required conservation mandates, as well as stated\nAnnual Catch Limits (ACLs) designed to avoid overfishing. Data on the progress of ACLs to meet this goal are\ndetailed annually in the MSA-mandated report to Congress. For 2016, for example, 92 percent of all stocks\nwere successfully kept at or below the ACLs set for them. By law, the regional councils must investigate and\ntake steps to correct management of stocks that exceeded ACLs (Stocks Status 2016).\nThe required Annual Catch Limits (16 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 1853(a)(15))are devised by each Fishery Management\nCouncil\xe2\x80\x99s Scientific and Technical Committee. If the Committee does not recommend an ACL, a Council is\nstill required to set one.\nAccording to NOAA, the 2007 reauthorization required two kinds of Accountability Measures (AMs): inseason measures to prevent exceeding the Annual Catch Limit or ACL, and AMs to address any overage of\nthe ACL. The ACL AMs include identification of operational factors that led to the overage, and a plan to\nmitigate biological harm to the stock, if any. Accountability with regard to ACLs is described in 16 USC \xc2\xa7\n1853(a)(15). Accountability with regard to the Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) is covered in 16 USC \xc2\xa7 1853(a)(15).\nACLs are mandatory limits.\nBecause of uncertainty, there is always a chance that overfishing could occur. To prevent chronic\noverfishing, the system of ACLs and Accountability Mandates (AMs) should be re-evaluated and modified if\nthe ACL is exceeded more than once in 4 years.\nCouncils and NMFS can apply a higher performance standard if a stock is particularly vulnerable to the\neffects of overfishing. Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) must not exceed the recommendations of each council\xe2\x80\x99s\nscientific and statistical committee or the peer review process (16 USC \xc2\xa7 1852(h)(6)).\nDetermination of an ACL requires three types of data (fisheries data, biological data, and ecological data)\nfollowed by analysis:\n\nData and Analysis\nData:\n1.\n\n2.\n\nFisheries Data\n1.\n\nAge, size, sex and weight distributions\n\n2.\n\nGeographic distributions\n\n3.\n\nCatch and effort data/history\n\nBiological Data\n1.\n\nAbundance\n\n2.\n\nGrowth rates\n\n34 | Unit 4 - Our Fisheries\n\n\x0c3.\n\n3.\n\nWhere and what the species feeds on\n\n4.\n\nAge and size at maturity\n\n5.\n\nLife span\n\n6.\n\nWhen, where, and how fish reproduce\n\n7.\n\nVulnerability to overfishing\n\nEcological Data\n1.\n\nPredator/prey relationships\n\n2.\n\nHabitat requirements\n\n3.\n\nOther species of fish that coexist within their \xe2\x80\x9cneighborhood\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n4.\n\nSimilarities to other, more extensively studied species\n\nAnalysis:\nScientists use a variety of information from various sources, including independent research such as National\nOceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) surveys and academic reports; and \xe2\x80\x9cfishery dependent\xe2\x80\x9d\nsources such as reported catch data from fishermen\xe2\x80\x99s logbooks, targeted and incidental catch reports from onboard observers, and dealer surveys. This information, combined with analytical methods, such as modeling,\nhelps scientists recommend limits unique to each fish and fishery.\n\n(Source: PEW Fact Sheet; Bringing Back the Fish 2013)\n\nLimited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs)\nLimited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs) are described in 16 USC \xc2\xa7 1853a. LAPPs are an optional, and\nnot mandatory tool (\xc2\xa7 1853a(a)). If a Regional Fishery Management Council elects to develop a LAPP, it must\nincorporate certain protections outlined in \xc2\xa7 1853a.\nLAPP Requirements:\nAny limited access privilege program to harvest fish submitted by a Council or approved by the\nSecretary under this section shall\xe2\x80\x94\n(A) if established in a fishery that is over- fished or subject to a rebuilding plan, assist in its\nrebuilding;\n(B) if established in a fishery that is determined by the Secretary or the Council to have overcapacity, contribute to reducing capacity;\n(C) promote\xe2\x80\x94 (i) fishing safety; (ii) fishery conservation and management; and (iii) social and\neconomic benefits (16 USC \xc2\xa7 1853a(c)).\nCommunities are also eligible for LAPPs. To participate, a community must be located in a Council\xe2\x80\x99s area\nand meet certain criteria. The community must consist of residents who are commercial or recreational\nfishermen, processors, or fishery-dependent businesses. Finally, the community must develop and submit\na Community Sustainability Plan that addresses social and economic development needs. LAPPs and their\nrequirements are covered in 16 USC \xc2\xa7 1853a(c)3(A)(i).\nThe Rise of Best Available Science, and the Role of Nonprofit Organizations\n\nUnit 4 - Our Fisheries | 35\n\n\x0cPowerful nonprofit organizations became involved in fisheries conservation and have assumed a leading\nrole in raising public awareness, bridging divides between sectors, and generating independent peerreviewed reports. In a watershed moment in 2006, the Nature Conservancyand the Environmental Defense\nFundpursued a buy-out of permits and vessels in the troubled Pacific groundfish fishery, in exchange for\na binding agreement from the Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council to remove particular seafloor\nareas off central California from bottom trawling as part of the PRFMC Essential Fish Habitat amendment to\nthe groundfish FMP. The final rules designating the EFH and creating the no-trawl zones are available at 71\nFed. Reg. 27408 (May 11, 2006).\nAt least two important NGO studies and reports from this period are worth noting.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 PEW Charitable Trusts 2013: The Law That\xe2\x80\x99s Saving American Fisheries, The Magnuson-Stevens\nFisheries Conservation and Management Act\n\xe2\x80\xa2 NRDC 2013: Bringing Back the Fish\nThe PEW report includes a list of elements of successful rebuilding programs (PEW)\n\n1.\n\nWell-defined objectives\n\n2.\n\nFinite timelines\n\n3.\n\nEstablished in an open and transparent process\n\n4.\n\nCredible, consistent, and transparent scientific monitoring\n\n5.\n\nSimple and easily understood metrics of status and success\n\n6.\n\nPredefined rules for triggering corrective management action\n\n7.\n\nSubstantial, measurable reductions in fishing mortality at the onset of the plan\n\n36 | Unit 4 - Our Fisheries\n\n\x0cFigure 4.3: Charitable Trusts 2013\n\nFigure 4.4: PEW Charitable Trusts 2013\n\nUnit 4 - Our Fisheries | 37\n\n\x0cScience-based limits, combined with accountability to ensure that catches are consistent with restrictions,\nget results. The use of science-based limits is not a new idea; it has long proven effective for managing\nfisheries and rebuilding populations. Analyses from cases all over the world show that fish populations\nrebound when excess fishing mortality is reduced. Of 24 depleted stocks worldwide with formal rebuilding\nplans to reduce excess fishing mortality, all but one recovered.\nThe 2013 report by NRDC 2013 pointed out the following gaps.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 30% of stocks have inadequate data\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Important stocks (river herring, shad, menhaden, Atlantic sturgeon) are not federally managed so not\nsubject to rebuilding even though recognized as depleted\n\xe2\x80\xa2 NRDC Gaps seem to focus on inconsistencies and lack of information\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The report points out that unmanaged stocks may have state management plans that fall short of MSA\nstandards (inconsistent management in state and federal waters)\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Internationally managed stocks are subject to less stringent rebuilding requirements (inconsistent\nmanagement across governance structures)\n\xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cmore than 200 international stocks (including more than 50 that NMFS considers major stocks)\nidentified as overfished are designated as having \xe2\x80\x98unknown\xe2\x80\x99 or \xe2\x80\x98undefined\xe2\x80\x99 overfished status\xe2\x80\x9d\nThe NRDC 2013 report estimates that 21 stocks (or 48% of overfished) are considered rebuilt.\nSignificant Rebuilding Progress (7 stocks or 16%) means that greater than or equal to 50% of the\nrebuilding target AND greater or equal to 25% increase since the start of the plan\nLimited Rebuilding Progress (8 stocks or 18%) means that greater than or equal to 50% of the rebuilding\ntarget OR greater or equal to 25% increase since the start of the plan\nLack of Rebuilding Progress (8 stocks or 18%) means less than 50% of rebuilding target AND Less than\n25% increase since the start of the plan\n\n38 | Unit 4 - Our Fisheries\n\n\x0cFigure 4.5: NRDC 2013\n\nA 2018 NRDC update indicates that 40 federally managed species important to commercial and recreational\nfishermen are still overfished or at risk. However, the overall recovery shows that the 2007 revisions to MSA\nare working.\n\nNRDC Fact Sheet 2018, Successfully Rebuilding American Fisheries Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.\n\nAn appendix of Resources at the end of the book contains additional details relevant to fisheries (see\nresources for unit four).\nUnit 5 will discuss regulatory aspects of a wide range of environmental impacts on oceans.\n\nUnit 4 - Our Fisheries | 39\n\n\x0cUnit 4 Study Questions\n1.\n\nFor some stocks, little or no data exist. Theorize effective policy options for confronting uncertainty in\nestablishing management plans for those stocks.\n\n2.\n\nWhat are potential methods of achieving (over time) greater consistency at management scales (state,\nfederal, international)?\n\n3.\n\nSince 1976 when Congress passed MSA, one of the greatest movements has been toward stakeholder\nidentification, outreach and inclusion. Who are the stakeholders in regard to the nation\xe2\x80\x99s fisheries?\n\nUnit Four Appendix\n\n40 | Unit 4 - Our Fisheries\n\n\x0cUnit 5 - Regulating Ocean Impacts\nContents\nIntroduction\nOverfishing and Fisheries Recovery\nThe Impact of Incidental Take, or Bycatch\nPollution\nOcean Acidification\n\nIntroduction\nThe various (and increasing) human uses of ocean resources can cause impacts. The application of federal\nenvironmental laws to impact reduction is effective at smaller scales, and indispensible but limited. Most\nlegal and regulatory controls evolved to become relevant after damages have been done and come more\nfrom a redress or remedy perspective. Over time, as impacts to the ocean have become more complex and\noverlapping and the consequences chronic, proactive tools aimed toward awareness and prevention must be\ndeveloped. The law is only one part of a toolbox that includes public involvement in education and outreach,\nsophisticated and nuanced long-term stakeholder processes, volunteer programs such as beach clean ups,\nhabitat monitoring, and coastal restoration. This unit will present an overview of statutory approaches to a\nhandful of ocean impacts including overfishing, bycatch, and examples of pollution sources.\nOverfishing and Fisheries Recovery\nUnit 4 described how the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA, 16 USC Ch. 38) and SFA (the 1996 amendments\nto the 1976 Magnuson Act) evolved to require science-based management through new accountability\nmeasures and the mandatory incorporation of the ten national standards (16 USC \xc2\xa7 1651) in each fisheries\nmanagement plan (FMP) produced by the eight US regional fishery management councils (review the eight\ncouncils here).\nWhile US management under the MSA is achieving successes in many fisheries, the over-exploitation of\nfish stocks remains a significant threat to an important source of high-quality protein for humans, as well\nas an economic and cultural threat to coastal economies. Overfishing also poses a serious biological impact\non marine ecosystems. Overfishing represents disruption of predator-prey and other food-web dynamics,\nand removal of biomass and nutrients from the biogeochemical cycle. In response, MSA requires Regional\nFishery Management Councils to devise an effective FMP for every overfished stock; the FMP must contain\nconcrete steps to rebuild the fishery.\nAt NOAA\xe2\x80\x99s site detailing Essential Fish Habitat the EFH regulatory guidelines are posted (50 CFR Ch. VI\nSubpart J, Essential Fish Habitat). A review of these regulations provides a glimpse into the enormous detail\nthat goes into determining, mapping, and improving the EFH required in every FMP.\n\nUnit 5 - Regulating Ocean Impacts | 41\n\n\x0cCoordination is required at two levels (NMFS with federal and state agencies, and NMFS with the eight\nRFMCs\xe2\x80\x94recall the Unit 3 discussion of administrative examples of EBM).\nDeclaring certain areas as essential fish habitat (EFH) is a major tool to rebuild fisheries, with west coast\ngroundfish as only one example. Identifying and protecting EFH is an EBM-based strategy (Unit 3). EFH\nplans are reviewed every five years.\nThere are over 100 identified types of EFH covering all aquatic habitats. For example, rivers, wetlands,\nestuaries, coral and rocky reefs, kelp forests and seagrass beds are included. Note that some of these EFH\ncategories are important land-based habitats\xe2\x80\x94not all are ocean ecosystems. Here is the general regulatory\ndefinition of EFH (50 CFR \xc2\xa7600.10).\nEssential fish habitat (EFH) means those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,\nbreeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. For the purpose of interpreting the definition of essential\nfish habitat: Waters include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological\nproperties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where\nappropriate; substrate includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and\nassociated biological communities; necessary means the habitat required to support a sustainable\nfishery and the managed species\xe2\x80\x99 contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and spawning, breeding,\nfeeding, or growth to maturity covers a species\xe2\x80\x99 full life cycle.\nFor a concrete example, ten species of groundfish on the US west coast were overfished. Today, seven of\nthe ten are declared rebuilt. For a feature about two newly recovered rockfish species, and photographs\n(darkblotched rockfish and bocaccio) see here.\nGeographic delineations are described with precision in the EFH regulation specifically for Pacific\nGroundfish, see here (50 CFR 660.75). These habitats are mapped and available for viewing. To learn more,\ntake a look at the EFH maps of Pacific Groundfish (the final rule, final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),\nand Record of Decision (ROD) are also available here for this fishery).\nThe Impact of Incidental Take, or Bycatch\nIncidental take, also called bycatch, refers to the mortality and discard of species (not just fish, but any\nocean species including mammals and sea birds) that are unintentionally caught in the course of commercial\nfishing activities.\nThe statutory definition of bycatch is located in MSA Standard 9 (50 CFR Chapter VI Part 600(D).600.350).\nIf marine mammals or endangered species are involved as bycatch, MMPA and ESA also apply since an illegal\ntaking has occurred.\nBycatch represents a serious and persistent ocean impact. Innovations in policy and re-designed fishing\ngear, seasons and practices to reduce bycatch are still a national work in progress. NOAA Fisheries devised\na National Bycatch Strategy, revised in 2016, that contains five main objectives.\n\n42 | Unit 5 - Regulating Ocean Impacts\n\n\x0cFigure 5.1 NOAA National Bycatch Strategy\nObjectives (2016)\n\nThe national program emphasizes collaboration with states, other agencies, and stakeholders and includes\nimplementation of fisheries observers. In many cases, fishermen themselves have designed new gear (in\ncollaboration with engineers, scientists, and inventors) to eliminate or reduce bycatch within specific\nfisheries. Click to see a video (provided by an environmental NGO) that tells the story of a collaborative\nproject to design a better trawl net that lets juvenile fish escape.\nGlobally, one annual estimate of bycatch is 8.5 million tonnes (or 40.4 percent of the annual catch estimate\nof 95.2 million tonnes, from the authors\xe2\x80\x99 data). The authors note that using weight alone, hides the true\nimpact and dire consequences of removing tonnes of juvenile fish from the system, thus the impact in terms\nof ecology (and fisheries future productivity) is far greater (Davies et al. 2009).\n\nFigure 5.2 Summary of all bycatch estimate results, from Davies et al. 2009 (permission to reproduce requested 3.9.18)\n\nReliable estimates of annual bycatch among US fleets are difficult to identify; previous data are reported\nfrom 2011-2013 (US National Bycatch Report 2016).\nMoore et al. (2009) reviewed US fishing mortality to sea turtles, marine mammals and birds and found that\nwhile policy has led to significant improvement,\n\nUnit 5 - Regulating Ocean Impacts | 43\n\n\x0ccumulative estimates are lacking for all taxa, but particularly for sea turtles and seabirds in most\nplaces where it occurs, observer coverage levels are insufficient to accurately characterize these\nrare bycatch events across fleets (Moore et al. 2009, p. 445).\nAs of August 2017, NOAA Fisheries (NMFS) awarded $2.3 M to eighteen different bycatch reduction research\nprojects around the US. To learn more about this initiative, please visit (fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/\n2017-bycatch-reduction-engineering-program-awards).\nPollution\nThis section will present an overview of US pollution regulation in terms of approaches generally\ndescribed as prevention and control (via Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 403 Ocean Discharge Criteria).\nResources related to reduction and response (oil spill civil and criminal liability in CWA Section 311), or\nthe domestic and international laws prohibiting ocean dumping are provided in Unit 5 Resources in the\nAppendix.\nMarine pollution poses short- and long-term impacts on organisms, biodiversity, food webs (including\nbenthic), and sometimes contains toxic contaminants. In some instances, the compounds were banned\ndecades ago but remain as \xe2\x80\x98legacy pollution\xe2\x80\x99\xe2\x80\x94the compound has already dispersed but persists in the\nenvironment such as river substrates or bay and ocean bottom sediments. Polychlorinated biphenyls, or\nPCBs are an example. Banned in the US in 1979 and around the same time in Canada, this contaminant has\nbeen shown to be toxic to humans and wildlife (see oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/pcbs.html).\nAnother example, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), are a component of petroleum entering\nthe sea from oil spills, terrestrial runoff, and other sources. Exposure to contaminated prey can lead to\nmalformed embryos in mammals, and has been suspected in certain lung infections in dolphins following\nthe New Horizon platform blowout (Venn-Watson et al. 2015).\nContaminants in the ocean largely come from terrestrial-based sources, including stormwater runoff and\nstream outflows that collect trash that blown by the wind. Plastics in the ocean (from land and ships) are\nan enormous threat to marine life for several reasons: fish, mammals and birds that ingest plastic mistaking\nit for prey face high mortality. Floating plastic objects are a vector for invasive species and pathogens. As\nthey degrade in saltwater, plastics leach chemical compounds, as they degrade further they become smaller\nand smaller until they are what is called microplastics\xe2\x80\x94plastic particulates that float in the water column.\nThe increase of major storm events will only exacerbate the problem of plastics in the oceans.\nReducing the use of plastics, recycling them or disposing of them properly, through highly visible,\nconsistent programs to keep plastics and all trash out of coastal watersheds and the ocean are objectives\nthat are clearly achievable through community education, grassroots volunteer programs such as beach\nclean up events. Within coastal marinas, local ordinances with boater education and onsite recycling\ncenters could be very beneficial. At the state level, regulations related to individual coastal state\nmanagement plan priorities can help. The strongest intervention options toward a solution are most likely\nlocated within organized, focused efforts at the local level.\nMany coastal states have marine debris action plans. The NOAA Office of Response and Restoration\nis a source for examples of published reports and technical memos from the coastal states\n(marinedebris.noaa.gov/reports-and-technical-memos). NOAA\xe2\x80\x99s 2017 report on the accomplishments\nprovides a snapshot of progress at the national level. During 2017,\nMore than 1600 metric tons of marine debris were removed\n\n44 | Unit 5 - Regulating Ocean Impacts\n\n\x0cThree Marine Debris Emergency Response Guides were created for South Carolina, Georgia and\nMississippi\nMore than 1800 teachers were reached, and more than 18,300 students\nForty-two new survey sites were added to the Monitoring and Assessment Project\nThe Program responded to debris cleanup from three hurricanes (Harvey, Irma, Maria)\nNOAA 2017 Marine Debris Program Accomplishments Report\n\nFigure 5.3 Plastic pollution, from Laura Parker, National Geographic, Ocean Trash: 5.25 Trillion Pieces and\nCounting, but Big Questions Remain, photo Waterframe, Alamy\n\nHowever, flows that do not come from a pipe, a ship, or a floating platform (all regulated point sources) are\nnonpoint source pollution, which is (if regulated at all) a local concern to be touched on in Unit 9 (Coastal\nManagement). Flows that come from pipes, ships, and platforms are regulated through permits, reviewed\nevery five years, via the CWA provisions regarding ocean discharges (33 USC 1343; see below).\nWithin three miles of the coastline, water-quality criteria are established by EPA-authorized state water\nquality programs. Coastal water quality monitoring in conjunction with beaches and water recreation can\nbe found on state coastal management agency websites. The EPA, under its mission to protect human\nhealth, also provides coastal water quality information and warnings to the public (epa.gov/beaches/\nfind-information-about-your-beach). The grassroots nonprofit Surfrider Foundation also monitors coastal\nwater quality and provides periodic reports online; the most recent Surfrider Report is from November 2017\n(surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/2017-state-of-the-beach-report).\nThe CWA\xe2\x80\x99s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulates point source (think endof-pipe) ocean discharges beyond three-mile state waters with criteria set by the EPA. The ocean discharge\nUnit 5 - Regulating Ocean Impacts | 45\n\n\x0cpermit program applies to around 300 types of facilities, including offshore oil and gas activities, and\nseafood processing.\nEPA uses seven guidelines to determine whether or not to issue an ocean discharge permit. Permit\napplicants must submit analyses of their proposed discharges (biological, ecological, and chemical). EPA\nreviews the permit applications to evaluate whether the activity will unreasonably degrade the marine\nenvironment through an analysis of ten factors (in 40 CFR 125.122; see second table, below). If a proposed\ndischarge meets the adjacent coastal state\xe2\x80\x99s water quality standards, there is a presumption that the\ndischarge will not cause an unreasonable degradation.\n\nClean Water Act NPDES Ocean Discharge Criteria\n\n33 USC \xc2\xa7 1343; see also Regulations at 40 CFR \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 125.120 \xe2\x80\x93 125.124\n\n(c) Guidelines for determining degradation of waters\n(1) The [EPA] Administrator shall, within one hundred and eighty days after October 18, 1972 (and from\ntime to time thereafter), promulgate guidelines for determining the degradation of the waters of the\nterritorial seas, the contiguous zone, and the oceans, which shall include:\n(A) the effect of disposal of pollutants on human health or welfare, including but not limited to plankton,\nfish, shellfish, wildlife, shorelines, and beaches;\n(B) the effect of disposal of pollutants on marine life including the transfer, concentration, and dispersal of\npollutants or their by-products through biological, physical, and chemical processes; changes in marine\necosystem diversity, productivity, and stability; and species and community population changes;\n(C) the effect of disposal, of pollutants on esthetic, recreation, and economic values;\n(D) the persistence and permanence of the effects of disposal of pollutants;\n(E) the effect of the disposal of varying rates, of particular volumes and\nconcentrations of pollutants;\n(F) other possible locations and methods of disposal or recycling of pollutants including land-based\nalternatives; and\n(G) the effect on alternate uses of the oceans, such as mineral exploitation and scientific study.\n(2) In any event where insufficient information exists on any proposed discharge to make a reasonable\njudgment on any of the guidelines established pursuant to this subsection no permit shall be issued under\nsection 1342 of this title.\n\nNPDES Ocean Discharge Criteria,\n\n46 | Unit 5 - Regulating Ocean Impacts\n\n\x0cDetermination of unreasonable degradation of the marine environment\nRegulation 40 CFR 125.122\n\n(a) The [EPA] director shall determine whether a discharge will cause unreasonable degradation of the\nmarine environment based on consideration of:\n\n(1) The quantities, composition and potential for bioaccumulation or persistence of the pollutants to be\ndischarged;\n\n(2) The potential transport of such pollutants by biological, physical or chemical processes;\n\n(3) The composition and vulnerability of the biological communities which may be exposed to such\npollutants, including the presence of unique species or communities of species, the presence of species\nidentified as endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, or the presence of those\nspecies critical to the structure or function of the ecosystem, such as those important for the food chain;\n\n(4) The importance of the receiving water area to the surrounding biological community, including the\npresence of spawning sites, nursery/forage areas, migratory pathways, or areas necessary for other\nfunctions or critical stages in the life cycle of an organism.\n\n(5) The existence of special aquatic sites including, but not limited to marine sanctuaries and refuges,\nparks, national and historic monuments, national seashores, wilderness areas and coral reefs;\n\n(6) The potential impacts on human health through direct and indirect pathways;\n\n(7) Existing or potential recreational and commercial fishing, including fin fishing and shellfishing;\n\n(8) Any applicable requirements of an approved Coastal Zone Management plan;\n\n(9) Such other factors relating to the effects of the discharge as may be appropriate;\n\n(10) Marine water quality criteria developed pursuant to section 304(a)(1).