93-876 ENR

CRS Report for Congress.

i Oceans and Coastal
Resources: A Briefing Book

Se
SMIT HSs :
Sly ws

RY
Oceans and Coastal Management Issues Team SFaRIES /

Congressional Research Service

October 4, 1993

Congressional Research Service * The Library of Congress |

The beer asienal Research Service works Seana for the Gna cane re-
search, analyzing legislation, and providing information at the request of committees,
Members, and their staffs, M a

The Service makes such research available, without partisan bias, in many forms includ
ing studies, reports, compilations, digests, and background briefings. Upon request,
ORS assists committees in analyzing legislative proposals and issues, and in assessing the
possible effects of these proposals and their alternatives. The Service’s senior specialists
and subject analysts are also available for isso! cco: in their reapectives fields
io eee:

OCEANS AND COASTAL RESOURCES: A BRIEFING BOOK

SUMMARY

The United States and the international community have important
interests in ocean and coastal resources involving such issues as pollution of the
resource base, food from the sea, energy and mineral development, and marine
transportation. Equally important, an understanding of oceanic processes and
air-sea exchange is vital to scientific predictions of the timing and magnitude of
projected global warming. A major concern is the impact increasing population,
development, and other human activity will have on the oceans and coastal
environment and what actions should be taken to better understand, define, and
prevent unacceptable degradation.

The Congressional Research Service prepared the Oceans and Coastal
Resources Briefing Book for use by a wide congressional audience with interests
in oceans and coastal resources issues.

The briefing book contains short papers on selected oceans and coastal
resource issues. Each paper contains an issue definition, background and
analysis, status of the issue, questions, and references.

The papers are arranged under major subject headings:

e Living Marine Resources,

e The Coastal Environment,

e Law of the Sea,

¢ Mineral and Energy Resources, and
e Antarctica.

One appendix to this report contains the full text of Agenda 21, Chapter 17,
of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)
held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil in June 1992, outlining recommendations in 7
program areas dealing with the protection and sustainable development of the
marine and coastal environment and its resources. Other appendices include a
copy of the Oceans and Coastal Resources section of the United States of
America National Report prepared by the executive branch for UNCED; and a
selected listing of oceans and coastal resources statutes.

Because of the competing uses of oceans and coastal resources and the
potential for increased degradation of the resource base, Congress and the public
are likely to give increasing attention to these and other issues affecting these
resources in the future.

CONTRIBUTORS

Alfred R. Greenwood, Coordinator
David M. Bearden and Frances K. McAllister, Production

Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division
Geoffrey S. Becker
Eugene H. Buck
Malcolm M. Simmons
Jeffrey A. Zinn

Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division
Marjorie Ann Browne

Science Policy Research Division
John Justus
James E. Mielke

CONTENTS

IntroduUctione lai see ee ee Oe If ON Clan ees, HANSA DOT Oe 1
Selected Ocean and Coastal Facts and Figures ..................005. 5
Selected Oceantandi(CoastaliDatay ieee ws ie sls es) RRA Oe eee SOS. 7

Living Marine Resources

Ocean Research for Understanding Global Change ................... 9
(by John Justus)

Whale Conservationty:. Gyre ts ia os LEST FIN BU IL 15
(by Eugene H. Buck)

Shrimp Fishery Concerts). (ei. 20. 00s cess 0 se akon Ml anatot. ran mOE LIBRE WEE. 2G 1)
(by Eugene H. Buck)

HHiph-SeasiDriftnetst yaa. ey Pca Tes Ghee ise ete ladatt O LNEL CLAE 22
(by Eugene H. Buck)

Minimizing or Using Fisheries Wastes ............. 0.0 cece eeees 25
(by Eugene H. Buck)

MolphiniRrotection Issues s. as. Shishi TS PA ere Le EE 27
(by Eugene H. Buck)

Marine Mammal - Fisheries Interactions .............. 0 cece eee eee 31

(by Eugene H. Buck)
Ocean Fisheries and the Magnuson Act:

Implementation and Reauthorization Concerns ................00. 34
(by Eugene H. Buck)
SeafoodiSafetyrandiinspection i%\ 25 Gl. So SOI, Ie ne Ms 38

(by Geoffrey S. Becker)

The Coastal Environment

Coastal Demographics and Development Patterns ................055 42
(by Jeffrey A. Zinn)

Coastal Wetlandsyi: saying! Wid. neal nr ar. ad Pee ae cbas sees 45
(by Jeffrey A. Zinn)

Marine Sanctuaries !hrogram e760. oe sen cao Sule aae caine wace by dats 48
(by Malcolm M. Simmons)

Estuarine Research Reserve System ........... cece cece eee eens 51
(by Jeffrey A. Zinn)

Coastal BarriersRrotection: iirc 2 ne site eres tie Giatice).pelaaceabents ae 54
(by Malcolm M. Simmons)

Coastal Flooding, Erosion, and Sea Level Rise ..............0-00 eee 58
(by Jeffrey A. Zinn)

Coastal Development and the National Flood Insurance Program ....... 61
(by Malcolm M. Simmons)

Managing CoastalvArcasitiny nos, Gee ne bes NOUS, Tan perealat 66

(by Malcolm M. Simmons)

Law of the Sea

U.S. Nonparticipation in the Law of the Sea Preparatory Commission ... 71
(by Marjorie Ann Browne)
The United States and the 1982 Convention ....................... 74

(by Marjorie Ann Browne)

Mineral and Energy Resources

Seabed Hard Minerals (i... 2)... coh a/eice «a <Pe eins SEMA RP CERIO CENA Pne 77
(by James E. Mielke)

Marine’ Mining Within theiU:SyhEZ) t5. 44a ase eine 79
(by James E. Mielke)

OCS. Leasing Moratoria:: 6. 5)...e. oo eee oo I ee Rec 81
(by Malcolm M. Simmons)

OCS: Coastal Impact Assistancel)...5. 2s belts a eee ee oe 84
(by Malcolm M. Simmons)

OGS:5-Year Leasing Program 225... ste si5.< 2) 1S Re Tees 88
(by Malcolm M. Simmons)

Evaluation of/OCS EnvironmentaliRisk 325.4... see ae eee ee 90

(by Malcolm M. Simmons)

Antarctica

Antarctic Environmental Protection and Mineral Resources............ 93
(by James E. Mielke)

The Antarctic Treaty System and the Impact of United Nations Debates .. 96
(by Marjorie Ann Browne)

Appendices
Appendix A: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
Agenda 21, Chapter 17.

Appendix B: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
United States of America National Report, Oceans and Coastal

Resources section.

Appendix C: Selected Oceans and Coastal Resources Statutes.

OCEANS AND COASTAL RESOURCES: A BRIEFING BOOK

INTRODUCTION’

More than two-thirds of the Earth is covered with water, with oceans and
inland seas accounting for almost 140 million square miles. The United States
and its insular areas, such as Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
Guam, have more than 13,000 miles of coastline, and the offshore U.S. Exclusive
' Economic Zone totals almost 3.4 million square miles.

The United States and the international community have important
interests in ocean and coastal resources involving such issues as pollution of the
resource base, food from the sea, energy and mineral development, and marine
transportation. Equally important, an understanding of oceanic processes and
air-sea exchange is vital to scientific predictions of the timing and magnitude of
projected global warming. A major concern is the impact increasing population,
development, and other human activity will have on the oceans and coastal
environment and what actions should be taken to better understand, define, and
prevent unacceptable degradation.

Population Impact

In a joint statement on February 26, 1992, the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences and Britain’s Royal Society of London warned that actions are
necessary to curb population growth and to modify human activities harming
the environment to prevent "irreversible damage to the Earth’s capacity to
sustain life." The two academies further noted that "if current predictions of
population growth prove accurate and patterns of human activity on the planet
remain unchanged, science and technology may not be able to prevent
irreversible degradation to the environment."

According to the Population Reference Bureau, Inc., world population is
projected to double from 5.4 billion in 1991 to over 10 billion by the middle of
the next century. World population increased from one to two billion from 1800
to 1930; but it took only 30 years to reach a population of three billion in 1960.
Current population growth is estimated to increase by almost 100 million a year
until the year 2020. In the United States, almost 50 percent of the population
resides in coastal areas. From 1960 to 1990 the population of coastal areas
increased from 80 to 110 million and is projected to reach 127 million by the
year 2010. If these population trends continue, heavy demands will be placed
on ocean and coastal resources, especially those resulting from population

*Prepared by Alfred R. Greenwood, Senior Analyst in Natural Resources
Policy, Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-2

growth near the coasts, the need for food from the sea to satisfy world protein
requirements, and the production of energy and minerals from offshore deposits.

Threats to Ocean and Coastal Resources

Increasing evidence has been found of deterioration in ocean resources
resulting from: sewage, chemical, and garbage disposal; runoff from agricultural
and forested lands; exploitation of fishery resources; development of energy and
‘mineral resources; and coastal infrastructure development. ~

In recent years, the United States has experienced a degradation of coastal
water quality, a loss of wetlands, closure of beach and recreational areas, and
pollution of fishery and shellfish resources that diminish the resource base,
contaminate seafood, and endanger human health. It has been estimated that
70 percent of U.S. commercial and recreational fish and shellfish depend on
estuaries and the coastal environment which is important to their life cycles.
Toxic chemicals and sewage dumped into the Nation’s coastal waters have
contaminated harbors and waterways. A major source of pollution can be
attributed to some 20,000 combined sewer overflows (CSOs), sewers that
combine storm water and sanitary flows, which empty directly into rivers and
coastal waters. Heavy rains and flooding in California in 1992 resulted in severe
CSO overflows which forced the closing of 70 miles of beach along the coast
adjacent to Los Angeles.

Increasing population concentration in coastal areas can be expected to
result in even more intensive demands and impacts on ocean and coastal
resources. Significant economic activity and growth has also occurred as coastal
residential, commercial, and recreational development has accelerated in recent
decades. For example, approximately 50 percent of annual U.S. residential
construction during the previous two decades occurred in coastal areas. During
the 1980’s alone, 6.7 million housing units were constructed in coastal areas
with Florida and California accounting for 45 percent of this growth.

Population growth and the attendant development of residential, industrial,
commercial, and recreational facilities are likely to continue into the future and
to continue to stress coastal ecosystems which are among the most productive
on Earth. At the same time, this increasing concentration of development along
the Nation’s coasts poses a threat to life and property from major storms. For
example, Hurricane Andrew, the most devastating natural disaster ever to strike
the United States, roared across southern Florida and into the low lying coastal
areas of Louisiana in August 1992, affecting the lives of more than 275,000
residents of these two States. Estimates of the enormous damage caused by the
storm range from $25 to $30 billion. Hurricane Hugo, the 1989 storm that
struck the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and came ashore at Charleston,
South Carolina, caused damage estimated at $6 billion requiring approximately
$2.8 billion of Federal disaster assistance and insurance payments of $400
million from the National Flood Insurance Program. If some scientists’
predictions of global warming prove accurate, the attendant sea level rise
severely would threaten many coastal communities. These predictions are likely

CRS-3

to stimulate significant debate at the local, State, and Federal level concerning
the future development policies of the coastal zone.

Petroleum and Mineral Developments

Against this background, there is renewed interest in the leasing and
development of U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas resources. At
the same time, unless domestic energy production increases enough to keep up
with energy demand, oil tanker traffic bringing foreign crude oil to the United
States will continue to increase as will the potential for oil spills. In each case,
the public is concerned with possible adverse environmental consequences.

While not a signatory to the United Nation’s Convention on Law of the
Sea, the United States has taken steps to align itself with some of its provisions
by establishing a U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extending 200 miles from
the Nation’s coasts and also extending the U.S. territorial sea from 3 to 12
miles. Under authority provided in the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources
Act of 1980 (P.L.96-283), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) has issued exploration licenses to US. firms, although no commercial
recovery has yet occurred. In this regard, legislation enacted in the 101st
Congress (P.L.101-178) authorizes NOAA to develop regulations and
environmental safeguards for ocean mining.

Many nations, including the United States, have been interested in
Antarctica as a potential source of petroleum and other mineral resources.
There has been disagreement about whether even regulated development should
be permitted on this environmentally sensitive continent. The Protocol on
Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty would place a ban on the
development of mineral resources in Antarctica and would preserve its
environmental quality. Twenty-six consultative parties to the treaty currently
are acting to ratify this measure. Thus far, Ecuador, France and Spain have
taken such action.

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

Many of the issues discussed in this briefing book on Oceans and Coastal
Resources have been addressed in the United States of America National Report
published in preparation for the United Nations’ Conference on Environment
and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in June 1992. The
report concludes that the roles of economic development and environmental
protection are inseparable and while much has been done to protect the
environment, new environmental management strategies are needed. See
Appendix B for the full text of the oceans and coastal resources section of the
USS. report.

At the conclusion of the UNCED on June 14, 1992, the Plenary session
adopted Agenda 21, Chapter 17. Chapter 17 includes the protection of the
oceans, all kinds of seas (including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas), and coastal
areas and includes the protection, rational use, and development of their living
resources. The session concluded that new approaches to marine and coastal

CRS-4

areas management and development at the national, subregional, regional, and
global levels would be necessary over the next decade. Seven program areas
were identified for international protection and sustainable development:

° integrated management and sustainable development of coastal areas,
including exclusive economic zones;

¢ marine environmental protection;

e sustainable use and conservation of marine living resources of the high
seas;

e sustainable use and conservation of marine living resources under
national jurisdiction;

e critical uncertainties for the management of the marine environment
and climate change;

e international and regional cooperation and coordination; and
e sustainable development of small islands.

Conference objectives were established for each program area. The conference
secretariat made financing and cost estimates for 1993-2000. See Appendix A
for the text of Agenda 21, Chapter 17, which is to be published by the United
Nations this fall for use by the U.N. General Assembly.

Because of the competing uses of oceans and coastal resources and the
potential for increased degradation of the resource base, Congress and the public
are likely to give increasing attention to these and other issues affecting these
resources in the future.

CRS-5

SELECTED OCEAN AND COASTAL
FACTS AND FIGURES

Oceans and marginal seas account for nearly 71 percent of the
Earth’s surface.

Almost 98 percent of the Earth’s water is included in the oceans and
~ sea ice. It is estimated that the oceans’ current characteristics (i.e.
salinity, density, etc) were formed more than 1.5 billion years ago.

The average depth of the global ocean is more than 3,657 meters
(12,000 feet).

No sunlight penetrates below 1,000 meters (3,280 feet) of ocean depth.

World weather and long term climate change are strongly linked
to ocean behavior.

The ocean is an immense reservoir of heat. To a depth of 2.5
meters (8 feet), the surface waters of the ocean hold as much heat as
the entire atmosphere.

Continental shelves account for approximately 8 percent of the
entire oceanic area.

Most of the major fisheries are located on the continental margins.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture organization reported that
1989 world commercial fishery landings were a record 99.5 million
metric tons.

The U.S. commercial fishery catch totalled 4.4 million metric tons in
1990 and was valued at approximately $3.6 billion. At the same time,
the U.S. imported $5.2 billion of fishery products.

56 percent of the U.S. fishery catch came from Alaskan waters.

U.S. seafood consumption totalled approximately 15.5 pounds per
person in 1990. Consumer expenditures totalled $26.7 billion in 1990
($18.3 billion in food service establishments and $8.2 billion at retail).

U.S. Aquaculture production (catfish, trout, salmon, oysters, striped
bass, etc.) totalled approximately $700 million in 1988 and has been
growing at an annual rate of 20 percent a year since 1980.

In the United States almost 50 percent of the population resides in
coastal areas.

From 1960-1990, the population in U.S. coastal areas increased from
80 to 110 million and is projected to reach 127 million by the year
2010.

CRS-6

Almost 27.4 million acres of wetlands are in the Nation’s coastal
areas accounting for 16 percent of coastal land areas.

Coastal wetlands account for almost one-third of the Nation’s total
wetlands.

Wetlands associated with estuaries provide food and habitat critical to
70 percent of U.S. marine commercial and sport fisheries.

Approximately 50 percent of all coastal wetlands in the lower 48 States
have been destroyed, averaging 40,000 acres of net loss per year.

Billions of metric tons of silt, sewage, industrial waste, and chemical
residues are discharged into the world’s oceans. Rivers alone pour an
estimated 9.3 billion metric tons of silt and other wastes into coastal
waters each year.

The major U.S. sources of ocean pollutants in 1986 included
industrial (11 percent), municipal (56 percent) and nonpoint or runoff
(34 percent).

Marine pollutants include sewage (treated and untreated), marine
litter, petroleum, synthetic organic compounds, metals, radioactive
materials, etc.

From the mid 1950s to the early 1980s world offshore oil and gas
production went from negligible to approximately 14 million barrels
per day (25 percent of world production).

U.S. Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production currently supplies
10 percent of the U.S. oil production and 25 percent of U.S. natural
gas production.

From 1970-1991, royalty payments from U.S. OCS oil and gas
production to the U.S. Government totalled $88.9 billion.

Worldwide, sand and gravel are mined from numerous offshore
locations for construction uses and beach replenishment. Millions of
tons of sand are dredged annually off the U.S. coast for beach
replenishment.

Mineral deposits, such as manganese nodules, have been discovered
in large concentrations in the north and south Pacific. Tracer
deposits, which include chromite, platinum, titanium, and gold, can be
found on the ocean floor within the U.S. EEZ, although no deep sea
mineral mining currently is being undertaken within the EEZ.

CRS-7

SELECTED U.S. OCEAN AND COASTAL DATA

COASTAL LAND AND WATER AREA

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) area:
Total EEZ: 3.36 million square nautical miles

Estuarine Drainage Area:
261,003 square miles (676,000 square kilometers)

Coastal Wetlands:
32,432 square miles (84,000 square kilometers), approximately 12 percent of total estuarine drainage area

Coastline Exclusive Economic Zone
(statute miles) (square nautical miles)

Conterminous only: 4,993

Atlantic 2,069 253,800

Gulf 1,631 186,200

Pacific” 1,293 236,800
Alaska (total) 6,640 950,000
Hawaii 750 695,000
Extra-territorial

Carribbean™ 441 58,400

Pacific” 335 981,000
Total 13,056 3,362,600

Excluding Hawaii, Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, and other U.S. insular areas.
Including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Including only American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Lad

*

+

FISHERIES DATA
Commercial:

° U.S. fisheries accounted for six percent of total world commercial fishery landings in 1989.

e 5.506 million tons (4.995 million metric tons) valued at $3.89 billion were landed by U.S. commercial
fishermen in 1990.

e 92,900 craft were used in commercial fishing activities in 1988.

