NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
This study was supported by Cooperative Agreement No. DTMA91-94-G-00003 between the Maritime Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Academy of Sciences; and Grant No. N00014-95-1-1205 between the Department of the Navy, Office of Naval Research, and the National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-06369-8
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 97-45293
Copies of this report are available for sale from:
National Academy Press
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20055 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) Internet, http://www.nap.edu
Printed in the United States of America
Copyright 1997 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
COMMITTEE ON MARINE AREA GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
WILLIAM M. EICHBAUM, chair,
World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.
EDWARD P. (TED) AMES,
ROBERT L. BENDICK, JR.,
The Nature Conservancy, Altamonte Springs, Florida
BROCK B. BERNSTEIN,
LEO BRIEN (deceased),
Port of Oakland, California
CHARLES G. (CHIP) GROAT,
University of Texas at El Paso
MARC J. HERSHMAN,
University of Washington, Seattle
MICHAEL F. HIRSHFIELD,
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Annapolis, Maryland
Oregon Ocean Program, Portland
ROBERT L. HOWARD,
Shell Offshore (retired), Houston, Texas
ROBERT W. KNECHT,
University of Delaware, Newark
World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
University of Maine, Portland
KATHARINE F. WELLMAN,
Battelle Memorial Institute, Seattle, Washington
GEORGE M. WOODWELL,
Woods Hole Research Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts
JEFFREY R. BENOIT,
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
THOMAS E. BIGFORD,
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
DARRELL D. BROWN,
Environmental Protection Agency
Marine Board, University of Delaware
WILLIAM W. FOX, JR.,
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Coast Guard
Minerals Management Service
SUSAN GARBINI, Project Officer
MARVIN WEEKS, Administrative Assistant (to mid-May 1997)
THERESA FISHER, Administrative Assistant (from mid-May 1997)
JAMES M. COLEMAN,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge
JERRY A. ASPLAND, vice chair,
California Maritime Academy, Vallejo, California
BERNHARD J. ABRAHAMSSON,
University of Wisconsin, Superior
BROCK B. BERNSTEIN,
EcoAnalysis, Ojai, California
LILLIAN C. BORRONE,
NAE, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York
Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, New York
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
University of Delaware, Newark
BILLY L. EDGE,
Texas A&M University, College Station
JOHN W. FARRINGTON,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts
LeMoyne College and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Cazenovia, New York
JAMES D. MURFF,
Exxon Production Research Company, Houston, Texas
M. ELISABETH PATÉ-CORNELL,
NAE, Stanford University, Stanford, California
DONALD W. PRITCHARD,
NAE, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Severna Park, Maryland
STEVEN T. SCALZO,
Foss Maritime Company, Seattle, Washington
MALCOLM L. SPAULDING,
University of Rhode Island, Narragansett
Sea-Land Service, Charlotte, North Carolina
E.G. "SKIP" WARD,
Shell Offshore, Houston, Texas
CHARLES A. BOOKMAN, Director (to April 30, 1997)
PETER A. JOHNSON, Acting Director (from May 1, 1997)
DORIS C. HOLMES, Staff Associate
ORIGIN AND BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The Marine Board of the National Research Council (NRC) has conducted major assessments of the scientific and technical prerequisites for exploring and understanding the nation's coastal and marine regions in a series of reports (NRC, 1989, 1990a, 1991, 1992a; Marine Board, 1993). These and other assessments have shown that the nation's interest in the conservation and wise management of ocean territory requires sustained public investment in information gathering and management. The findings of the Marine Board studies have revealed a strong interest in the nation's coastal and marine areas by present and potential offshore industries, coastal states responsible for resource development and environmental preservation of their offshore regions, and the ocean research community. Little has been done however, to devise a comprehensive regulatory or management framework for current or future activities in federal and state waters or on or under the seabed in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.1 The need for a regulatory and management framework is likely to increase in the future as advances in offshore technology and changes in market conditions lead to an increase in coastal populations and marine recreation and tourism, activities that utilize or impinge on coastal and marine resources (such as marine aquaculture and offshore oil, gas, and minerals exploration), and waste disposal in deeper waters. These activities may conflict with plans for setting aside areas as marine sanctuaries and raise concerns about ocean pollution.