\n\nUnit 5 - Regulating Ocean Impacts | 47\n\n\x0cOcean Acidification\nAcidification caused by fossil fuel burning is an urgent climate change impact on the pH of seawater\nand is a threat to all ocean systems and fisheries, particularly shellfish. Ocean acidification is caused by\ndissolved CO2, but made worse by warmer ocean temperatures. Outflows of stormwater, the volume of\nwhich is increasing due to more frequent and severe storm events, also contribute to acidification because\nthey contain compounds including nutrients such as nitrate from agricultural fertilizer and manure, and\ndeposition (both wet and dry) of nitrogen compounds from air pollution. As 170 nations move ahead\nimplementing their commitments under the most recent Climate Accord, perhaps the best option presently\nis outreach and education, and to strengthen current regulatory approaches (US Clean Air Act and Clean\nWater Act) at the local, state, and regional levels regarding improving air quality, and reducing contaminants\nin stormwater runoff.\nAcidification interferes with shell building by oysters, a commercially valuable resource. To get an idea of\nhow changing biogeochemical cycles and ocean chemistry can impact shell building, review this interactive\nexplanation from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.\nIn regard to large, complex phenomena such as ocean acidification it is important to bring home its\nimportance, to the greatest extent possible, in a local, personal context. Moreover, it is critical to educate\nand involve community members in actions to confront the problem. Kelly et al. (2013) found that data alone\nrepresenting the environmental risk of ocean acidification was less effective at motivating decision-making\nleading to action than developing an effective, accompanying narrative\xe2\x80\x94i.e. telling the story of the impact\nto give the data more meaning. The case study involved oyster production in the Whiskey Creek Shellfish\nHatchery on the Oregon coast. The hatchery, according to the authors, produces approximately 75% of\njuvenile Pacific oysters for the million-dollar West Coast oyster aquaculture industry. When the hatchery\nbegan to experience up to 80% mortality of its larvae, it partnered with scientists and others to begin water\nquality monitoring, which revealed a strong correlation between the mortality periods and seasonal coastal\nupwelling of acidic bottom waters. In 2011, the Governor of Washington convened a Blue Ribbon Panel on\nOcean Acidification that was widely inclusive of government, nongovernmental organizations, scientists,\nand the industry. Eventually, the Panel\xe2\x80\x99s efforts led to a set of commitments by the state, \xe2\x80\x9cWashington\xe2\x80\x99s\nResponse to Ocean Acidification.\xe2\x80\x9d\nKelly et al. point out that narratives can link knowledge to action, partly because audiences remember\nnarrative far more than information presented in an expository format). The authors note:\nWe suggest that this story gained critical traction because it featured identifiable and sympathetic\ncharacters\xe2\x80\x94real people\xe2\x80\x94with both the capacity and the willingness to share their story outside the\nboundaries of their community, and because their story was consistent with the effects predicted\nby a growing body of biophysical data. WC [the narrative] personified the economic impacts of one\nspecific form of environmental change\xe2\x80\x94ocean acidification\xe2\x80\x94and did so in a credible and accessible\nway\xe2\x80\xa6[that] \xe2\x80\xa6 was perceived to clearly link a specific environmental change to effects on real people,\nthe small but important local industry that they support, and the provision of food from the sea.\n(Kelly et al. 2013)\nAn appendix of Resources at the end of the book contains supplemental information relevant to water\nquality problems discussed above as well as the regulation of other pollution impacts (ocean dumping, oil\nspills, and marine debris such as plastics, lost or discarded fishing gear sometimes called \xe2\x80\x98ghost nets\xe2\x80\x99; see\nresources for unit five).\n48 | Unit 5 - Regulating Ocean Impacts\n\n\x0cUnit 6 will present important aspects of international fisheries management.\n\nUnit 5 Study Questions\n1.\n\nIs there a connection between watershed management, drinking water, wastewater discharges, and\nocean water quality?\n\n2.\n3.\n\nWhat are possible options for addressing marine debris from land? From offshore sources?\nSome regional approaches are showing signs of success in decreasing pollution to large water bodies,\nsuch as the Chesapeake Bay. The plan for restoring the Bay is a very long-term, ongoing effort, involving\nmultiple and complex efforts to curb pollution from various land use activities, air pollution, and runoff\nfrom a 64,000 square mile watershed touching six states and the District of Columbia. The restoration\nchiefly involves coordination, collaboration, enforceable standards (pollution limits) under the umbrella\nof a CWA Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL; see https://www.epa.gov/chesapeake-bay-tmdl). If this\nholistic, longterm approach can work in a geographic area this large and diverse, could it work\nelsewhere? What short- and long-term benefits might a cohesive, national coastal watershed effort have\nfor ocean water quality? Recreation? Ecosystems? Fisheries?\n\nUnit Five Appendix\n\nUnit 5 - Regulating Ocean Impacts | 49\n\n\x0cUnit 6 - Introduction to International Fisheries\nManagement\nConcepts\nIntroduction\nGovernance and Sustainability of World Fisheries\nThe United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)\nConflict Management in the Convention\n\nIntroduction\nThe primary, holistic purpose of international law is to establish and set forth a set of internationally\nagreed-upon norms\xe2\x80\x94the instruments are elaborated upon in international discussions with policy objectives\nreflected in agreements (treaties and conventions). International law is uniquely based on the tension,\ncommon interests and common goals among sovereign nations who are the parties to each agreement.\nAll international instruments, and those governing fishing perhaps most of all, evolved and transformed\nout of the ancient principle of freedom of the seas (mare liberum, see Unit One) put forth by Hugo\nGrotius and maintained by nations for centuries. The transition from the perspective of ocean resources\nas limitless\xe2\x80\x94a free-for-all commons\xe2\x80\x94to the current (and still developing) set of governance structures for a\nhungrier and more crowded planet, represents a remarkable change.\nWhile nations make their own laws with which to govern themselves, international law emerges out\nof ambitious, vigorous global discussions and the need to determine goals and principles, equitable and\nsustainable guidelines for resource distribution and security of nations. Practices that were previously\ncustomary become codified in international conventions; codified conventions therefore reflect\ninternational custom. Finally, note that in international law nations are \xe2\x80\x9cstates.\xe2\x80\x9d To avoid confusion, States\n(meaning countries) will be capitalized.\nThe purpose of this unit is to provide fisheries and wildlife and other natural resource and environmental\nmanagement professionals and students with walking-around knowledge about how fisheries are managed\nat the international scale.\nGovernance and Sustainability of World Fisheries\nThe United States possesses legal and market-based tools to combat unsustainable and illegal fisheries\nfrom outside domestic waters. The 1971 Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen\xe2\x80\x99s Protective Act, 22 USC 1971-79,\nand the Lacey Act of 1900 that makes it illegal to import and sell fish and shellfish illegally caught (16 USC\n3372(a)(2)(A). Amendments to the Magnuson Stevens Act (2000, and 2002) added provisions to indirectly\nregulate the illegal shark fin trade (Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000, 16 USC 1857(1)(P); see also\nThe Shark Conservation Act of 2010, 16 USC 1857(1)(P)). Under the Convention on International Trade in\n50 | Unit 6 - Introduction to International Fisheries Management\n\n\x0cEndangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), 182 nations and the European Union (EU) protect\napproximately 35,000 species of plants and animals.\nCertification schemes for sustainable fisheries offer another market-based approach. According to FAO\xe2\x80\x99s\nNicolas L. Gutierrez (2016), 30 percent of global stocks are overexploited, despite recoveries in some\nfisheries and some regions. Certification has early success. Seafood certification labeling can raise\nawareness and issue visibility, and create higher product values as an economic incentive. Gutierrez\nnotes that well established programs such as the nonprofit Marine Stewardship Council (MSC,\nhttps://www.msc.org) have reached ten percent of global fisheries.\nInternational fisheries are regulated by 17 Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs),\nconsortia of countries (coastal States, and distant water fishing nations or DWFN) collaborating based on\nfinancial and conservation interests, mainly in commercially valuable species but sometimes on ecosystem\nor habitat also. Not every ocean region is governed by any form of RFMO. RFMOs are diverse, focused\non a single or multiple species. For example, five RFMOs manage tuna. Governed by treaties and other\ninternational agreements, some regions and nations participate in more than one organization. Each\nentity\xe2\x80\x99s structure for decision-making is different, although all have a science committee that provides\nrecommendations. Decisions result in plans for annual implementation plans that are consensus-based\nthrough voting. While RFMO decisions are binding, compliance varies; according to PEW Charitable Trusts\n(2012), these organizations could be strengthened by having stronger incentives, political weight, sustainable\nmanagement mandates and authority for enforcement.\n\nFigure 6.1 Map of Global Tuna Management by RFMOs (PEW 2012)\n\nThe World Bank (WB) and FAO studied and summarized the status and value of fisheries sustainability in the\nlandmark report, Sunken Billions: The Economic Justification for Fisheries Reform, first published in 2009,\nand updated in 2017 (see Unit 6 Resources in appendix).\nWithin an era since the early 1990s that included stagnant and declining fisheries, the 2009 WB/FAO\nstudy pointed to a global fisheries crisis based on observations that despite falling catch, the era featured\nUnit 6 - Introduction to International Fisheries Management | 51\n\n\x0can \xe2\x80\x9cincrease in the level of fishing by a factor of four.\xe2\x80\x9d Even in the face of a doubling of global fleet size and\nthree-times the number of those involved in fishing, catches did not increase.\nUncertainties complicating sustainability include ongoing ocean changes attributable to climate (rising\ntemperatures, changing currents, acidification, rising sea levels). The purpose of the WB/FAO study and\n2017 update is to estimate, as accurately as possible, the costs and benefits of achieving sustainable global\nfisheries, to encourage fishing nations to understand and address the economic loss of $83 billion (2012) that\ndeclining fisheries represent (the loss to which the sunken billions report title refers).\nThe report states that if effort were reduced, the oceans living resources would have a chance to\nregenerate, leading to four improvements (fish biomass by a factor of 2.7, 13 percent increase in annual\nharvest, 24 percent increase in unit prices in part because of recovery of high-value species severely\ndepleted, and annual net benefits increase from $3 billion to $86 billion).\nSunken Billions hypothesized two ways to generate recovery. Although unpopular and therefore\nimpracticable, the first option listed in the report nonetheless provides useful comparison: fishing effort\nreduced to zero followed by maintaining effort at some level deemed optimal. The report estimates this\nmethod would recover over \xe2\x80\x9c600 million tons in five years and then taper off\xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\x9d The report\xe2\x80\x99s second\nhypothetical method is to reduce global fishing effort by five percent per year for a decade. The report\nestimates the second method would bring fisheries to the same level (600 million tons) in around 30 years.\nAn FAO report (State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016) finds 31.4 percent of commercial fish stocks\nworldwide are presently fished at a level that is not sustainable, three times the 1974 level. Offset by\naquaculture, worldwide fish consumption rose above 20 kilograms per year for the first time. The role of\naquaculture is considerable: FAO reports that, in 2014, 35 countries (3.3 billion people, or 45 percent of\nworld population) \xe2\x80\x9cproduced more farmed than wild-caught fish.\n\n52 | Unit 6 - Introduction to International Fisheries Management\n\n\x0cFigure 6.2 Global Trends in the State of World Fish Stocks Since 1974, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United\nNations 2016 Annual Report, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture\n\nThe RFMOs, as they gain scientific and compliance capacity, are uniquely positioned to lead fisheries\nrecovery and sustainability. They are the backbone network of international fisheries management.\nThe United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)\nFor convenience, the provisions of the Convention most pertinent to this unit are provided in the\nappendix of resources for Unit 6. They are:\n\nPart V, EEZ\n\nArticles 61 \xe2\x80\x93 68\n\nPart VII The High Seas\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nConservation and Management\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nEnvironmental Protection including Pollution\n\nEnforcement\n\nArticles 116-120\nArticles 207-212\nArticles 213-22\n\nUnit 6 - Introduction to International Fisheries Management | 53\n\n\x0cUNCLOS is aptly known as the ocean\xe2\x80\x99s constitution because it provides a holistic vision of cooperative ocean\ngovernance spanning the exploitation and management of living and nonliving resources, navigation, marine\nenvironmental protection, the resolution of disputes, and scientific research.\nOver coming years, areas likely to be revised or expanded might include modernizing the Convention\xe2\x80\x99s\nfisheries provisions, and the sections on deep seabed (\xe2\x80\x9cthe Area\xe2\x80\x9d designated as part of the heritage of all\nhumankind) issues, especially pertaining to mining of manganese and other valuable metals.\nIn reviewing the Convention\xe2\x80\x99s sections on fisheries, you may notice the (now familiar) maximum sustained\nyield (MSY) metric. The Convention\xe2\x80\x99s emphasis on MSY is becoming controversial among some international\nfisheries experts. The Convention is increasingly faced with complex realities of overfishing, itself a product\nof multiple forces (weak governance and enforcement, high product market values, fleet overcapacity, or\never-advancing capture technologies). Moreover, the oceans are undergoing profound change (increasing\nacidity, water temperature, melting ice). Management paradigms in wealthier nations, such as robust\nscience-based management, and ecosystem-based management (EBM) could help inform more prudent\ndecision-making. However, the funding, technology and capacity that could support contemporary tools to\nimprove the concept of MSY toward decreasing overfishing can be lacking in developing nations.\nThe Convention\xe2\x80\x99s myopic emphasis on the fish themselves (total allowable catch, size, quotas) completely\noverlooks enormous pressures represented by larger environmental and economic forces. Some experts\nwould like to see MSY modernized and more nuanced to take into account important contemporary\ninfluences on global catch including data on global and regional fleet count, boat size, gear types, and\nfisheries subsidies, as well as area-based bans and moratoria (Hey, 2012).\nConflict Management in the Convention\nUNCLOS provides four separate systems for dispute resolution; these feature forums that are third-party,\nformal, and compulsory. Article 287(1) states that parties in dispute may choose from the International\nCourt of Justice (ICJ), the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS, under Annex VI), a special\narbitration form (Annex VII, the default forum) and a fourth tribunal (Annex VIII) that oversees fisheries,\nscientific, environmental, and navigation questions.\nThe following sites provide insights into current controversies.\nInternational Court of Justice (ICJ, The Hague, Netherlands)\nThe International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS, Hamburg, Germany)\nUnit 6 Resources (appendix) contains excerpts from UNCLOS that are relevant to international fisheries\nmanagement and many other useful global fisheries references.\nUnit 7 will present aspects of current problems in ocean management.\nNotes: Hey E (2012), The Persistence of a Concept: Maximum Sustainable Yield, 27 The International\nJournal of Marine and Coastal Law, 763-771.\n\nUnit 6 Study Questions\n1.\n\nShould nations that are meeting management and sustainability goals share technology and expertise\nwith nations that are falling short? If so, what existing forums or processes do you recommend serving as\nvehicles for progress?\n\n54 | Unit 6 - Introduction to International Fisheries Management\n\n\x0c2.\n3.\n\nWhat is at stake nationally and internationally in the case of declining and overfished species?\nWhile there are still important stocks being rebuilt, the United States and North America as a region,\nare among the most well regulated fisheries internationally, with notably smaller fleets. Based on what\nyou know from the readings in Unit 4 and elsewhere, what key principles and tools might underlie these\nsuccesses?\n\nUnit Six Appendix\n\nUnit 6 - Introduction to International Fisheries Management | 55\n\n\x0cUnit 7 - Current Problems in American Ocean\nManagement: Illegal, Unreported, and\nUnregulated (IUU) Fishing\nContents:\nIntroduction\nEnforcement\nHigh Seas Task Force\nIntroduction\nIn Unit 5, we looked at examples of how law deals with some contemporary, urgent ocean impacts. Unit 6\nshed light on how international fisheries are managed. Unit 6 will provide an overview of tools available to\nconfront the major, complex and serious global problem of illegal fishing. The purpose of this unit is to set\nthe stage by providing an introduction and overview to IUU fishing.\nEstimates of IUU fishing vary from 15-30% of global catch, robbing the poorest coastal nations of upwards\nof $1 billion annually. The drivers include high seafood demand, high profits with lower perceived risks\nin the context of a product that historically defied detection of illegality. The United Nations Food and\nAgriculture Organization, FAO defines IUU here.\nIllegal fishing refers to activities:\nConducted by national or foreign vessels in waters under the jurisdiction of a state, without the\npermission of that state, or in contravention of its laws and regulations;\nConducted by vessels flying the flag of states that are parties to a relevant regional fisheries\nmanagement organization but operate in contravention of the conservation and management\nmeasures adopted by that organization and by which the States are bound, or relevant provisions of\nthe applicable international law; or in violation\nof national laws or international obligations, including those undertaken by cooperating states to\na relevant regional fisheries management organization.\nUnreported fishing refers to fishing activities:\nWhich have not been reported, or have been misreported, to the relevant national authority, in\ncontravention of national laws and regulations; or activities\nundertaken in the area of competence of a relevant Regional Fisheries Management Organization\n(RFMO), which have not been reported or have been misreported, in contravention of the reporting\nprocedures of that organization.\nUnregulated fishing refers to fishing activities:\nIn the area of application of a relevant RFMO that are conducted by vessels without nationality, or\nby those flying the flag of a state not party to that organization, or by a fishing entity, in a manner\nthat is not consistent with or contravenes the conservation and management measures of that\n56 | Unit 7 - Current Problems in American Ocean Management:\nIllegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing\n\n\x0cOrganization; or in areas or for fish stocks in relation to which there are no applicable conservation\nor management measures and where such fishing activities are conducted in a manner inconsistent\nwith State responsibilities for the conservation of living marine resources under international law.\nThe topic of IUU is constantly evolving. Governments, grassroots nonprofits, and even celebrities are\nbecoming more involved (if you are intrigued, check out Global Fishing Watch, founded by Leonardo\nDiCaprio and Google http://globalfishingwatch.org).\nAs a beginning point, the 2006 reauthorizations to the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and\nManagement Act included much-needed attention to stocks outside US waters. The reauthorizations\nprovide the Commerce Secretary with the ability to monitor high seas fisheries, including stocks that are\nsubject to international agreements and governing bodies. The 2006 updates initiated a suite of powerful\nimprovements in international monitoring and information sharing, communication between enforcement\nagencies, and registry for vessels. The reauthorization established a process for the US to identify and then\nwork with specific nations that have lax fisheries enforcement. Those countries may then take action to\nachieve greater compliance, and if successful then receive \xe2\x80\x9ccertification\xe2\x80\x9d of their fisheries by the US.\nTo read the text of the MSA section on Illegal, Unregulated or Unreported (IUU) Fishing, go to 16 USC \xc2\xa7\n1826j):https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/1826j\nFor more about the strengthening of MSA\xe2\x80\x99s enforcement provisions, explore here.\nIn conjunction with the 2006 MSA changes, the US focused on achieving greater cooperation with\nother nations through strengthening the Moratorium Protection Act (16 USC 1826d-k). The Secretary of\nCommerce reports progress to Congress every two years about consultations with countries with vessel\noffenses. The Moratorium Protection Act also provides for the Secretary, along with the Secretary of State\nand regional councils to undertake actions to improve international fisheries management. Within the\norganizations in which the US is a member, the US is authorized to urge regional fisheries organizations to\ndo any of the following:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Incorporate multilateral market-related measures against member or non-member governments\nwhose vessels engage in IUU fishing.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Seek adoption of lists that identify fishing vessels and vessel owners engaged in IUU fishing.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Seek adoption of a centralized vessel monitoring system (VMS).\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Increase use of observers and technologies to monitor compliance with conservation and management\nmeasures.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Seek adoption of stronger port State controls in all nations.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Adopt shark conservation measures, including measures to prohibit removal of any of the fins of a\nshark (including the tail) and discarding the carcass of the shark at sea.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Adopt and expand the use of market-related measures to combat IUU fishing, including import\nprohibitions, landing restrictions, and catch documentation schemes (CDSs).\n\nUnit 7 - Current Problems in American Ocean Management: Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing | 57\n\n\x0cThe MSA definition of IUU fishing 16 USC 1826j(e)2(A-C):\n(A) fishing activities that violate conservation and management measures required under an international\nfishery management agreement to which the United States is a party, including catch limits or quotas,\ncapacity restrictions, bycatch reduction requirements, and shark conservation measures;\n(B) overfishing of fish stocks shared by the United States, for which there are no applicable international\nconservation or management measures or in areas with no applicable international fishery management\norganization or agreement, that has adverse impacts on such stocks; and\n(C) fishing activity that has an adverse impact on seamounts, hydrothermal vents, and cold water corals\nlocated beyond national jurisdiction, for which there are no applicable conservation or management\nmeasures or in areas with no applicable international fishery management organization or agreement.\n\nVery relevant is the Secretary of Commerce\xe2\x80\x99s duty to encourage other nations to adopt measures to\nprevent trade in fish products taken through IUU practices, bringing in important market forces relevant\nto traceability (putting systems in place at each step of the custody or supply chain that identify the fish in\ncommerce from ocean to table).\nAccording to Lewis and others (2017) seafood traceability is expanding as a tool to confront estimated\nIUU fishing losses of $10 to $23.5 billion per year (11 to 26 million tons, citing Agnew et al. 2009). As of\nJanuary 2018, the new Seafood Import Monitoring Program will intercept at-risk seafood entering the US\n(see fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/international-affairs). The Monitoring Program will focus on eleven priority\nspecies: Atlantic and Pacific Cod, blue crab, mahi mahi, grouper, king crab, sea cucumbers, red snapper,\nsharks, swordfish and tunas. The monitoring will expand to shrimp, abalone and other species in the future.\nTrade-related environmental measures (TREMs) can be more successful if accompanied by planning\nthat begins with diplomacy and possible aid, and emphasizes a collaborative approach. Other tools used\nto combat IUU fishing have included prohibitions on landing, catch documentation requirements, import\npermits, direct bans on imports, and mandatory labeling schemes. For an example of traceability efforts,\ncheck out Fish Tracker Initiative that seeks to \xe2\x80\x9calign capital markets with sustainable fisheries management.\xe2\x80\x9d\nThe 2015 and 2017 Reports to Congress provide details about the accomplishments of the previous\ntwo years with regard to IUU fishing, bycatch (including seabirds), and shark conservation:\nhttps://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/international-affairs/identification-iuu-fishing-activities#magnusonstevens-reauthorization-act-biennial-reports-to-congress\nAn interesting international case example of efforts to reduce IUU fishing in the Patagonian Toothfishery\noff Chile, is available at the site from the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living\nResources (CCAMLR). CCAMLR\xe2\x80\x99s conservation, licensing and enforcement program has had some success\nin reducing IUU fishing in this high-value fishery.\n\n58 | Unit 7 - Current Problems in American Ocean Management: Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing\n\n\x0cFigure 7.1: Graphic courtesy of National Intelligence Council (2016), Global Implications of Illegal, Unreported, and\nUnregulated (IUU) Fishing\n\nIn addition to threatening an important supply of protein for the 4.3 billion people who depend on\nsubsistence fisheries, IUU fishing also engages in devastating practices that include the use of dynamite,\nkerosene or fertilizer (\xe2\x80\x9cblast fishing\xe2\x80\x9d) or cyanide fishing, or gear that damages or destroys crucial habitats\nsuch as reefs. It is thought that IUU fishing disproportionately affects poor coastal communities.