¢ Approximately 274,000 men and women were engaged in commercial fishing full-time in 1988. An additional
90,000 persons were employed by 4,600 processors and wholesalers of fishery products.

Recreational marine fisheries: (data from Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts only)
e Approximately 17 million U.S. marine recreational fishermen made 39.8 million fishing trips.

e Approximately 231 million fish roughly 157,300 tons (143 million kilograms) were caught.
e 86 percent of these fishing trips occurred within 10 miles (16 kilometers) of shore.

Source: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. United States of America National Report,
Oceans and Coastal Resources Section. 1992. pp. 250-251.

CRS-8

SELECTED U.S. OCEAN AND COASTAL DATA (continued)

NON-LIVING RESOURCES

Offshore Oil and Gas Production
1.65 million square nautical miles of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).”

In 1989, 50,952 square miles were under lease. Of that, 12,198 square miles were under exploration,
development, or-production-for-oil and gas.

8.5 billion barrels of oil and condensate were produced from Federal waters in the OCS between 1954 and
1989.

86.87 trillion cubic feet (2.46 trillion cubic meters) of natural gas were produced from Federal waters in the
OCS between 1954 and 1989.

Year Crude Oil Natural Gas
(billion barrels) (billion cubic feet)
1954 3.302 60.04
1972 411.856 3000.01
1989 305.169 4200.01

Oil Spills Investigated by the U.S. Coast Guard in 1982, 1986, and 1989

Year Vessels” Non-vessels Total
(barrels) (barrels) (barrels)
1982 90,466 157,126 247,592
1986 80,943 30,952 111,896
1989 °°°323,774 14,284 338,058

This is the Federal portion of the United States EEZ plus Continental Shelf Extensions by the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act.

Includes tankships, tank barges and other vessels.

On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez spilled 257,115 barrels of crude oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound.

Source: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. United States of America National Report,
Oceans and Coastal Resources Section. 1992. pp. 250-251.

CRS-9 Living Marine Resources

OCEAN RESEARCH FOR UNDERSTANDING GLOBAL CHANGE’

Issue Definition

The decade of the 1980s was one of significant oceanic discoveries and a
new recognition of the importance of the world ocean in global environmental
change. In fact, the last half of the decade was noteworthy in that a number of
national and international programs and planning efforts were begun for new,
cooperative, global studies that hold the promise of answering major questions
about the world ocean and its role as a vital component of the Earth system.
But will these new programs -- some planned, some underway -- actually take
' place as proposed?

Background and Analysis

A more fundamental understanding of the structure and functioning of the
Earth’s natural systems and the forces that interconnect or change them is now
widely regarded as essential to protecting global habitability. Recently, for
example, a perceived need has emerged to study the climate system of the Earth,
largely because of scientific findings that project future depletion of Earth’s
protective ozone layer or a possible warming of Earth’s climate. A better
understanding of the possible ramifications of such projections for human health
and welfare and for the land and aquatic biospheres has led to an international
consensus among scientists, who propose that the Earth’s natural systems are
best studied as one interacting whole. In such an "Earth systems science"
approach, the biosphere is studied together with the atmosphere, the world
ocean, the land surface, the polar regions, and the Sun. This approach,
scientists explain, gives them the best chance of describing and understanding
the interactive physical, chemical, and biological processes that regulate the total
Earth system, the unique environment it provides for life, the changes occurring
in this system, and the manner in which these changes are influenced by human
actions.

Nowhere has the value of such an approach been more evident than in the
conjugate study of atmosphere and ocean. The ocean has a profound influence
on climate change, both because of its huge capacity to store heat and because
it can moderate concentrations of atmospheric constituents believed to control
average global temperatures.

World weather and long-term climatic change are strongly linked to oceanic
behavior. Heat released by the ocean in a region remote from where it was
absorbed interacts with the overlying atmosphere, moderating daily and seasonal
cycles of temperature on the Earth’s surface and helping to shape regional
weather and climate. Furthermore, the scientific debate over excess
concentrations of certain atmospheric trace gases and projected global warming

*Prepared by John Justus, Specialist in Earth and Ocean Sciences, Science
Policy Research Division.

CRS-10 Living Marine Resources

clearly would be incomplete, much less capable of resolution, without proper
recognition of the major role played by the world ocean, both as a factor in
climate maintenance and as a major actor in the variability and change of
Earth’s climate over decades to centuries to millennia. A better understanding
of the interaction between the ocean and the atmosphere is necessary, if
predictions of global change are to be based on sound scientific judgment and,
particularly, if forecasts of monthly, seasonal, and interannual climatic
variability are to be meaningful and accurate for the public and for
policymakers.

With the beginning of the 1990s, there is a demonstrable interest and
commitment among many countries and groups of countries around the world
to contribute funds and in-kind support for ocean science. With this support,
the international scientific community is mounting global scale initiatives to
observe and understand the world ocean, employing new technology,
instruments, and techniques for observing the state of the ocean and for
measuring oceanic constituents, properties, and processes, both remotely and in
situ. Coupled with vastly expanded capabilities in microelectronics and
computer technology for sensing, transmitting, processing, analyzing, and
disseminating the data, there is the prospect of major advances in describing and
understanding oceanic behavior.

Status of the Issue

Several ambitious field programs are being coordinated by such
international organizations as the United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP); the U.N. World Meteorological Organization (WMO); the U.N.
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); and the
International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU). These programs include: the
Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS); the World Climate Research Program
(WCRP); Global Energy and Water Balance Experiment (GEWEX); International
Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP); World Ocean Circulation
Experiment (WOCE); Tropical Ocean/Global Atmosphere Program (TOGA);
International Global Atmospheric Chemistry Program (IGAC) and the Global
Tropospheric Chemistry Program (GTCP); Joint Global Ocean Flux Study
(JGOFS); Global Ocean Euphotic Zone Study (GOEZS); Land-Ocean
Interactions in the Coastal Zone; Atlantic Climate Change Program; Arctic
System Science Program (ARCSS); Greenland Sea Project; Marginal Ice Zone
Experiment (MIZEX); Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics Program (GLOBEC);
and International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP). These global programs
employ space-borne observations for measuring oceanic wind stress, sea level
variability, wave height, sea surface temperature and topography, ice sheet
topography, oceanic circulation, gravity, and color of the sea surface for chemical
information and biological productivity. Simultaneous collection of surface and
subsurface data from research vessels and platforms is pursued in direct support
of the oceanographic components of these programs and also for corroboration
with the data received from the satellite leg of these missions.

CRS-11 Living Marine Resources

U.S. national support for and participation in these projects is integrated
under the Global Ocean Science Program (GOSP), an interagency effort
coordinated under the auspices of the Federal Global Change Research Program
and focused on five key areas: (1) global ocean structure and dynamics; (2)
atmosphere-ocean interactions that drive global climate; (3) global ecosystems
and productivity processes; (4) the global ocean lithosphere and geoprocesses;
and (5) processes in the coastal margins and polar oceans. The GOSP is
conducted under the cooperative leadership of the National Research Council
and the Federal agencies with major ocean science interests and responsibilities:
Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Science Foundation, U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Navy.
Through a White House interagency coordinating body called the Committee on
Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES), these agencies in conjunction with
the Office of Management and Budget have implemented a coherent program of
focused global ocean science research. This program is comprised of
enhancements of existing programs plus some new starts and is carried out in
the scientific context of active national and international planning to support
broader studies of global environmental change.

When space-borne data from these global-scale, international observing
programs are complemented with data obtained from accompanying remote
sensing technologies such as drifting buoy arrays, moored data buoy platforms,
subsurface drifters, surface floats, and acoustic tomography networks, the
potential exists for observing the ocean three-dimensionally on basin scales to
near global scales. This, however, presents challenges in terms of cost,
infrastructure requirements, and scale of operations.

Questions

Global change programs are receiving high priority in the funding plans of
many nations; however, there are likely to be more programs being planned
than could be funded adequately by the mechanisms and arrangements used in
the past.

1. Even if programs are stretched out and appropriately sequenced, are the
physical resources and facilities adequate for, or national policy drives
commensurate with, sustaining the research initiatives over time frames
sufficient to yield clear scientific results, much less process and interpret
the vast streams of data to yield meaningful information for policymakers
and the public?

2. What are some of the improvements, if any, in the infrastructure that
would be needed to sustain these scientific efforts or to conduct them in
ways that are better, faster, and cheaper: e.g., global measurement systems
already in place? New in situ measuring techniques and instruments, such
as autonomous underwater vehicles and unmanned aircraft? New
supercomputers, and new communications technologies and networks for

CRS-12 Living Marine Resources

delivering data as needed to researchers and operational users? Newly
developed and validated models to use the new global data sets?

Regarding present and future satellite instrumentation, what, for example,
is the status of such key supporting missions as the NASA scatterometer
(NSCAT), and the SeaWiFS ocean color sensor? Does the current design
configuration for NASA’s Earth Observing System (EOS) adequately
address the research and instrumentation needs of the ocean science
community, or might some of those needs and science requirements be
addressed in a more timely and budget conscious fashion with small
satellites dedicated to specific missions?

The joint French-U.S. satellite mission to measure ocean-surface
"topography", TOPEX-Poseidon, was successfully launched in August 1992
and has been mapping global ocean circulation on a routine basis since
September 1992. This project has been judged to have had a successful
beginning and is well underway to observing global ocean circulation for 3
to 5 years. Given the promising results obtained by the TOPEX-Poseidon
mission thus far and the need to maintain observations of ocean circulation
and sea-level changes over decades to help understand climate change, how
might a series of altimetric missions with the TOPEX-Poseidon level of
accuracy, or better, be implemented? Cooperatively? Multinationally?
Appropriate steps to design and implement such a program jointly among
principals could serve as a timely contribution to the International Global
Ocean Observing System (GOOS) currently being planned under the
auspices of the U.N. World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the U.N.
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), the United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP), and the International Council of Scientific
Unions (ICSU) auspices.

What are the special needs, if any, of the Federal and academic fleet and
laboratory centers and of special large facilities to support the U.S. GOSP?
Moreover, how would any needed improvements be funded?

The long-term nature of the research portended makes it especially
vulnerable to instability in support, and interruptions might lead to
disbanding active research teams, in and out of Government, which might
not easily be reassembled. Viewed against the backdrop of policies for fiscal!
restraint and deficit reduction, many programs supported with Federal
funds, including the GOSP, seem likely to feel pressure in budget reduction
exercises. What research strategies will best serve the national interest in
a period of budgetary stress? What options have or could be examined for
maintaining a functioning ocean research enterprise while reducing the
deficit? Can support be assured for the future of the longer term
programs?

To what extent might outside participation of a direct or in-kind nature be
anticipated from private entities (e.g., labs, institutions, industry) as
possible partners in sponsoring and funding portions of the U.S. GOSP?

10.

Te;

ili

CRS-13 Living Marine Resources

Should creating university-industry alliances and establishing Government-
industry or Government-university cooperative institutes of partnerships
be investigated?

Many policymakers are attracted to international collaboration because it
is a way of saving U.S. dollars. Concerns arise, however, over the
possibility that foreign partners might gain a "free ride" on US.
technological expertise. In these collaborative ocean science projects, to
what extent is the United States gaining access to foreign technical
expertise or facilities, and are our international partners sharing equitably
in the burden of funding and implementing projects?

Concerns also may arise among potential international partners over the
performance record of the U.S. Government in funding large, international
science projects. To what extent might this discourage some nations from
cooperative involvement with the United States in ocean science projects?

What efforts have been made or what programs exist at the international
level to facilitate involvement of developing country scientists productively
and meaningfully in many of these ocean science programs?

Another issue that speaks to continuity of program is that of manpower,
education, and training. Who will do ocean science in the next century?
Who is in the talent pool? The emerging field of global change research
might suffer far reaching consequences if young talent is neither attracted
nor retained. This issue bears further consideration and study in the
executive, congressional, and academic sectors.

Might the harmonizing process of "Europe 1992" and the associated sense
of unity foster the creation of new organizations to facilitate cross frontier
cooperation in oceanic research? Could such new organizations be
considered as possible vehicles for developing new fiscal and material
resources in oceanography that might be tapped by the ocean science
community?

References

Changing Climate and the Oceans. Oceanus v. 29, no. 4. [entire issue].

National Research Council. Ocean Studies Board. Oceanography in the Next

Decade -- Building New Partnerships. Washington, National Academy
Press, 1992. 202 p.

The Oceans and Global Warming -- An Update. Oceanus, v. 32, no. 2. [entire

issue].

Oceanus, v. 35., numbers 1-4, 1992. Four special issues featuring basic

disciplines in ocean sciences: no. 1, spring 1992, marine chemistry; no. 2,

CRS-14 Living Marine Resources

summer 1992, physical oceanography; no. 3, fall 1992, biological
oceanography; no. 4, winter 1992/93, marine geology and geophysics.

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Global Climate
Change. IB89005, by John Justus and Wayne Morrissey. Washington,
updated regularly.

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. The Role of the
Ocean in Global Warming. by John Justus. CRS Review, v. 11, Nov.-Dec.
1990, p. 17-19.

USS. Office of Science and Technology Policy. Federal Coordinating Council for
Science, Engineering, and Technology. Committee on Earth and
Environmental Sciences. Our Changing Planet: the FY 1994 U.S. Global
Change Research Program. Washington, June 1993.

CRS-15 Living Marine Resources

WHALE CONSERVATION’

Issue Definition

The United States is a member of the International Whaling Commission
(IWC), within which strong U.S. advocacy for whale conservation often conflicts
with other nations’ desires to harvest whales commercially. Most recently,
evaluation by IWC scientists indicates that several whale populations are of
sufficient size that limited commercial harvest could be sustained. The United
States has relied upon unilateral sanctions to encourage whaling nations to give
greater consideration to whale conservation. Because of larger whale population
_ estimates, however, the issue is how to craft U.S. whale conservation policy now
that foreign demands for limited harvesting can no longer be countered purely
by scientific arguments that harvesting will compromise whale population
recovery. If the United States argues for continuing the moratorium on
commercial whaling, it may have to rely increasingly on moral and ethical
appeals. A second concern is whether, when other nations harvest whales
contrary to IWC guidelines, the currently available options for United States’
response are adequate.

Background and Analysis

Under the auspices of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the
United States and other whaling nations cooperatively allocated whale
harvesting quotas as provided for under the 1946 International Convention for
the Regulation of Whaling. In 1972, the United States enacted the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and prohibited commercial whaling by U.S.
citizens. During the 1970s, U.S. efforts in international bodies shifted to
advocacy for better whale conservation, and other non-whaling nations joined
the IWC to support these conservation efforts. To encourage international fish
and wildlife conservation, the United States enacted two measures providing for
possible unilateral economic sanctions -- the 1971 Pelly Amendment (22 U.S.C.
1978) to the 1954 Fishermen’s Protective Act, which allowed fish and wildlife
product imports to be prohibited from nations acting to diminish the effective-
ness of international fish and wildlife agreements; and the 1979 Packwood-
Magnuson Amendment (16 U.S.C. 1821) to the Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1976, which allowed the United States to reduce or suspend
fishing privileges in U.S. waters for nations acting contrary to IWC guidelines.

Early U.S. whale conservation policy was based on scientific uncertainty
concerning whale abundance, whose estimation depended on the rate at which
whale populations might be recovering from earlier exploitation. Beginning in
1935 with bowhead, right, and gray whales, the predecessor to the IWC had
started prohibiting the harvest of large whale species. By 1980, harvesting
focused almost entirely on smaller species such as minke whales, which had

"Prepared by Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-16 Living Marine Resources

heretofore not been extensively harvested. In addition, the Indian Ocean was
proclaimed a whale sanctuary where all harvesting was prohibited.

Most recently, environmental interests have sought to broaden U.S. policy
on whale conservation to include moral and ethical reasons for extending the
current moratorium on commercial harvesting, and to more fully recognize the
non-consumptive values (i.e., non-lethal scientific research, tourism) of whales
(57 Federal Register 4603, Feb. 6, 1992).

The number of IWC members supporting whale conservation increased
steadily until 1982, when this organization proclaimed a moratorium on all
commercial whaling, fully effective in 1986. The IWC was to review
comprehensively the effects of the moratorium by 1990 and to consider whether
to modify the moratorium and re-establish harvest quotas for some species or
populations. Concurrently, new management procedures were to be developed
which would guard against future over-exploitation. To continue whale
research, which the IWC allowed during the moratorium, Japan and several
other nations self-issued permits for scientific research involving the killing of
minke, fin, and sei whales from several populations. However, the IWC
repeatedly asked these nations to reconsider their research plans to minimize
lethal takes, and conservationists attacked this research as a means of
circumventing the intent of the moratorium. Since the IWC had no power to
force nations to abide by its guidelines, the United States repeatedly initiated
action under the authority of the Pelly Amendment threatening unilateral
economic sanctions against nations which acted contrary to IWC guidelines.
Although Pelly Amendment sanctions have never been imposed, the United
States has obtained important concessions from offending nations to improve
whale conservation.

Despite the moratorium on commercial whaling, several nations continue
to kill whales for "scientific research". Japan continues a research program on
minke whales in the Antarctic, killing about 300 whales annually. Although
Norway announced in April 1991 that its harvesters would take no more whales,
this nation resumed scientific research on whales in 1992, killing 93-95
northeast Atlantic minke whales, and continued this research program in 1993
with the intent of killing 136 minke whales.

Late in 1991, a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) dispute
panel came to a decision that could diminish the future effectiveness of
unilateral environmental sanctions imposed by the United States. The dispute
panel determined that the United States had exceeded its authority under GATT
by imposing sanctions on Mexico for excessive dolphin mortalities during tuna
harvesting conducted outside U.S. jurisdiction. The dispute panel action made
the use of the Pelly Amendment to encourage whale conservation problematic,
since specific language in the Pelly Amendment limits its use to situations in
which the import prohibitions contemplated would be acceptable under GATT.