In April 1993, the Marine Board sponsored a forum at which representatives from private industry, public agencies, public interest groups, and the academic ocean policy community were invited to air their views on a national strategy to manage the nation's coastal and ocean resources and space. Based on the proceedings of the forum, the Marine Board identified emerging issues in marine area governance and management.
Many participants in the forum expressed the view that defining national goals and plans for the ocean is a critical prerequisite to appropriate economic investment and sound environmental stewardship of the ocean. A comprehensive national strategy that establishes a predictable legal and regulatory regime for ocean utilization would allay fears of rampant and destructive development on the one hand and environmental gridlock over future development on the other. A national strategy would also create a climate for a reasonable, nonadversarial approach to resolving conflicts.
A national strategy should define objectives for ocean utilization and preservation, establish governance mechanisms for the allocation of ocean resources and space, and institute a process for reconciling differences among stakeholders. This process needs to be dynamic and flexible to accommodate changing conditions. The national strategy should be developed through a full partnership among federal, state, and local agencies, beginning with the definition of principles for governance and continuing through the implementation of management processes. The strategy must take into account regional differences and concerns as well as national goals for the ocean and marine areas.
Following the forum, a planning meeting was held in July 1994, which was attended by representatives of interested and active parties in ocean governance and management. Based on presentations and discussions at the planning meeting, together with subsequent comments by the attendees, a core group of participants prepared a background paper identifying issues that needed to be addressed. The background paper was used as the basis for discussions with representatives of the responsible federal agencies to develop guidelines for improving coastal and marine governance and management (See Appendix B). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Minerals Management Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency provided funds for this study.
COMMITTEE COMPOSITION AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The NRC's Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, under the auspices of the Marine Board, assembled a committee of 15 members to design and recommend ways to improve the management and governance of the nation's marine areas and resources. Committee biographies are found in Appendix A. Committee members had expertise in ocean resources management, marine environmental science, economics, law, and political science. Representatives were also appointed from communities of users and/or developers of ocean and coastal
resources and space, including coastal state government agencies, fisheries, the marine transportation sector, offshore energy industries, and marine environmental protection organizations. The committee was subject to the usual NRC bias and conflict of interest procedures. Formation of the committee was coordinated with the NRC's Ocean Studies Board, the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, and the Board on Biology. Sponsoring federal agencies and other agencies involved in marine area governance and management were asked to designate liaisons to the committee.
The committee's task included the following objectives:
to collect information on and review the governance and management elements of marine management areas in the United States
to assess the issues and elements of marine governance and management laid out in the conceptual framework paper by evaluating case studies of marine management areas
to distill the lessons learned from the case studies and from the other avenues of committee inquiry into alternative models for the governance and management of marine areas
The study focused on the marine environment, which is defined here as the area between high water and the seaward extent of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Distinctions between state and federal waters were not a focus of this study. Although the committee recognizes that activities on land and in enclosed coastal waters (e.g., estuaries and bays) affect conditions in coastal and marine areas, the report does not address land-based management and governance problems.
HOW THE STUDY WAS CONDUCTED
The background paper from the planning meeting (see Appendix B) served as the conceptual framework for the committee's examination of real-world examples of current marine area management and provided preliminary criteria for improving ocean governance. Three in-depth case studies were conducted under the auspices of the committee as examples of existing marine governance and management programs and processes:
Gulf of Maine/Massachusetts Bay (conducted by the Marine Policy Center of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary/Florida Bay Ecosystem (conducted by the Center for the Economy and the Environment of the National Academy of Public Administration)
Southern California Coast, offshore and coastal region from the San Luis Obispo/Monterey County line in the north to the United States/Mexico border in the south (conducted by the Center for the Economy and the Environment of the National Academy of Public Administration)
Additional programs were also reviewed during the course of the study, including the Coastal Zone Management Program, the National Estuary Program, fisheries management under the Fishery Management and Conservation Act, the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing program, and state ocean and coastal management and governance programs.