\nIn some cases, IUU fishing is directly linked to organized crime, with an unquantified portion tied to\n\nUnit 7 - Current Problems in American Ocean Management: Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing | 59\n\n\x0ccorruption (bribery of officials for example). In untold human cost, IUU often features forced labor, and is\nlinked to human trafficking/slavery. IUU is known to contribute to piracy.\nFinally, observers agree that climate change effects will reduce catch potential, captured in this graphic\nfrom IPCC (2014). The areas the most vulnerable reflect poor coastal countries (including Kenya,\nMadagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles) that rely on subsistence fishing. The following graphic illustrates\npotential changes in catch by 2060.\n\n60 | Unit 7 - Current Problems in American Ocean Management: Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing\n\n\x0cFigure 7.2\n\nUnit 7 - Current Problems in American Ocean Management: Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing | 61\n\n\x0cEnforcement\nEnforcement on the high seas is challenging because of the vast area to be patrolled. Under UNCLOS,\nCoastal States are responsible for vessels flying their flag. However, while the vessels themselves are liable,\nthe contours of flag State liability are ambiguous. A 2015 Advisory Opinion from the International Tribunal\non the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) found that flag States must exercise due diligence. Closer to shore, coastal\nstates must prevent IUU fishing. In international waters (beyond 200 nm) flag States have only general\nresponsibilities to ensure normal regulation of vessels, compliance with applicable treaties, and adherence\nto best practices.\nHigh Seas Task Force\nIn 2006, a task force made up of NGOs (World Wildlife Fund, International Union for the Conservation of\nNature, and Columbia University\xe2\x80\x99s Earth Institute) and government representatives from Australia, Canada,\nChile, Namibia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom published nine proposals within a report, Closing the\nNet: Stopping Illegal Fishing on the High Seas.\nThe proposals included specific action steps.\nProposal 1\n\nInternational *MCS Network\n\nProposal 2\n\nGlobal information system on high seas fishing vessels\n\nProposal 3\n\nParticipation in UNFSA and FAO compliance agreement\n\nProposal 4\n\nPromote better high seas governance\n\nProposal 5\n\nAdopt and promote guidelines on flag state performance\n\nProposal 6\n\nSupport greater use of port and import measures\n\nProposal 7\n\nFill critical gaps in scientific knowledge and assessment\n\nProposal 8\n\nAddress the needs of developing countries\n\nProposal 9\n\nPromote better use of technological solutions\n\n*International Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) Network for Fisheries Related Activities\n(imcsnet.org).\nMore recently, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the\nTask Force formed an independent panel of experts to create a governance model for the Regional Fisheries\nManagement Organizations (RFMOs) to serve as a standard or benchmark for RFMO self-evaluation.\nThe panel published a set of best practices in 2007 (https://www.oecd.org/sd-roundtable/\npapersandpublications/39374297.pdf). The impressive document contains the statement that a flag state\nmember of an RFMO should only authorize vessels to fish to the extent that it can effectively exercise\nits conservation and management responsibilities under UNCLOS, thereby tying compliance ensurance to\ninitial licensing.\nUnit 7 Resources in the appendix contains information relevant to IUU Fishing.\nUnit 8 will look at how offshore energy leasing works.\nNotes\nLewis SG, Boyle M (2017). The Expanding Role of Traceability in Seafood: Tools and Key Initiatives, 82\nJournal of Food Science S1, A13 \xe2\x80\x93 A21.\nAgnew D, Pearce J, Pramod G, Peatman T, Watson R, Beddington JR, Pitcher J (2009). Estimating the\nWorldwide Extent of Illegal Fishing. PLoS ONE 4(2):e4570. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004570.\nUnit Study Questions\n1. What conditions contribute to IUU fishing?\n62 | Unit 7 - Current Problems in American Ocean Management: Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing\n\n\x0c2. If solving IUU fishing involves addressing those conditions, what kinds of tools are available in addition\nto law and policy?\n3. Technology-based solutions to monitoring IUU fishing and intercepting illegal catch are developing\nrapidly. Are they sufficient alone? Are social and economic interventions necessary?\nUnit Seven Appendix\n\nUnit 7 - Current Problems in American Ocean Management: Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing | 63\n\n\x0cUnit 8 - U.S. Management of Offshore Energy\nContents:\nIntroduction\nThe Submerged Lands Act\nThe Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act\nOffshore Renewable Energy: Wave, Wind, Current, Tidal Energies\nIntroduction\nWhile most marine management professionals may never encounter energy leasing in their careers,\nunderstanding how US ocean energy leasing works is important for several reasons. Leasing, exploration,\nand extraction can be planned to avoid space conflicts with other ocean uses, these activities potentially\nimpact our ocean ecosystems and resources, and we are consumers of minerals and energy whether it is oil,\ngas, or electricity potentially powered by wind, waves, tides, or currents.\nThe provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Unit 2) in Sections 7 and 9 apply to activities related to\nenergy; offshore activities such as oil exploration and the construction of wind turbines require permits\n(from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management at the\nleasing phase (BOEM)) for incidental take, and such activities may not cause a threatened or endangered\nspecies to be jeopardized. Leasing within specific regions including portions of Artic seas may be covered\nby programmatic biological opinions.\nThis unit will briefly look at how the US manages the exploration and leasing of offshore energy resources\n(minerals, oil, gas, and alternatives such as wind, wave, tidal and current energy).\nThe Submerged Lands Act\nIn order to establish certainty following years of lawsuits between coastal states and the federal\ngovernment about jurisdiction, in 1953 Congress passed the Submerged Lands Act (SLA, 43 USC \xc2\xa71301 et\nseq.) to simultaneously quitclaim most federal rights, and establish state rights, in the navigable waters and\nadjacent seabed within nearshore waters to the coastal states. The SLA applies to waters and submerged\nareas within three miles (except for the Gulf Coasts of Texas and Florida which extend to three marine\nleagues or 12 miles due to historic claims). The Act confers jurisdiction, management and stewardship\nresponsibilities to the coastal states, with exceptions. The federal government reserves traditional\nauthorities under with regard to \xe2\x80\x9cthe use, development, improvement, or control by or under the\nConstitutional authority of Congress to regulate or improve navigation, or to provide for flood control, or\nthe production of power\xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\x9d (43 USC \xc2\xa7 1311 (d)).\nUndersea cable is an example of a seabed use requiring leases and permits. Applications include undersea\ncommunications cable, and electric cable used to connect offshore energy installations such as wind energy\nfacilities to the mainland. During the project application and planning phase, companies must be authorized\nthrough seabed leases in order to install cable necessary to the project. Both examples (communication,\nenergy) would require both federal (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, within the US Department of the\nInterior) and state leases and permits since the cable covers the span of both seabeds.\n\n64 | Unit 8 - U.S. Management of Offshore Energy\n\n\x0cFigure 8.1 Cable ship deployed to support offshore wind energy generation and transmission to shore. CC-BY-SA by\nAcabashi.\n\nIn state waters, one or more agencies in each coastal state will be involved in reviewing lease applications\nof the state\xe2\x80\x99s seabed area. The financial proceeds from leases generate revenue for the state, although\nthe fees are often modest. Proposed projects and activities requiring federal permits and licenses within\nstate waters must be consistent with the state\xe2\x80\x99s coastal zone management plan under the US Coastal Zone\nManagement Act of 1972 (CZMA 16 USC Ch. 33 \xc2\xa71451 et seq.).\nIn Oregon, seabed regulation is divided between two agencies. The Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL)\nauthorizes, permits, and oversees activities involving the seabed and Oregon Department of State Land\nConservation and Development (DLCD) handles Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Section 7 federalstate consistency review. The CZMA is covered in Unit 9 on US Coastal Management.\nThe Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act\nFive-year leases for the exploration, development and production of minerals, oil and gas within three to\n200 miles offshore are governed by Section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (OCSLA, 43\nUSC \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa71331-1356). OCSLA Section (B) includes the recognition that offshore resource development can have\nadverse impacts on coastal states, and provides that a portion of the lease receipts from the OCS is available\nUnit 8 - U.S. Management of Offshore Energy | 65\n\n\x0cfor coastal states and localities to use for mitigation of \xe2\x80\x9cadverse economic and environmental effects related\nto the development of such resources.\xe2\x80\x9d Section C provides that coastal states and local governments \xe2\x80\x9care\nentitled to an opportunity to participate, to the extent consistent with the national interest, in the policy\nand planning decisions made by the Federal Government relating to exploration for, and development and\nproduction of, minerals of the Outer Continental Shelf.\xe2\x80\x9d\nThe term Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) pertains to all submerged lands seaward and outside of the\narea beneath navigable waters subject to US jurisdiction and control, a definition that adheres to the Law\nof the Sea (UNCLOS). The US State Department defines the extended shelf (or the ECS, beyond 200 miles\nfrom shore) as that part of the shelf beyond our EEZ, currently being studied and mapped here. A BOEM\npresentation features a useful flowchart (below) of steps in the pre-lease and post-lease phases of oil and\ngas exploration and development.\nIn 2016, the US generated around 91% of the energy consumed, with the remainder accounted for by net\npetroleum imports which have been decreasing for several years, a reduction that also implies fewer oil\ntankers importing foreign oil to US ports. Fossil fuels (natural gas, petroleum, and coal) still comprise most\nUS energy production (US Energy Information Administration).\n\nFigure 8.2 Flow charts of US oil and gas leasing program, lease sales, exploration and development approvals (Bureau of\nOcean Energy and Management, US Department of the Interior)\n\n66 | Unit 8 - U.S. Management of Offshore Energy\n\n\x0cThe national leasing program undergoes periodic changes due to the priorities of Congress and whatever\npolitical administration is in power. For example, in April 2017, Executive Order (13795) announced an\nexpansion of offshore leasing to access increased domestic oil and gas supplies. The new leasing program\nwill affect 2019-2024 and will replace all or part of the approved, previous 2017-2022 program. A one-page\nhistory of oil drilling (by the US Marine Mammal Commission) is available access it here. In contrast to\nrecent calls for a massive expansion of US offshore areas to oil and gas drilling, in economic reality the\nchance of ever exploiting those areas may be small. A recent report summarized it this way. \xe2\x80\x9cAlmost twothirds of the nation\xe2\x80\x99s oil reserves that companies can hope to drill for while still turning a profit lie in seas\nalready open to drilling\xe2\x80\xa6The abundance of cheap oil and gas from onshore fracking in the United States\nhas already diminished the incentive for companies to go drill in new offshore zones.\xe2\x80\x9d The article also\nnotes the enormous risks and costs involved in investing in new offshore wells. (New York Times, 2018).\nFor information on the longstanding moratorium on US West Coast (CA, OR, and WA) offshore drilling and\nformer President Obama\xe2\x80\x99s action to extend the West Coast moratoria, see here.\nThe final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (PEIS) for the original 2017-2022 oil and gas\nprogram, and the final Record of Decision (ROD) for the original plan, are available here. Any time a federal\naction (including granting permits or leases) poses any impacts that are economic, social, or environmental,\nthe lead agency must prepare a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), under the National\nEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA 42 USC \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa74321 et seq.).\n\nFigure 8.3 Offshore Oil Rig. From Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.\n\nUnit 8 - U.S. Management of Offshore Energy | 67\n\n\x0cRecall that all revenue-producing activities within coastal waters and the United States EEZ must, by law,\nconserve and protect ecosystems and natural resources as well as provide a fair market return to coastal\nstates and the nation, since the oceans are common property and the state and federal government have\na mandatory stewardship responsibility as the Trustee. This responsibility is embedded in the language of\nSLA and the OCSLA, and is the reason for detailed environmental review documentation.\nOffshore Renewable Energy: Wave, Wind, Current, Tidal Energies\nThe SLA and OCSLA also pertain to offshore renewable energy, which consists of energy derived from\nwind, waves, tides, or currents. These renewables have varying pros and cons, cost per kW hour and other\neconomic considerations, and empirical environmental data depending on location. However, over time the\ncost of many offshore renewables is decreasing as the designs become more efficient.\nThe Bureau of Ocean Energy Management oversees leasing and permits connected to wind power. This\njurisdiction was granted in the Energy Act of 2006.\nWind energy is the most advanced and established so far, and the United States first offshore wind project\ncame online through the Block Island Wind Farm in December 2016. As indicated in Unit 3 (Managing\nThrough Specially Designated Areas) offshore energy siting is planned far in advance, after years of\ncollecting scientific data on suitability or sensitivity of offshore ecosystems and input from stakeholders\nincluding fishermen and recreationalists, mapping and zoning of the substrate and overlying waters.\nThe facilities can serve as data collection sites on wildlife. Wind energy installations on land or at sea\nhave potential impacts to wildlife. As of September 2017 the facility at Block Island (off Rhode Island) became\none of 40 tracking stations on the East Coast for collecting data on migrating seabirds and bats using VHF\ntechnology in conjunction with US Fish and Wildlife Service.\n\nFigure 8.4: Block Island Wind Energy Installation, 2016 (Rhode Island)\n\n68 | Unit 8 - U.S. Management of Offshore Energy\n\n\x0cWhile each individual project site will have its own EIS under NEPA, BOEM developed a programmatic EIS\nfor the whole US offshore wind program in 2007. This PEIS is available at: boem.gov/Guide-To-EIS/.\n\nFigure 8.5: Map showing US coastal and OCS wind speed value estimates (National Renewable Energy Laboratory)\n\nThe regulations pertinent to leases for OCS renewables are located in 30 CFR Ch. V Subpart B,\n500.200-585.437 (inactive link as of 05/19/2021). BOEM also provides information on the regulatory\nframework for offshore wind, and links to learn more about offshore wind, wave, current and even solar\nenergy: boem.gov/Offshore-Wind-Energy/ (inactive link as of 05/19/2021).\nAt least fifteen coastal states (California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland,\nMassachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia, in\naddition to regional proposals) had some offshore renewable energy projects under development at the end\nof 2017. A map and a list linked to specific information by state is available at: boem.gov/Renewable-EnergyState-Activities/. Offshore renewables are only one part of states\xe2\x80\x99 renewable energy portfolio standards\n(REPS) that include other sources such as solar.\nCalifornia, as a geographically large and populous (39.5 million) state, makes a useful illustration. The state\nhas a 50% renewable energy goal by 2030. The website of the California Offshore Wind Energy Gateway\nfeatures news, maps, and information about the state\xe2\x80\x99s progress. California\xe2\x80\x99s offshore wind resources are\nestimated to offer more than 158,000 Gigawatts (GW) of electricity (a single GW can power up to 350,000\nhomes). At this scale, clean power offers enormous implications for reducing carbon emissions and their\nimpacts on marine and coastal ecosystems (including the potential for reducing ocean acidification) thus\nalso holding promise for protecting coastal economies such as fisheries.\n\nUnit 8 - U.S. Management of Offshore Energy | 69\n\n\x0cFigure 8.6 US Energy Information Administration\n\nEnergy generated by water (hydrokinetic) includes electricity from waves, tides, or currents. BOEM (and any\ncoastal states involved) reviews seafloor lease applications for hydrokinetics. The Federal Energy Regulatory\nCommission (FERC) governs hydrokinetic energy installations under the Federal Power Act (FPA) of 1935 (16\nUSC Ch. 12). FERC reviews applications, siting and environmental documents for hydrokinetic pilot projects\n(three-year permits for trials) and 30-50 year licenses for proven technologies in accordance with state\ncomprehensive plans as dictated by the FPA. To date, very few hydrokinetic projects have been licensed (see\nFERC Hydrokinetics site).\nUnit 9 will present the framework for management of the framework and partnership between the\nfederal government (through NOAA) and the 35 coastal states, which include the Great Lakes, for managing\nshorelines and resources in coastal waters.\nNotes\nTabuchi H, Wallace T (2018) Trump Would Open Nearly All US Waters to Drilling. But Will They Drill?\nThe New York Times, January 23, 2018. Comparing the oil exploration of three presidents, with maps:\nnytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/23/climate/trump-offshore-oil-drilling.html\n70 | Unit 8 - U.S. Management of Offshore Energy\n\n\x0cUnit Study Questions\n1. If the OCSLA anticipates participation of coastal states and localities in decision-making, what does\nthis imply about levels of scrutiny for environmental review? What are some of the stakes for coastal\nstates with proposed leasing in or adjacent to their waters? Why did Congress include these\nprovisions in the statute?\nUnit Eight Appendix\n\nUnit 8 - U.S. Management of Offshore Energy | 71\n\n\x0cUnit 9 - Coastal Management in the United\nStates\nContents:\nIntroduction\nThe Public-Private Mosaic\nThe Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972\nThe CZMA Nonpoint Source Pollution Provisions\nIntroduction\nAs discussed in Unit 1, the ocean economy worldwide is vast, diverse, and a major contributor (in the US\nalone, its worth was estimated at $117 billion with over 2 million jobs in 2000). Coastal areas contribute\nan even larger share of the US economy, more than $1 trillion or a tenth of the annual GDP, according to\nthe US Commission on Ocean Policy (2004). In addition to rich biodiversity and valuable fisheries, ocean\nand coastal areas provide ecosystem services including climate moderation and protection from storms.\nManaging the interface of land and water is a complex work in progress. This unit examines the tools within\nthe Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.\n\nFigure 9.1 The Value of US Coasts (Ch. 1, Final Report of the US Commission on Ocean Policy 2004).\n\nThe Public-Private Mosaic\nIn contrast to the public oceans and coastal waters, the terrestrial coast is a complex patchwork of\nprivate and public lands. This mosaic of land use and the way it is managed individually and in aggregate\nhas enormous implications on the biological intactness and quality of coastal forests, watersheds and the\nadjacent ocean, biodiversity, recreational opportunities, capacity to buffer the impacts of storms. Within\nand apart from the state-federal partnership tools within the CZMA, everyday local planning and land-use\ndecisions matter and can have cumulative and long-ranging impact.\n72 | Unit 9 - Coastal Management in the United States\n\n\x0cAlthough each state coastal management program (CMP) is unique, the programs address the broad\nspectrum of coastal issues identified as priorities by Congress in the CZMA. In reality, the national\nimpact of the Coastal Zone Management Program is the result of many thousands of state and local\ndecisions that impact the management and development of the coastal area. For example, a 2013\nNOAA study analyzes the value of using \xe2\x80\x9cno-build areas\xe2\x80\x9d to protect the shoreftont, revealing the\nmultitude of levels of government and methods used to advance shorefront protection.\nFletcher KM 2015\n\nFigure 9.2 Beach divisions relevant to public and private rights (adapted from Kalo et al. 2007).\n\nWhile public land beach divisions vary among coastal states, in general in the US common-law private\nownership extends above the Mean High Tide (MHT) line, while the wet sand and submerged lands are\nvested in the state. In some states for historic reasons (Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,\nVirginia) private rights may include the area to the Mean Low Tide (MLT) line. Coastal states hold legal title\nas public trustees to coastal waters and substrate and these rights are nontransferable.\nPrivate landowners on waterways have special common law rights in conjunction with their property.\nAlthough the terms may be used interchangeably, littoral rights refer to rights pertaining to tidal waters;\nUnit 9 - Coastal Management in the United States | 73\n\n\x0criparian rights refer to rights pertaining to freshwater. Such rights may include, for example, the right\nto build a dock or wharf. However, private and state rights are subordinate to important exceptions.\nThe federal government retains two major interests in the coastal zone: navigation and navigation safety.\nBecause of the federal navigation servitude, constructing a dock or wharf requires a permit authorized by\nthe US Army Corps of Engineers.\nCoastal states and the federal government interests and responsibilities in the coastal zone are\nincreasingly visible and urgent. These priorities include public safety, flood control, hazard prevention and\nmitigation as illustrated by the impacts from recent hurricanes such as Harvey (August 17, 2017, $125 billion\nin damages), Katrina (August 2005, $108 billion in damages), Sandy (October 2012, that set the record for\nlargest Atlantic hurricane) and Irene (September 2011). The major framework for coastal protection and the\npartnership is laid out in the Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA). The two most prominent features of\nthe CZMA for the purposes of this Unit are the provisions regarding consistency with coastal CMPs, and the\nprovisions on nonpoint source water pollution.\nThe Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA, 16 USC \xc2\xa7 1451 et seq.)\nThe policy statement of CZMA contains a long list of Congressional priorities of resource protection,\nstate assistance, and minimizing life and property loss, improving water quality, and improving public access\n(coast.noaa.gov/czm/act/sections/#303). Two pillars of the framework are state coastal management\nprograms, which oversee and carry out their state coastal management plans (CMPs).\nThe 35 individual programs are reviewed, approved, and funded by NOAA\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Ocean and Coastal\nResource Management (OCRM). OCRM reviews state CMPs and progress on goals every five years,\nproviding feedback for improvement. Early on, the federal funding provided a major incentive for\nparticipation; the annual funding allocations have decreased over time. A second incentive for states to\nmaintain their programs is their right to weigh in on whether or not federally permitted activities should\nbe authorized to take place off their coasts. States regularly review proposed activities to evaluate whether\nthey are consistent with CMP enforceable policies.\nThe CZMA\xe2\x80\x99s three main purposes are to encourage states to engage in proactive comprehensive planning\nin relation to the land and water uses in the coastal zone, to improve coordination and communication\nin governance (municipalities, Tribes, etc.), and to preserve, protect, and restore natural resources in the\ncoastal zone.\nIn order to be valid, CMPs must include specific elements set forth in the statute (16 USC \xc2\xa7 1455(d), see\nhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/1455). These elements form the basis of state management,\nand contain goals and priorities with which proposed activities requiring federal permits must comply under\nCZMA Section 307. Moreover, CMPs include all enforceable policies within a state\xe2\x80\x99s coastal zone.\nBasically all federal activities, or activities that require a federal permit inside or outside the coastal zone,\nmay be reviewed if is reasonably foreseeable that the activity will affect any of the coastal state\xe2\x80\x99s lands,\nwaters, or natural resources. In addition, coastal states may elect to review an activity that is proposed in\nthe waters off a neighboring state (interstate consistency). Anticipated effects may be direct or indirect in\ntime and place. \xe2\x80\x9cReasonably foreseeable\xe2\x80\x9d is a factual determination made on a case-by-case basis by the\nstate agency conducting the review.\nIf a state objects to an activity, it is rare that the activity will proceed. First, if an activity of paramount\nfederal interest, it may fall under a Presidential Exemption (meaning the activity is exempt from CZMA\nconsistency review). Second, the Secretary of Commerce has but seldom uses his/her override discretion\nto override a coastal state\xe2\x80\x99s objection to a permit. Such an override would be based on one of two grounds:\n74 | Unit 9 - Coastal Management in the United States\n\n\x0cthat the proposed activity actually is consistent with the CZMA and CMP, or the activity is necessary due to\nnational security.\nExcerpt of Section 307(c)(1) through (3)(A)\n(c) Consistency of Federal activities with State management programs; Presidential exemption;\ncertification\n(1)(A) Each Federal agency activity within or outside the coastal zone that affects any land or water\nuse or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner which is consistent to the\nmaximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved State management programs.