Annual IWC meetings during the early 1990s focused on crafting acceptable
new management procedures, as well as on status reviews of key populations on

CRS-17 Living Marine Resources

which some nations sought to resume commercial harvesting. The 1992 IWC
meeting was particularly contentious as the Commission took the first steps to
end the six-year moratorium and permit a limited resumption of commercial
whaling on biologically healthy whale stocks. Citing the IWC’s slow action on
resumption of commercial whaling, Iceland withdrew from IWC membership and
Norway announced that it would begin commercial harvest of northeast Atlantic
minke whales in 1993. Both Japan and Norway believe the IWC estimates of
minke whale population abundance (760,000 in the Antarctic and 86,700 in the
northeast Atlantic) indicate that these stocks can sustain a limited commercial
harvest. Japanese officials cite the traditional importance of whale products in
Japanese culture as reason for continued interest in resuming commercial whale
harvesting.

Status of the Issue

Meeting in May 1993 in Kyoto, Japan, IWC commissioners voted to deny
a quota of 50 minke whales for coastal Japanese harvesters, to direct a working
group to study a French-proposed Antarctic whale sanctuary which will be
considered at the 1994 meeting in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, and (by a margin of
18-6) to extend the moratorium on commercial whaling for another year.
Norway reaffirmed its unilateral decision to resume commercial whaling, despite
the IWC action. Subsequently, Norway announced a commercial quota of 160
minke whales for the 1993 season, to be taken in addition to its research
harvest. At least one environmental group asked consumers to boycott
Norwegian products. Some suggest that European public opinion against
commercial whaling could complicate Norway’s bid to enter the European
Community on Jan. 1, 1995, and anti-whaling groups threaten a boycott of the
1994 Winter Olympics scheduled for Lillehammer, Norway.

In the 102nd Congress, §201 of P.L. 102-582 expanded Presidential
authority under the Pelly Amendment to pursue sanctions against non-fisheries
imports from nations acting contrary to IWC guidelines. In the 103rd Congress,
H.Con.Res. 34 passed both the House and Senate. The resolution supported
extending and strengthening the IWC’s moratorium on commercial whaling.

Questions

1. How do the Japanese and others interested in commercial whaling respond
to the moral and ethical concerns for whale conservation?

2. Should the International Whaling Commission’s decisions be based on good
science, or should factors related to politics or moral and ethical appeals
also be considered?

3. Should the United States press for whale conservation objectives based on
moral and ethical grounds if this approach adversely affects relations with
important allies?

4. In order to increase our scientific knowledge of whales, what types and
levels of research should be allowed?

CRS-18 Living Marine Resources

References

International Whaling Commission. The Comprehensive Assessment of Whale
Stocks: the Early Years. Special issue 11. Cambridge, United Kingdom,
1989. 210 p.

Martin, Gene S., Jr., and James W. Brennan. Enforcing the International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling: The Pelly and Packwood-
Magnuson Amendments. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy,
1989. 17(2): 293-315.

Sumi, Kazuo. The "Whale War" between Japan and the United States:
Problems and Prospects. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy,
1989. 17(2): 317-372.

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Marine Mammal
Issues. CRS Issue Brief IB92126, by Eugene H. Buck. Washington,
updated regularly.

---- Whale Conservation. CRS Report 90-283 ENR, by Eugene H. Buck.
Washington, Aug. 30, 1990. 18 p.

U.S. Marine Mammal Commission. Annual Report to Congress, 1992.
Washington, Jan. 31, 1993. 226 p.

CRS-19 Living Marine Resources

SHRIMP FISHERY CONCERNS’

Issue Definition

Sea turtles, most species of which have been declared threatened or
endangered, may be inadvertently caught and drowned in trawl nets pulled by
fishing vessels harvesting shrimp. The United States has reduced sea turtle
mortality by requiring U.S. fishing vessels to use turtle excluder devices (TEDs)
in their shrimp trawls to reduce the likelihood of turtles being caught and
drowned, but turtle mortalities from foreign shrimp vessels may still be substan-
tial. However, the use of TEDs reduces the efficiency of shrimp trawling, and
_ some shrimpers say the economic impacts are severe.

Background and Analysis

Sea turtle conservation became a concern in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
All five sea turtle species inhabiting State and Federal waters are protected
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Prior to current sea turtle
conservation efforts, at least 11,000 sea turtles (and probably several times this
estimate, according to the National Academy of Sciences) were killed each year
by shrimp trawlers in U.S. waters. For the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, annual
mortality was estimated to have exceeded the number of females which came
ashore to lay eggs.

In 1990, after much litigation, TEDs became mandatory from March 1
through November 30 in the Gulf of Mexico, and from May 1 through August
31 in the South Atlantic (54 Federal Register 37812, Sept. 13, 1989). Some
shrimpers claim that TEDs can reduce shrimp harvest 30 percent or more; the
Federal Government says its tests indicate an average 10 percent reduction in
harvest. Domestic shrimpers are heavily squeezed by low-cost imports, which
provided more than 77 percent of the total U.S. shrimp supply in 1991. To
assist both sea turtles and U.S. shrimpers, §610 of P.L. 101-162 prohibited
imports of shrimp after May 1, 1991, from nations whose fishing practices
adversely affect sea turtle conservation. The U.S. Government published
standards for determining foreign compliance (56 Federal Register 1051, January
10, 1991; subsequently revised -- 58 Federal Register 9015, February 18, 1993),
and action has been taken to ban some shrimp imports. However, envir-
onmental groups believe the U.S. Government has not acted expeditiously to
sanction all harmful foreign shrimping practices, and have filed suit to force the
imposition of additional sanctions. Although these sanctions have not been
challenged under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), some
question their acceptability.

Reducing the incidental bycatch of fish in shrimp trawls may necessitate
additional controls on shrimp harvesters. Harvesters criticize gear modification

“Prepared by Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-20 Living Marine Resources

to address bycatch if the modified gear is less efficient in catching target species,
as has been reported for TEDs. Managers, on the other hand, suggest that if
harvesters learn to use modified gear properly, little loss in efficiency should
occur. A 1990 amendment to the Magnuson Act, §110(c) of P.L. 101-627,
authorized a three-year study of the affects of bycatch from Gulf and South
Atlantic shrimp trawlers, and prohibited Federal regulations to reduce shrimp
trawl bycatch prior to 1994. In October 1992, North Carolina became one of the
first States to require shrimp trawlers to use a finfish excluding device (FED,
also called a bycatch reduction device, or BRD) in each trawl fished in State
waters, primarily to reduce pressure on grey trout stocks.

Status of the Issue

On Dec. 4, 1992, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published
new TED regulations (57 Federal Register 57348) requiring all shrimp trawlers
more than 25 feet in length in the Gulf and South Atlantic to use TEDs year-
round in offshore waters. By Dec. 1, 1994, all inshore shrimpers must also begin
using TEDs. These regulations will be phased-in over a period of 2 years; strict
Coast Guard enforcement of the initial phase began almost immediately. Some
shrimpers continue to insist that requiring TEDs constitutes a legislative taking,
and that they are due compensation.

In response to U.S. efforts to encourage better turtle protection measures
by nations exporting shrimp to the United States, 13 of the 14 foreign nations
which harvest shrimp with trawls in the wider Caribbean supplied sufficient
information concerning comparable programs for protecting turtles by the May
1, 1991 deadline. Thus, imports were prohibited only from Suriname, which
exports little shrimp to the United States; Suriname was subsequently found to
be in compliance. These certifications extend for one year and must be renewed
annually. In 1992, French Guiana was not certified as in compliance. In 1993,
French Guiana, Honduras, Trinidad and Tobago, and Suriname were not
certified as in compliance (58 Federal Register 28428, May 13, 1993); Trinidad
and Tobago subsequently supplied information to verify compliance. By May
1994, all fourteen nations must require TEDs if they wish to continue exporting
shrimp to the United States. However, the Earth Island Institute filed suit
early in 1992 against the U.S. Government seeking to force the immediate
imposition of sanctions against all Caribbean and non-Caribbean shrimping
nations which do not use TEDs.

In the 102nd Congress, P.L. 102-567, the NOAA Authorization Act of 1992,
included §310 requiring NMFS to complete a comprehensive economic study and
report to Congress on the Gulf and South Atlantic shrimp industry to guide
future policy decisions related to this fishery. A total of $1 million was
authorized for FY1993. In addition, S. 47 and H.R. 1478 were introduced to
moderate the impacts of TEDs use by shrimp harvesters by providing tax credits
and authorizing funds for expanded efforts to artificially culture sea turtles. No
action was taken on either of these measures.

CRS-21 Living Marine Resources

Within the FY1993 appropriations for NMFS (P.L. 102-395), $716,000 was
provided specifically for conservation engineering/bycatch research. The Gulf
and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation used a $600,000
Saltonstall-Kennedy grant, awarded in early summer 1991, to develop a plan to
reduce finfish bycatch in the shrimp trawl fishery. In addition, incidental
catch/bycatch research for shrimp trawl fisheries was identified as the priority
issue for funding in the 1993 MARFIN (Marine Fisheries Initiative) Program for
the Gulf of Mexico administered by NMFS.

Questions

1. What are the short- and long-term potential impacts of TED regulations on
employment and the local economies of Gulf coast communities and
counties?

2. Will enforcement of the restrictions on shrimp imports potentially allow
domestic shrimp harvesters to improve their economic situation? What will
be the cost to consumers?

3. What is the extent of the economic disruption of the shrimp industry
caused by TED regulations? To what extent have sea turtles benefitted
from greater use of TEDs?

4. How effective are alternative means of enhancing sea turtle survival (e.g.,
sea turtle hatcheries and headstarting programs)? Would these alternatives
be less detrimental to the shrimp industry? What might be the costs for
each turtle reared to adulthood by these alternative means?

5. How has the Department of State interpretation of the P.L. 101-162 import
sanction provisions affected foreign acceptance of TEDs?

References

Clark, Joy, et al. Simulated Economic Impact of TED Regulations on Selected
Vessels in the Texas Shrimp Fishery. Marine Fisheries Review, 1991.
53(2): 1-8. |

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Turtle Excluder
Devices: Sea Turtles and/or Shrimp? CRS Report 90-327, by Eugene H.
Buck. Washington, Nov. 28, 1990. 15 p.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environ-
ment. Sea Turtle Conservation and the Shrimp Industry. Hearing, 101st
Cong., 2d Sess. May 1, 1990. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Office, 1990.
326 p.

U.S. National Research Council. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and
Prevention. Washington, National Academy Press, 1990. 190 p.

CRS-22 Living Marine Resources

HIGH-SEAS DRIFTNETS’

Issue Definition

In the quest for an efficient harvest, fishing fleets around the world employ
a variety of fishing technologies. Some vessels have deployed driftnets
measuring many tens of miles in length to ensnare a portion of this harvest --
squid and pomfret were sought in the North Pacific. The United States and
conservation interests worldwide became concerned with the incidental mortality
of large volumes of non-target marine life (e.g., sea birds, marine mammals, sea
turtles, and non-commercial fish) in these nets. Mounting concern led to
adoption of an international accord to prohibit the use of large-scale (i.e., length
exceeding 1% miles) driftnets. Enforcing this international prohibition is a
challenge.

Background and Analysis

Driftnets hang like curtains of unattended netting from floats and may
stretch tens of miles in length. This fishing gear can ensnare anything which
blunders into its meshes. Fishing vessels leave these nets overnight, retrieve the
entangled catch, and reset this gear for another harvest. The nonspecific nature
of the harvest and the wasted bycatch spark intense criticism of this fishery.

Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic of Korea fished extensively with high seas
driftnets in the Pacific. Under the Driftnet Impact Monitoring, Assessment, and
Control Act of 1987 (Title IV, P.L. 100-220), the United States negotiated
independent bilateral agreements with these three nations to better monitor
driftnet fishing in the North Pacific Ocean. On November 24, 1989, 20 nations
of the South Pacific adopted the Wellington Convention for the Prohibition of
Fishing with Long Driftnets in the South Pacific. On December 22, 1989, the
U.N. General Assembly adopted by consensus a non-binding resolution (Number
44/225) calling for an end to driftnet fishing in the South Pacific by July 1,
1991, and a worldwide cessation on use of this gear one year later, unless
effective conservation and management measures were taken to guide this gear’s
use.

The Driftnet Act Amendments of 1990 (§107, P.L. 101-627) implemented
the U.N. moratorium, supported South Pacific efforts, and directed that work
continue on negotiations to obtain a permanent ban on destructive fishing
practices. Meanwhile, other nations began to use large driftnets in the
Mediterranean Sea.

In response to continued concern for high-seas driftnetting and in the face
of initial resistance by Japan and others, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a
second resolution concerning high-seas driftnets.. After negotiations, Japan

“Prepared by Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-23 Living Marine Resources

indicated a willingness to end driftnet fishing, and on December 20, 1991, the
U.N. General Assembly agreed to a U.S.-sponsored non-binding resolution
(Number 46/215) which halved driftnet fishing by June 30, 1992, and uncondi-
tionally banned all high-seas driftnet fishing after December 31, 1992.

Status of the Issue

Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic of Korea have ceased fishing with
driftnets. However, continued driftnet fishing by Chinese vessels presents a
continuing enforcement problem; several Chinese vessels were detected fishing
with driftnets in the North Pacific in May 1993, and were intercepted by the
U.S. Coast Guard.

To increase the effectiveness of U.N. resolutions prohibiting large-scale
driftnet fishing, Congress enacted the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement
Act (P.L. 102-582). Measures to accomplish this intent included denial of U.S.
port privileges to foreign driftnet vessels, mandatory sanctions on fish products
from countries that continue driftnet fishing beyond the U.N. deadline, and
expanded Presidential authority under the Pelly Amendment (22 U.S.C. 1978)
to the 1954 Fishermen’s Protective Act to pursue sanctions against non-fisheries
imports. As of early June 1993, none of these provisions had been invoked.

Questions

1. How much effort should be devoted to developing alternatives to driftnets
for harvesting living marine resources on the high seas with minimized
incidental non-target bycatch; and how should such a program be financed?

2. What is the status of research on quantifying and assessing the impacts of
driftnet harvesting and in evaluating alternative solutions?

3. How does the magnitude of high-seas driftnet bycatch compare with
bycatch rates in domestic fisheries, such as salmon gillnetting, groundfish
trawling, and shrimp trawling?

4. What technologies from the Department of Defense and elsewhere can be
used to improve enforcement of the worldwide prohibition of high seas
driftnet fishing?

References
Burke, William T. Regulation of Driftnet Fishing on the High Seas and the

New International Law of the Sea. The Georgetown International
Environmental Law Review. 3 (1990):265-310.

CRS-24 Living Marine Resources

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the
Environment. High Seas Driftnet Fishing. Hearing, 102d Cong., 2d Sess.
August 6, 1991. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Office, 1991. 115 p.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
National Ocean Policy Study. High Seas Driftnet Fishing. Hearing, 102d
Cong., 1st Sess. June 21,1991. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Office, 1992.
84 p.

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Driftnets: A
Controversial Fishing Method. CRS Report 90-311 ENR, by Eugene H.
Buck. Washington, September 20, 1990. 15 p.

CRS-25 Living Marine Resources

MINIMIZING OR USING FISHERIES WASTES’

Issue Definition

In the process of harvesting seafood, fish and other marine life which are
not target species also may be caught. This bycatch often does not survive the
rigors of harvesting and is discarded, providing no benefits. Success in
addressing two waste and bycatch issues (dolphin mortality by the tuna industry
and high seas driftnetting) has encouraged a growing constituency to seek to
minimize, or productively use, this bycatch.

Background and Analysis

Bottom trawls scour and damage bottom habitat; shrimp trawls can capture
almost ten times as much bycatch as marketable shrimp; tens of thousands of
juvenile halibut are killed by the Alaska pollock, flatfish, and cod trawl fisheries;
Alaska pollock carcasses have been discarded as waste after roe is removed from
females or when size is deemed too small for efficient processing; and many non-
target species (including birds and marine mammals) die in gillnets. These and
other instances of poor utilization are becoming increasingly scrutinized as
circumstances in which environmental damage might be minimized, waste might
be transformed into an economically profitable product, and the image of the
commercial fishing industry could be enhanced. In fact, with many fishery
stocks harvested at rates near or exceeding their maximum yields, waste utiliza-
tion may represent one of the few remaining ways to increase the production of
protein from marine resources during the 21st Century. However, inefficient
and non-selective fishing gear encourages bycatch, while the minimal economic
value of most bycatch impedes its beneficial use.

In response to increasing problems with Gulf of Mexico finfish populations,
the 101st Congress enacted §110(c) of the Fishery Conservation Amendments of
1990 (P.L. 101-627). This provision focused on incidental harvest concerns with
shrimp trawling, establishing a three-year program to assess incidental harvest
by shrimp trawling and evaluating gear technology alternatives for reducing this
incidental mortality. The Federal Government is prohibited from implementing
certain measures to reduce incidental harvest in the shrimp trawl fishery prior
to 1994.

Status of the Issue

In the 102nd Congress, P.L. 102-582 dealt with enforcement of the
worldwide prohibition on using high-seas driftnets, and incidental harvest was
raised as a concern in H.R. 2588 dealing with declining weakfish populations.
No action was taken on this second measure in the 102nd Congress, although

“Prepared by Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-26 Living Marine Resources

interjurisdictional fisheries legislation encompassing these concerns was
reintroduced as H.R. 2134 in the 103rd Congress.

Within the FY1993 appropriations (P.L. 102-395) for the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), $716,000 was provided specifically for conservation
engineering/by-catch research. The Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries
Development Foundation used a $600,000 Saltonstall-Kennedy grant, awarded
in early summer 1991, to develop a plan to reduce finfish bycatch in the shrimp
trawl fishery. In addition, incidental catch/bycatch research for shrimp and
other fisheries was identified as the priority issue for funding in the 1993
MARFIN (Marine Fisheries Initiative) Program for the Gulf of Mexico
administered by the NMFS.