After completing the case studies and other investigations, the committee distilled the lessons learned and developed the recommendations presented in this report. The report is available to the general public but is designed for use by the following audiences: federal and state agencies with direct management or regulatory responsibilities for coastal and marine areas or particular resources; scientists and policy analysts with a particular interest in marine and coastal species, habitats, and ecosystems and associated economic, social, and political problems; individuals, organizations, and companies with an interest in the utilization or preservation of marine and coastal resources and the services they provide; international organizations attempting to establish marine reserves and parks or to develop marine area management structures; environmental and resource public interest groups and the interested public; and key congressional staff.
The case studies are examples of diverse management requirements and geographic regions. In each case study, the committee examined an activity or issue of local importance to reveal the success or failure of existing management and governance structures and processes. Although other activities or concerns might also have been of interest to this study, the committee had only enough time and resources to examine the major issues in each case study area. The Florida Keys case study focuses on the national marine sanctuary, where concerns about ecosystem preservation conflict with intensive recreational use and resource development. The Gulf of Maine case study examines an ocean resource of substantial economic value (commercial fishing) in a state of crisis. The Southern California coast is intensely used for various activities, including marine transportation and recreation; controversy surrounding the development of offshore oil and gas resources has sparked ongoing conflicts between local and federal interests.
Each case study area was assessed with regard to (1) the effects of local, state, and federal regulations; (2) the ecological and biological issues of concern; (3) the potential for commercial or recreational uses; and (4) the social, cultural, and economic context. Criteria to guide the conduct of the case studies were based on the analyses in the background paper (see Appendix B) and the deliberations of the committee. Regional perspectives and expertise were sought through meetings in the case study areas (see Appendix C). Representatives of federal agencies responsible for marine management in these areas provided information and avenues for the exchange of information and also shared their expertise.
The case studies were performed under the guidance of individual committee members or subgroups, as appropriate. Based on lessons learned from the case studies and other activities, the committee developed recommendations for
improving the governance and management of marine areas both for environmental stewardship and for the development of ocean resources.
Chapter 1 provides an overview of the importance of marine areas and resources to the nation and an expanded definition of the terms, scope, and approach of the project, as well as a vision for the future and principles to guide the committee's analysis. Chapter 2 discusses the value of the marine environment in economic and other terms, assesses outstanding problems, and describes existing management and governance institutions and processes. Chapter 3 presents the committee's analysis of lessons learned from the case studies and examinations of other programs. Based on this analysis, Chapter 4 provides criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of management and governance. Chapter 5 proposes a number of options for improving marine governance. Chapter 6 presents tools for improving the management of marine areas. Chapter 7 contains the committee's conclusions and recommendations. The committee's findings, conclusions, and recommendations are also summarized in the Executive Summary. The case studies and a paper examining trends in coastal conditions are available upon request from the Marine Board (Bacon, 1996). Appendices provide information on committee members (Appendix A), the background paper for the study (Appendix B), a list of participants and contributors (Appendix C), and an expanded discussion of options for financing governance and management (Appendix D).
The committee wishes to thank the many individuals who contributed their time and energy to this project through presentations, correspondence, and discussions with committee members. Particular appreciation is extended to the liaison representatives of the sponsoring and other interested federal agencies, who participated in meetings and provided invaluable assistance in gathering information about existing programs: Jeffrey R. Benoit of the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Thomas E. Bigford and William W. Fox, Jr., of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA; Darrell D. Brown of the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds at the Environmental Protection Agency; Paul Stang of the Minerals Management Service; Raul Pedrozo of the U.S. Navy; and Lou Orsini and Wesley Marquardt of the U.S. Coast Guard. Special appreciation is extended to the directors and staff of the Rosensteil School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, in Miami, Florida, the New England Aquarium in Boston, Massachusetts, and the Port of Oakland, California, for hosting committee meetings.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.