\nA Federal agency activity shall be subject to this paragraph unless it is subject to paragraph (2) or (3).\n(B) After any final judgment, decree, or order of any Federal court that is appealable under section\n1291 or 1292 of Title 28, or under any other applicable provision of Federal law, that a specific\nFederal agency activity is not in compliance with subparagraph (A), and certification by the Secretary\nthat mediation under subsection (h) of this section is not likely to result in such compliance, the\nPresident may, upon written request from the Secretary, exempt from compliance those elements of\nthe Federal agency activity that are found by the Federal court to be inconsistent with an approved\nState program, if the President determines that the activity is in the paramount interest of the\nUnited States. No such exemption shall be granted on the basis of a lack of appropriations unless the\nPresident has specifically requested such appropriations as part of the budgetary process, and the\nCongress has failed to make available the requested appropriations.\n(C) Each Federal agency carrying out an activity subject to paragraph (1) shall provide a consistency\ndetermination to the relevant State agency designated under section 1455(d)(6) of this title at the\nearliest practicable time, but in no case later than 90 days before final approval of the Federal activity\nunless both the Federal agency and the State agency agree to a different schedule.\n(2) Any Federal agency which shall undertake any development project in the coastal zone of\na state shall insure that the project is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with the\nenforceable policies of approved State management programs.\n(3) (A) After final approval by the Secretary of a state\xe2\x80\x99s management program, any applicant for\na required Federal license or permit to conduct an activity, in or outside of the coastal zone,\naffecting any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone of that state shall provide\nin the application to the licensing or permitting agency a certification that the proposed activity\ncomplies with the enforceable policies of the state\xe2\x80\x99s approved program and that such activity will be\nconducted in a manner consistent with the program. At the same time, the applicant shall furnish\nto the state or its designated agency a copy of the certification, with all necessary information\nand data. Each coastal state shall establish procedures for public notice in the case of all such\ncertifications and, to the extent it deems appropriate, procedures for public hearings in connection\ntherewith\xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\xa6[end of excerpt]\nTwo flow charts illustrate the CZMA Section 307 review process.\n\nUnit 9 - Coastal Management in the United States | 75\n\n\x0cFigure 9.3 Chart illustrating federal agency activities under CZMA \xc2\xa7 307(c)(1) (15 CFR part 930\nsubpart C) From nrc.gov/docs/ML0732/ML073240025.pdf\n\n76 | Unit 9 - Coastal Management in the United States\n\n\x0cFigure 9.4 Chart illustrating flow of review activities for proposals requiring federal license or permit\nunder CZMA \xc2\xa7 307(c)(3)(A) (15 CFR 930, subpart D) nrc.gov/docs/ML0732/ML073240025.pdf\n\nThe CZMA Nonpoint Source Pollution Provisions\nThe 1990 CZMA reauthorization amendments (CZARA) initiated a program of grants to help states improve\nspecific aspects of their programs (protection of wetlands, coastal development\xe2\x80\x99s impacts and development\nin areas prone to hazards, public access, marine debris, resource planning, and energy siting. CZARA also\nintroduced a program to help control nonpoint source pollution in the coastal zone.\nLand use managers in the coastal zone have modest tools within the state\xe2\x80\x99s CMP to help tailor where\nand what kind of development takes place. In this professional area, property rights challenges based\non the Fifth Amendment claim of unlawful \xe2\x80\x9ctaking\xe2\x80\x9d of private property in the public interest without just\n\nUnit 9 - Coastal Management in the United States | 77\n\n\x0ccompensation are always a risk; managers working in this area must consult local and state regulations,\ntheir attorneys general and legal cases. There are two general guidelines to keep in mind. The first is that\nany permanent physical invasion of the land through a government action may be considered a taking.\nThe second guideline is that a court of law may find an ordinance or a land-use decision, if it goes too\nfar, a taking; this is often construed in economic terms (the ordinance or decision has severely interfered\nwith the property holder\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cinvestment backed expectations,\xe2\x80\x9d meaning s/he had to have already completed\nsignificant steps and expenditures toward project completion, or the ordinance or decision has left the\nproperty holder with no marketable use of her/his property. On the other hand, for example, if a state or\nlocal government takes action to prevent coastal erosion through otherwise lawful and valid means, that\nmay be well within the scope of a government action that avoids the risk of a takings claim.\nProtection of water quality is a required element in CMPs. The 1990 CZMA amendments (CZARA section\n6217) established the Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Program (CNSPP) that requires participating states\nto create programs to control coastal nonpoint source pollution as part of the CMPs. The new nonpoint\nsource (NPS) provisions mirror the relevant provisions within the Clean Water Act (section 319) and the\ntwo programs are coordinated. Under the CNSPP, NOAA and the EPA jointly review state nonpoint source\npollution programs, and approve (or conditionally approve, with steps and a timeline for achievement or\ncompletion). The incentives for states to have approved CNSPP plans are powerful. States that fail to do so\nlose critical federal funding (CZMA and CWA) to support their CMPs.\nThe Clean Water Act\xe2\x80\x99s Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) provisions can be a useful tool in reducing\nand preventing coastal nonpoint source pollution, as pointed out in Unit 5 with regard to the expansive\nand complex sources within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. States periodically report the condition of\ntheir water bodies based on whether the waters meet water quality standards sufficient to support their\ndesignated uses, with the mandatory baseline being \xe2\x80\x9cfishable and swimmable\xe2\x80\x9d from the CWA. If waters\nfall short, the state must define and declare the specific impairments (sediment, biological oxygen demand\n(BOD), pH, fecal coliforms, for example).\nThe TMDL program implements a \xe2\x80\x9cwaste load allocation\xe2\x80\x9d to collectively reduce contaminants\nproportionately from contributing point sources with NPDES permits in order to help recover water quality\nin an impaired water body. However, when application of the waste load allocation to point sources alone\nis insufficient to restore water quality, the TMDL can flexibly be extended to NPS regardless of source (air\npollution, land runoff, for example).\nWhile the developments since CZARA hold promise, the advancement and practicability of the TMDL\nand the CNSPP programs to reduce or prevent NPS will depend strongly on coastal state capacity and\nenforcement in terms of adequate funding, data, science and technical personnel in the field.\nIn addition to expanding efforts to improve water quality in watersheds adjacent to the coastal zone,\nstates are focused on coastal management tools that include low-impact development, coastal setbacks for\nnew development, and outreach and education on emergency preparedness and hazard mitigation.\nNotes\nBeach diagram by author, adapted from Kalo et al. (2007) Coastal and Ocean Law Cases and Materials,\nThird ed. (West Publishers) p. 1, which was adapted from Brower, Access to the Nation\xe2\x80\x99s Beaches: Legal and\nPlanning Perspectives 19-20, 60-61 (1978).\nUnit 9 Resources contains additional information relevant to coastal management.\nUnit 10 will examine tools and possibilities represented by marine restoration.\nUnit Study Questions\n78 | Unit 9 - Coastal Management in the United States\n\n\x0c1. If Professor Fletcher\xe2\x80\x99s observation (quoted above) is accurate, coastal areas may suffer from death by a\nthousand cuts. Is this a problem of conceptual scale in decision-making? Theorize some tools and\nmethods to support more broadly informed, holistic, and coordinated public decision outcomes for\ncoastal development and coastal management at the local level (municipalities, counties, zoning\nordinances).\n2. What are potential funding mechanisms to support coastal state efforts to stem NPS contaminants\nfrom their shores? At the outset, many development projects include upfront fees for sewer and\nstormwater hookup in order that counties and cities (thus taxpayers) are not solely burdened with\nthese expenses. Are such fees or taxes, were they to be validly based on empirical water quality data\nderived before and after construction, one possible solution? What kinds of implications does coastal\nNPS have in the context of groundwater and drinking water, often scarce resources in coastal areas?\nFisheries and shellfish? Public health? Recreation in the coastal zone? Property enjoyment and values\n(when areas suffer harmful algal blooms or beaches are regularly closed due to bacteria or pathogens\nsuch as E.coli?)\nUnit Nine Appendix\n\nUnit 9 - Coastal Management in the United States | 79\n\n\x0cUnit 10 - Restoring Marine Environments: The\nRoles of Innovative Regulatory, Planning and\nHuman Dimensions Tools\nContents:\nIntroduction\nIntroduction\nThis unit examines nearshore systems\xe2\x80\x99 value and the contemporary mosaic of tools to restore estuary\nand bay ecosystems, shorelines, fisheries and wildlife, drawing on concepts from the book\xe2\x80\x99s previous units\n(EBM, MSP, fisheries recovery, ocean impacts, and so forth). Effective solutions require interdisciplinary and\ncollaborative problem-solving skills you will use across your career in a wide range of professional settings\nReasons to understand management aspects of marine restoration are compelling.\n\nNearshore\n\nenvironments are richest in biodiversity, provide irreplaceable functions and services, and are economically\nvaluable. As with the other complex ocean issues presented in this book, in marine restoration planning,\nproactive and effective policy is key and early outreach to and involvement of communities and stakeholders\nis crucial.\n\nFigure 10.1 Turtle grass bed, Tampa Bay restoration, Smithsonian Ocean Portal\nhttp://ocean.si.edu/ocean-news/bringing-back-tampa-bay\xe2\x80\x99s-seagrass\n\nHumans are naturally drawn to water. Pressure from expanding human development invariably increases\n80 | Unit 10 - Restoring Marine Environments: The Roles of\nInnovative Regulatory, Planning and Human Dimensions Tools\n\n\x0cimpacts on coastal ecosystems and the resources on which we depend. Seventy-five percent of Americans\nwill live within 50 miles of the coast by 2075, according to Restore America\xe2\x80\x99s Estuaries.\nIn the United States, counties directly on the shoreline constitute less than 10 percent of the total\nland area (not including Alaska), but account for 39 percent of the total population. From 1970 to\n2010, the population of these counties increased by almost 40% and are projected to increase by an\nadditional 10 million people or 8% by 2020. Coastal areas are substantially more crowded than the\nU.S. as a whole, and population density in coastal areas will continue to increase in the future. In fact,\nthe population density of coastal shoreline counties is over six times greater than the corresponding\ninland counties.\nNOAA National Ocean Service\nWhile we want to protect our coasts and enjoy the amenities and support services they provide, these\nresources are under increasing pressures and global climate change. Between 1998 and 2009, for example,\nthe US lost wetlands acreage larger than the state of Rhode Island. These are lands that had helped absorb\nand retain floodwaters and storm surge, filter drinking water, provide habitat for myriad animals, birds, and\ninsects and nurseries for fish. According to the Center for American Progress, the US loses more than seven\nfootball fields of wetlands every hour (CAP Fact Sheet 2014).\nThe value of nearshore and estuarine ecological functions and ecosystem services can be difficult to\naccurately account for. Recent economic studies are helping bring these values into focus. The Center for\nAmerican Progress\xe2\x80\x99 (2014) Report notes:\nAn analysis of three federally funded projects reveals that investing in well designed coastal\nrestoration can be highly cost effective, returning significantly more than the cost of the restoration\nproject. Averaging the benefit-cost ratios across the three restoration projects studied, each dollar\ninvested by taxpayers returns more than $15 in net economic benefits.\nThese benefits include buffering storm surges; safeguarding coastal homes and businesses;\nsequestering carbon and other pollutants; creating nursery habitat for commercially and\nrecreationally important fish species; and restoring open space and wildlife that support recreation,\ntourism, and the culture of coastal communities. The benefits are not simply environmental; they\nare economic and social as well. They are particularly salient in lower-income communities, where\nindividuals frequently rely on fisheries for employment and sustenance and lack the resources\nto construct costly\xe2\x80\x94and frequently less effective\xe2\x80\x94manmade flood barriers or water treatment\nfacilities. (CAP 2014)\nCoastal ecosystems also capture \xe2\x80\x9cblue carbon\xe2\x80\x9d \xe2\x80\x93these systems (salt marshes, mangroves, seagrass beds, for\nexample) sequester very old carbon at a rate that is ten times greater than other highly valuable planetary\nsystems we normally think of as carbon sinks (forests), and they hold onto it for a very long time (Edwards\net al. 2013).\nThe Restoration Center within NOAA published a report in May 2017, Socioeconomic Benefits of Habitat\nRestoration\n\n(see:\n\nftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/noaa_documents.lib/NMFS/TM_NMFS_OHC/\n\nTM_NMFS_OHC_1.pdf) . The goals of NOAA\xe2\x80\x99s national restoration projects include fish passage, hydrologic\nreconnection (for example tidal wetlands), shellfish recovery, coral recovery, erosion prevention and control,\nstabilized shorelines, and other strategies such as removal of marine debris. A major purpose also includes\nUnit 10 - Restoring Marine Environments: The Roles of Innovative Regulatory, Planning and Human Dimensions Tools | 81\n\n\x0cstimulating economic growth in coastal communities, represented by 2,280 direct and indirect jobs, and\nsubsequent increases in coastal tourism dollars spent.\n\nFigure 10.2 Completed US Restoration Projects, NOAA, from $167M American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds\n(Socioeconomic Benefits of Habitat Restoration, US Department of Commerce)\n\nCongress allotted $167 million to NOAA from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (ARRA)\nfor the purpose of coastal restoration. The Congressional appropriation allowed 125 competitive projects to\nbe funded. The results included 25,584 acres of restored habitat, 677 stream miles opened to allow fish to\nreach spawning grounds, and the removal of 433,397 tons of debris. The projects spent $154.1 million that, in\nturn, generated $260.5 million annually. The result was a value-added of $143.7 million in \xe2\x80\x9cnew or expanded\neconomic activity nationwide.\xe2\x80\x9d (NOAA 2017)\n\n82 | Unit 10 - Restoring Marine Environments: The Roles of Innovative Regulatory, Planning and Human Dimensions Tools\n\n\x0cFigure 10.3 Restored habitat distribution, NOAA 2017\n\nIn analyzing a subgroup of NOAA restoration case studies, the Center for American Progress (CAP) found\nthat the average benefit-cost ratio of restoring the coastal ecosystem at three sites was 15.36 (CAP Fact\nSheet 2014).\nBased on its findings of the results of NOAA\xe2\x80\x99s restorations, the CAP made the following recommendations.\n\n1.\n\nPublic and private sector entities should increase their investment in coastal restoration projects\nand fund ongoing monitoring of restored areas.\n\n2.\n\nCongress should enact and fund the National Endowment for the Oceans to provide a steady\nrevenue stream for restoration.\n\n3.\n\nThe state and federal agencies distributing BP oil spill related funds should invest in recovery\nprojects that create employment and support long-term ecosystem recovery.\n\n4.\n\nFederal, state, and local coastal planners should give greater weight to natural solutions such as\n\nUnit 10 - Restoring Marine Environments: The Roles of Innovative Regulatory, Planning and Human Dimensions Tools | 83\n\n\x0cwetland restoration to help protect at-risk developed areas.\n5.\n\nThe Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of the Interior, and NOAA should work with\nthe Economic Development Administration and the U.S. Department of Labor to develop new\npathways into crafts, trades, and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM,\ncareers related to ecosystem restoration.\n\n6.\n\nNOAA and its partners should seek funding to apply the evaluation techniques used in this report to\nthe other AR coastal restoration projects in order to provide a stronger foundation for future coastal\nland use decisions.\n\nCAP 2014\n\nWhile Congressional appropriations for coastal restoration ebb and flow across administrations at the\nnational level, on the ground citizens, students, and scientists can help further the work of restoration in\ntheir own regions through becoming involved in shaping the future of their beaches, estuaries, and coasts\nand the plants and animals and other resources that enrich them.\nNotes\nEdwards PET, Sutton-Grier AE, Coyle GE (2013), Investing in Nature: Restoring Coastal Habitat Blue\nInfrastructure and Green Job Creation, 38 Marine Policy 65-71.\nFrom NOAA\xe2\x80\x99s Restoration Center, see report from May 2017, Socioeconomic Benefits of Habitat\nRestoration\nftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/noaa_documents.lib/NMFS/TM_NMFS_OHC/TM_NMFS_OHC_1.pdf\nCenter for American Progress/OXFAM (2014), The Economic Benefits of Restoring Coastal Ecosystems,\nhttps://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2014/04/09/87438/the-economicbenefits-of-restoring-coastal-ecosystems/\nThe Resources for Unit 10 contain additional information relevant to marine restoration.\nThe final unit, Unit 11, will provide thoughts on the future of ocean management.\nUnit Study Questions\n1. The idea of an oceans endowment is intriguing and could gain traction. What are some other funding\nmechanisms that might be practical and popular in the shorter term?\n2. A restoration project is often long-term and can offer a \xe2\x80\x9cliving laboratory\xe2\x80\x9d for STEM as well as law/\npolicy and social science. The data that flow from these projects may be used to help inform projects in\nother regions. What kind of more formal role could education play in coastal restoration programs?\nUnit Ten Appendix\n\n84 | Unit 10 - Restoring Marine Environments: The Roles of Innovative Regulatory, Planning and Human Dimensions Tools\n\n\x0cUnit 11 \xe2\x80\x93 The Future of Ocean Management\nContents\nIntroduction\nThe Trajectory of US Ocean Governance\nOn the Horizon\nIntroduction\nHow does a technologically advanced nation such as the United States achieve progressive stewardship\nand governance of its coasts and three million square miles of waters, seabed, and natural resources\xe2\x80\x94not\nfor the present alone but for the future? As the previous ten units\xe2\x80\x99 explorations indicate, the US\xe2\x80\x99 marine\npolicies, laws and basis of scientific knowledge are continually expanding to become more sophisticated,\nresponsive, and nuanced.\nIn managing our vast ocean wealth as with the country\xe2\x80\x99s terrestrial resources, we seek to make decisions\nthat are sustainable economically, socially, and ecologically (triple-bottom line sustainability) rather than\nshort-sighted and selfish. The stark challenge before our and future generations is for our initial progress\nto keep pace with growing population and consumer demand, the increased uses of ocean space, and the\ncomplex problems we face on a planetary scale as we go about seeking to balance resource exploitation and\nprofit with equitable provision of food, shelter, safety, cultural enrichment, energy, and opportunities for all\npeople to learn and grow to our human potential (see the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human\nRights, Unit 11 Resources).\nThe Trajectory of US Ocean Governance\nThe timeline encompassing the landmarks of the historic Stratton Commission Report, (Our Nation and\nthe Sea (1964)) through the ambitious and comprehensive ocean commission reports in the early 2000s\n(PEW, America\xe2\x80\x99s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change, June 2003; US Ocean Commission, An\nOcean Blueprint for the 21st Century, September 2004) is a single generation. Over the past half century we\nhave taken stock of our enormous ocean wealth, our knowledge, and the achievements and gaps in public\npolicy and the mosaic that is marine law. We have broadened our focus from urgent post-World War II\nconcerns of fishing and food security, industrial development, foreign competition, and military strength to\nmore comprehensively understand broader aspects of marine systems themselves, and the many thousands\nof benefits they provide, economic and otherwise. We are an ocean nation, as stated frequently, including\nin the PEW report\xe2\x80\x99s executive summary. The growing awareness of this is, in itself, a powerful movement;\nwe are also an ocean planet and part of an international commons.\nCreative solutions in every field including ocean law and policy begin with awareness, connection,\nand imagination. One of the most important groundbreaking connections is viewing humans as part of\nthe ecosystem, not apart. Law evolution, including in the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Act and others\npresented previously reflect this increased understanding. Another important connection, growing but\nas yet under-developed, is the realization that wherever we live our everyday choices influence the\nenvironment (that both immediately surrounds us, but also far away) including the coastal zone and the\noceans. The chapters of this book are replete with examples, from sustainable seafood and other consumer\nchoices, lawn and farm fertilizer practices, transportation and shipping and emissions, single-use plastics\nand beyond.\nUnit 11 \xe2\x80\x93 The Future of Ocean Management | 85\n\n\x0cIt is from the specific place each of us daily finds ourselves that awareness, connection, and imagination\nemerge to inform our forward movement as individuals, communities and a nation of ocean citizens,\nregardless of our backgrounds or professions. While problems are complex, immense and pressing,\ninspiration is available.\n\nFigure 11.1 Participants meeting, West Coast Regional Ocean Planning Body ( from\nwestcoastmarineplanning.org)\n\nOn the Horizon\nThe deeply informative major ocean policy initiatives of the early 2000s led to important and related\nongoing projects (among many innovative goals): coordination and connectivity of coastal management\nto the larger ocean ecosystem. This led us to embrace ecosystem-based management nationally through\nocean mapping and marine spatial planning nestled in five US coastal regions: the Northeast and the MidAtlantic (which have been developed, see this December 2016 news release and the links to the new regional\nplanning units, nrdc.org/experts/alison-chase/national-ocean-policy-seven) as well as the evolving West\nCoast, the Caribbean and the Pacific Islands Planning Bodies (see links in resources for Unit Eleven). These\nbodies are not regulatory. The voluntary planning bodies support transparency and collaboration through\nsharing of knowledge, communication and coordination of policy needs and initiatives that are intended to\nsupport better decision making and decreased duplication and conflict between policies. The transparency\nand coordination are necessary to addressing the US ocean policy gaps and weaknesses that the two\ncommissions identified.\nIn effect, the new planning bodies represent a distillation of the two ocean commisions\xe2\x80\x99 multi-year\ninvestigations, evaluations, and findings. It is the regions that will advance the final the goals via their\nrespective data portals and an integrated communication and decision-making framework for the\nmembers. Participants in the new regional planning bodies include coastal states, Tribes, federal agencies,\nthe eight regional fisheries management councils, and marine stakeholders (including fishing, recreation,\n86 | Unit 11 \xe2\x80\x93 The Future of Ocean Management\n\n\x0cenergy, transportation and shipping, telecommunications, and many others). While just beginning, the\nregional bodies\xe2\x80\x99 efforts, to date, have already had success and represent a culmination of fifty years\nof policy development and finesse, much of which would not have been possible without advances in\nstakeholder engagement (ocean resource are our resources), leadership capacity development, ecosystembased management and concomitant advances in science and technology including ocean observing.\n\nFigure 11.2 Fisherman with Rockfish ( from California Oceans Program, The Nature Conservancy)\n\nAchieving greater awareness of the consequences of shore-side decisions on the coastal ocean and beyond\nis a longer-term ambition. An important development used increasingly outside the United States is\nintegrated coastal zone management (ICZM), a logical development in view of the fact that sixty percent of\nEarth\xe2\x80\x99s population and 21 of 33 coastal mega cities are within the coastal zone (Zacharias 2014). ICZM is also\na logical and holistic extension of ecosystem-based management that moves beyond strictly sector-based\nmanagement to take account of the whole in a systems view of energy inputs, outputs and flows. Tools will\nevolve to incorporate urban systems, and more importantly their planning for growth, to support scienceinformed sustainability. (For example, see the Nature Conservancy, Our Oceans Our Future urban planning\ntool in Unit 11 Resources).\nWhile solid achievements in marine law and policy remain to be accomplished at national and\ninternational levels, the hard work and confrontation of uncertainty and risk necessary to take a leadership\nrole in marine management are worth it. The future of this endeavor has never had higher stakes, nor\noffered greater rewards in terms new discoveries and achievement in innovations in technology, outreach,\nand engagement between environmental professionals at all levels and ocean citizens from all walks of life.\nUnit 11 \xe2\x80\x93 The Future of Ocean Management | 87\n\n\x0cInspired by a photo snapped by Voyager 1 (1990) in which the Earth appeared as an infinitely tiny speck of\nlight, astronomer Carl Sagan (1934-1996) saw our watery planet this way; in turn we are inspired:\nThat\xe2\x80\x99s here. That\xe2\x80\x99s home. That\xe2\x80\x99s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you\never heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and\nsuffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and\nforager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant,\nevery young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every\nteacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every \xe2\x80\x9csuperstar,\xe2\x80\x9d every \xe2\x80\x9csupreme leader,\xe2\x80\x9d every saint and\nsinner in the history of our species lived there \xe2\x80\x93 on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.