Questions

1. How much marine protein is wasted annually by the U.S. commercial
fishing industry? How much of this might be productively recovered and
utilized?

2. What incentives might encourage the fishing industry to pay more
attention to waste minimization or use, or should penalties for excessive
waste be invoked under certain circumstances or for certain segments of the
fishing industry?

3. Might fisheries waste utilization programs be linked with national welfare
or supplemental feeding programs to provide food to address dietary
deficiencies?

4. What is the prospect that changing market or trade patterns, evolving
consumer preferences, or product engineering breakthroughs might alter
the demand and/or economic situation for bycatch?

References

Bricklemyer, Eugene C., Jr., et al. Discarded Catch in U.S. Commercial Marine
Fisheries. In "Audubon Wildlife Report 1989/1990." The National Audubon
Society, New York, 1989, Academic Press, Inc. p. 259-295.

California Sea Grant College. Effects of Different Fishery Management Schemes
on Bycatch, Joint Catch, and Discards. La Jolla, University of California,
1990. 55 p.

Center for Marine Conservation. Proceedings of the Shrimp Trawl Bycatch
Workshop. Washington, 1992. 183 p.

U.S. Library of Congress. -Congressional Research Service. Waste from Fish
Harvesting and Processing: Growing Environmental Concerns. CRS
Report 90-575 ENR, by Eugene H. Buck. Washington, Dec. 9, 1990. 14 p.

CRS-27 Living Marine Resources

DOLPHIN PROTECTION ISSUES’

Issue Definition

Since dolphins and related porpoises inhabit most U.S. marine waters, they
are a very visible barometer of how effectively marine mammal protection laws
are being implemented. Current issues involve interactions with seafood
harvesters, swim-with-the-dolphin programs, dolphin feeding, military use of
dolphins, epidemic mortalities of dolphins, and cooperative international
management.

‘Background and Analysis

At least 44 species of dolphins and porpoise are recognized by marine
scientists. These warm-blooded, air-breathing mammals inhabit most marine
environments from equatorial to sub-arctic waters, while a few Asian and Latin
American species are restricted to freshwater drainages. Most common species
along the U.S. coasts are bottlenose and Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Atlantic
Ocean); bottlenose and spotted dolphins (Gulf of Mexico); bottlenose, Pacific
white-sided, and common dolphins (Pacific Ocean); and Dall’s porpoise, harbor
porpoise, and killer whales (coastal Alaska). Three species of dolphin have been
declared endangered under the provisions of the U.S. Endangered Species Act -
- the vaquita (Gulf of California harbor porpoise), the Chinese river dolphin, and
the Indus River dolphin.

Public concern for better protection of dolphins and porpoises encouraged
initial congressional attention to marine mammal legislation. The 1972 Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA, P.L. 92-522, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) proclaimed
a moratorium on taking (defined to include harassment, hunting, capturing, or
killing, or attempts to do any of these) of marine mammals. The Act provides
that the moratorium on taking can be waived for specific purposes (excluding
public display and scientific research, for which permits may be issued), if the
taking will not harm the affected species or population. It provides that permits
may be issued to take any marine mammal species, including endangered,
threatened, and depleted species, for purposes of scientific research. These
permits must specify numbers and species of animals to be taken as well as
times, dates, places, and methods of taking. It also provides that permits may
be issued to take non-depleted species in the course of commercial fishing
operations and for public display.

The Act also provides that U.S. citizens who engage in certain activities
(e.g., offshore oil and gas exploration and development) may be exempted from
the waiver and permit requirements to allow incidental, unintentionai taking of
small numbers of marine mammals after notice and opportunity for public
comment. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the National

“Prepared by Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-28 Living Marine Resources

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (U.S. Department of Commerce) is
responsible for MMPA regulations affecting dolphins and porpoises.

In the eastern tropical Pacific (ETP) Ocean, large yellowfin tuna congregate
beneath schools of dolphin, especially common, spotted, and spinner dolphins.
In order to capture these tuna, harvesters encircle dolphins (and hopefully the
tuna swimming beneath) with large purse seine nets. Initial use of this
technique resulted in extensive dolphin entanglement and death in the nets;
more than 500,000 may have been killed in 1960 alone. Under a series of
MMPA permits granted the tuna seiners, fishing techniques were modified and
dolphin mortality declined. In the late 1980s, the tuna seiners operated under
an annual quota which permitted not more than 20,500 dolphin deaths.
Although mortalities by U.S. vessels have decreased markedly, total dolphin
mortalities increased with expanding foreign tuna seining under less stringent
regulations. For 1990, incidental dolphin mortalities in the ETP totaled 5,083
by U.S. vessels and 47,448 by foreign vessels. In June 1992, the United States
and other tuna harvesting nations formally adopted a multilateral program to
reduce the international dolphin mortality in the ETP to less than 5,000 by
1999 through the establishment of annual mortality limits. However, this
program could be superseded if the moratorium authorized by P.L. 102-523 (see
following section) is concluded.

The U.S. Navy has captured and trained Atlantic bottlenose dolphins for
use in sonar research and to act as mine hunters and "watchdogs" at naval
facilities in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf, and possibly at U.S. nuclear
submarine facilities. Annual capture of as many as 25 dolphins is authorized by
Congress in §1354 of P.L. 99-661 (10 U.S.C. 7524) -- the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987. This legislation has been criticized by
animal rights interests because it allows the program to disregard provisions of
the MMPA. More recently, P.L. 102-172 directed the Navy to, and appropriated
funds for, release back into the wild of captive marine mammals no longer
required.

Status of the Issue

MMPA amendments in 1988 (P.L. 100-711) sought to reduce dolphin deaths
attributed to foreign tuna seining by requiring nations exporting tuna to the
United States to employ more stringent dolphin protection measures.
Importation of Mexican tuna (as well as tuna from several other nations) was
prohibited in October 1990 under this provision, after U.S. District Court action.
However, Mexico protested this action as contrary to U.S. obligations under the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and a dispute panel reported
in August 1991 favoring Mexico. Under a subsequent court order early in 1992,
U.S. tuna import sanctions were extended to a host of intermediary nations.

Late in 1992, Congress enacted P.L. 102-523 clarifying the definition of an
intermediary nation to reduce the number of countries adversely affected,
making it illegal to sell tuna which is not dolphin-safe after March 1, 1994, and
authorizing negotiation of a moratorium on harvesting tuna by surrounding

CRS-29 Living Marine Resources

dolphins; Venezuela and Mexico previously indicated that they would adhere to
such a moratorium. If a moratorium agreement is reached, the U.S. tuna fleet’s
authorization to set nets around dolphins will expire on March 1, 1994. More
importantly, the environmental community believes GATT concerns with MMPA
tuna sanctions are made moot by this legislation.

On April 12, 1990, three major U.S. tuna canners announced that they no
longer would accept and sell tuna harvested in association with dolphins.
Legislation was introduced to mandate a labeling program for canned tuna to
identify whether or not it was harvested in a "dolphin-safe" manner. Title IX of
P.L. 101-627, the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act, established
standards for labeling canned tuna as "dolphin-safe" and called for negotiations
_ to eliminate tuna seining on dolphins. In response to this action, almost all U.S.
tuna seiners have ceased fishing for tuna with seines in the ETP, and have
emigrated to the Western Pacific where tuna do not congregate beneath schools
of dolphins. The High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act, P.L. 102-582,
prohibited the importation of tuna which is not dolphin-safe.

In 1985, NMFS permitted the first of four enterprises currently offering
recreational swimming in controlled conditions with captive Atlantic bottlenose
dolphins. Environmental groups argued this activity was unacceptable under
the MMPA. NMFS evaluated these programs in 1990 (55 Federal Register
28081, July 9, 1990), and decided to continue the existing permits for further
evaluation, but to withhold permits from new applicants. NMFS has initiated
a dolphin behavioral study to further evaluate existing swim-with-the-dolphin
programs, and expects this study to be completed by the end of 1993.

In 1988, concern developed over promotion of tourist cruises which feed
dolphins for the sole purpose of encouraging human-dolphin encounters. NMFS
prohibited this activity (56 Federal Register 11693, March 20, 1991) as an illegal
taking under the MMPA which might disrupt normal dolphin behavior patterns.
However, a Corpus Christi tour operator took legal action against NMFS
(Strong v. United States), and on Sept. 30, 1992, the District Court judge
prohibited NMFS from enforcing these regulations for dolphins. NMFS is
interpreting this court ruling as applicable to all U.S. waters, while considering
whether to appeal the decision.

As a result of numerous deaths, public concern has over the health of
marine mammals and their ecosystems has increased. In 1987-88, more than
740 bottlenose dolphins died and were washed ashore on the Atlantic coast. In
late 1988, Congress requested a study and held a hearing (House Merchant
Marine, Serial No. 101-20). The study implicated toxic algal blooms as a
possible causal factor in the mortalities. Other studies noted that some animals
had very high levels of anthropogenic contaminants and argued that they may
have been a causal factor. Since the 1987-88 die-off, a number of other deaths
have further elevated public concern. In 1990, there was an increase in the
number of stranded bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico, and in early 1992,
large numbers of bottlenose dolphins stranded in a two-county area in Texas.
In 1990-91, a die-off of striped dolphins occurred in the Mediterranean.

CRS-30 Living Marine Resources

Questions

1. Should the United States encourage the International Whaling Commission
to give more attention to dolphin protection concerns, and if so, how?

2. To what extent do dolphins directly compete with humans for fishery
resources? To what degree does this competition pose an economic problem
for certain fisheries?

3. To what extent does public education and contact with dolphins increase
or diminish our ability to protect dolphins?

4. To what extent should experimentation using dolphins to assist humans to
accomplish otherwise difficult work in the marine environment be allowed?

References

DeMaster, Douglas P., and Jeannie K. Drevenak. Survivorship Patterns in
Three Species of Captive Cetaceans. Marine Mammal Science, October
1988. 4(4): 297-311.

McDorman, Ted L. The GATT Consistency of U.S. Fish Import Embargoes to
Stop Driftnet Fishing and Save Whales, Dolphins and Turtles. George
Washington Journal of International Law and Economics, v. 24, no. 3
(1991): 477-525.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environ-
ment. Review of the Administration’s Proposal to Promote Dolphin
Protection. Hearing, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. March 18, 1992. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Office, 1992. 406 p.

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Trade and Environment:
Conflicts and Opportunities. OTA-BP-ITE-94. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., May 1992. 109 p.

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Dolphin Protection.
CRS Report 92-828 ENR, by Eugene H. Buck. Washington, Nov. 20, 1992.

5 p.

---- Tuna and the GATT. CRS Report 91-666 ENR, by Eugene H. Buck.
Washington, Dec. 12, 1991. 7 p.

U.S. Marine Mammal Commission. Annual report to Congress, 1992.
Washington, Jan. 31, 1993. 226 p.

CRS-31 Living Marine Resources

MARINE MAMMAL - FISHERIES INTERACTIONS’

Issue Definition

Since marine mammals feed on living marine resources, human harvesting
of fish and shellfish can result in the taking of marine mammals. Since any
taking of marine mammals is regulated under the authority of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), such fisheries interactions are carefully
scrutinized. A primary objective of the MMPA is to reduce marine mammal
mortalities and injuries from commercial fishing operations to insignificant

_levels approaching zero. Thus, how best to minimize marine mammal mortality
caused by fishing is a controversial issue.

Background and Analysis

In response to an incidental take permit for Dall’s porpoise granted to the
Japanese North Pacific high seas salmon gillnet fleet, a lawsuit was filed by
environmental groups and Alaska fish harvesters (Kokechik Fisherman’s
Association v. Secretary of Commerce). In June 1987, a Federal court injunction
halted the Japanese salmon fishery. This decision was upheld in subsequent
appeals all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, on the grounds that optimum
sustainable population levels had not been determined for several marine
mammal species that might be caught, and thus it could not be determined
whether or not these marine mammal populations were depleted. This decision
provided the basis for potentially successful challenges to MMPA incidental take
permits for many domestic fisheries. Thus, MMPA amendments enacted in 1988
addressed this issue by providing a blanket incidental take exemption for
domestic commercial fisheries through FY1993, while requiring that the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) develop a new regime for regulating
incidental marine mammal take in these fisheries after October 1, 1993.

To obtain necessary data on which to base this new regime, NMFS assigned
all domestic commercial fisheries to one of three different categories, depending
upon the likelihood of encountering and taking marine mammals. In fisheries
assigned to Category I, in which encounters with marine mammals were believed
most likely, fishing vessels were required to carry observers, if requested, to
obtain data on the interactions. These data were to provide the basis for
developing new regulatory regime.

Status of the Issue

As required by the 1988 MMPA amendments, the Marine Mammal
Commission (MMC) developed draft guidelines to govern the taking of marine
mammals incidental to commercial fishing, received public comment on these
guidelines, and delivered revised guidelines to the NMFS on July 12, 1990.

“Prepared by Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-32 Living Marine Resources

After considering these guidelines, the NMFS published a proposed regulatory
regime on May 24, 1991 (56 Federal Register 23958-23964), and solicited public
comment. One of the most controversial elements of the NMFS proposal was
the concept of allowable biological removal, in which a numerical maximum total
annual removal from each marine mammal population would be specified, and
these removals would be allocated among user groups. Responding to comment,
the NMFS announced its revised proposal on November 20, 1991 (56 Federal
Register 61231-61232), and changed its basic concept to focus on potential
biological removal, which does not prejudge whether this may be allowable.

After additional modifications, the proposed regime was forwarded to
Congress by NMFS on December 4, 1992. The proposed regime provides a
system for working with all available information, incorporating new data from
monitoring and assessment programs, and including substantive participation
by scientific and public groups. The proposal consists of comprehensive stock
assessment programs, potential biological removal (PBR) determinations and
allocations among all known user groups, and monitoring and enforcement. The
regime provides for: 1) the goal of maintaining marine mammal stocks at their
optimum sustainable populations; 2) identifying fisheries that take depleted,
endangered or threatened marine mammal stocks, or remove individuals from
a stock whose current level of take, from all sources, exceeds its calculated PBR;
3) calculating PBRs from stock assessment data; 4) allocating PBRs among user
groups; 5) authorizing and regulating takes from endangered, threatened, and
depleted stocks through a small-take application process; 6) monitoring of
marine mammal takes during fishing operations; 7) permitting takes through
a registration-application system; 8) enforcing allocations; and 9) retaining the
zero mortality goal.

A counter-proposal, concluded by representatives of seven conservation
organizations and more than 30 commercial fishing industry groups on June 10,
1993, offered an alternative to the NMFS approach. The counter-proposal
would not require fishing vessel registration, would not classify individual
fisheries, would place the burden of proof on the Federal Government to prove
that marine mammal stock would be harmed by commercial fishing activities,
and would establish conservation teams for marine mammal species requiring
special management. However, a coalition of about 20 other conservation
groups expressed concerns that the counter-proposal would set a dangerous
precedent by providing a means whereby threatened and endangered marine
mammals could be killed during commercial fishing, and by allowing the killing
of "nuisance" marine mammals. NMFS faulted the counter-proposal for
authorizing the incidental taking of marine mammals unless the Secretary of
Commerce demonstrates that such taking would be detrimental to marine
mammal populations. Congress responded with the introduction of H.R. 2760
providing for a new regime incorporating elements of both the NMFS proposal
and the fishing industry-conservation group alternative. However with time
running out as the October 1, 1993 deadline approached, H.R. 3049 was
introduced to extend the Interim Exemption through April 1, 1994 and to allow
more time for Congress to craft an acceptable new regime.

CRS-33 Living Marine Resources

Questions

1. How stringently should the United States seek zero mortality and injury
to marine mammals, given increasing economic costs?

2. Should the United States increase funding for research on the degree to
which some human activities indirectly harm marine mammals by altering
ecosystems (e.g., large commercial harvests of fish upon which marine
mammals feed)?

3. What funding will be necessary to implement the new regime to regulate
incidental taking of marine mammals during commercial fishing?

References

Griffin, Rodman D. Marine Mammals vs. Fish. CQ Researcher, v. 2, no. 32
(Aug. 28, 1992): 739-758.

National Marine Fisheries Service. Proposed Regime to Govern Interactions
Between Marine Mammals and Commercial Fishing Operations. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Nov. 1992. 96 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Administration of
the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972: Jan. 1, 1990 to Dec. 31, 1990.
Washington, 1991. 33 p.

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Marine Mammal
Issues. CRS Issue Brief IB92126, by Eugene H. Buck. Washington,
updated regularly.

---- The Marine Mammal Protection Act: Reauthorization Issues. CRS Report
93-185 ENR, by Jennifer Heck and Eugene H. Buck. Washington, Feb. 1,
1993. 37 p.

U.S. Marine Mammal Commission. Annual Report to Congress, 1991.
Washington, Jan. 31, 1992. 227 p.

Waring, Gorton T., et al. Incidental Take of Marine Mammals in Foreign
Fishery Activities Off the Northeast United States, 1977-88. Fishery
Bulletin, 1990. 88(2): 347-360.

CRS-34 Living Marine Resources

OCEAN FISHERIES AND THE MAGNUSON ACT:
IMPLEMENTATION AND REAUTHORIZATION CONCERNS”

Issue Definition

In 1991, U.S. commercial fish harvesters landed more than 10.1 billion
pounds of fish and shellfish. Of this total, almost 5.8 billion pounds was taken
from Federal waters beyond State jurisdiction. The Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) of 1976, as amended, governs
Federal management of fisheries outside coastal State waters to 200 miles
offshore. Legislation to reauthorize this Act is under consideration during the
103d Congress, potentially including an extensive package of amendments to the
parent law.

Background and Analysis

The enactment of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA)
of 1976 (later renamed the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MFCMA) for the late Senator Warren G. Magnuson) ushered in a new era
of marine fisheries management for the United States. The MFCMA was signed
into law on April 13, 1976, after several years of debate on extending fisheries
jurisdiction. On March 1, 1977, fisheries resources within 200 miles of all U.S.
coasts came under Federal jurisdiction, and an entirely new multifaceted
regional management system began allocating harvesting rights, with priority
given to domestic enterprises. Exclusive Federal management authority was
vested in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce. The
200-mile fisheries conservation zone was superseded by an Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ), proclaimed by President Reagan on March 10, 1983 (Presidential
Proclamation 5030).