\nSagan, A Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human in Space (1994)\n\nFigure 11.3 Pale Blue Dot. From NASA\n\nUnit Eleven Appendix\n\n88 | Unit 11 \xe2\x80\x93 The Future of Ocean Management\n\n\x0cAppendix of Unit Resources\nUNIT ONE: Our Public Oceans (A Closer Look at Offshore Uses and\nPlayers)\nExcerpt from State Management Example: Oregon Territorial Sea Plan (1994)\nAdapted from https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/OCMP/Pages/Territorial-Sea-Plan.aspx\nPART ONE: Ocean Management Framework\nE. OCEAN MANAGEMENT AGENCIES\nNOTE: The following descriptions of agency programs and authorities are limited to those that relate to\nocean or coastal resources. These descriptions are necessarily brief and not comprehensive.\n1. State Agencies\na. Oregon Department of Agriculture\nThe Department of Agriculture has three interests in the territorial sea. One is the leasing and regulatory\nfunctions for oysters (none is grown outside estuaries); the second is regulating the use of TBT (tri-butyltin),\na chemical in antifouling paints used to retard the growth of marine life on boat hulls; the third is assisting\nin the marketing of seafood commodities via seafood-commodity commissions.\nb. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)\nThe Department of Environmental Quality has overall authority for protecting water and air quality\nin the territorial sea. In addition to authority and responsibility to carry out state pollution laws, the\nDEQ is authorized to carry out federal pollution-control laws such as the Clean Water Act and regulate\ndischarge of pollutants into marine waters under the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination\nSystem. DEQ has oil spill prevention and response responsibilities and evaluates state-law mandated oil\nspill contingency plans, manages oil spill response activities, and provides public education and outreach to\nvolunteer responders. DEQ and its oversight body, the Environmental Quality Commission, has divided the\nstate into water quality basins. Five such basins along the Oregon coast include marine and estuarine waters\nas well as fresh. \xe2\x80\x9cMarine waters\xe2\x80\x9d are defined by DEQ rules to mean \xe2\x80\x9call oceanic, offshore waters outside the\nestuaries or bays and within the territorial limits\xe2\x80\x9d of the state. DEQ is also involved in reviewing dredge and\nfill permits for certification of water quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. DEQ and the ODFW\nare jointly designated as trustee under state and federal law (CERCLA) to assess and recover compensation\nfor environmental damages from oil spills, water pollution, etc.\nc. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)\nThe Department of Fish and Wildlife has broad authority to develop protection programs for fish and\nwildlife and enforce fish and wildlife laws. The Fish and Wildlife Commission, ODFW\xe2\x80\x99s oversight policy\nbody, has adopted harvest regulations for intertidal animals, fish, and shellfish, including sea urchins. ODFW\nalso has responsibilities for protecting marine mammals, including threatened or endangered species, and\nsea birds. ODFW provides an increasingly important role as the state\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cmarine biological consultant\xe2\x80\x9d to\nother agencies and the Governor on ocean-related programs such as kelp leasing, dredge-material disposal,\nmarine mineral exploration, and ocean discharge of wastes. ODFW and the DEQ are jointly designated\nAppendix of Unit Resources | 89\n\n\x0cas trustee under state and federal law (CERCLA) to assess and recover compensation for environmental\ndamages from oil spills, water pollution, etc.\nd. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI)\nThe Department of Geology and Mineral Industries has three primary interests in territorial-sea\nmanagement. One is regulatory authority over such operations as exploring for and extracting oil, gas, or\ngeothermal resources in the territorial sea and coastal zone and hard minerals, such as sand and gravel, on\nupland sites. Another is advising the Division of State Lands when that agency issues permits for exploratory\ngeological, geophysical, and seismic surveys in the territorial sea. A third is related to understanding and\nmitigating for geologic hazards and processes. DOGMI undertakes coastal-hazard assessments and studies\nfor both chronic and catastrophic hazards and conducts programs aimed at reducing loss of life and\nproperty.\ne. Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)\nThe DLCD is designated by statute as the state\xe2\x80\x99s Coastal Zone Management Agency for federal coastal\nmanagement purposes, provides staff support to the Ocean Policy Advisory Council, and administers the\nstate\xe2\x80\x99s land-use program, including Statewide Planning Goal 19, Ocean Resources, and the other 18 statewide\ngoals. DLCD has no direct regulatory authority for ocean resources but, through state-agency coordination\nrequirements and through federal consistency requirements, is the coordinator among all coastal resource\nagencies to make sure their actions and programs are coordinated with each other, local governments, and\nthe Oregon Coastal Management Program.\nf. Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD)\nThe Oregon Parks and Recreation Department has several management interests in the Territorial Sea.\nThe ocean beach law designates all of Oregon\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cocean shore\xe2\x80\x9d as a state recreation area to be managed\nby OPRD. OPRD has regulatory authority over improvements such as sea walls, rip-rap, pipeline and cable\ncrossings, and other construction within the area from the statutory vegetation (beach zone) line seaward to\nExtreme Low Tide. Within this \xe2\x80\x9cocean shore,\xe2\x80\x9d PRD has concurrent jurisdiction with the DSL over submerged\nand submersible lands seaward of Mean High Water (the so-called \xe2\x80\x9cwet sands\xe2\x80\x9d). OPRD owns and manages\nmany state parks on the upland adjacent to rocky-shore sites that provide access to rocky shores.\ng. Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL)\nThe Division is the administrative arm of the State Land Board (composed of the Governor, Secretary of\nState, and Treasurer) which manages the assets (land and money) of the Common School fund and which\nholds in trust for the people of Oregon all lands under tidal and navigable waters, including rocky intertidal\nareas and submerged rocks and reefs in the state\xe2\x80\x99s Territorial Sea. In these areas the Division has authority\nover removal and fill; kelp or seaweed harvest; shellfish harvest (except oysters); geological, geophysical, and\nseismic surveys;, oil, gas, and mineral leasing; and easements or other rights-of-entry for various uses.\nh. Oregon State Marine Board\nThe Marine Board has authority to regulate boating activities in state waters, including the Territorial Sea.\nThe Marine Board, through boater education and publications, can assist in education and awareness of\nwildlife resources affected by boating activity.\n2. Federal Agencies\nNOTE: The following descriptions of agency programs and authorities are limited to those that relate\nto ocean or coastal resources. These descriptions are necessarily brief and do not purport to be\ncomprehensive.\na. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)\n90 | Appendix of Unit Resources\n\n\x0cThe Corps is responsible for building and maintaining coastal navigational projects, including jetties,\nnavigation channels, and navigational structures under the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC 401 \xe2\x80\x93 709b and\n2201 \xe2\x80\x93 2329). Material dredged from coastal ports is frequently disposed in ocean waters at sites designated\nby the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Placement of dredged materials at these ocean sites is\nregulated under sections 102 and 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)\nadministered by the EPA or the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Corps also\nhas permit authority over work performed by others in navigable waters under section 10 of the Rivers and\nHarbors Act, Section 404 of the CWA, and section 103 of the MPRSA.\nb. Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM)\nThe BLM (within the U.S. Department of the Interior) owns and administers, on behalf of the public,\nseveral sites that include or are adjacent to ocean shore areas. These are Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural\nArea near Newport, the Coos Head (Cape Gregory) Lighthouse Reserve and Squaw Island near Coos Bay,\nNew River Area of Critical Environmental Concern near Langlois, Cape Blanco Lighthouse Reserve, North\nSisters Rock south of Port Orford, and Zwagg Island at Brookings.\nc. The United States Coast Guard (USCG)\nThe US Coast Guard has several lines of authority and program activities that relate to Oregon\xe2\x80\x99s territorial\nsea. The USCG (1) is the lead agency for oil-spill response and cleanup and is the on- scene coordinator\nfor planning and response; (2) maintains search-and-rescue stations, including air stations at Warrenton\n(Astoria) and North Bend (Coos Bay); (3) has authority over buoys and markers to regulate vessel operations.\nThe USCG has a program of routine Marine Environmental Patrols along the ocean shore to locate and\nensure safe removal of any hazardous materials or debris that may be washed ashore.\nd. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)\nThe EPA is responsible for protecting marine water quality under several federal laws. The EPA and\nOregon Department of Environmental Quality have entered into an agreement whereby the DEQ regulates\nall point-source (e.g. flowing from a structure such as a pipe) discharges into rivers, estuaries, and marine\nwaters through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). EPA is also charged with\ncarrying out the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (also known as the Ocean\nDumping Act), the Marine Plastics Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987, and the National Marine\nPollution Program. The EPA also administers the Clean Air Act of 1977.\ne. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)\nThe USFWS (within the U.S. Department of the Interior) administers three National Wildlife Refuges\n(NWR) in Oregon\xe2\x80\x99s Territorial Sea: the Oregon Islands NWR, Cape Meares NWR, and Three Arch Rocks NWR.\nUSFWS jurisdiction includes approximately 1,400 rocks and islands above state jurisdiction (Mean High\nWater), the so-called \xe2\x80\x9cdry\xe2\x80\x9d portion of the rocks and islands. In addition, USFWS co-administers the federal\nEndangered Species Act and administers several other federal laws related to marine wildlife and seabirds.\nf. U.S. Forest Service (USFS)\nThe Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, operates the Cape Perpetua Visitors\nCenter. Linked to the visitor center are access trails, interpretive facilities, and visitor information programs\nrelated to the rocky intertidal areas adjacent to lands of the Siuslaw National Forest.\ng. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) formerly the Minerals Management Service (MMS)\nThe Bureau of Ocean Energy is housed in the Department of the Interior. It has two functions of potential\ninterest in Oregon\xe2\x80\x99s territorial sea. One is locating and mapping the coastal baseline from which the state\xe2\x80\x99s\nthree-mile seaward boundary is drawn for purposes of offshore oil and gas leasing. The other is preparing\nAppendix of Unit Resources | 91\n\n\x0cand carrying out a program of oil and gas lease sales in federal waters of the Outer Continental Shelf and\noffering leases for marine mineral exploration and development in federal waters.\nh. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)\nThe National Marine Fisheries Service, a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\n(NOAA) within the US Department of Commerce, has three interests in Oregon\xe2\x80\x99s Territorial Sea. First, NMFS\nadministers the Marine Mammal Protection Act that protects all seals, sea lions, whales, and other marine\nmammals that use Oregon\xe2\x80\x99s ocean area. Second, NMFS co-administers the federal Endangered Species Act\nunder which the Steller sea lion, which breeds on the Oregon coast, is protected. Third, NMFS regulates\ncertain ocean fisheries under the Magnuson Marine Fisheries Conservation Act with consequent indirect\neffect on fishing activity in Oregon\xe2\x80\x99s territorial sea.\ni. National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management (OCRM)\nOCRM, a relatively small agency in NOAA, administers the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)\nof 1972, as subsequently amended. OCRM administers essential federal funds to state coastal management\nprograms through both regular grants and special program enhancement grants. Oregon has made use of\nboth grant programs to fund development of the Territorial Sea Management Plan. OCRM has responsibility\nwithin NOAA and the Department of Commerce for reviewing and approving state coastal management\nprograms and subsequent amendments under the federal CZMA, and also administers the National Marine\nSanctuary Program and National Estuarine Research Reserve Program.\n3. Local Governments\na. Cities Thirteen cities border Oregon\xe2\x80\x99s territorial sea. While coastal cities have very limited jurisdiction\nor authority over ocean shore resources or areas, they may play a role in protecting and managing rocky\nshore areas and resources through policies and decisions about land use on adjacent uplands.\nb. Counties Seven Oregon counties border the Pacific Ocean: Notwithstanding the fact that county\nboundaries and jurisdiction extend westward to the limit of state waters, Oregon law [ORS 201.370(2)]\nspecifically delegates the planning function for the Territorial Sea to the Ocean Policy Advisory Council and\nthe Territorial Sea Plan. Like coastal cities, coastal counties can play a part in the management of some rocky\nshore sites; local land-use plans and ordinances can be used to implement protections.\nThe Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC) is required by law to consult with local governments on\nocean developments. These mandatory provisions are included in Part Two, Making Resource Use Decisions\nof the Territorial Sea Plan.\nc. Coastal Port Districts Fifteen port districts on the Oregon coast are governmental entities with direct\ninterests in the economy of the coast and, therefore, can play a key role in promoting development of\nOregon\xe2\x80\x99s ocean resources that is both economically and environmentally sound. Under Oregon law, the port\ndistricts do not directly hold land use planning responsibilities like those of counties or cities.\n\n92 | Appendix of Unit Resources\n\n\x0cUNIT TWO: Management of Protected Marine Species\n\nIllustration of ESA listing process, courtesy of USFWS\n\nEndangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA):\nAppendix of Unit Resources | 93\n\n\x0cAll\n\navailable\n\nESA\n\nGuidances:\n\nhttps://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-\n\nconservation/endangered-species-act-guidance-policies-and-regulations\nNOAA/USFWS Policy Guidance concerning \xe2\x80\x9cSignificant Portion of its Range\xe2\x80\x9d (SPR), June 27, 2014, available\nat\nhttps://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/07/01/2014-15216/final-policy-on-interpretationof-the-phrase-significant-portion-of-its-range-in-the-endangered\nThe SPR policy came into effect July 1, 2014 upon publication in the Federal Register (79 FR 37577)\nhttps://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/07/01/2014-15216/final-policy-on-interpretation-ofthe-phrase-significant-portion-of-its-range-in-the-endangered\nThe revised critical habitat designation rule came into effect February 11, 2016, upon publication in the\nFederal Register (81 FR 7413)\nhttps://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/02/11/2016-02680/listing-endangered-andthreatened-species-and-designating-critical-habitat-implementing-changes-to\nFoley C.M., Lynch M.A., Thorne, L.H., Lynch H.J. 2017. Listing Foreign Species Under the Endangered\nSpecies Act: A Primer for Conservation Biologists. 67 BioScience 627-673 (doi:10.1093/biosci/bix027)\nMarine Mammal Protection Act of 1973 (MMPA):\nMarine mammals include cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises) and pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, managed\nby NOAA/NMFS) as well as walrus, polar bears, otter, manatee, and dugong that are managed by USFWS.\nNOAA manages 119 species of marine mammals worldwide (not just in the United States alone). The USFWS\nmanages eight species worldwide.\nInformation on conservation management practices, and the status of specific marine mammal species\ncan be found information about each species, contained in this NOAA location:http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/\npr/species/mammals/.\nMMPA: the full text of the law is available\nThe\n\nRegulations\n\nfor\n\nthe\n\nMMPA\n\n(50\n\nCFR\n\n216): http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/\n\nmmpa_regs_216.pdf (inactive link as of 05/19/2021)\nThe site maintained by the USFWS is useful because of the shared administration between the two\nagencies (USFWS and NOAA):\nhttps://www.fws.gov/international/laws-treaties-agreements/us-conservation-laws/marine-mammalprotection-act.html.\nNOAA Fisheries latest MMPA information (note the tab containing a glossary of terms):\nhttps://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/laws-policies#marine-mammal-protection-act\nMMPA Incidental Take Authorizations: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/23111\nMore on Pritzker case:\n\ncredit http://elawreview.org/case-summaries/natural-resources-defense-\n\ncouncil-inc-v-pritzker-828-f-3d-1125-9th-cir-2016/\n\nUNIT THREE: Management of Specially Designated Areas\nMcLeod KL and Leslie HM, \xe2\x80\x9cWays Forward,\xe2\x80\x9d in Ecosystem-Based Management for the Oceans, at p. 347\n(Island Press, 2009).\n94 | Appendix of Unit Resources\n\n\x0cFor a more in-depth look at EBM in the marine context, browse the resources available at\nNOAA: http://ecosystems.noaa.gov/EBM101/WhatisEcosystem-BasedManagement.aspx.\nLong RD, Charles A, Stephenson RL (2015) Key Principles of Marine Ecosystem-Based Management, 57\nMarine Policy, (July 2015) 53-60\nhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X1500024X\nNOAA\n\nEcosystem-Based\n\nManagement,\n\nhttp://ecosystems.noaa.gov/EBM101/WhatisEcosystem-\n\nBasedManagement.aspx\nNOAA\n\nIEA\n\nprogram:\n\nPreview\n\nEBM\n\nFisheries\n\nmanagement\n\nthrough\n\nIEA\n\nhere:\n\nhttps://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/insight/ecosystem-based-fisheries-management\nNOAA Fisheries EBM Policy, and EBM Roadmap (document links on right column)\nNOAA Office of Science and Technology (highly recommended)\nhttps://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ecosystems/ebfm/creating-an-ebfm-management-policy\n(Navigate to site, then scroll down)\nhttps://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/laws-policies#endangered-species-act\nNOAA Office of Coastal Management, National Estuarine Research Reserves System,\nhttps://coast.noaa.gov/nerrs/\nMore on United States Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)\nhttps://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/aboutmpas/\nDay JC (2017), Effective Public Participation is Fundamental for Marine Conservation\xe2\x80\x94Lessons from a\nLarge-Scale MPA, 45:6 Coastal Management 470-486, DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2017.1373452.\nGreen AL, Fernandes L, Almany G, Abesamis R, McLeod E, Ali\xc3\xb1o, White AT, Salm R, Tanzer J, Ressey\nRL (2014) Designing Marine Reserves for Fisheries Management, Biodiversity Conservation, and Climate\nChange Adaptation, 42:2 Coastal Management 143-159, DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2014.877763.\nKelleher, G. 1999. Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.\nxxiv +107pp. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/PAG-003.pdf\nFautin D., Dalton P., Incze L.S., Leong J.C., Pautzke C., Rosenberg A., Sandifer P., Sedberry G., Tunnell Jr.\nJ.W., Abbott I., Brainard R.E., Brodeur M., Eldredge L.G., Feldman M., Moretzsohn F., Vroom P.S., Wainstein\nM., Wolff N. (2010) An Overview of Marine Biodiversity in the United States Waters, 5:8 PLoSOne, August\n2010 (Creative Commons License; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0011914\nNOAA, Digital Maps of World Large Marine Ecosystems (LME):\nhttp://lme.edc.uri.edu/index.php/digital-maps (inactive link as of 05/21/2021)\nFor details on the application of the five LME assessment modules, see NOAA 2018:\nhttp://lme.edc.uri.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=15&Itemid=113\n(inactive link as of 05/21/2021)\n\nAntiquities Act (1906): Authorizes the President to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks,\nhistoric and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon\nthe lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may\nreserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest\narea compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected. Also permits for the\n\nAppendix of Unit Resources | 95\n\n\x0cexamination of ruins, the excavation of archaeological sites, and the gathering of objects of antiquity upon\nthe lands under their respective jurisdictions may be granted by the Secretaries of the Interior and\nAgriculture to institutions which they may deem properly qualified to conduct such examination,\nexcavation, or gathering, subject to such rules and regulation as they may prescribe.\n\nCoastal Zone Management Act (1972): A federal authority that establishes the Coastal Zone Management\nProgram and the National Estuarine Research Reserves System, providing a framework for balanced\ndecision-making.\n\nEndangered Species Act (1973): The National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service\ndecide whether to list species as threatened or endangered. Federal agencies must avoid jeopardy to and aid\nthe recovery of listed species. Similar responsibilities apply to non-federal entities.\n\nFish And Wildlife Coordination Act (1934): Provides the basic authority for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife\nService\xe2\x80\x99s involvement in evaluating impacts to fish and wildlife from proposed water resource development\nprojects. It requires that fish and wildlife resources receive equal consideration to other project features. It\nalso requires that federal agencies that construct, license, or permit water resource development projects\nmust first consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service (and the National Marine Fisheries Service in some\ninstances) and state fish and wildlife agencies regarding the impacts on fish and wildlife resources and\nmeasures to mitigate these impacts.\n\nMagnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1976; amended 2006): Calls for\nassessment and consideration of ecological, economic, and social impacts of fishing regulations on fishery\nparticipants and fishing communities in marine fishery management plans.\n\nMarine Mammal Protection Act (1972): Established to protect and manage marine mammals and their\nproducts (e.g., the use of hides and meat). The primary authority for implementing the act belongs to the\nU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Act prohibits the \xe2\x80\x9ctake\xe2\x80\x9d of\nmarine mammals, which is defined as \xe2\x80\x9cto harass, hunt, capture or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture or\nkill any marine mammal.\xe2\x80\x9d The term \xe2\x80\x9charassment\xe2\x80\x9d is further defined as \xe2\x80\x9cany act of pursuit, torment or\nannoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild or has\nthe potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of\nbehavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or\nsheltering.\xe2\x80\x9d\nNational Marine Sanctuaries Act (1972): Authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate and manage\nareas of the marine environment with special national significance due to their conservation, recreational,\necological, historical, scientific, cultural, archeological, educational, or esthetic qualities as National Marine\nSanctuaries. The primary objective of this law is to protect marine resources, such as coral reefs, sunken\nhistorical vessels, or unique habitats. The Act also directs the Secretary to facilitate all public and private\nuses of those resources that are compatible with the primary objective of resource protection. Sanctuaries\n\n96 | Appendix of Unit Resources\n\n\x0care managed according to site-specific management plans prepared by the National Oceanic and\nAtmospheric Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (NOAA) National Marine Sanctuary Program.\nNational Park Service Organic Act (1916): Established to promote and regulate the use of the federal\nareas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified\xe2\x80\xa6.\xe2\x80\x9dto conserve the\nscenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment for\nthe same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future\ngenerations.\xe2\x80\x9d\nNational Historic Preservation Act (1966): Congress made the federal government a full partner and a\nleader in historic preservation: to \xe2\x80\x9cprovide leadership\xe2\x80\x9d for preservation, \xe2\x80\x9ccontribute to\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9cgive maximum\nencouragement\xe2\x80\x9d to preservation, and \xe2\x80\x9cfoster conditions under which our modern society and our\nprehistoric and historic resources can exist in productive harmony.\xe2\x80\x9d\nNational Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (1966): Provides for the administration and\nmanagement of the national wildlife refuge system, including wildlife refuges, areas for the protection and\nconservation of fish and wildlife threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife\nmanagement areas and waterfowl production areas.\nWilderness Act (1964): Set aside certain federal lands as wilderness areas. These areas, generally 5,000\nacres or larger, are wild lands largely in their natural state. The act says that they are areas \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6where the\nearth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not\nremain.\xe2\x80\x9d Four federal agencies of the United States government administer the National Wilderness\nPreservation System: the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest\nService, and the National Park Service.\n\nFederal legislation relevant to creation of US Marine Protected Areas (note that many coastal states have\npassed their own ocean bills providing for MPAs and/or engaging in EBM-informed zoning or marine\nspatial planning in state waters; for example see Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Oregon, Washington, and\nCalifornia).