Under provisions of the MFCMA, eight Regional Fishery Management
Councils were established for the New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic,
Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, Western Pacific, and North Pacific regions.
The eight Councils prepare fishery management plans (FMPs) for those
fisheries, both commercial and recreational, which they determine to require
active Federal management. An environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement is prepared for every FMP submitted. After public hearings
on these plans, revised FMPs are submitted to the Secretary of Commerce for
approval. Implementing regulations are published in the Federal Register.
Completed plans may be amended and revised through similar procedures.
Together these Councils have implemented 35 FMPs for various fish and
shellfish resources, with 6 additional plans being developed. Some plans are
created for individual or a few closely related species (e.g., FMPs for northern
anchovy by the Pacific Council and for shrimp by the Gulf of Mexico Council).

*Prepared by Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-35 Living Marine Resources

Others are developed for unrelated species in similar habitats (e.g., FMPs for
Gulf of Alaska groundfish by the North Pacific Council and for reef fish by the
Gulf of Mexico Council). Many of the implemented plans have undergone
subsequent amendment (one has been amended 25 times), and four plans have
been developed and implemented jointly by two or more Councils.

Initially under MFCMA authority, a substantial portion of fishery resources
in offshore waters under Federal jurisdiction was allocated for foreign harvest.
However, foreign allocations have been reduced as domestic fish harvesting and
processing industries have expanded. Under the MFCMA, foreign harvests from
the U.S. EEZ declined from about 3.8 billion pounds in 1977, to only about 12
million pounds in 1991. Commensurate with the decline of foreign harvest,
domestic offshore catch increased from about 1.56 billion pounds (1977) to more
than 5.79 billion pounds (1991). Thus, the percent of fish harvested by foreign
nations from the U.S. EEZ declined from 71 percent in 1977 to about 0.2
percent in 1991.

Since 1977, total offshore fisheries harvest from the U.S. EEZ increased
about 24 percent to a peak of 6.65 billion pounds annually in 1986-1988, but has
subsequently declined 13 percent to 5.79 billion pounds in 1991. Currently, the
largest offshore fishery, in terms of volume landed, is Alaska pollock, with more
than 2.8 billion pounds harvested in 1991. By value, Gulf of Mexico shrimp
(more than $270 million) and Alaska pollock (more than $238 million) were the
leading fisheries in 1991. Of 153 species groups of U.S. fish assessed by NMFS,
65 (42%) are overutilized, and another 57 groups (37%) are considered to be
fully utilized.

Status of the Issue

Legislation introduced during the 102nd Congress dealt primarily with
localized issues. P.L. 102-130 contained a section which deleted a MFCMA
provision requiring that a fishery management plan (FMP) be prepared for
Atlantic striped bass in the EEZ. Title III of P.L. 102-251 provided for fisheries
management in the isolated pocket of international waters (the "donut hole") in
the Bering Sea between waters under U.S. and Russian jurisdiction. P.L. 102-
567 mandated several fisheries studies, established a shellfish research program,
authorized funding for NMFS fisheries programs (Title II), implemented an
international treaty on salmon management in the North Pacific (Title VII),
and enhanced enforcement and provided for underutilized species development
off New England (Title IX). P.L. 102-582 provided for fisheries enforcement for
U.S. vessels operating outside U.S. jurisdiction in the Central Bering Sea (Title
III), and repealed the user fee on recreational boats (Title V). P.L. 102-587
approved a fisheries agreement with Estonia (Title I) and implemented an
international treaty on salmon management in the North Pacific (Title VIID).

Early in the 103rd Congress, H.R. 780 was introduced, providing for
reauthorization of MFCMA appropriations without additional amendments to
the Act. During MFCMA reauthorization, however, many issues are likely to be
debated in a regional, rather than national, context. Some of the more

CRS-36 Living Marine Resources

controversial issues include: 1) increasing attention to conservation of fish
stocks and restoration of overharvested populations; 2) assuring that Regional
Council representation and decisions are fair and balanced; 3) clarifying when
and how fisheries overcapitalization should be addressed through limiting
access; and 4) removing the restriction on fee collection to permit user fees and
other charges which could be directed to fund conservation and management
activities. Other prominent issues may include increasing emphasis on preserva-
tion of ecosystem health and long-term resource productivity, modifying FMP
criteria, directing more attention to bycatch concerns, enhancing data collection,
and providing more effective enforcement. Some of these issues have arisen
repeatedly, and the MFCMA has been amended previously in attempts to resolve
them.

Questions

1. What modifications, if any, are needed to revise the MFCMA to meet the
demands of a totally domestic fishery in the EEZ?

2. What lessons were learned from legislating on specific FMPs in previous
reauthorizations of the MFCMA? Does congressional involvement in
intimate Council management issues indicate a need for modification of
Council authority?

3. Does the MFCMA adequately balance the competing demands for
conservation and development of marine living resources? If not, what
modifications of the Act would help achieve this balance?

4. Does the current system of membership on Regional Fishery Management
Councils facilitate or hamper rational management decisionmaking for FEZ
fishery resources?

References

Acona, Douglas M. Managing United States Marine Fisheries. Natural
Resources & Environment, Spring 1990. 4(4): 23-25, 56-57.

McHugh, J. L. Fisheries Management Under the Magnuson Act: Is it Working?
Ocean Development and International Law, 1990. 21(3): 255-261.

Miller, Morton M., et al. Impressions of Ocean Fisheries Management Under the
Magnuson Act. Ocean Development and International Law, 1990. 21(3):
263-287.

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Needs Assessment of the National
Marine Fisheries Service. Washington, 1990. 315 p.

U.S. Congress. General Accounting Office. Fisheries: Commerce Needs to
Improve Fisheries Management in the North Pacific. GAO/RCED-91-96.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, March 1991. 38 p.

CRS-37 Living Marine Resources

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. National Marine Fisheries Service. Our Living Oceans:
Report on the Status of U.S. Living Marine Resources, 1992. Washington,
December 1992. 148 p.

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Marine Fisheries
Issues. CRS Issue Brief IB93004, by Eugene H. Buck. Washington,
updated regularly.

----- The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act:
Reauthorization Issues. CRS Report 93-88 ENR, by Eugene H. Buck.
Washington, Jan. 25, 1993. 47 p.

Wise, John P. Federal conservation & management of marine fisheries in the
United States. Center for Marine Conservation, Washington, 1991. 278 p.

CRS-38 Living Marine Resources

SEAFOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION’

Issue Definition

Unlike meat and poultry, seafood is not subject to mandatory, continuous
Government inspection for safety and wholesomeness. While recent research
has tied consumption to some health benefits, seafood also has been associated
with a number of illnesses caused by chemical or biological contaminants. Some
consumer advocates have argued that many types of fish and shellfish pose a
significant public health risk and that a new, more aggressive inspection
program should be enacted to deal with the problem. Others have countered
that most seafood is safe to eat and that current programs are adequate or
simply could be operated more effectively. At issue are the need for such an
effort, whether new legislation should mandate it, and the appropriate type of
program and administering agency, among other things.

Background and Analysis

Several consumer groups have argued that fish and shellfish pose a major
health risk because, unlike meat and poultry products, they are not required to
undergo rigorous Federal inspection. Opponents of major changes believe that
more inspection would be too expensive and impractical for seafood, which is
harvested in the wild rather than raised on farms, and involves a far more
diverse industry than meat and poultry. At any rate, opponents argue that
more government inspection would not necessarily mean a safer product.

Seafood already is subject to Federal inspection, but under a system
markedly different from that for meat and poultry. The Federal Meat Inspection
Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act require U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) inspectors to be in plants at all times of operation to
conduct "continuous" inspection; that is, to examine virtually every head of
cattle, sheep, swine and goat, and every chicken, turkey, goose, and duck at
slaughter, and to visit daily all plants that further process them into edible
products.

Although seafood is not subject to mandatory continuous inspection, several
Federal and State agencies have responsibilities to assure its quality and safety
under a number of existing laws. The Department of Health and Human
Services’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a broad mandate under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to assure the safety of all foods in
interstate commerce, including seafood. FDA also works cooperatively with
States and industry in a voluntary shellfish sanitation program. The Commerce
Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) offers, for a fee,
voluntary seafood inspection, mainly as a marketing and quality rather than
safety program. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has primary

“Prepared by Geoffrey S. Becker, Specialist in Agricultural Policy,
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-39 Living Marine Resources

responsibility for reducing water pollution, a source of many seafood-borne
contaminants.

What is the risk of eating seafood? The National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) in early 1991 released a study concluding that most seafoods available to
consumers are wholesome and unlikely to cause illness. A study of Federal
health data found that, from 1978 to 1987, for all foodborne illnesses, seafood-
borne illnesses constituted 10.5 percent of all outbreaks (incidents involving two
or more sick persons) but 3.6 percent of all cases (single ill persons). This
compares with beef at 4 percent of all cases, turkey at 3.7 percent, pork at 2.7
percent, and chicken at 2.6 percent.

However, if all shellfish were excluded from the data, fish-related illnesses
would have represented just 1.2 percent of all foodborne illness cases during the
period. NAS reported that the overwhelming majority of seafood illness is
related to the consumption of raw or undercooked molluscan shellfish (clams,
oysters, mussels), which pick up pathogenic bacteria and viruses (often but not
always from sewage) in the water. Most other seafood-related illnesses are due
to naturally-occurring toxins in finfish--ciguatera that certain reef-dwelling fish
acquire in the water, and scombroid poisoning that occurs through mishandling
of some species after harvest. Chemical contamination of fish is more difficult
to document because its effects are longer-term. One of NAS’s general
conclusions is that most seafood health hazards are tied to conditions in the
environment (as opposed to, for example, processing).

Status of the Issue

Advocates of seafood inspection legislation were unable to win enactment
of seafood inspection legislation in the 101st or 102nd Congress, despite
intensive deliberations and relatively widespread agreement among consumer
and industry groups, and many lawmakers, that a more aggressive program
would be desirable. Among other obstacles were disagreements over: which
department (Health and Human Services, Commerce, or USDA) should have the
lead; how stringent and comprehensive a new program should be; whether
standards could and should be set for chemical and microbiological
contaminants; and the cost of such a program, including who should pay for it.

Although interest in such legislation has extended into the 103rd Congress,
prospects for passage of a bill are uncertain at best. As of early June, only one
seafood safety bill (H.R. 1412, establishing a National Shellfish Safety Program)
had been introduced into either the House or Senate.

Meanwhile, FDA has been using existing legislative authority to strengthen
its current fish and sheilfish safety programs. Early in 1993, the agency
announced that it soon would publish regulations requiring much of the
industry to adopt so-called "Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point" (HACCP)
procedures. These procedures analyze health and safety risks, determine where
risks can be controlled in production and handling, and concentrate oversight
resources on those points. The agency received an increased appropriation to

CRS-40 Living Marine Resources

create a new Office of Seafood in 1991 and, in 1992, had completed a round of
special safety inspections of the roughly 4,000 U.S. seafood plants. The agency
gave 95 percent of the plants a "clean bill of health" and found "readily
correctable" problems at the remaining plants.

Questions

il

What is the most appropriate type (and level) of seafood inspection,
particularly in light of the NAS findings on hazards and risks? Is the
current array of programs, including the new regulatory initiative by FDA
and NMFS, adequate to address these hazards and risks? If not, should
legislation be enacted to close current gaps in the system?

If legislation is considered, should it be aimed at modifying existing
programs, or is an overhaul warranted?

Would an enhanced effort of any type actually provide consumers with a
safer supply of seafood than currently?

Which agency or agencies should be responsible for seafood inspection,
whether in its present or some modified form? If inspection changes are
relatively minor, could the current roles of NMFS, FDA, and USDA remain
basically the same? If major changes are deemed appropriate, who should
be given the new duties -- USDA, which already inspects other flesh foods?
FDA, which monitors the safety of all other foods; NMFS, which already
works with the seafood industry on a voluntary basis; or a combination of
all three?

Given that NAS’s chief findings pinpoint environmental reasons for the
most important health hazards, should Government oversight focus on
environmental controls, including monitoring waters and those who harvest
from them? What role should EPA play, if any?

Since molluscan shellfish are the source of the preponderance of seafood-
borne illnesses, should any new program be focused on that source? Might
improvements in the existing Federal-State-industry shellfish program
suffice?

What would be the practical aspects of implementing a new program?
Because the seafood industry is far more diverse than meat and poultry,
with hundreds of fish species already on the market, would it be difficult
to establish standards for all the potential chemical and microbiological
contaminants? Can methods be developed now to rapidly test for all such
contaminants?

How much might the design of a more aggressive program be governed by
cost factors? How would it be funded? Do current Federal budget
constraints limit the extent of any new effort funded by taxpayers? What
about user fees?

CRS-41 Living Marine Resources

9. How would new inspection requirements affect the structure and
performance of the industry itself? Is it likely that any new industry
compliance costs would be passed through the marketing chain to
consumers? What would be seafood’s competitive position relative to other
flesh foods like meat and poultry?

10. There is a consensus that imports (accounting for more than half of all U.S.
seafood consumption) should be subject to the same standards as U.S.
products, but how can these imports be monitored without violating
international trade rules?

References

National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board.
Seafood Safety. 1991.

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Seafood Inspection
Issues in the 102d Congress. Archived Issue Brief 92079, by Geoffrey
Becker. Washington.

CRS-42 The Coastal Environment

COASTAL DEMOGRAPHICS AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS’

Issue Definition

Population in the United States continues to concentrate along the coasts,
with a declining portion remaining in the heartland. Over the next 20 years,
population in coastal counties is projected to increase from 80 million to 127
million. As the population grays and retires, coastal locations are increasingly
attractive destinations. These retirees, as well as others who prefer coastal
locations, in turn, attract supporting businesses and industry.

At issue is how to deal with the environmental impacts of this growth.
Many coastal areas that attract development are also very fragile, and
development can disrupt coastal ecosystems and destroy economic and ecologic
values. The result is that many of the very qualities that attract more people
to the coast are being reduced or destroyed. There is interest in examining
innovative ways to protect these environments and resources so that the
attracting qualities will remain for future generations.

Background and Analysis

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reviewed population
trends along the coasts from 1960 to 2010 in a 1990 report. This analysis
examined coastal county and coastal state population trends using Bureau of
Census data up to 1988 and projections into the future. The results are
striking.

When examining the 451 coastal counties of the country (there are more
than 3000 counties or their equivalents in all), the analysts found that a
growing portion of the population has been and continues to concentrate in
coastal areas. At the State level, among the leaders in growth in absolute
numbers between 1960 and 2010 are California (19.2 million), Texas (11.6
million), and Florida (11.2 million). The leaders in percentage change over the
same time period will include Florida (226 percent) and Alaska (208 percent).
The study predicts that while overall growth will slow over the next 20 years,
it will remain slightly greater in coastal areas than in non-coastal areas. It
concludes that 17 of the 20 States with the greatest population growth for this
50-year period will be coastal states.

Coastal growth is not equally distributed. While coastal Oregon and
Washington counties, for example, are likely to grow relatively slowly, coastal
areas in the South are likely to grow rapidly. In terms of absolute increases in
population between now and 2010, eight coastal counties in Florida and
California are projected to be among the ten most rapidly growing ones in the
entire country. The result of past. and future patterns of growth is that

“Prepared by Jeffrey A. Zinn, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-43 The Coastal Environment

population density in most coastal States and many coastal counties is much
higher than the national and State averages, respectively. The most densely
populated coastal areas include the northeastern States between Massachusetts
and Pennsylvania, Florida, California, and Ohio and Illinois along the Great
Lakes.

The pattern of growth has changed in recent decades, and in ways that
threaten more coastal resources. Until the 1960s, growth was concentrated in
urban areas and their suburbs; obvious examples include New York City, Miami,
Los Angeles, and Chicago. While these urban concentrations greatly stressed
coastal systems, they encompassed only a relatively small portion of the total
coast. Starting in the 1950s, for a variety of reasons, coastal development
‘rapidly spread to more rural coastal areas. Reasons for this dispersal include an
increase in general affluence and demand for second homes and vacation
destinations, improved transportation systems (especially the interstate road
network) and a growing number of retirees seeking amenity areas. This growth
has been explosive in some areas; Cape Cod, Massachusetts and Hilton Head,
South Carolina are but two of many possible examples of this change.

Another important characteristic of this change is that, while much of the
earlier growth had taken place along protected and semi-protected areas,
especially harbors and ports, much of the new development has taken place
along the open coast. This newer development can disrupt dynamic beach
systems, and has put rapidly-expanding private and related public investment
at risk from coastal storms and changing coastal profiles. Florida’s experience
in 1992 with Hurricane Andrew could be a precursor of the magnitude of coastal
problems that could be caused by future hurricanes. The direct effects on public
and private investment, and residual costs such as the availability of insurance
for coastal property in southern Florida, indicate the high cost that can
accompany coastal development.

Status of the Issue

As the average age of the population continues to increase, along with the
overall population, there is every reason to anticipate that demand for
development in coastal areas will continue to grow. Congressional interest will
center not on the demographics, per se, but on the possible effects of more
people in coastal areas. Congress has already addressed aspects of these
concerns through programs such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, National
Flood Insurance Program, and various infrastructure and environmental
protection programs. Recent amendments show how these concerns have
changed since these programs were first enacted. Two conclusions are apparent
when one examines the current array of Federal programs. First, some may
work at cross purposes; some encourage development (in the broadest sense),
while others discourage it. Second, there is no coherent approach to recognizing
and responding to current demographic trends in national policy discussions.
But efforts to define a coherent and consistent national approach likely will
increase as more people choose to move to coastal areas.

CRS-44 The Coastal Environment

Questions

1. Should Congress use demographic trends as a basis for developing more
consistent Federal policies toward development in coastal areas?

2. Can Federal policies be used to encourage a sounder and safer pattern of
future development in coastal areas?

3. Should Congress be more concerned with demographic predictions in
setting policy? If so, how can Congress more effectively integrate this
information into the policy process?

References

Edwards, S.F. Estimates of Future Demographic Changes in the Coastal Zone.
Coastal Management, 1989. 17(3): 229-240.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean Service. 50 Years of Population Change
Along the Nation’s Coast: 1960-2010. Rockville, MD, 1990. 41p.

CRS-45 The Coastal Environment

COASTAL WETLANDS’

Issue Definition

Wetlands, areas where upland and water environments overlap, are
concentrated in some coastal areas, especially along the south Atlantic and Gulf
coasts. The various values that are unique to these areas have been increasingly
appreciated in recent years, but at the same time, a portion of the remaining
acreage is being destroyed or damaged by development and other activities. The
particulars of the issue vary from place to place, but the forces at work are
generally the same. At issue is the effectiveness of various Federal (and State)
wetlands protection efforts. Some activities are regulated through a permit
program administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under $404 of the
Clean Water Act, but this provision deals only with disposal of dredge or fill
material. Protection advocates are seeking a broader wetlands statute. Both
protection advocates and development interests also debate whether coastal
wetlands deserve specific recognition, both as an important subset of all
wetlands, because of their different hydrologic and biologic properties and
because of concentrated modification pressures.

Background and Analysis

Coastal wetlands occur in a wide variety of forms, but they all have
distinctive plant assemblages because of the wetness of the soil. Many coastal
wetlands are flooded daily as the tide rises and falls. The value of coastal
wetlands depends on location, size, and relationships with adjacent land and
water areas. Wetland values can include:

e habitat for aquatic birds and other animals;

e habitat for rare or endangered species;

* production of fish and shellfish;

e water storage, including limiting the effects of floods;
e water purification;

° recreation;

¢ timber production;

¢ food production;

e education and research; and

* open space and aesthetic values.

Usually wetlands provide a mix of these values; no single wetland provides
all of them at the same time. Many of these values decline when wetlands are
altered. In addition, alterations at some distance can affect wetlands because
they are part of larger water systems. For example, in coastal areas, conversion
of wetlands to urban uses can increase the cost of flood damage because wetland
areas typically provide natural storage and slow the release of flood waters.

“Prepared by Jeffrey A. Zinn, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-46 The Coastal Environment

Wetlands have been disappearing at a rapid rate through most of this
country’s history. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that only 104
million acres remain of the 220 million that were here when the country was
first settled. More recently, the Service has estimated that the current rate of
loss (between the mid-1970s and the mid-1980s) is about 290,000 acres per year.
This is a significant decline from an earlier survey, from the mid-1950s to the
mid-1970s, when the loss rate averaged nearly 500,000 acres per year.

Coastal wetlands are probably disappearing less rapidly than all wetlands
for two reasons. First, many of the conversions have been to drain these lands
for agriculture; coastal wetlands, especially in salt water environments, are not
attractive sites for agricultural production. Second, efforts to protect wetlands
in this country focused on coastal areas initially; there is a relatively strong and
lengthy tradition of Federal and State efforts to protect coastal wetland areas.
In a study of wetlands loss in the Mid Atlantic States between the 1950s and
1970s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that coastal wetland losses
were much smaller than the inland wetland losses. The major causes of coastal
wetland loss were identified as urban development and encroachment by coastal
waters caused by impoundments, dredging projects, and rising sea level. (By
contrast, the major causes of freshwater wetlands loss were other development,
agriculture, and ponds.)

Expansion of coastal waters at the expense of wetlands is a problem in
many areas. The most notable, because of the shear magnitude of both the
amount of loss and the reservoir of remaining wetlands that could be lost, is
Louisiana. Estimates of annual wetland loss range up to about 60 square miles
(38,000 acres). High loss rates are partially attributed to natural phenomena,
including sea level rise and settling of the land. But in the case of Louisiana,
it is also attributed to several human factors, including dredging channels
through the wetlands that have disrupted water flows, and impediments
upstream on the Mississippi River and its tributaries that have halted the flow
of sediments and altered the rates and patterns of fresh water flows around its
delta.

Status of the Issue

Wetlands are currently a major national issue as the 103rd Congress
debates alternative proposals to amend the Federal permit program under $404
of the Clean Water Act and as the National Academy of Sciences studies wetland
delineation issues. Controversy over wetlands protection was pronounced under
the Bush Administration, which attempted to implement a general policy of no
net loss while trying still to satisfy environmental development constituencies.

The wetlands issue temporarily abated until the Clinton Administration
announced its positions on possible revisions to §404 in August 1993, and until
the National Academy of Sciences completes its delineation study. Many
interests, however, believe that the status quo is temporary, and that program
and policy changes must occur. There has been no indication that the Clinton
Administration will give wetlands high visibility as the Bush Administration did,

CRS-47 The Coastal Environment

lending to much of the subsequent debate. While there were more than 24 days
of wetlands hearings in the 102nd Congress, the 103rd Congress has given little
attention to wetlands to date.

Questions

1. Isanewand more encompassing Federal wetlands statute needed to replace
the §404 program?

2. Should coastal wetlands receive special attention within Federal wetland
protection efforts because of the extreme pressures they are under and
because of their unique biological and hydrological characteristics?

3. Can the full diversity of coastal wetlands be recognized through a single
Federal program?

4. Should wetlands protection efforts recognize classes of wetlands based on
functions and values?

5. Should State and Federal wetlands protection efforts be better integrated?
References

National Wetlands Policy Forum. Protecting America’s Wetlands: An Action
Agenda. Washington, Conservation Foundation, 1988. 69p.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife and the Environment. Wetlands
Conservation. Hearings, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. Oct. 16 and Nov. 21, 1991.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1992. 998p.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
Subcommittee on Water Resources. The Reauthorization of the Federal
Clean Water Pollution Control Act: Protection and Wetlands. Hearings,
102d Cong., Ist Sess. Oct. 15, 16, 22, 23, 30, and 31, 1991. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1992. 2012p. Serial No. 102-43.

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wetlands Losses in
the United States: 1780s to 1980s. Washington. 1990. 13p.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Wetlands Overview: Federal and State
Policies, Legislation, and Programs. GAO/RCED-92-79 FS. Washington,
Nov. 1991. 93p.

CRS-48 The Coastal Environment

MARINE SANCTUARIES PROGRAM’

Issue Definition

The national marine sanctuaries program, authorized in 1972 through Title
III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), allows for
the designation of protected areas in Federal and State coastal and ocean waters
for multiple purpose use. At issue for Congress is reauthorization of the
program and possible amendments that address perceived program problems.
Specific issues of concern are whether or how to regulate activities outside a
marine sanctuary that may adversely affect the protected values within,
streamlining the designation process, new designations, whether to broaden
designation criteria, funding, and whether to allow oil and gas leasing as a per-
missible activity within a designated sanctuary.

Background and Analysis

The national marine sanctuaries program is administered by the Depart-
ment of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
As of 1992, NOAA had designated 13 sanctuaries (11 exist now because of
subsequent combining of sanctuaries in Florida). NOAA is considering other
sites for designation.

Congress enacted the 1972 legislation because of public concern over oil
spills and increased dumping of waste materials into coastal waters. The
sanctuaries program offers a unique Federal mechanism to provide
comprehensive regulation, planning, and management of defined marine areas
to assure long-term preservation of the specified resource values.

Other Federal laws may provide protection for single purposes within the
same area, but do not provide the comprehensive protection that accompanies
sanctuary designation. Examples of other interactive Federal laws are the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act, as amended, Comprehensive Oilspill Liability Act
of 1990, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water
Act, Title I of the MPRSA (Ocean Dumping Act), Coastal Zone Management Act,
and Federal historic preservation laws.

Congress amended Title III of the MPRSA in 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992.
The 1980 amendments (P.L. 96-332) gave veto authority to the adjacent States
and Congress for a designation or any of its terms. The amendments also
required that the terms of designation include the characteristics of the area
that give it conservation, recreational, ecological, or aesthetic value. The 1984
amendments (P.L. 98-498) changed the procedures by which sanctuaries were
selected and designated -- requiring the consideration of specific factors
(historical, research, or educational were added to the four existing values),

*Prepared by Malcolm M. Simmons, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-49 The Coastal Environment

wider consultation, environmental studies, and compatible multiple use. The
1988 amendments (P.L. 100-627, Title II) contained provisions for compensation
for destruction or loss of, or injury to, sanctuary resources. Of specific interest
were the vessel liability provisions, which could be applied to oil spills or other
actions that damage marine sanctuary resources.

The 1992 amendments (P.L. 102-587, Title II) prohibited activities outside
a marine sanctuary that adversely may harm the protected values within,
prohibited offshore oil and gas leasing within specified designated sanctuaries,
improved the timeliness of sanctuary designation (which many claimed had been
too slow and inefficient), designated three new sanctuaries, broadened
designation criteria, and authorized funding for FY 1993 through FY 1996.

Status of the Issue

The next reauthorization of Title III of the MPRSA is expected in 1996.
Until that time, the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and the
Senate Commerce Committee are likely to hold oversight hearings. At this time,
there are no significant issues that the next reauthorization needs to resolve.

Questions

1. Should the designation process be further streamlined? Critics point out
that Congress designates land-based parallels--such as national wildlife
refuges, parks, and wilderness areas--and suggest that Congress should
designate marine sanctuaries and allow NOAA only to manage them.
Pressure to allow Congress to designate marine sanctuaries is propelled, in
part, by criticism that the current process includes excessive delay and
duplication of effort, and in part because some of the affected parties
believe that their concerns do not receive adequate attention. Previous
changes to improve the site selection and designation process to require
more consultation, opportunities for public input, environmental analysis,
and resource assessment may better accommodate affected interests, but
inadvertently have resulted in a longer designation process. Additionally,
Congress, through the authority of provisions in the 1980 amendments,
may veto a designation or any of its terms if both Houses adopt a
concurrent resolution disapproving the unacceptable items. When Congress
has taken advantage of this provision, as it did in the Cordell Bank NMS
designation, it lengthens the process further.

2. Should new designations be made? If new designations are made, will there
be adequate funding available for the existing as well as new designations?
Sanctuary designation largely was placed on hold during the 1980s, due to
a combination of bureaucratic problems in the sanctuary designation
process which delayed the designation of candidate sites and Reagan
Administration opposition to the program.

3. Should the sanctuary designation criteria be broadened? The various
amendments to the sanctuary program have broadened the factors that

CRS-50 The Coastal Environment

could be considered in site selection or designation; the House
reauthorization would have broadened these factors to include cultural
qualities, international significance, and research.

4, Is the funding for the program adequate? When enacted in 1972, Congress
authorized $10 million per year. Congress has never appropriated this
amount of money for the program, and currently the program is funded at
half this amount. Environmentalists (and a NOAA-commissioned study)
have recommended that an adequate level of funding for the current
program would be $30 million per year. If new sanctuaries are designated,
however, additional funds may be required. Reauthorization legislation
would increase funding, although not to $30 million, and would provide
authority for donations to be used in sanctuary management.

References

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Subcommittees on Oceanography, Great Lakes and the Outer Continental
Shelf; and on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment.
The Current Status and Future Needs of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Sanctuary Program.
Hearing, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. Nov. 7, 1991. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., 1992. Serial No. 102-55.

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Marine Sanctuaries Review Team. National Marine
Sanctuaries: Challenge and Opportunity. Washington, Feb. 22, 1991.

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Marine Sanctuaries
Program: Issues in the 102nd Congress. CRS Issue Brief IB92085. by
Malcolm M. Simmons. Washington, updated regularly.

CRS-51 The Coastal Environment

ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE SYSTEM’

Issue Definition

The Estuarine Research Reserve System, created as an element of the
Federal Coastal Zone Management Program, encourages States to set aside
examples of the Nation’s coastal biogeographical regions for research and
education. This program has proven popular; 21 sanctuaries have been
designated, and 5 additional proposals are being considered. At issue is whether
these sites are being used for the purposes that Congress intended, and, if not,
how can Congress help resolve these shortcomings. The designated sanctuaries
are listed below.

Padilla Bay (WA) Hudson River (NY)
South Slough (OR) Chesapeake Bay (MD)
Elkhorn Slough (CA) Chesapeake Bay (VA)
Tijuana River (CA) Sapelo Island (GA)
Waimanu Valley (HI) Jabos Bay (PR)
Old Woman Creek (OH) Rookery Bay (FL)
Wells (ME) Appalchicola Bay (FL)
Great Bay (NH) Weeks Bay (AL)
Waquoit Bay (MA) North Inlet, Winyah Bay (SC)
Narragansett Bay (RI) Ashepoe/Combahee/
North Carolina (NC) Edisto Basin (SC)
Background and Analysis

The National Estuarine Research Reserve System, known earlier as the
National Estuarine Sanctuary Program, was initially authorized in the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972. The system was envisioned as an integral
component to the overall success of coastal zone management efforts. It was to
provide natural laboratories in all the major coastal biogeographical regions that
could be used for long-term research projects and education programs in support
of State and Federal coastal zone management efforts. This system also was
intended to protect habitats that are representative of the characteristics of the
country’s coastal regions.

The System was renamed in 1985 amendments to the Coastal Zone
Management Act. These amendments were designed to strengthen and improve
coordination among the sanctuary sites, and to clarify relations between
research efforts and sanctuary management. They articulated the important
contribution that sanctuaries were expected to make to the coastal management
effort, and added further definition to the Federal role in supporting the
development of the reserve system.

*Prepared by Malcolm M. Simmons, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-52 The Coastal Environment

Each sanctuary operates education and research programs. These differ
from site to site, depending on the characteristics of the sanctuary, the interests
of the State program and the sanctuary manager, and other similar factors.
Many sanctuaries have built facilities on site to present education programs and
provide logistical support to researchers. All sanctuaries have either permanent
staff or designated contacts within State government. Some of the reserve staff
members at the older sites have been with their programs for a decade or more,
providing continuity to their local effort, and also to the national program. The
reserve managers convene national meetings periodically to discuss mutual
problems and opportunities. These meetings provide a learning and exchange
opportunity for both the managers and the Federal program staff.

Status of the Issue

The sanctuary program has proven popular with coastal States. Federal
funds have been used to acquire lands and construct sanctuary facilities.
However, several potential and real problems remain. One is funding. The
Federal Coastal Zone Management program primarily sets the sites up, then the
sites must seek money for their programs and facilities from other sources.
These funds are needed to attract and support long-term research, and to
develop and reach out with education programs that address the value and
importance of protecting estuarine areas.

While most of the sanctuaries have developed their own research programs,
often with local universities, there is still only limited coordinated research that
ties the sites together. This program will come closer to meeting its mandates
if all of the biophysical regions are represented, and after NOAA implements an
integrated national research program that takes advantage of the diversity of
natural conditions and human modifications that are represented in the system.

Questions

1. Are Federal and State efforts to coordinate research and information among
sites adequate? How can they be improved? What is the most effective
Federal role in coordination?

2. Does the system now represent all the basic biogeographical regions of the
United States; if not, should priority be given to designations in the
remaining unrepresented regions?

3. What actions can be taken to make the system more valuable, as a system
in the future? How does the system or NOAA help facilitate planning for
the system’s future? What are some of the major impediments to this
planning, and how can they be overcome?

CRS-53 The Coastal Environment

Reference

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean Service. Estuaries of the United States:
Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base. Rockville, MD. 1990. 79p.

CRS-54 The Coastal Environment

COASTAL BARRIER PROTECTION’

Issue Definition

Coastal barriers, lying along the water’s edge, are very popular and valuable
development sites but are also among the most dangerous because of exposure
to and changes caused by flooding and winds. Legislation was enacted in 1981
and 1982 prohibiting most forms of Federal development assistance within 186
designated undeveloped barriers in the Coastal Barrier Resources System
(CBRS). The 101st Congress amended the CBRA to increase the size of the
CBRS from approximately 450,000 acres to 1,272,000 acres of undeveloped
coastal barrier ("fastland") and associated aquatic habitat.

The Federal Government continues to pay ever increasing costs for damage
and disaster assistance in these areas. Congress may consider whether
additional controls are needed, both in developed and undeveloped coastal
barriers, to control this development, and thus limit Federal damage and
disaster assistance costs in the future.

Background and Analysis

Most coastal barriers are elongated landforms that shift frequently and
rapidly in response to storms, winds, and tides. These landforms provide
important habitat for certain species and protect inland areas, wetlands, and
estuaries from the brunt of ocean storms. Coastal barriers are also among the
most valuable real estate in the country; the value is highest when the parcel
is adjacent to the shoreline. Development has been rapid on many coastal
barriers in recent decades, increasing the magnitude of the threat to life and
property when major storms strike.

In the early 1980s, legislation was enacted that removed most Federal
subsidies that encourage development from designated coastal barriers along the
Gulf and Atlantic coasts. Initial legislative action in 1981 removed the
availability of Federal flood insurance for new construction on certain barrier
islands identified by the Department of the Interior (DOI). A more
encompassing enactment, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 (CBRA),
established the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), included the 186
coastal barriers in the CBRS, and removed a variety of forms of Federal
assistance, including grants for new water, sewage, and transportation systems.

CBRA required DOI to report to Congress with any suggested modifications
to the CBRS, including additions and deletions. The report, completed in 1988,
recommended the inclusion of additional units along the Atlantic and Gulf
coasts. For the first time, DOI recommended units for New Jersey, Maryland,
the Florida Keys, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Congressional approval of

*Prepared by Malcolm M. Simmons, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-55 The Coastal Environment

these units would have increased the CBRS from 186 to 461 units, 666 to 1,089
shoreline miles, and 0.45 to 1.2 million acres. Much of the increased acreage,
however, would have come from adding associated aquatic habitat, such as
adjacent wetlands, rather than from expanding the fastland area where
development is most likely to occur.

In 1988, Congress enacted the Great Lakes Barrier Act, which required DOI
to identify additional units for the CBRS in the Great Lakes. The DOI
identified, and recommended for inclusion in the CBRS, 112 Great Lakes units.