\n\nAdapted\n\nfrom\n\nNOAA\n\n(https://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/aboutmpas/programs/\n\nfederallegislation/\n\nUNIT FOUR: Our Fisheries\nNOAA, Fisheries Management in the United States\nhttps://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/insight/fisheries-management-united-states\nNOAA 2016 Stock Status Report to Congress, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/statusstocks-2016\nNOAA/NMFS\xe2\x80\x99 resources dedicated to the Magnuson-Stevens Act are located on this site:\nhttps://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/laws-policies\nCongressional\n\nReauthorization\n\nDevelopments,\n\nMagnuson-Stevens\n\nAct\n\nhttps://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/whatwedo/msa/magnuson_stevens_act.html (scroll down for\nrecent hearings).\nAppendix of Unit Resources | 97\n\n\x0cThe PEW Charitable Trusts Report (2013), The Law That\xe2\x80\x99s Saving American Fisheries\nhttp://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2013/05/06/the-law-thats-savingamerican-fisheries-the-magnusonstevens-fishery-conservation-and-management-act\nNatural Resources Defense Council Report (2013), Bringing Back the Fish (Sewell et al. 2013)\nhttps://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/rebuilding-fisheries-report.pdf\nNatural Resources Defense Council Fact Sheet (January 9, 2018), How the Magnuson-Stevens Act is\nHelping Rebuild US Fisheries (Masterson M and Adams A), https://www.nrdc.org/issues/stop-overfishingand-restore-fisheries\nWarlick A, Steiner E, Guldin M (2018), History of the West Coast Groundfish Trawl Fishery: Tracking\nSocioeconomic Characteristics Across Different Management Policies in a Multispecies Fishery, 93 Marine\nPolicy 9-21.\nNOAA Fisheries provides three regular reports.\nStatus of Stocks is an annual report to Congress on the status of U.S. fisheries and is required by\nthe Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This report, which is published each\nspring, summarizes the number of stocks on the over shed, overfishing, and rebuilt lists for U.S. federally\nmanaged sh stocks and stock complexes. The report also shows trends over time, discusses the value\nand contributions of our partners, and highlights how management actions taken by NOAA Fisheries have\nimproved the status of U.S. federally managed stocks. For example, the 2015 report shows the number\nof\n\nstocks\n\nlisted\n\nas\n\nsubject\n\nto\n\nover\n\nfishing\n\nor\n\nover\n\nshed\n\nremains\n\nnear\n\nan\n\nall-time\n\nlow.\n\nhttps://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/status-stocks-2016\nFisheries of the United States, published each fall, has been produced in its various forms for more than\n100 years. It is the NOAA Fisheries yearbook of shery statistics for the United States. It provides a snapshot\nof data, primarily at the national level, on U.S. recreational catch and commercial sheries landings and value.\nIn addition, data are reported on U.S. aquaculture production, the U.S. seafood processing industry, imports\nand exports of shery-related products, and domestic supply and per capita consumption of shery products.\nThe focus is not on economic analysis, although value of landings, processed products, and foreign trade are\nincluded.\nhttps://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/commercial-fishing/fisheries-united-states\nFisheries Economics of the United States, published each fall, provides a detailed look at the economic\nperformance of commercial and recreational fisheries and other marine-related sectors on a state, regional,\nand national basis. The economic impact of commercial and recreational fishing activities in the U.S. is\nalso reported in terms of employment, sales, and value-added impacts. The report provides management\nhighlights for each region that include a summary of stock status, updates on catch share programs, and\nother selected management issues. Economic performance indicators for catch share programs and noncatch share sheries are reported. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/commercial-fishing/fisherieseconomics-united-states\n\nUNIT FIVE: Regulating Ocean Impacts\nBycatch Resources\n\n98 | Appendix of Unit Resources\n\n\x0cBenaka LR, Bullock D, Davis J, Seney EE, Winarsoo H (2016), NOAA Fisheries Report: US National Bycatch\nReport First Edition Update 2 (February 2016; Covering 2011-2013)\nhttps://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/Observer-Program/bycatch-report-update-2/\nNBR%20First%20Edition%20Update%202_Final.pdf\nDavies RWD, Cripps SJ, Nickson A, Porter G (2009), Defining and Estimating Global Marine Fisheries\nBycatch, 33 Marine Policy pp. 661-672\nUnited Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Estimates of Global Fishery Bycatch and\nDiscards, http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/t4890e/T4890E02.htm\nPelc RA, Max LM, Norden W, Roberts S, Silverstein R, Wilding SR, 2015. Further Action on Bycatch Could\nBoost United States Fisheries Performance, 56 Marine Policy pp. 56-60.\nResources on the species and locations of highest concern for bycatch and the efforts of World Wildlife\nFund: http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/blue_planet/problems/bycatch222/bycatch_victims/\n(inactive link as of 05/19/2021)\nMoore JE, Wallace BP, Lewison RL, Z\xcc\x8cydelis R, Cox TM, Crowder LB, 2009. A Review of Marine Mammal,\nSea Turtle and Seabird Bycatch in USA Fisheries and the Role of Policy in Shaping Management, 33 Marine\nPolicy pp. 435-451.\nGlobal Fishing Watch, project mapping global fishing effort over time, including illegal fishing over 1.4\nbillion miles of ocean:\n\nhttps://environment.google/projects/fishing-watch/\n\nKroodsma DA, Mayorga J, Hochberg T, Miller NA, Boerder K, Ferretti F, Wilson A, Bergman B, White TD,\nBlock BA, Woods P, Sullivan B, Costello C, Worm B, Tracking the Global Footprint of Fisheries, 359:6378\nScience, pp. 904-908, 23 February 2018, DOI: 10.1126/science.aao5646\nMarine Debris Resources\nNational Research Council, Committee on the Effectiveness of International and National Measures to\nPrevent and Reduce Marine Debris and Its Impacts, Ocean Studies Board, Division ofn Earth and Life Studies,\nTackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century, 2009, National Academy of Sciences. Available to read online or\ndownload at no charge, https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12486/tackling-marine-debris-in-the-21st-century\nBenscosme M., Keller M, Ortiz E, NBC News, March 10, 2018, Ghost Gear Clogging World\xe2\x80\x99s Oceans is\nHaving \xe2\x80\x98Catastrophic\xe2\x80\x99 Effect, Report Says, https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/ghost-gearclogging-world-s-oceans-having-catastrophic-effect-report-n855321 Citing:\n\nWorld Animal Protection\n\nReport, Ghosts Beneath the Waves: Ghost Gear\xe2\x80\x99s Catastrophic Impact on Our Oceans, and the Urgent\nAction Needed from Industry, https://www.worldanimalprotection.us.org/sites/default/files/us_files/\nghosts_beneath_the_waves.pdf,\nLondon, http://www.worldanimalprotection.org, 2018\nWillis K, Hardesty BD, Kriwoken L, Wilcox C (2017), Differentiating Littering, Urban Runoff and Marine\nTransport as Sources of Marine Debris in Coastal and Estuarine Environments, Nature Scientific Reports,\nhttps://www.nature.com/articles/srep44479\nKeep an eye on these two citizen-driven, highly original, provocative, and entrepreneurial efforts to\nraise awareness of plastic pollution, and to actually confront it:\n\nThe Washed Ashore Project,\n\nhttps://washedashore.org\nThe Ocean Cleanup Project: https://www.theoceancleanup.com\nand its founder, Boylan Slat: https://youtu.be/du5d5PUrH0I\nOther Pollution Resources\nResources and Ecosystem Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast\nAppendix of Unit Resources | 99\n\n\x0c(RESTORE) Act (established trust fund from 80% of Deepwater Horizon spill to support Gulf restoration).\nSubtitle F of Public Law 112-141 (2012), available: https://www.treasury.gov/services/restore-act/Pages/\nhome.aspx\nIn re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig \xe2\x80\x98Deepwater Horizon,\xe2\x80\x99 841 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1003 (E.D. La. 2012),\nhttps://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20120127i67\nVenn-Watson S, Colegrove KM, Litz J, Kinsel M, Terio K, et al. (2015) Adrenal Gland and Lung Lesions\nin Gulf of Mexico Common Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) Found Dead following the Deepwater\nHorizon Oil Spill. PLOS ONE 10(5): e0126538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126538\nSee also international provisions with regard to pollution and State responsibilities in the UNCLOS\nmaterials in Unit Six Resources.\nOcean Acidification\nTo learn more, investigate Chapter 4, Effects of Ocean Acidification on Marine Ecosystems, from the\nNational Academy of Sciences book, Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a\nChanging Ocean (2010).\nKelly RP, Caldwell MR (2013), Ten Ways States Can Combat Ocean Acidification (and Why They Should), 37\nHarvard Environmental Law Review 57.\nKelly RP, Cooley SR, Klinger T (2013), Narratives Can Motivate Environmental Action: The Whiskey Creek\nOcean Acidification Story, Ambio, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, DOI 10.1007/s13280-013-0442-2.\nKelly RP (2017), Ocean Acidification Policy: Applying the Lessons of Washington to California and Beyond,\n7 Washington Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 1 (June 2017).\nWashington Department of Ecology, Ocean Acidification\nhttps://ecology.wa.gov/About-us/Our-role-in-the-community/Partnerships-committees/Oceanacidification-Blue-Ribbon-panel\nCopeland C (2016), Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law, Congressional Research Service (CRS)\nOctober 18, 2016, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30030.pdf\nCraig RK (2015), Dealing with Ocean Acidification: The Problem, The Clean Water Act, and State and\nRegional Approaches, 90 Washington Law Review 1583.\nStatutory Authorities Dealing with Marine Pollution\n1. The Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA, 33 USC \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 1251 \xe2\x80\x93 1388)\nMission: to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of our nation\xe2\x80\x99s waters (33\nUSC \xc2\xa71251(a)); prohibits discharge of any pollutant (33 USC \xc2\xa71311(a)).\nJurisdiction: navigable waters of the United States (historically, \xe2\x80\x9ccontiguous zone,\xe2\x80\x9d zone 3-12 miles\noffshore, because Congress never amended the Act after creation of 200 mile EEZ;\nhowever, the US asserts federal jurisdiction to control point source pollution throughout its EEZ.\nRelevant Section(s):\n\xc2\xa7302 Water Quality Based Effluent Standards; applies inland and out to three miles\n\xc2\xa7303 States set water quality standards for their waters under a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)\napproach; applies inland and out to three miles\n\xc2\xa7312 ballast water, sewage from armed forces vessels\n\xc2\xa7318 Certain types of aquaculture projects\n\xc2\xa7319 Nonpoint source pollution (inland and out to three miles; managed with NOAA)\n\xc2\xa7402-403 NPDES; EPA holds permitting authority 3-200 miles in states with delegated National Pollution\nDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) permit programs that regulate point sources.\n100 | Appendix of Unit Resources\n\n\x0cNOTE: The EPA allows states and tribal authorities to assume NPDES program permitting authority.\nStates\xe2\x80\x99 jurisdiction stops, however, at three miles offshore.\n\xc2\xa7404 prohibits diking, draining, dumping without a permit, protects wetlands\n(exemptions include normal silviculture and farming activities); \xc2\xa7404 applies to state waters (out to three\nmiles)\nVessels and floating platforms are included in the definition of point sources, governed by the National\nPollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)\nSee also: NPDES Ocean Discharge Criteria (1980) (33 USC \xc2\xa71343; Regs: 40 CFR \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 125.120 \xe2\x80\x93 125.124) Useful\npassages include: c) Guidelines for determining degradation of waters.\nSee also the BEACH Act (The Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coast Health Act), which provides\nmoney to coastal states to monitor their waters for disease bearing organisms.\nResponsible: EPA, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), NOAA\nAvailable: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/chapter-26\n2. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA, 33 USC \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 2701 \xe2\x80\x93 2762)\nMission: prohibits any discharge of oil (intentional or unintentional) including spills, leaks, pumping,\npouring, emitting, emptying or dumping of oil\nJurisdiction: navigable waters of the United States and the territorial sea\nRelevant Section(s): \xc2\xa710, often used with \xc2\xa7404 CWA\nResponsible: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM, formerly the Minerals Management Service)\nwithin the US Department of the Interior\nAvailable:https://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Oil_and_Gas_Energy_Program/Leasing/\nRegional_Leasing/Gulf_of_Mexico_Region/OSFR/OPA-90.pdf (inactive link as of 05/19/2021)\nAnd amendments\nhttps://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Oil_and_Gas_Energy_Program/Leasing/\nRegional_Leasing/Gulf_of_Mexico_Region/OSFR/opa_amd.pdf (inactive link as of 05/19/2021)\n3. The Refuse Act/Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC \xc2\xa7 403 et seq.)\nUnited States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)\nAvailable: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2734&context=dlj\n4. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 (UNCLOS)\nAvailable: http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf\nMission: international convention on conservation and living and nonliving resource use by nations;\narticles listed are relevant to marine debris pollution\nJurisdiction: national and international waters\nRelevant Sections: Articles 1, 192, 194, 197, 207, 210, 211, 216, 217, 218.\n5. (MDRPRA, 33 USC \xc2\xa7 1951 et seq.)\nAvailable:\n\nhttps://coast.noaa.gov/data/Documents/OceanLawSearch/\n\nMarineDebrisResearchPreventionandReductionAct.pdf\nMission: establishes marine debris prevention and removal program within NOAA, directs US Coast\nGuard (USCG) to improve MARPOL Annex V implementation, authorizes a national data clearinghouse, and\nrelated activities (administrative Act)\n\xe2\x80\x93\xe2\x80\x94Numbers 6 and 7 below both implement international treaties, and are coordinated with the United States\xe2\x80\x99\nClean Water Act (CWA).\n\nAppendix of Unit Resources | 101\n\n\x0c6. The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA, also known as the Ocean\nDumping Act, 33 USC Ch. 27 \xc2\xa7 1401 \xe2\x80\x93 1445)\n[implements\n\nThe\n\nLondon\n\nConvention\n\nof\n\n1972,\n\nmodified\n\nby\n\nthe\n\nLondon\n\nProtocol\n\n1996,\n\nsee: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/LCLP/Pages/default.aspx (also called the Ocean\nDumping Act)]\nMission: Prohibits dumping in ocean waters of any material transported from the US or on a US vessel or\naircraft, without a permit\nJurisdiction: waters beyond the three mile zone (includes incineration, medical waste; excludes sewage;\n\xe2\x80\x9cmaterial\xe2\x80\x9d defined at 33 USC \xc2\xa71402(c)\nRelevant Section(s): \xc2\xa71412, Permits; Annex V (1987; regulates garbage pollution generated onboard ships or\nfloating platforms; exceptions include unintended loss of fishing nets)\nResponsible: EPA, USACE\nAvailable: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2014-title33/pdf/\nUSCODE-2014-title33-chap27.pdf\nOr https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/chapter-27/subchapter-I\n7. The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, amended by the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control\nAct of 1987 (MPPRCA; 33 USC \xc2\xa7 1901 et seq.) [implements MARPOL Annex V];\nMission: to reduce pollution from ships (except dumping of waste)\nJurisdiction: In the US, all US flagged ships in US waters, in US ports or vessel terminals, or in foreign\nwaters\nRelevant Section(s): \xc2\xa7101(a) requiring permits\nResponsible: USEPA, USCG, USACE\nAvailable: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/chapter-33\nMARPOL:\n\nhttp://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-\n\nConvention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-from-Ships-(MARPOL).aspx.\n\nUNIT SIX: Introduction to International Fisheries Management\nThe Pelly Amendment, Section 8 of the Fishermen\xe2\x80\x99s Protective Act,\nhttps://www.fws.gov/international/laws-treaties-agreements/us-conservation-laws/pellyamendment.html\nThe Lacey Act, https://www.fws.gov/international/laws-treaties-agreements/us-conservation-laws/\nlacey-act.html\nThe Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES),\nhttps://www.fws.gov/international/cites/what-is-cites.html\nTsamenyi M, Manarangi-Trott L, Rajkumar S (2003), The International Legal Regime for Fisheries\nManagement\nhttps://unep.ch/etu/Fisheries%20Meeting/submittedPapers/\nMartinTsamenyiLaraManarangiTrottShilpaRajkumar.pdf\nUnited Nations Atlas of the Oceans, The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Code of Conduct for\nResponsible Fisheries (1995)\n102 | Appendix of Unit Resources\n\n\x0chttp://www.oceansatlas.org/subtopic/en/c/1415/\nPEW Charitable Trusts materials on international fisheries sustainability and global goals,\nhttp://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2012/02/23/faq-what-is-aregional-fishery-management-organization\nRegional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs)\nhttps://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/rfmo_en\nWorld Bank and FAO, The Sunken Billions Revisited: The Economic Justification for Fisheries Reform\n(2017),\n\nhttps://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/24056/\n\n9781464809194.pdf?sequence=8&isAllowed=y\nUnited Nations Annual Report, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture\nhttp://www.fao.org/fishery/sofia/en\nGuteirrez NL, Defeo O, Bush SR, Butterworth DS, Roheim CA, Punt AE (2016), The Current Situation and\nProspects of Fisheries Certification and Ecolabeling, 182 Fisheries Research pp. 1-6.\nRelevant Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)\nPart V, EEZ\n\nArticles 61 \xe2\x80\x93 68\n\nPart VII The High Seas\nConservation and Management\nEnvironmental Protection including Pollution\nEnforcement\n\nArticles 116-120\nArticles 207-212\nArticles 213-222\n\nExcerpts of Part VI, The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (Articles 61-68)\nArticle 61 Conservation of the living resources\n1. The coastal State shall determine the allowable catch of the living resources in its exclusive economic\nzone.\n2. The coastal State, taking into account the best scientific evidence available to it, shall ensure through\nproper conservation and management measures that the maintenance of the living resources in the\nexclusive economic zone is not endangered by over-exploitation. As appropriate, the coastal State and\ncompetent international organizations, whether subregional, regional or global, shall cooperate to this\nend.\n3. Such measures shall also be designed to maintain or restore populations of harvested species at levels\nwhich can produce the maximum sustainable yield, as qualified by relevant environmental and\neconomic factors, including the economic needs of coastal fishing communities and the special\nrequirements of developing States, and taking into account fishing patterns, the interdependence of\nstocks and any generally recommended international minimum standards, whether subregional,\nregional or global.\n4. In taking such measures the coastal State shall take into consideration the effects on species\nassociated with or dependent upon harvested species with a view to maintaining or restoring\npopulations of such associated or dependent species above levels at which their reproduction may\nbecome seriously threatened.\n5. Available scientific information, catch and fishing effort statistics, and other data relevant to the\nconservation of fish stocks shall be contributed and exchanged on a regular basis through competent\ninternational organizations, whether subregional, regional or global, where appropriate and with\nAppendix of Unit Resources | 103\n\n\x0cparticipation by all States concerned, including States whose nationals are allowed to fish in the\nexclusive economic zone.\nArticle 62 Utilization of the living resources\n1. The coastal State shall promote the objective of optimum utilization of the living resources in the\nexclusive economic zone without prejudice to article 61.\n2. The coastal State shall determine its capacity to harvest the living resources of the exclusive economic\nzone. Where the coastal State does not have the capacity to harvest the entire allowable catch, it shall,\nthrough agreements or other arrangements and pursuant to the terms, conditions, laws and\nregulations referred to in paragraph 4, give other States access to the surplus of the allowable catch,\nhaving particular regard to the provisions of articles 69 and 70, especially in relation to the developing\nStates mentioned therein.\n3. In giving access to other States to its exclusive economic zone under this article, the coastal State shall\ntake into account all relevant factors, including, inter alia, the significance of the living resources of the\narea to the economy of the coastal State concerned and its other national interests, the provisions of\narticles 69 and 70, the requirements of developing States in the subregion or region in harvesting part\nof the surplus and the need to minimize economic dislocation in States whose nationals have\nhabitually fished in the zone or which have made substantial efforts in research and identification of\nstocks.\n4. Nationals of other States fishing in the exclusive economic zone shall comply with the conservation\nmeasures and with the other terms and conditions established in the laws and regulations of the\ncoastal State. These laws and regulations shall be consistent with this Convention and may relate, inter\nalia, to the following:\n\xe2\x97\xa6 (a) licensing of fishermen, fishing vessels and equipment, including payment of fees and other\nforms of remuneration, which, in the case of developing coastal States, may consist of adequate\ncompensation in the field of financing, equipment and technology relating to the fishing industry;\n\xe2\x97\xa6 (b) determining the species which may be caught, and fixing quotas of catch, whether in relation\nto particular stocks or groups of stocks or catch per vessel over a period of time or to the catch by\nnationals of any State during a specified period;\n\xe2\x97\xa6 (c) regulating seasons and areas of fishing, the types, sizes and amount of gear, and the types,\nsizes and number of fishing vessels that may be used;\n\xe2\x97\xa6 (d) fixing the age and size of fish and other species that may be caught;\n\xe2\x97\xa6 (e) specifying information required of fishing vessels, including catch and effort statistics and\nvessel position reports;\n\xe2\x97\xa6 (f) requiring, under the authorization and control of the coastal State, the conduct of specified\nfisheries research programmes and regulating the conduct of such research, including the\nsampling of catches, disposition of samples and reporting of associated scientific data;\n\xe2\x97\xa6 (g) the placing of observers or trainees on board such vessels by the coastal State;\n\xe2\x97\xa6 (h) the landing of all or any part of the catch by such vessels in the ports of the coastal State;\n\xe2\x97\xa6 (i) terms and conditions relating to joint ventures or other cooperative arrangements;\n\xe2\x97\xa6 (j) requirements for the training of personnel and the transfer of fisheries technology, including\n104 | Appendix of Unit Resources\n\n\x0cenhancement of the coastal State\xe2\x80\x99s capability of undertaking fisheries research;\n\xe2\x97\xa6 (k) enforcement procedures.\n5. Coastal States shall give due notice of conservation and management laws and regulations.\nArticle 63 Stocks occurring within the exclusive economic zones of two or more coastal States, or both\nwithin the exclusive economic zone and in an area beyond and adjacent to it\n1. Where the same stock or stocks of associated species occur within the exclusive economic zones of\ntwo or more coastal States, these States shall seek, either directly or through appropriate subregional\nor regional organizations, to agree upon the measures necessary to coordinate and ensure the\nconservation and development of such stocks without prejudice to the other provisions of this Part.\n2. Where the same stock or stocks of associated species occur both within the exclusive economic zone\nand in an area beyond and adjacent to the zone, the coastal State and the States fishing for such stocks\nin the adjacent area shall seek, either directly or through appropriate subregional or regional\norganizations, to agree upon the measures necessary for the conservation of these stocks in the\nadjacent area.\nArticle 64 Highly migratory species\n1. The coastal State and other States whose nationals fish in the region for the highly migratory species\nlisted in Annex I shall cooperate directly or through appropriate international organizations with a\nview to ensuring conservation and promoting the objective of optimum utilization of such species\nthroughout the region, both within and beyond the exclusive economic zone. In regions for which no\nappropriate international organization exists, the coastal State and other States whose nationals\nharvest these species in the region shall cooperate to establish such an organization and participate in\nits work.\n2. The provisions of paragraph 1 apply in addition to the other provisions of this Part.\nArticle 65 Marine mammals\nNothing in this Part restricts the right of a coastal State or the competence of an international\norganization, as appropriate, to prohibit, limit or regulate the exploitation of marine mammals more strictly\nthan provided for in this Part. States shall cooperate with a view to the conservation of marine mammals\nand in the case of cetaceans shall in particular work through the appropriate international organizations for\ntheir conservation, management and study.\nArticle 66 Anadromous stocks\n1. States in whose rivers anadromous stocks originate shall have the primary interest in and\nresponsibility for such stocks.\n2. The State of origin of anadromous stocks shall ensure their conservation by the establishment of\nappropriate regulatory measures for fishing in all waters landward of the outer limits of its exclusive\neconomic zone and for fishing provided for in paragraph 3(b). The State of origin may, after\nconsultations with the other States referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 fishing these stocks, establish\ntotal allowable catches for stocks originating in its rivers.\nAppendix of Unit Resources | 105\n\n\x0c\xe2\x97\xa6 (a) Fisheries for anadromous stocks shall be conducted only in waters landward of the outer limits\nof exclusive economic zones, except in cases where this provision would result in economic\ndislocation for a State other than the State of origin. With respect to such fishing beyond the\nouter limits of the exclusive economic zone, States concerned shall maintain consultations with a\nview to achieving agreement on terms and conditions of such fishing giving due regard to the\nconservation requirements and the needs of the State of origin in respect of these stocks.