In the 101st Congress, legislation (enacted as P.L. 101-591) carried out
many of the recommendations in the DOI report, including expanding the CBRS
from approximately 452,000 acres to 1,272,000 acres of undeveloped coastal
barrier ("fastland") and associated aquatic habitat. The 1990 additions to the
CBRS included, for the first time, acreage in the Great Lakes (31,450 acres), the
Florida Keys (66,500 acres), Puerto Rico (20,334 acres), and the Virgin Islands
(3,775 acres). The enactment also required the DOI to prepare maps of
undeveloped coastal barrier units on the Pacific Coast (except Alaska) and
established processes for including Federal excess property and "otherwise
protected areas" in the CBRS. Finally, the enactment required Federal agency
self-certification of compliance with the CBRA, authorized a 2-year interagency
task force for addressing additional options for the CBRS, and authorized
appropriations of $1 million for each of fiscal years 1990 through 1993.

Status of the Issue

Despite the enactment of the CBRA and associated legislation, development
in high-risk coastal areas continues. There are a variety of reasons for the
continuing development. One is that DOI may not have designated and
Congress approved as many units as they might have for the CBRS. Another
is that coastal development, even on designated coastal barriers, might still be
occurring to the extent that developers can find non-federal support for flood
insurance as well as infrastructure.

This continued coastal development--both on developed and undeveloped
coastal barriers--raises the economic question of whether the Federal
Government should in any way subsidize this development, or continue to pay
(along with State/local governments and the private sector) for the increasing
storm/flood damage and disaster assistance. An important and controversial
consideration in this debate may be sea level rise.

The impact of the 1990 CBRS additions on undeveloped coastal barriers is
not known at this time: equally plausible, development may cease or decline on
these designated units, or development may continue if private funding for
infrastructure development and flood insurance is found.

A question that remains for Congress is whether additional controls are
needed to stem further development of "developed" as well as "undeveloped"
coastal barriers.

CRS-56 The Coastal Environment

To this end, the 1990 CBRA Amendments established an interagency Task
Force to conduct a 2-year study of additional options for the CBRS, including
whether new Federal policies are needed to protect all coastal barriers, developed
and undeveloped. The Task Force does not expect to begin deliberations until
October 1993 and will do so only if there is a specific appropriation for it.

Questions

1. Should the Federal Government in any way subsidize further coastal
development either on developed or undeveloped coastal barriers?

2. To what extent will the possibility of sea level rise affect the debate on
federally subsidized development of coastal barriers?

3. To what extent will private funding for infrastructure development and
flood insurance substitute for withdrawn Federal funding/subsidy?

4. Should Congress make a specific appropriation to initiate the 2-year
interagency Task Force study. If initiated and completed, how will the
findings relate to the above questions?

References

Jones, Elise and William Stolzenburg. Building in the Coastal Barrier
Resources System. Paper presented at Coastal Zone ’89 Conference.
Charleston, SC, July 13, 1989.

Kuehn, Robert. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act and the Expenditures
Limitation Approach to Natural Resources Conservation: Wave of the
Future or Island Unto Itself? Ecology Law Quarterly, 11: 583-670.

Miller, H. Crane and Richard L. Stroup. Turning the tide on wasted tax dollars.
Washington, National Wildlife Federation and National Taxpayers Union,
1989. 24 p.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs.
Subcommittee on Policy Research and Insurance. Hearing on the Coastal
Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. 101st Cong., 2nd Sess. Sept. 11, 1990.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1991. 189 p. Serial No. 101-167.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs.
Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990; Report to Accompany H.R. 2840.
H. Rept. No. 101-657, Part 2. Sept. 19, 1990. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1990.

CRS-57 The Coastal Environment

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Subcommittees on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and _ the
Environment, & and on Oceanography. Hearing on H.R. 2840, Coastal
Barrier Improvement Act of 1989. 101st Cong., Ist Sess. Aug. 2, 1989.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1989. 115 p. Serial No. 101-35 .

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Subcommittee on Environmental Protection. Hearing on Coastal Barrier
Resource System. 101st Cong., lst Sess. Sept. 29, 1989. Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1990. 143 p. S. Hrg. 101-363

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Coastal Barrier
Protection Issues in the 101st Congress. CRS Issue Brief IB90047. by
Malcolm M. Simmons. Washington, archived Jan. 8, 1991.

U.S. Department of the Interior. Coastal Barriers Study Group. Report to
Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System. Washington, 1988.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Flood insurance: statistics on the National
Flood Insurance Program. GAO/RCED-88-155FS. Washington, 1988.

CRS-58 The Coastal Environment

COASTAL FLOODING, EROSION, AND SEA LEVEL RISE*

Issue Definition

Changing water elevations and storms modify the coastal environment; the
larger the change or the storm, the greater the modification. These physical
processes make the coast highly dynamic, and efforts to stabilize it at one
location often exacerbate problems at adjoining locations. Stabilization efforts
are substantial because property values are very high along the immediate coast
and because owners seek to stabilize the shoreline and protect their investments.
Trying to stabilize the coast is very expensive and usually provides an illusory
and temporary solution. At issue is the appropriate role of the Federal
Government, given both the high cost of stabilization efforts and the high
likelihood for continued change, which will grow with any rise in sea level.

Background and Analysis

Hurricanes and other coastal storms have periodically caused billions of
dollars in damages, especially along the southeastern coast of the United States.
These storms strike periodically and randomly. As more development is
concentrated along the coast, smaller or less intense storms cause more damage.
Also, if sea level rise occurs, then smaller and less intense storms will cause
more damage because they will be starting from a higher water elevation. A
main cause of damage is coastal flooding, and one of the most serious forms of
damage is coast erosion.

Coastal flooding is addressed through the National Flood Insurance
Program. This program makes flood insurance available in return for local
government taking actions through building codes and planning that are
intended to reduce future costs, in lives and property damage, of major storm
events. The flood insurance program has been less than fully successful, often
because local governments have not vigorously enforced the development
controls needed to make it succeed. The 102d Congress considered amending the
program to deal with some coastal issues, especially coastal erosion.

While the flood insurance program was supposed to address coastal erosion,
participants have never agreed on methodology that would allow them to predict
the future rates and patterns precisely enough for insurance purposes. Past
erosion rates do not necessarily continue, and patterns change with the
configuration and profile of beaches. Rates of change are highest during rare
severe storm events. Therefore, over the useful life of a structure, say a house,
there might be only a couple of severe erosion events.

The Federal Government addresses coastal flooding, coastal erosion, and sea

level rise on designated undeveloped coastal sites through the Coastal Barrier

“Prepared by Jeffrey A. Zinn, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-59 The Coastal Environment

Resources Act of 1982. But this law only applies to sites where there is limited
pressure to protect the shoreline as it exists today.

Potential sea level rise, unlike erosion and flooding, is not addressed in
Federal programs. Many experts predict that the sea level will rise significantly
over the next century, although the rate and total amount of change are subject
to considerable debate. Changes will vary from place to place, depending on the
current pattern of development and the profile of the shoreline. For example,
a recent study of coastal Massachusetts, using predictions that sea level could
rise by between .45 feet and 1.57 feet by the year 2025, concluded that the State
would lose between 3,000 and 10,000 acres with losses in property value of
between $3 and $10 billion. Political Jeaders find it hard to address a problem
when its impacts are in the distant future, and when the technical experts can
not agree on how to characterize the problem.

Low, flat jurisdictions will be subject to the greatest risks, and no area is
considered to be more at risk than coastal Louisiana. Louisiana is losing an
estimated 60 square miles of coastal wetlands a year, and if the current pattern
continues, much of three parishes largely could disappear in the next century.
The problems in Louisiana are attributed to a combination of changing natural
conditions and human actions that would be exacerbated by any sea level rise.
Some of the man-induced causes are being addressed, most notably the dredging
of channels through the marshes to provide oil drilling rigs with access to
drilling sites. But other factors, such as the loss of sediment caught behind
dams upstream on the Mississippi River and its tributaries, are more difficult
to address. In addition, much of the Mississippi delta, which is unconsolidated
sediment, is sinking under its own weight.

Solutions to these hazards fall into three categories. One is to retreat from
the beach, moving future development inland to a point where it is not
threatened by anticipated water elevations. Some coastal geologists and
environmentalists support this approach because it would spare today’s coast
from more development, allow natural processes to continue, and reduce the loss
of property and lives when a storm strikes. The second and third are to
barricade the beach and to build up the land. These are favored by many in the
development and engineering businesses. But the barricade-the-beach approach
can only work if an entire beach system is included, and building up the land
may only work so long as the ocean does not go around it. There is much
debate not only on the relative feasibility of these options, but also on costs of
each in both the short and long terms. Congressional debate comparing and
contrasting these approaches has been increasingly visible in recent years, and
is likely to increase so long as sea level rise can be anticipated as a problem.

Status of the Issue

There is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding some aspects of this issue,
and some very specific and immediate needs in other aspects. Consequently,
Congress has addressed some of the specifics, such as loss of wetlands in
Louisiana, but it has not addressed the full issue. At the same time, several

CRS-60 The Coastal Environment

States, through coastal management and other programs, are starting to
examine these problems as well.

One issue that Congress is facing is how much should be done now, when
there is still considerable controversey and uncertainty among scientists about
what might happen in the future regarding the rate and pattern of sea level rise.
A second issue is the related debate over whether some solutions to erosion that
are currently used, most notably beach nourishment projects, are cost effective
over the longer run.

Congress may have to decide in the future and at a general level, whether
to attempt to stabilize the coast or to retreat. Solutions likely will be a mixture
of both, and the costs of the solution, whatever the mix, will be high.

Questions

1. What options, structural and non-structural, are available to the Federal
Government to protect life and property in coastal areas from flooding,
erosion, and sea level rise? What are the limitations and opportunities
associated with each option?

2. How does the tight Federal budget situation limit these options?

3. Recognizing that sea level rise may have an impact at some time in the
future, what could the Federal Government do now to anticipate the kinds
of problems that would accompany sea level rise?

References

National Research Council, Committee on Coastal Erosion Zone Management.
Managing Coastal Erosion. Washington, National Academy Press, 1990.
182p.

National Research Council, Committee on Engineering Implications of Changes
in Relative Mean Sea Level. Responding to Changes in Sea Level:
Engineering Implications. Washington, National Academy Press, 1987.
148p.

CRS-61 The Coastal Environment

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
AND THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM’

Issue Definition

Coastal development is influenced in part by incentives the Federal
Government provides. Congress may wish to review the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) to evaluate whether it is helping to control coastal
development as intended, and cost effectively, and if not, modify it accordingly.
A key concern is the ever-increasing Federal (and non-federal) expenditures for
disaster assistance to coastal communities.

Background and Analysis

The desirability of coastal living has produced a migration to the coasts,
construction of primary and vacation homes, and attendant commercial and
recreational development. Although Federal programs such as the NFIP have
imposed stiffer and more expensive requirements for new construction in coastal
areas, coastal population and development continue to increase. Even in the
ecologically important undeveloped coastal barrier areas protected through the
Coastal Barriers Resources Act, some development continues, although the
benefits from the NFIP and other Federal Government subsidies are unavailable.

Development is still occurring in coastal areas for a variety of reasons. One
is that not all eligible communities have chosen to participate in the NFIP; yet,
while these communities may not receive NFIP coverage, they may still receive
conventional loans from federally insured or regulated private lending
institutions. Also, in participating eligible communities, residents who have not
taken out a policy under the NFIP, but do so at the time of flood damage, may
apply for and receive disaster assistance. However, if subsequent flood damage
occurs and the resident has not maintained that policy, then no further disaster
assistance is available.

A second reason is that developers may sometimes find non-federal support
for flood insurance as well as infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and sewage
treatment. A third is that the Interior Department may not have designated,
and Congress approved, as many units as they might have for the Coastal
Barrier Resources System (CBRS). Once in the CBRS, new construction
normally declines because Federal flood insurance is not available for new or
substantially improved construction, and Federal subsidies are not available for
most new and/or improved infrastructure. A fourth is that the Federal
Government may not have legislated strong enough disincentives/prohibitions;
some believe that additional legislation such as national minimum erosion
setback requirements is needed.

* Prepared by Malcolm M. Simmons, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-62 The Coastal Environment

Continued coastal development has resulted in increasing damage and
higher Federal, as well as non-federal, relief costs in the aftermath of hurricanes
and storms. More to the point, many of these losses are repetitive: a 1988
General Accounting Office (GAO) report indicated that repetitive losses
accounted for 43 percent of total federally insured losses and 53 percent of these
repetitive losses were for properties in coastal communities.

NFIP Actuarial Soundness

The NFIP is now actuarially sound, with premiums just covering damage
claims, for the average loss year over its 25-year history. However, since no
major loss year has occurred for the program during the past twenty-four years,
the average loss year for the period of record may be unrealistically low. The
NFIP, therefore, may not be actuarially sound for the future if major losses
occur. Furthermore, if predictions of some scientists are correct, global warming
may increase sea level, increasing coastal erosion and the probability of higher
damage claims even if coastal development were stopped today.

The issue of future actuarial soundness relates to a variety of factors. The
principal factor is the occurrence of a major loss-year, which the GAO believes
has not occurred in the history of the program. Another factor is whether
property owners in coastal communities, in particular those whose structures
have been damaged repetitively, are paying the appropriate premium for the risk
involved. A third factor is whether additional requirements should be imposed
in especially hazardous coastal areas either to deter further new development
or at least to provide more protection from storm and hurricane damage. A final
factor is that the mandatory purchase requirement for the NFIP is not being
enforced. Many property owners obtain flood insurance for the first year of
their mortgage, but thereafter let it lapse, especially if their property has not
recently experienced a major flood event. The likely result is lower participation
and participation skewed towards the "adversely selected" (those at higher risk),
with higher premiums for those that do participate.

Removing Structures from High-Risk Coastal Areas

Some States, and more recently the Federal Government, have started to
view erosion setback requirements as an important tool for cost management of
insurance and relief costs, as well as controlling coastal development for
environmental reasons. The concept is actuarially as well as environmentally
sound -- structures built (or moved) landward of certain high-risk coastal zones
are less likely to be damaged by coastal storms and erosion, and these structure-
free erosion zones also will preserve the coastal environment.

As originally enacted in 1968, the NFIP provided for the demolition or
relocation of damaged structures. In 1987 Congress passed the Jones/Upton
Amendment (P.L. 100-242, §544) to the program, which provides incentives for
either relocating erosion-threatened structures landward of specified erosion
setbacks or demolishing them. While there are some problems associated with
the approach taken in 1987 (property owners taking advantage of the more

CRS-63 The Coastal Environment

expensive demolition option), its notable result was the beginning of Federal use
of erosion setbacks as a tool for cost-effective management of the NFIP and
coastal development.

While the use of setback requirements through the Jones/Upton approach
is accomplished through financial incentives, the use of mandatory setback
requirements is also being used, at least at the State level (e.g., North Carolina
and South Carolina), but with mixed success: property-owner resistance often
has resulted in multiple lawsuits claiming the taking of property without just
compensation. States have responded that a healthy beach/dune system is the
first and most important line of defense for cost-effective protection of life and
property in high-risk coastal zones, and that setbacks are essential for this
approach. These States view other approaches, such as beach nourishment or
armoring, as costly and less effective.

Status of the Issue

Congress may consider whether the NFIP should be evaluated for its long-
term actuarial soundness. A subsidiary issue is whether owners of coastal
structures suffering repetitive losses should pay higher premiums, or whether
the financial incentives to owners of these structures should be changed to
induce more of the less-costly option of relocation landward of erosion setbacks
and less of the more-costly option of demolition. Another related issue is the
enforcement of the mandatory purchase requirements. A final related issue is
national minimum erosion setback requirements. If the predictions of some
scientists that global warming could lead to increased erosion are correct, these
issues may become increasingly important, from both the environmental and
actuarial viewpoints.

The House addressed these issues in H.R. 62 in the 102nd Congress.
Legislation in the Senate is expected to be introduced in August 1993.

Questions

1. Is the NFIP actuarially sound for the long-term?

2. Should coastal (and other) structures suffering repetitive losses pay higher
premiums, and/or should other incentives be provided to remove such

structures from high-risk zones?

3. Should erosion setback zones be used as a tool in removing structures from
the highest risk coastal zones?

4, How can the mandatory purchase requirements of the NFIP be enforced
more effectively?

5. How will predictions of sea level rise, if they prove correct, affect the NFIP,
in particular the questions posed above?

CRS-64 The Coastal Environment

References

National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Coastal Erosion Zone
Management. Managing Coastal Erosion through the National Flood
Insurance Program. Washington, National Academy Press, 1989.

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. National Flood
Insurance Program Issues. CRS Issue Brief IB93077. by Malcolm M.
Simmons. Washington, updated regularly.

U.S. Congress. House. A Descriptive Analysis of Federal Relief, Insurance, and
Loss Reduction Programs for Natural Hazards. Report prepared by the
Congressional Research Service for the Committee on Banking, Finance,
and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Policy Research and Insurance. 102nd
Cong., 2nd Sess. Committee Print 102-15, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., 1993. Oct. 15, 1992.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs.
Subcommittee on Policy Research and Insurance. Hearing on National
Flood Insurance Program. 101st Cong., lst Sess. May 3, 4, and 31, 1989.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1989. 801 p. Serial No. 101-21.

---- Hearing on Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. 101st Cong., 2nd Sess.
Mar. 8, 1990. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1990. 271 p. Serial No.
101-89.

---- Hearing on Existing Federal Mitigation Provisions. 101st Cong., 2nd Sess.
June 27, 1990. Washington. U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1990. 184 p. Serial No.
101-143.

---- Hearing on the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. 101st Cong., 2nd
Sess. Sept. 11, 1990. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1990. 189 p.
Serial No. 101-167.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Subcommittees on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the
Environment, and Oceanography and the Great Lakes. Hearing on Coastal
Barrier Improvement Act of 1989 (H.R. 2840). 101st Cong., lst Sess. Aug.
2, 1989. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1989. 115 p. Serial No. 101-
35.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs. Hearing on the Flood
Insurance, Mitigation, and Erosion Management Act of 1991 (S. 1650).
102nd Cong., 1st Sess. Sept. 25, 1991. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off,,
1992. S. Hrg. 102-430.