\n\xe2\x97\xa6 (b) The State of origin shall cooperate in minimizing economic dislocation in such other States\nfishing these stocks, taking into account the normal catch and the mode of operations of such\nStates, and all the areas in which such fishing has occurred.\n\xe2\x97\xa6 (c) States referred to in subparagraph (b), participating by agreement with the State of origin in\nmeasures to renew anadromous stocks, particularly by expenditures for that purpose, shall be\ngiven special consideration by the State of origin in the harvesting of stocks originating in its\nrivers.\n\xe2\x97\xa6 (d) Enforcement of regulations regarding anadromous stocks beyond the exclusive economic zone\nshall be by agreement between the State of origin and the other States concerned.\n3. In cases where anadromous stocks migrate into or through the waters landward of the outer limits of\nthe exclusive economic zone of a State other than the State of origin, such State shall cooperate with\nthe State of origin with regard to the conservation and management of such stocks.\n4. The State of origin of anadromous stocks and other States fishing these stocks shall make\narrangements for the implementation of the provisions of this article, where appropriate, through\nregional organizations.\nArticle 67 Catadromous species\n1. A coastal State in whose waters catadromous species spend the greater part of their life cycle shall\nhave responsibility for the management of these species and shall ensure the ingress and egress of\nmigrating fish.\n2. Harvesting of catadromous species shall be conducted only in waters landward of the outer limits of\nexclusive economic zones. When conducted in exclusive economic zones, harvesting shall be subject\nto this article and the other provisions of this Convention concerning fishing in these zones.\n3. In cases where catadromous fish migrate through the exclusive economic zone of another State,\nwhether as juvenile or maturing fish, the management, including harvesting, of such fish shall be\nregulated by agreement between the State mentioned in paragraph 1 and the other State concerned.\nSuch agreement shall ensure the rational management of the species and take into account the\nresponsibilities of the State mentioned in paragraph 1 for the maintenance of these species.\nArticle 68 Sedentary species\nThis Part does not apply to sedentary species as defined in article 77, paragraph 4.\nExcerpts of Part VII, The High Seas, Section 2. Conservation and Management of The Living Resources\nof the High Seas (Articles 116-120)\nSECTION 2. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE LIVING RESOURCES OF THE HIGH SEAS\nArticle 116 Right to fish on the high seas\n106 | Appendix of Unit Resources\n\n\x0cAll States have the right for their nationals to engage in fishing on the high seas subject to:\n(a) their treaty obligations;(b) the rights and duties as well as the interests of coastal States provided for,\ninter alia, in article 63, paragraph 2, and articles 64 to 67; and(c) the provisions of this section.\nArticle 117 Duty of States to adopt with respect to their nationals measures for the conservation of the\nliving resources of the high seas\nAll States have the duty to take, or to cooperate with other States in taking, such measures for their\nrespective nationals as may be necessary for the conservation of the living resources of the high seas.\nArticle 118 Cooperation of States in the conservation and management of living resources\nStates shall cooperate with each other in the conservation and management of living resources in the\nareas of the high seas. States whose nationals exploit identical living resources, or different living resources\nin the same area, shall enter into negotiations with a view to taking the measures necessary for the\nconservation of the living resources concerned. They shall,\nArticle 114 Breaking or injury by owners of a submarine cable or pipeline of another submarine cable\nor pipeline as appropriate, cooperate to establish subregional or regional fisheries organizations to this\nend.\nArticle 119 Conservation of the living resources of the high seas\n1. In determining the allowable catch and establishing other conservation measures for the living\nresources in the high seas, States shall: (a) take measures which are designed, on the best scientific\nevidence available to the States concerned, to maintain or restore populations of harvested species at\nlevels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield, as qualified by relevant environmental and\neconomic factors, including the special requirements of developing States, and taking into account\nfishing patterns, the interdependence of stocks and any generally recommended international\nminimum standards, whether subregional, regional or global;(b) take into consideration the effects on\nspecies associated with or dependent upon harvested species with a view to maintaining or restoring\npopulations of such associated or dependent species above levels at which their reproduction may\nbecome seriously threatened.\n2. Available scientific information, catch and fishing effort statistics, and other data relevant to the\nconservation of fish stocks shall be contributed and exchanged on a regular basis through competent\ninternational organizations, whether sub-regional, regional or global, where appropriate and with\nparticipation by all States concerned.\n3. States concerned shall ensure that conservation measures and their implementation do not\ndiscriminate in form or in fact against the fishermen of any State.\nArticle 120 Marine mammals\nArticle 65 also applies to the conservation and management of marine mammals in the high seas.\nExcerpts of Part XII, Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment Pollution (Articles\n204-212)\nSECTION 4. MONITORING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT\nArticle 204 Monitoring of the risks or effects of pollution\n1. States shall, consistent with the rights of other States, endeavour, as far as practicable, directly or\nthrough the competent international organizations, to observe, measure, evaluate and analyse, by\nAppendix of Unit Resources | 107\n\n\x0crecognized scientific methods, the risks or effects of pollution of the marine environment.\n2. In particular, States shall keep under surveillance the effects of any activities which they permit or in\nwhich they engage in order to determine whether these activities are likely to pollute the marine\nenvironment.\nArticle 205 Publication of reports\nStates shall publish reports of the results obtained pursuant to article 204 or provide such reports at\nappropriate intervals to the competent international organizations, which should make them available to all\nStates.\nSECTION 3. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE\nArticle 202 Scientific and technical assistance to developing States\nWhen States have reasonable grounds for believing that planned activities under their jurisdiction or\ncontrol may cause substantial pollution of or significant and harmful changes to the marine environment,\nthey shall, as far as practicable, assess the potential effects of such activities on the marine environment and\nshall communicate reports of the results of such assessments in the manner provided in article 205.\nSECTION 5. INTERNATIONAL RULES AND NATIONAL LEGISLATION TO PREVENT, REDUCE AND\nCONTROL POLLUTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT\nArticle 207 Pollution from land-based sources\n1. States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine\nenvironment from land-based sources, including rivers, estuaries, pipelines and outfall structures,\ntaking into account internationally agreed rules, standards and recommended practices and\nprocedures.\n2. States shall take other measures as may be necessary to prevent, reduce and control such pollution.\n3. States shall endeavour to harmonize their policies in this connection at the appropriate regional level.\n4. States, acting especially through competent international organizations or diplomatic conference, shall\nendeavour to establish global and regional rules, standards and recommended practices and\nprocedures to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based\nsources, taking into account characteristic regional features, the economic capacity of developing\nStates and their need for economic development. Such rules, standards and recommended practices\nand procedures shall be re-examined from time to time as necessary.\n5. Laws, regulations, measures, rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures referred to\nin paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 shall include those designed to minimize, to the fullest extent possible, the\nrelease of toxic, harmful or noxious substances, especially those which are persistent, into the marine\nenvironment.\nArticle 208Pollution from seabed activities subject to national jurisdiction\n1. Coastal States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine\nenvironment arising from or in connection with seabed activities subject to their jurisdiction and from\nartificial islands, installations and structures under their jurisdiction, pursuant to articles 60 and 80.\n2. States shall take other measures as may be necessary to prevent, reduce and control such pollution.\n3. Such laws, regulations and measures shall be no less effective than international rules, standards and\n108 | Appendix of Unit Resources\n\n\x0crecommended practices and procedures.\n4. States shall endeavour to harmonize their policies in this connection at the appropriate regional level.\n5. States, acting especially through competent international organizations or diplomatic conference, shall\nestablish global and regional rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures to prevent,\nreduce and control pollution of the marine environment referred to in paragraph l. Such rules,\nstandards and recommended practices and procedures shall be re-examined from time to time as\nnecessary.\nArticle 209 Pollution from activities in the Area [the Deep Seabed]\n1. International rules, regulations and procedures shall be established in accordance with Part XI to\nprevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from activities in the Area. Such\nrules, regulations and procedures shall be re-examined from time to time as necessary.\n2. Subject to the relevant provisions of this section, States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent,\nreduce and control pollution of the marine environment from activities in the Area undertaken by\nvessels, installations, structures and other devices flying their flag or of their registry or operating\nunder their authority, as the case may be. The requirements of such laws and regulations shall be no\nless effective than the international rules, regulations and procedures referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 210 Pollution by dumping\n1. States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine\nenvironment by dumping.\n2. States shall take other measures as may be necessary to prevent, reduce and control such pollution.\n3. Such laws, regulations and measures shall ensure that dumping is not carried out without the\npermission of the competent authorities of States.\n4. States, acting especially through competent international organizations or diplomatic conference, shall\nendeavour to establish global and regional rules, standards and recommended practices and\nprocedures to prevent, reduce and control such pollution. Such rules, standards and recommended\npractices and procedures shall be re-examined from time to time as necessary.\n5. Dumping within the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone or onto the continental shelf shall\nnot be carried out without the express prior approval of the coastal State, which has the right to\npermit, regulate and control such dumping after due consideration of the matter with other States\nwhich by reason of their geographical situation may be adversely affected thereby.\n6. National laws, regulations and measures shall be no less effective in preventing, reducing and\ncontrolling such pollution than the global rules and standards.\nArticle 211 Pollution from vessels\n1. States, acting through the competent international organization or general diplomatic conference,\nshall establish international rules and standards to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine\nenvironment from vessels and promote the adoption, in the same manner, wherever appropriate, of\nrouting systems designed to minimize the threat of accidents which might cause pollution of the\nmarine environment, including the coastline, and pollution damage to the related interests of coastal\nAppendix of Unit Resources | 109\n\n\x0cStates. Such rules and standards shall, in the same manner, be re-examined from time to time as\nnecessary.\n2. States shall adopt laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution of the\nmarine environment from vessels flying their flag or of their registry. Such laws and regulations shall\nat least have the same effect as that of generally accepted international rules and standards\nestablished through the competent international organization or general diplomatic conference.\n3. States which establish particular requirements for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution\nof the marine environment as a condition for the entry of foreign vessels into their ports or internal\nwaters or for a call at their off-shore terminals shall give due publicity to such requirements and shall\ncommunicate them to the competent international organization. Whenever such requirements are\nestablished in identical form by two or more coastal States in an endeavour to harmonize policy, the\ncommunication shall indicate which States are participating in such cooperative arrangements. Every\nState shall require the master of a vessel flying its flag or of its registry, when navigating within the\nterritorial sea of a State participating in such cooperative arrangements, to furnish, upon the request\nof that State, information as to whether it is proceeding to a State of the same region participating in\nsuch cooperative arrangements and, if so, to indicate whether it complies with the port entry\nrequirements of that State. This article is without prejudice to the continued exercise by a vessel of its\nright of innocent passage or to the application of article 25, paragraph 2.\n4. Coastal States may, in the exercise of their sovereignty within their territorial sea, adopt laws and\nregulations for the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution from foreign vessels,\nincluding vessels exercising the right of innocent passage. Such laws and regulations shall, in\naccordance with Part II, section 3, not hamper innocent passage of foreign vessels.\n5. Coastal States, for the purpose of enforcement as provided for in section 6, may in respect of their\nexclusive economic zones adopt laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of\npollution from vessels conforming to and giving effect to generally accepted international rules and\nstandards established through the competent international organization or general diplomatic\nconference.\n\xe2\x97\xa6 (a) Where the international rules and standards referred to in paragraph 1 are inadequate to meet\nspecial circumstances and coastal States have reasonable grounds for believing that a particular,\nclearly defined area of their respective exclusive economic zones is an area where the adoption of\nspecial mandatory measures for the prevention of pollution from vessels is required for\nrecognized technical reasons in relation to its oceanographical and ecological conditions, as well\nas its utilization or the protection of its resources and the particular character of its traffic, the\ncoastal States, after appropriate consultations through the competent international organization\nwith any other States concerned, may, for that area, direct a communication to that organization,\nsubmitting scientific and technical evidence in support and information on necessary reception\nfacilities. Within 12 months after receiving such a communication, the organization shall\ndetermine whether the conditions in that area correspond to the requirements set out above. If\nthe organization so determines, the coastal States may, for that area, adopt laws and regulations\nfor the prevention, reduction and control of pollution from vessels implementing such\ninternational rules and standards or navigational practices as are made applicable, through the\norganization, for special areas. These laws and regulations shall not become applicable to foreign\n110 | Appendix of Unit Resources\n\n\x0cvessels until 15 months after the submission of the communication to the organization.\n\xe2\x97\xa6 (b) The coastal States shall publish the limits of any such particular, clearly defined area.\n\xe2\x97\xa6 (c) If the coastal States intend to adopt additional laws and regulations for the same area for the\nprevention, reduction and control of pollution from vessels, they shall, when submitting the\naforesaid communication, at the same time notify the organization thereof. Such additional laws\nand regulations may relate to discharges or navigational practices but shall not require foreign\nvessels to observe design, construction, manning or equipment standards other than generally\naccepted international rules and standards; they shall become applicable to foreign vessels 15\nmonths after the submission of the communication to the organization, provided that the\norganization agrees within 12 months after the submission of the communication.\n6. The international rules and standards referred to in this article should include inter alia those relating\nto prompt notification to coastal States, whose coastline or related interests may be affected by\nincidents, including maritime casualties, which involve discharges or probability of discharges.\nArticle 212 Pollution from or through the atmosphere\n1. States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine\nenvironment from or through the atmosphere, applicable to the air space under their sovereignty and\nto vessels flying their flag or vessels or aircraft of their registry, taking into account internationally\nagreed rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures and the safety of air navigation.\n2. States shall take other measures as may be necessary to prevent, reduce and control such pollution.\n3. States, acting especially through competent international organizations or diplomatic conference, shall\nendeavour to establish global and regional rules, standards and recommended practices and\nprocedures to prevent, reduce and control such pollution.\nExcerpts (cont\xe2\x80\x99d) of Part XII, Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment Enforcement\n(Articles 213-222)\nSECTION 6. ENFORCEMENT\nArticle 213 Enforcement with respect to pollution from land-based sources\nStates shall enforce their laws and regulations adopted in accordance with article 207 and shall adopt\nlaws and regulations and take other measures necessary to implement applicable international rules and\nstandards established through competent international organizations or diplomatic conference to prevent,\nreduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources. Article 214 Enforcement\nwith respect to pollution from seabed activities States shall enforce their laws and regulations adopted\nin accordance with article 208 and shall adopt laws and regulations and take other measures necessary\nto implement applicable international rules and standards established through competent international\norganizations or diplomatic conference to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment\narising from or in connection with seabed activities subject to their jurisdiction and from artificial islands,\ninstallations and structures under their jurisdiction, pursuant to articles 60 and 80.\nArticle 215 Enforcement with respect to pollution from activities in the Area\nEnforcement of international rules, regulations and procedures established in accordance with Part XI\n\nAppendix of Unit Resources | 111\n\n\x0cto prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from activities in the Area shall be\ngoverned by that Part.\nArticle 216Enforcement with respect to pollution by dumping\n1. Laws and regulations adopted in accordance with this Convention and applicable international\nrules and standards established through competent international organizations or diplomatic\nconference for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution of the marine environment by\ndumping shall be enforced:\n\xe2\x96\xaa (a) by the coastal State with regard to dumping within its territorial sea or its exclusive\neconomic zone or onto its continental shelf;\n\xe2\x96\xaa (b) by the flag State with regard to vessels flying its flag or vessels or aircraft of its registry;\n\xe2\x96\xaa (c) by any State with regard to acts of loading of wastes or other matter occurring within its\nterritory or at its off-shore terminals.\n1. No State shall be obliged by virtue of this article to institute proceedings when another State has\nalready instituted proceedings in accordance with this article.\nArticle 217 Enforcement by flag States\n1. States shall ensure compliance by vessels flying their flag or of their registry with applicable\ninternational rules and standards, established through the competent international organization or\ngeneral diplomatic conference, and with their laws and regulations adopted in accordance with this\nConvention for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution of the marine environment from\nvessels and shall accordingly adopt laws and regulations and take other measures necessary for their\nimplementation. Flag States shall provide for the effective enforcement of such rules, standards, laws\nand regulations, irrespective of where a violation occurs.\n2. States shall, in particular, take appropriate measures in order to ensure that vessels flying their flag or\nof their registry are prohibited from sailing, until they can proceed to sea in compliance with the\nrequirements of the international rules and standards referred to in paragraph 1, including\nrequirements in respect of design, construction, equipment and manning of vessels.\n3. States shall ensure that vessels flying their flag or of their registry carry on board certificates required\nby and issued pursuant to international rules and standards referred to in paragraph 1. States shall\nensure that vessels flying their flag are periodically inspected in order to verify that such certificates\nare in conformity with the actual condition of the vessels. These certificates shall be accepted by other\nStates as evidence of the condition of the vessels and shall be regarded as having the same force as\ncertificates issued by them, unless there are clear grounds for believing that the condition of the vessel\ndoes not correspond substantially with the particulars of the certificates.\n4. If a vessel commits a violation of rules and standards established through the competent international\norganization or general diplomatic conference, the flag State, without prejudice to articles 218, 220 and\n228, shall provide for immediate investigation and where appropriate institute proceedings in respect\nof the alleged violation irrespective of where the violation occurred or where the pollution caused by\nsuch violation has occurred or has been spotted.\n\n112 | Appendix of Unit Resources\n\n\x0c5. Flag States conducting an investigation of the violation may request the assis-tance of any other State\nwhose cooperation could be useful in clarifying the circ-umstances of the case. States shall endeavour\nto meet appropriate requests of flag States.\n6. States shall, at the written request of any State, investigate any violation alleged to have been\ncommitted by vessels flying their flag. If satisfied that sufficient evidence is available to enable\nproceedings to be brought in respect of the alleged violation, flag States shall without delay institute\nsuch proceedings in accordance with their laws.\n7. Flag States shall promptly inform the requesting State and the competent international organization of\nthe action taken and its outcome. Such information shall be available to all States.\n8. Penalties provided for by the laws and regulations of States for vessels flying their flag shall be\nadequate in severity to discourage violations wherever they occur.\nArticle 218 Enforcement by port States\n1. When a vessel is voluntarily within a port or at an off-shore terminal of a State, that State may\nundertake investigations and, where the evidence so warrants, institute proceedings in respect of any\ndischarge from that vessel outside the internal waters, territorial sea or exclusive economic zone of\nthat State in violation of applicable international rules and standards established through the\ncompetent international organization or general diplomatic conference.\n2. No proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be instituted in respect of a discharge violation in the\ninternal waters, territorial sea or exclusive economic zone of another State unless requested by that\nState, the flag State, or a State damaged or threatened by the discharge violation, or unless the\nviolation has caused or is likely to cause pollution in the internal waters, territorial sea or exclusive\neconomic zone of the State instituting the proceedings.\n3. When a vessel is voluntarily within a port or at an off-shore terminal of a State, that State shall, as far\nas practicable, comply with requests from any State for investigation of a discharge violation referred\nto in paragraph 1, believed to have occurred in, caused, or threatened damage to the internal waters,\nterritorial sea or exclusive economic zone of the requesting State. It shall likewise, as far as practicable,\ncomply with requests from the flag State for investigation of such a violation, irrespective of where the\nviolation occurred.\n4. The records of the investigation carried out by a port State pursuant to this article shall be transmitted\nupon request to the flag State or to the coastal State. Any proceedings instituted by the port State on\nthe basis of such an investigation may, subject to section 7, be suspended at the request of the coastal\nState when the violation has occurred within its internal waters, territorial sea or exclusive economic\nzone. The evidence and records of the case, together with any bond or other financial security posted\nwith the authorities of the port State, shall in that event be transmitted to the coastal State. Such\ntransmittal shall preclude the continuation of proceedings in the port State.\nArticle 219 Measures relating to seaworthiness of vessels to avoid pollution\nSubject to section 7, States which, upon request or on their own initiative, have ascertained that a vessel\nwithin one of their ports or at one of their off-shore terminals is in violation of applicable international rules\nand standards relating to seaworthiness of vessels and thereby threatens damage to the marine environment\nshall, as far as practicable, take administrative measures to prevent the vessel from sailing. Such States may\nAppendix of Unit Resources | 113\n\n\x0cpermit the vessel to proceed only to the nearest appropriate repair yard and, upon removal of the causes of\nthe violation, shall permit the vessel to continue immediately.\nArticle 220 Enforcement by coastal States\n1. When a vessel is voluntarily within a port or at an off-shore terminal of a State, that State may, subject\nto section 7, institute proceedings in respect of any violation of its laws and regulations adopted in\naccordance with this Convention or applicable international rules and standards for the prevention,\nreduction and control of pollution from vessels when the violation has occurred within the territorial\nsea or the exclusive economic zone of that State.\n2. Where there are clear grounds for believing that a vessel navigating in the territorial sea of a State has,\nduring its passage therein, violated laws and regulations of that State adopted in accordance with this\nConvention or applicable international rules and standards for the prevention, reduction and control\nof pollution from vessels, that State, without prejudice to the application of the relevant provisions of\nPart II, section 3, may undertake physical inspection of the vessel relating to the violation and may,\nwhere the evidence so warrants, institute proceedings, including detention of the vessel, in\naccordance with its laws, subject to the provisions of section 7.\n3. Where there are clear grounds for believing that a vessel navigating in the exclusive economic zone or\nthe territorial sea of a State has, in the exclusive economic zone, committed a violation of applicable\ninternational rules and standards for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution from vessels or\nlaws and regulations of that State conforming and giving effect to such rules and standards, that State\nmay require the vessel to give information regarding its identity and port of registry, its last and its\nnext port of call and other relevant information required to establish whether a violation has occurred.\n4. States shall adopt laws and regulations and take other measures so that vessels flying their flag comply\nwith requests for information pursuant to paragraph 3.\n5. Where there are clear grounds for believing that a vessel navigating in the exclusive economic zone or\nthe territorial sea of a State has, in the exclusive economic zone, committed a violation referred to in\nparagraph 3 resulting in a substantial discharge causing or threatening significant pollution of the\nmarine environment, that State may undertake physical inspection of the vessel for matters relating to\nthe violation if the vessel has refused to give information or if the information supplied by the vessel is\nmanifestly at variance with the evident factual situation and if the circumstances of the case justify\nsuch inspection.\n6. Where there is clear objective evidence that a vessel navigating in the exclusive economic zone or the\nterritorial sea of a State has, in the exclusive economic zone, committed a violation referred to in\nparagraph 3 resulting in a discharge causing major damage or threat of major damage to the coastline\nor related interests of the coastal State, or to any resources of its territorial sea or exclusive economic\nzone, that State may, subject to section 7, provided that the evidence so warrants, institute\nproceedings, including detention of the vessel, in accordance with its laws.\n7. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 6, whenever appropriate procedures have been\nestablished, either through the competent international organization or as otherwise agreed, whereby\ncompliance with requirements for bonding or other appropriate financial security has been assured,\nthe coastal State if bound by such procedures shall allow the vessel to proceed.\n8. The provisions of paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6and 7 also apply in respect of national laws and regulations\nadopted pursuant to article 211, paragraph 6.\n114 | Appendix of Unit Resources\n\n\x0cArticle 221 Measures to avoid pollution arising from maritime casualties\n1. Nothing in this Part shall prejudice the right of States, pursuant to international law, both customary\nand conventional, to take and enforce measures beyond the territorial sea proportionate to the actual\nor threatened damage to protect their coastline or related interests, including fishing, from pollution\nor threat of pollution following upon a maritime casualty or acts relating to such a casualty, which may\nreasonably be expected to result in major harmful consequences.\n2. For the purposes of this article, \xe2\x80\x9cmaritime casualty\xe2\x80\x9d means a collision of vessels, stranding or other\nincident of navigation, or other occurrence on board a vessel or external to it resulting in material\ndamage or imminent threat of material damage to a vessel or cargo.\nArticle 222 Enforcement with respect to pollution from or through the atmosphere\nStates shall enforce, within the air space under their sovereignty or with regard to vessels flying their\nflag or vessels or aircraft of their registry, their laws and regulations adopted in accordance with article\n212, paragraph 1, and with other provisions of this Convention and shall adopt laws and regulations and take\nother measures necessary to implement applicable international rules and standards established through\ncompetent international organizations or diplomatic conference to prevent, reduce and control pollution of\nthe marine environment from or through the atmosphere, in conformity with all relevant international rules\nand standards concerning the safety of air navigation.\nANNEX I. HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Albacore tuna: Thunnus alalunga.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Bluefin tuna: Thunnus thynnus.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Bigeye tuna: Thunnus obesus.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Skipjack tuna: Katsuwonus pelamis.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Yellowfin tuna: Thunnus albacares.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Blackfin tuna: Thunnus atlanticus.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Little tuna: Euthynnus alletteratus; Euthynnus affinis.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Southern bluefin tuna: Thunnus maccoyii.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Frigate mackerel: Auxis thazard; Auxis rochei.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Pomfrets: Family Bramidae.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Marlins: Tetrapturus angustirostris; Tetrapturus belone; Tetrapturus pfluegeri; Tetrapturus albidus;\nTetrapturus audax; Tetrapturus georgei; Makaira mazara; Makaira indica; Makaira nigricans.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Sail-fishes: Istiophorus platypterus; Istiophorus albicans.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Swordfish: Xiphias gladius.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Sauries: Scomberesox saurus; Cololabis saira; Cololabis adocetus; Scomberesox saurus scombroides.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Dolphin: Coryphaena hippurus; Coryphaena equiselis.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Oceanic sharks: Hexanchus griseus; Cetorhinus maximus; Family Alopiidae; Rhincodon typus;\nFamily Carcharhinidae; Family Sphyrnidae; Family Isurida.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Cetaceans: Family Physeteridae; Family Balaenopteridae; Family Balaenidae; Family Eschrichtiidae;\nFamily Monodontidae; Family Ziphiidae; Family Delphinidae.\n\nAppendix of Unit Resources | 115\n\n\x0cUNIT SEVEN: Current Problems in US Ocean Management: Illegal,\nUnreported, and Unregulated Fishing (IUU Fishing)\nPramod G, Nakamura K, Pitcher TJ, Delagran L (2014), Estimates of Illegal and Unreported fish in Seafood\nImports to the USA, 48 Marine Policy, 102-113.\nErceg D (2006), Deterring IUU Fishing Through State Control Over Nationals, 30:2 Marine Policy, 173-179.\nSumaila UR, Keith AH (2006), Global Scope and Economics of Illegal Fishing, 30:6 Marine Policy, 696-703.\n\nUNIT EIGHT: US Management of Offshore Energy\nThe Submerged Lands Act of 1953 (43 USC \xc2\xa71301 et seq.)\nhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/43/chapter-29/subchapter-II\nShort YouTube Video, \xe2\x80\x9cHow Undersea Cables are Laid,\xe2\x80\x9d\nhttps://youtu.be/XQVzU_YQ3IQ. There is a longer documentary on YouTube, The History of the\nTransatlantic\n\nCable:\n\nHow\n\nto\n\nConnect\n\nthe\n\nWorld\n\nPopulation,\n\nat\n\nhttp://www.youtube.com/\n\nwatch?v=MVw9IEGumVc\nThe Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 USC \xc2\xa71331 et seq.)\nhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/43/chapter-29/subchapter-III\nTabuchi H, Wallace T (2018) Trump Would Open Nearly All US Waters to Drilling. But Will They Drill?\nThe New York Times, January 23, 2018. Comparing the oil exploration of three presidents, with maps:\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/23/climate/trump-offshore-oil-drilling.html\nBureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Atlantic Oil and Gas Information,\nhttps://www.boem.gov/Atlantic-Oil-and-Gas-Information/\nThis site is useful because it provides examples of federal agency data, environmental studies, maps and\nother information collected in support of programmatic environmental impact statements to support oil\nand gas exploration, renewables, marine minerals to comply with NEPA, ESA, MMPA and MSA.\nFederal Energy Regulatory Commission, Hydrokinetic Energy\nhttps://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/hydropower/licensing/hydrokinetic-projects\nThe Federal Power Act of 1935 (16 USC CH. 12)\nhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/chapter-12\nThe Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58)\nhttps://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/content-detail.html\n\nUNIT NINE: US Coastal Management\nThe Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 USC \xc2\xa7 1451 et seq.\nhttps://coast.noaa.gov/czm/media/CZMA_10_11_06.pdf (inactive link as of 05/19/2021)\n116 | Appendix of Unit Resources\n\n\x0cCoastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA)\nhttps://coast.noaa.gov/data/Documents/OceanLawSearch/\nCoastalZoneActReauthorizationAmendmentsof1990.pdf\nNOAA Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Program\nhttps://coast.noaa.gov/czm/pollutioncontrol/\nEPA Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Program ( jointly managed)\nhttps://www.epa.gov/nps/coastal-zone-act-reauthorization-amendments-czara-section-6217\nCZARA Section 6217 on Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Programs\n16 USC \xc2\xa7 1455b, https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/act/sections/#1455b\nFletcher KM (2015), Managing Coastal Development, Chapter Five in Ocean and Coastal Law and Policy,\nBaur DC, Eichenberg, T, Hancock Snusz G, and Sutton M, eds. (American Bar Association, Section of\nEnvironment, Energy, and Resources (Chicago).\nNOAA Map of Continental United States Hurricane Strikes 1950-2011\nhttps://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/images/conus_hurrStrikes_1950-2011.png\nBremer S, Glavovic B (2013), Mobilizing Knowledge for Coastal Governance: Re-Framing the SciencePolicy Interface for Integrated Coastal Management, 41 Coastal Management, 39-56, DOI: 10.1080/\n08920753.2012.749751\nGriggs G (2017), Coasts in Crisis: A Global Challenge, University of California Press,\nISBN: 9780520293625\nLandry CE (2011), Coastal Erosion as a Natural Resource Management Problem: An Economic\nPerspective, 39 Coastal Management 259-281, DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2011.566121\nFinal Report of the US Commission on Ocean Policy\nThe Value of US Coasts (Final Report of the US Commission on Ocean Policy 2004\nhttp://govinfo.library.unt.edu/oceancommission/documents/full_color_rpt/welcome.html#final\nAppendix 6 of the Report, Review of US Ocean and Coastal Law: The Evolution of Ocean Governance\nOver Three Decades [Excerpt below]\nhttp://govinfo.library.unt.edu/oceancommission/documents/full_color_rpt/append_6.pdf\nSection 307(c)(3)(A) Consistency: Federally Licensed or Permit Activities\nAny applicant for a required federal license or permit to conduct an activity, in or outside of the coastal\nzone, affecting any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone of that state shall provide in the\napplication to the licensing or permitting agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with the\nenforceable policies of the state\xe2\x80\x99s approved program and that such activity will be conducted in a manner\nconsistent with the program (16 USC \xc2\xa71456(c)(3)(A)).\nA private individual or business, state or local government agency, or any other type of nonfederal entity,\napplying to the federal government for a required permit or license or any other type of an approval\nor authorization, needs to follow the requirements of CZMA Section 307(c)(3)(A). All federal license or\npermit activities occurring in the coastal zone are deemed to affect coastal uses or resources, if the state\ncoastal management program has listed the particular federal license, permit, or approval in its federally\napproved program document. For a listed activity occurring in the coastal zone, the applicant shall submit a\nconsistency certification to the approving federal agency and the state. In addition to the certification, the\napplicant must provide the state with the necessary data and information required by NOAA\xe2\x80\x99s regulations to\nallow the state to assess the project\xe2\x80\x99s effects (15 CFR \xc2\xa7930.54).\nWithin six months after receiving a copy of the consistency certification, the state is to notify the\nAppendix of Unit Resources | 117\n\n\x0cfederal agency concerned that it concurs with or objects to such certification. If the state fails to submit a\nnotification within the six month period, its concurrence is conclusively presumed. The federal agency may\nnot grant the requested license or permit unless the state concurs or is conclusively presumed to concur\nwith the certification (16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A). An aggrieved applicant may appeal the non-concurrence to the\nSecretary of Commerce and request an override of the state\xe2\x80\x99s decision or the Secretary may initiate his or\nher own review (16 USC \xc2\xa7 1456(c)(3)(A)-(B) and (d)).\nIf a state wants to review an unlisted activity, it must seek NOAA approval on a case-by-case basis (15 CFR\n\xc2\xa7 930.54). For listed activities outside the coastal zone, the applicant must submit a consistency certification\nto the state and the federal agency if the activity falls within the geographic location described in the state\nprogram document for listed activities outside the coastal zone. For such activities where the state has not\ndescribed the geographic location, the state must follow the unlisted activity procedure described above, if\nit wants to review the activity. (Adapted from Appendix 6)\nNOAA Office for Coastal Management, links to coastal state management information for the 35 US\ncoastal states and their coastal management plans (CMPs), https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/mystate/\nState Management Example: Oregon Territorial Sea Plan (1994) Relevant to Offshore Siting of Industrial\nFacilities Such as Renewable Energy, Oregon Enforceable Policies Subject to Federal Consistency.\nhttps://www.oregon.gov/lcd/OCMP/Pages/Territorial-Sea-Plan.aspx\nAndreen WL (2016), No Virtue Like Necessity: Dealing with Nonpoint Source Pollution and Environmental\nFlows in the Face of Climate Change, 34 Virginia Environmental Law Journal 255.\nHoornbeek JF, Yalamanchili S (2017), Watershed Based Tools for Reducing Nutrient Flows to Surface\nWaters: Addressing Nutrient Enrichment and Harmful Algal Blooms in the United States, 29 Fordham\nEnvironmental Law Review 50.\n2018 Report on National Coastal Flood Vulnerability, NOAA National Ocean Service,\nhttps://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/mar18/coastal-flood-vulnerability.html\nSelected US Supreme Court Cases, Fifth Amendment \xe2\x80\x9cTakings\xe2\x80\x9d Claims in the Coastal Zone\nLucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 US 1003 (1992)\nNollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825 (1987)\nDolan v. City of Tigard, 512 US 374 (1994)\nPalazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 US 606 (2001)\nKelo v. New London Development Corporation, 125 S Ct 2655 (2005)\n\n118 | Appendix of Unit Resources\n\n\x0cUNIT TEN: Restoring Marine Environments: The Roles of\nInnovative Regulatory, Planning and Human Dimensions Tools\nUseful Literature\nBeck M. (2014) Social-Ecological Marine Restoration: A New Vision for Benefits for Nature \xe2\x80\x93 And People.\nNational Geographic Blog, August 21, 2014.\nhttps://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2014/08/21/social-ecological-marine-restoration-a-new-visionof-benefits-for-nature-and-people/\nBlomberg BN, Pollack JB, Montagna PA, Yoskowitz DW (2018), Evaluating the US Estuary Restoration Act to\nInform Restoration Policy Implementation: A Case Study Focusing on Oyster Reef Projects, 91 Marine Policy\n161-166.\nConathan M, Buchanan J, Polefka S (2014) The Economic Case for Restoring Coastal Ecosystems, The\nCenter for American Progress,\nhttps://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CoastalRestoration_INTRO.pdf\nEdwards PET, Sutton-Grier AE, Coyle GE (2013), Investing in Nature: Restoring Coastal Habitat Blue\nInfrastructure and Green Job Creation, 38 Marine Policy 65-71.\nGreening H, Swann R, St. P\xc3\xa9, Testroet-Bergeron S, Allen R, Alderson M, Hecker J, Bernhardt SP (2018),\nLocal Implementation of a National Program: The National Estuary Program Response Following the\nDeepwater Horizon Spill in the Gulf of Mexico, 87 Marine Policy 60-64.\nRestoring and Protecting Marine Habitat: The Role of Engineering and Technology (1994), Chapter 8,\nConclusions and Recommendations, National Academies Press, https://www.nap.edu/read/2213/chapter/\n10\nGuerry AD (2005) Icarus and Daedalus: Conceptual and Tactical Lessons for Marine Ecosystem-Based\nManagement, 3 Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 202,\nhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3868464\nGoreau TJ, Trench RK (2012), Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration, CRC Press, Taylor and\nFrancis Group Boca Raton, London, New York, ISBN 9781466557734\nWasson K, Suarez B, Akhavan A, McCarthy E, Kildow J, Johnson KS, Fountain MC, Woolfolk A., Silberstein\nM., Pendleton L, Feliz D (2015), Lessons Learned from an Ecosystem-Based Management Approach to\nRestoration of a California Estuary, 58 Marine Policy 60-70.\nFrom NOAA\xe2\x80\x99s Restoration Center, see report from May 2017, Socioeconomic Benefits of Habitat\nRestoration\nftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/noaa_documents.lib/NMFS/TM_NMFS_OHC/TM_NMFS_OHC_1.pdf\nCenter for American Progress/OXFAM (2014), The Economic Benefits of Restoring Coastal Ecosystems,\nhttps://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2014/04/09/87438/the-economicbenefits-of-restoring-coastal-ecosystems/\nBiohabitats,\n\nhttp://www.biohabitats.com/newsletters/coastal-habitat-restoration/socioeconomic-\n\nbenefits-of-coastal-habitat-restoration/\nNOAA, The Estuary Restoration Act, and National Database of Restoration Projects,\nhttps://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation/estuary-restoration-act\nStatute: Estuary Restoration, 33 USC 42, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/chapter-42\nPeriodic national state-of-the-coast reports\nAppendix of Unit Resources | 119\n\n\x0cThe NOAA 2013 report on National Coastal Population (trends 1970-2020) is available here.\nEPA\xe2\x80\x99s Coastal Condition Reports are available here.\nThis series became known as the National Coastal Condition Assessment.\nThe most recent EPA report is 2010, published 2016.\nFor The National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) Program see here.\nEconomics\nHere are resources from NOAA Fisheries on the economic value of coastal and estuarine restoration.\nWhile browsing on this site, click on some of the blue live links for fact sheets and a wide array of data\nsummaries.\nThe Economic and Market Value of Coasts and Estuaries: What\xe2\x80\x99s At Stake? Pendleton LH ed., Restore\nAmerica\xe2\x80\x99s Estuaries, 2008.\nhttps://americaswetland.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/102008_RAEEconReport.pdf\n(VIDEO RESOURCE) Habitat Restoration: An Economic Engine.\nA 2017 report by NOAA fisheries provides a summary of the economic value of US fisheries.\n\nUNIT ELEVEN: The Future of Ocean Management\nThe United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948)\nhttp://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/\nUnited Nations, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland\nCommission Report), Our Common Future (1992)\nhttp://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf\nThe Millennium Ecosystem Report (2005)\nhttps://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.html\nUniversity\n\nof\n\nWashington,\n\nMarine\n\nEcosystems\n\nand\n\nManagement\n\nMEAM\n\nNewsletter,\n\nhttps://meam.openchannels.org/meam\nThe Stratton Commission Report, Our Nation and the Sea (1964)\nhttps://archive.org/details/ournationseaplan00unit\nThe PEW Charitable Trusts Report, America\xe2\x80\x99s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change (2003)\nhttp://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2003/06/02/americas-living-oceanscharting-a-course-for-sea-change\nThe US Ocean Commission Report, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century (2004)\nhttps://govinfo.library.unt.edu/oceancommission/documents/full_color_rpt/\n000_ocean_full_report.pdf\nThe Implementation Plan (2009), archive, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/\neop/oceans/policy\nThe Final Recommendations of the Interagency Task Force on Ocean Policy (2010)\nhttps://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/opp_advisory/briefings/nov2010/optf_finalrecs.pdf\nNews Releases (December 2016), First Two Regional Plans in Place,\nhttps://www.nrdc.org/experts/alison-chase/national-ocean-policy-seven\nThe Nature Conservancy California Oceans Program\n120 | Appendix of Unit Resources\n\n\x0chttps://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/california/\nhowwework/california-oceans-program.xml\nWest Coast Regional Planning Body, http://www.westcoastmarineplanning.org\nCaribbean Regional Ocean Partnership: https://marineplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/\nPR_USVI_CROP-Outreach-Document_2015.pdf\nPacific Island Regional Planning Body, https://www.regions.noaa.gov/pacific-islands/index.php/\nhighlights/pacific-islands-regional-planning-body/\nThe Nature Conservancy, Our Oceans, Our Future (and urban planning tool)\nhttps://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/oceans/index.htm\nFilm, Ocean Frontiers III: Leaders in Ocean Stewardshiop and the New Blue Economy,\nhttps://ocean-frontiers.org/the-films/ocean-frontiers-3/\nMission Blue, https://mission-blue.org/about/\nStanford University, Center for Ocean Solutions, https://oceansolutions.stanford.edu\nGrier A, Wowk K. (2015), Future of Our Coasts: The Potential for Natural and Hybrid Infrastructure\nto Enhance the Resilience of Our Coastal Communities, Economies, and Ecosystems, Science Direct 51\n(137-148), http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901115000799\nBurroughs R (2011), Coastal Governance, Island Press (ISBN-13: 978-1-59726-484-6)\nMaser C (2013), Decisionmaking for a Sustainable Environment: A Systemic Approach, CRC Press,\nTaylor and Francis Group (ISBN 978-1-4665-5216-6)\nZacharias M (2014), Chapter 10, Integrated Approaches to Ocean Management, in Marine Policy: An\nIntroduction to Governance and International Law of the Oceans (Earthscan, Routledge, Taylor and\nFrancis).\n\nAppendix of Unit Resources | 121\n\n\x0cCreative Commons License\nThis work is licensed by Holly V. Campbell under a\nCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC)\nYou are free to:\nShare \xe2\x80\x94 copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format\nAdapt \xe2\x80\x94 remix, transform, and build upon the material\nThe licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.\nUnder the following terms:\nAttribution \xe2\x80\x94 You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if\nchanges were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests\nthe licensor endorses you or your use.\nNonCommercial \xe2\x80\x94 You may not use the material for commercial purposes.\nNo additional restrictions \xe2\x80\x94 You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict\nothers from doing anything the license permits.\n\n122 | Creative Commons License\n\n\x0cRecommended Citations\nAPA outline:\nSource from website:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 (Full last name, first initial of first name). (Date of publication). Title of source. Retrieved\nfrom https://www.someaddress.com/full/url/\nSource from print:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 (Full last name, first initial of first name). (Date of publication). Title of source. Title of container (larger\nwhole that the source is in, i.e. a chapter in a book), volume number, page numbers.\n\nExamples\nIf retrieving from a webpage:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nBerndt, T. J. (2002). Friendship quality and social development. Retrieved from insert link.\n\nIf retrieving from a book:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nBerndt, T. J. (2002). Friendship quality and social development. Current Directions in Psychological\nScience, 11, 7-10.\n\nMLA outline:\nAuthor (last, first name). Title of source. Title of container (larger whole that the source is in, i.e. a chapter\nin a book), Other contributors, Version, Number, Publisher, Publication Date, Location (page numbers).\n\nExamples\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nBagchi, Alaknanda. \xe2\x80\x9cConflicting Nationalisms: The Voice of the Subaltern in Mahasweta Devi\xe2\x80\x99s Bashai\nTudu.\xe2\x80\x9d Tulsa Studies in Women\xe2\x80\x99s Literature, vol. 15, no. 1, 1996, pp. 41-50.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nSaid, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism. Knopf, 1994.\n\nChicago outline:\nSource from website:\nRecommended Citations | 123\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2 Lastname, Firstname. \xe2\x80\x9cTitle of Web Page.\xe2\x80\x9d Name of Website. Publishing organization, publication or\nrevision date if available. Access date if no other date is available. URL .\nSource from print:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Last name, First name. Title of Book. Place of publication: Publisher, Year of publication.\n\nExamples\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nDavidson, Donald, Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001.\nhttps://bibliotecamathom.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/essays-on-actions-and-events.pdf.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nKerouac, Jack. The Dharma Bums. New York: Viking Press, 1958.\n\n124 | Recommended Citations\n\n\x0cVersioning\nThis page provides a record of changes made to this guide. Each set of edits is acknowledged with a 0.01\nincrease in the version number. The exported files for this toolkit reflect the most recent version.\nIf you find an error in this text, please fill out the form at bit.ly/33cz3Q1\nVersion Date\n0.1\n\nMM/DD/YYYY\n\n0.11\n\n08/27/2020\n\nChange Made\n\nLocation in text\n\nLinks to external sources updated\n\nAll\n\nVersioning | 125\n\n\x0c'