CRS-65 The Coastal Environment

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Subcommittee on Environmental Protection. Hearing on Coastal Barrier
Resource System. 101st Cong., lst Sess. Sept. 29, 1989. Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1989. 143 p. S. Hrg. 101-363.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Flood Insurance: Statistics on the National
Flood Insurance Program. GAO/RCED-88-155FS. Washington, April 1988.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Flood Insurance: Information on the
Mandatory Purchase Requirement. GAO/T-RCED-92-86. Washington, July
27,1992.

CRS-66 The Coastal Environment

MANAGING COASTAL AREAS’

Issue Definition

The 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) created Federal incentives
for coastal States and territories to plan and manage their coastal resources
under several broad guidelines. ‘The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce administers the
programs authorized by the CZMA. The 101st Congress amended the CZMA,
reauthorizing most existing programs and their funding for the for the next five
years and created a new initiative--the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Program--to improve coastal water quality through land use management tools
available through CZMA authority. At issue for Congress is oversight of
existing programs and the new initiative, which must be coordinated with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards setting authority.

Background and Analysis

Increasing population concentration on the coasts of the United States has
resulted in greater coastal use for residential, commercial, industrial, and
recreational purposes. This greater coastal use has resulted in degradation of
coastal water quality, a decline in coastal wildlife, adverse changes to coastal
ecosystems, decreasing open space for public use, and shoreline erosion.

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA; P.L. 92-583) established
a role for the Federal Government in the management of coastal resources.
Other Federal programs related to coastal management, and discussed in other
sections of this briefing book, are coastal barrier protection, Federal flood
insurance, wetlands policy, water quality, and fisheries management.

The CZMA has provided financial incentives for the development of State
coastal zone management (CZM) plans, which the Federal Government must
approve. Now, 29 of 35 eligible coastal States and territories have federally
approved CZM plans. Once approved, coastal States and territories then have
a mechanism for managing coastal development and become eligible for
additional financial benefits through State administrative grants, the Estuarine
Research Reserves Program, and interstate grants. One important mechanism
for managing some types of coastal development is the requirement that Federal
activities be "consistent" with approved CZM plans.

The 101st Congress amended the CZMA (§6202 - §6217, P.L. 101-508),
reauthorizing its programs for another 5 years (FY1991 through FY1995);
providing incentives for States and territories without approved CZM plans to
complete the CZM plan approval process; and requiring that States with
approved CZM plans develop Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs.

*Prepared by Malcolm M. Simmons, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-67 The Coastal Environment

Also, the legislation established a Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Fund to
finance a new Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants program for regional and
interstate projects, demonstration projects, emergency assistance, awards, and
program development grants. Financing for the CZM Fund will come from the
repayment by States and territories of $87.5 million in outstanding loans
transferred to the Fund from the repealed Coastal Energy Impact Program. The
legislation also established a new "Technical Assistance" program to provide
Federal technical and management-oriented research necessary to support the
Enhancement Grants program. Finally, the amendments required that Federal
OCS oil and gas lease sales would have to be consistent with approved State
CZM plans (thus overturning a 1984 Supreme Court ruling).

Coastal Water Quality

Water quality is now controlled primarily through regulatory programs
administered by the EPA under the Clean Water Act (CWA). These programs
have focused primarily on point sources. Many proponents of a program for
improved coastal water quality maintain that control of nonpoint sources of
pollution is vital and that the CZMA is an important adjunct to programs under
the CWA for controlling nonpoint pollution sources.

The development of a coastal water quality control program was a dilemma
for the 101st Congress because of the perceived necessity of invoking authorities
contained in the CWA as well as the CZMA; yet the CZMA was up for
reauthorization in the 101st Congress, and the Clean Water Act was not (the
CWA is up for reauthorization in the 103rd Congress). The 101st Congress
passed legislation (enacted as §6217, P.L. 101-508) that required each State with
an approved CZM program to develop a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
(CNPC) program through its existing §306 authority. States were given 4 years
to complete the program, which must be implemented through authorities
contained in both the CWA and CZMA, and submitted for review and approval
to both the EPA and NOAA. States not submitting an approvable program in
the designated time could lose some of their State management §306) as well as
CWA §319 funding on a graduated basis. Significantly, the Congress required
coastal States to implement the CNPC program using guidance to be developed
by EPA; and to provide the necessary mechanisms to enforce nonpoint pollution
management measures.

Managing Land Uses

State CZM programs were already employing a wide variety of tools to
manage land uses within their coastal zones. The 101st Congress required
additional use of land use management tools, as seen in the requirements for the
CNPC program:

identification of land uses;

identification of critical areas;

development of coastal land use management measures;
provision of technical assistance;

CRS-68 The Coastal Environment

e _ identification/designation of outstanding coastal resource waters;

e administrative coordination among State agencies and between State
and local officials; and

e modification of State coastal zone boundaries.

Additionally, the legislation created a Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants
program ("Section 309" program) that also may have implications for the
management of coastal land uses. ‘This new effort would require the
Administrator of NOAA to implement a program in each coastal State to
encourage improvements in its management program in one or more of the
following eight areas of specified national interest: such as coastal wetlands
management and protection; natural hazards management; public access; marine
debris reduction; cumulative and secondary impacts; special management of
important coastal areas; management of ocean resources; and coastal energy
development. Finally, Congress created a new Technical Assistance program
(with authorized appropriations of $10 million per year) to provide the technical
assistance and management-oriented research necessary to support the
Enhancement Grants program.

Consistency Provision

The CZMA contains provisions that require various activities affecting the
coastal zone to be "consistent ... to the maximum extent practicable" with a
State’s CZM plan. While almost all consistency determinations have been
reached with little controversy, the consistency provision as it applies to Federal
OCS oil and gas leasing activities has created considerable debate.

Coastal State interests had been concerned that their input into the Federal
OCS leasing process was inadequately considered and that requiring a lease sale
to be "consistent" with a State’s coastal zone management (CZM) plan, through
an amendment to the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), would assure
protection of their interests. The Interior Department and the oil industry, on
the other hand, argued that a lease sale should not be subject to CZMA
consistency requirements because it does not directly affect the coastal zone;
only exploration and development/production activities of the post-lease phase
do. In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Interior Department/oil
industry position. In the 101st Congress, §6208 of the FY1991 budget
reconciliation legislation contained a provision that reversed the 1984 U.S.
Supreme Court ruling that supported the Interior Department/industry view,
thus requiring that OCS lease sales be consistent with State CZM plans.

While Congress addressed its consistency amendment principally to the
Federal OCS oil and gas leasing program, other consistency issues, such as ocean
dumping, were also affected. This amendment established a generally applicable
rule that any Federal agency activity may be subject to the CZMA consistency
requirement. The conferees dropped earlier provisions identifying specific
Federal activities (such as ocean dumping) subject to consistency, because they
did not want to imply that other specific activities not listed would be exempt.

CRS-69 The Coastal Environment

Status of the Issue

The 1990 CZMA Amendments reauthorized existing programs, established
a new coastal water quality program, and required consistency of all Federal
activities affecting the coastal zone. Congress at this time may wish to conduct
oversight hearings on how the new programs created by the 1990 amendments
are working. Additionally, Congress may wish to observe the coordination of the
coastal water quality program between NOAA and the EPA and to consider how
possible amendments to the Clean Water Act will affect this coordination.

Questions

1. How are the newly created enhancement grants (§309) and Technical
Assistance programs working? How do they relate to the existing 306 State
grants program?

2. Will any of the remaining six States which currently do not have an
approved CZM program proceed to develop one, particularly in light of the
new program development incentives provided in the 1990 CZMA
reauthorization?

3. Are the States proceeding in the development of the new required Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs (CNPCs)? Will Congress pass
amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) to carry out the CNPCs? How
well are the NOAA and EPA coastal water quality programs coordinated?

References

Godschalk, David R. Implementing Coastal Zone Management: 1972-1990.
Coastal Management, 20(2). April-June 1992.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Subcommittee on Oceanography, Great Lakes and the Outer Continental
Shelf. Hearing on Coastal America, a New Initiative Proposed in the
President’s Fiscal Year 1992 Budget. 102d Cong. Ist Sess. May 14, 1991.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1991. Serial No. 102-20.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Subcommittee on Oceanography and Great Lakes. Hearing on Coastal
Zone Management, Part II. 101st Cong., 2nd Sess. March 22, 1990.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1991. Serial No. 101-77.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Subcommittees on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the
Environment, and Oceanography and Great Lakes. Hearing on the Coastal
Defense Initiative of 1989. 101st Con., 1st Sess. June 27, 1989.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1989. Serial No. 101-26.

CRS-70 The Coastal Environment

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
Hearings on Coastal Pollution. 1st Cong., 2nd Sess. May 9-10, 1990.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1991.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
National Ocean Policy Study. Hearing on the Coastal Zone Improvement
Act of 1989. 101st Cong., 2nd Sess. May 9, 1990. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1990. S. Hrg. 101-795.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
National Ocean Policy Study. Hearing on Coastal Zone Management.
101st Cong., 1st Sess. August 3, 1989. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1989. S. Hrg. 101-302.

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. 1990
Amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act: a Summary. 1991.

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Coastal Resource
Issues in the 101st Congress. CRS Issue Brief IB90073. by Malcolm M.
Simmons. Washington, archived December 11, 1990.

CRS-71 Law of the Sea

U.S. NONPARTICIPATION IN THE
LAW OF THE SEA PREPARATORY COMMISSION’

Issue Definition

The United States actively participated for more than nine years in the
Third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference but, in 1982, voted against
adoption of the Convention on the Law of the Sea drafted by the Conference.
The United States did not sign the Convention but did sign the Final Act of the
Conference, a step that made it eligible to participate as an observer in the work
of the Preparatory Commission, often referred to as the PrepCom. The United
States, however, does not participate in the Commission and also withholds that
portion of its assessed contribution to the U.N. regular budget that would fund
PrepCom meetings. At issue is whether U.S. nonparticipation in the
Preparatory Commission is in the best interests for U.S. policy.

Background and Analysis

Resolution I of the Law of the Sea Conference provided for the
establishment of a Preparatory Commission that would meet after 50 states had
signed the Convention. Those states that had signed or acceded to the
Convention could participate fully in the work of the Commission and those
states that had signed only the Final Act could take part in the deliberations as
observers but not participate in the taking of decisions. The first session of the
PrepCom convened in Jamaica in April 1983. Since that time, the Commission
has met twice a year, either in Jamaica or in New York. Most of the functions
of the Preparatory Commission relate to the seabed mining portions of the Law
of the Sea Convention and consist of drafting rules, regulations, and procedures
under which the institutions established by the Convention will operate.

The United States opposed and remains opposed to acceptance of the
Convention as it is presently formulated because of seabed mining provisions in
Part XI and Annexes III and IV of the Convention. The executive branch took
two actions in 1982 to symbolize this opposition:

1) Refused tc participate in the work of the PrepCom: The USS.
executive branch maintains that the PrepCom "has no authority to
change the damaging provisions and precedents" in the Convention
and "for that reason, the United States is not participating in the
Commission." (Statement by Ronald Reagan, Public Papers of the
President, 1982, Book II, p. 1652)

*Prepared by Marjorie Ann Browne, Specialist in International Relations,
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division.

CRS-72 Law of the Sea

2) Withheld the U.S. share of its U.N. regular budget contribution that
would finance the PrepCom: U.S. officials maintain that the expenses
of the PrepCom are not expenses of the United Nations and thus to
finance them through the U.N. regular budget is "an improper
assessment...that is not legally binding, and adverse to the interests of
the United States." (White House Fact Sheet on UN Assessments for
the Seabed Authority and Law of the Sea Preparatory Commission,
December 30, 1982, p. 2)

U.S. attitudes and policies toward the United Nations have changed
significantly since 1982. In addition, the current fashioning of a "new world
order" in a post-Cold War and post-Persian Gulf era implies a redefining of aims
and goals for U.S. policy that may alter or reverse past policy positions. A
strategy that encourages greater use of the United Nations might find the
option of participation in the PrepCom to be more acceptable.

Associated with U.S. participation in the work of the Preparatory
Commission would be a change in the US. policy of withholding its pro rata
share of funding the work of the PrepCom. Current estimates on the amount
being withheld by the United States for this purpose follow:

Fiscal Year 1990 (Calendar Year 1989): $900,000
FY 1991 (CY 1990): $357,000
FY 1992 (CY 1991): $193,000

Status of the Issue

The Preparatory Commission concluded its resumed tenth session in New
York between August 10-21, 1992. Discussions during the final plenary meeting
addressed the failure of the PrepCom to facilitate "universal participation" in the
Convention and the wisdom of further efforts by the PrepCom in the absence
of wider acceptance of the Convention. The eleventh session of the Commission
took place in Kingston, Jamaica, March 22-April 2, 1993.

References

American Bar Association Section of International Law and Practice/Standing
Committee on World Order under Law. Report to the House of Delegates:
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. International lawyer, fall 1990. 24:
868-871.

The Law of the Sea: Official Text of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea with Annexes and Index; Final Act of the Third United
Nations Conference on the Law of. the Sea; Introductory Material on the
Convention and the Conference. New York, United Nations, 1983. xxxvii,
224 p.

CRS-73 Law of the Sea

United Nations publication sales no. E.83.V.5; LC call number: JX4421.L38
1983b.

Oceans Policy News, published by Council on Ocean Law, Washington, D.C.
See, for example: March-April 1991, Informal consultations hosted by
the UN Secretary General, p. 3, and U.S. Oceans Policy: Center for
Ocean Law and Policy Annual Seminar [Issues in Amending Part XI
of the LOS Convention], p. 4-9; and March 1992: Tenth Session of the
PrepCom, p. 1-3; The UN, Ocean Affairs, and the SYG’s Initiative, p.
3. [Oceans policy news regularly carries a summary of the meetings
of the Preparatory Commission.]

Richardson, Elliot L. Law of the Sea: a Reassessment of U.S. Interests.
Mediterranean Quarterly, spring 1990. 1(2): 1-13.

United Nations. Secretary-General. Law of the Sea; Report of the Secretary-
General. New York, United Nations, 1991. 66 p. (United Nations. General
Assembly. [U.N. document] A/46/724). This report, issued annually in the
late fall, is divided into two parts: Developments relating to the U.N.
Convention on the Law of the Sea; and Activities of the U.N. Office for
Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. The first part provides information
on the status of the Convention and on non-convention related
developments relating to the law of the sea as well as a brief summary of
the work of the Preparatory Commission.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. U.S. Participation in
the Law of the Sea Convention. Hearings, May 1, 1990. Unpublished.
Statements by Elliot Richardson, Former Special Representative of the
President for the Law of the Sea Conference; Professor Lewis Alexander,
Department of Marine Affairs, University of Rhode Island; James Silkenat,
Chairman, ABA Section on International Law and Practice; and James
Malone, Former Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs.

CRS-74 Law of the Sea

THE UNITED STATES AND THE 1982 CONVENTION’

Issue Definition

The United States actively participated in the negotiation of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea but, in 1982, voted against its
adoption and decided not to sign it. The United States is currently participating
in U.N.-sponsored consultations aimed at increasing participation in the
Convention. The issue for the United States is whether changes can be devised
for the seabed mining provisions of the Convention that would allow for
successful U.S. accession to the treaty.

Background and Analysis

While the Bush Administration viewed the Convention "as a major
accomplishment in the development of international law of the oceans," it
believed that the deep seabed mining portions of the Convention are "seriously
flawed” (statement by Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering to the U.N. General
Assembly, Nov. 20, 1989).

U.S. officials cite problems with Part XI and Annexes III and IV of the
Convention, arguing that it would:

e lack guaranteed assured access for qualified future miners;

° create a system of privileges for the Enterprise that would discriminate
against private and national miners;

° fail to give a proportionate voice to those countries most affected by
decisions in the deep seabed regime;

e allow for amendments to come into force without the specific consent
of individual states, a provision that is incompatible with U/S.
constitutional procedures for incurring treaty obligations; and

° create inappropriate precedents in its provisions on mandatory
transfer of technology and potential distribution of benefits to national
liberation movements.

Since 1982, the executive branch has taken steps that might be viewed as
bringing its maritime claims into line with certain other provisions of the
Convention. The Administration maintains that these U.S. steps, as well as
those provisions of the Convention, are "reflective of customary international
law." For example:

*Prepared by Marjorie Ann Browne, Specialist in International Relations,
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division.

CRS-75 Law of the Sea

e on March 10, 1983, President Reagan established a U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone extending 200 nautical miles beyond the coasts;

¢ on December 27, 1988, the President extended the U.S. territorial sea
from 3 to 12 nautical miles; and

° on September 23, 1989, the United States and the Soviet Union issued
a Joint Statement to accompany their interpretation of the rules of
international law governing innocent passage. The two nations agreed
that they were "guided" by the provisions of the 1982 Convention,
"which, with respect to traditional uses of the oceans, generally
constitute international law and practice and balance fairly the
interests of all States." (Joint Statement, in International Legal
Materials, November 1989: 1444-1447.)

Status of the Issue

Today, current U.S. policy toward the Convention is confronted by a
number of challenges, brought about by: 1) an increase in pressures for
universality of participation in the Convention, 2) an improvement in the
international political climate; and 3) a slow but steady increase in the number
of ratifications or accessions to the Convention that brings it closer to entry into
force.

In 1990, then-U.N. Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar initiated a
series of informal consultations among an estimated 30 U.N. member
representatives aimed at achieving universal participation in the Convention.
Then-U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Thomas Pickering
attended these meetings for the United States. The sixth informal meeting, the
last one under Perez de Cuellar, was held in December 1991. Secretary-General
Boutros Boutros-Ghali continued the initiative in 1992, holding the seventh
informal consultation in June 1992, with representatives from 72 countries
present. An eighth meeting was held in August 1992.

These consultations are not negotiations but informal meetings for the
presentation of views, aimed at producing a better understanding of the issues.
Many officials have been promoting negotiations aimed at changing either the
text or the application of provisions in the seabed mining portions of the
Convention. The United States, however, has not participated in any
negotiations toward that goal.

The changes in the international situation, including both the end of the
Cold War and the growing maturity of many nonaligned nations in the
multilateral arena, and the search by the Bush Administration for a "new world
order," may provide an opportunity for renewed consideration of the Law of the
Sea Convention. For example, the American Bar Association’s February 1990
House of Delegates meeting recommended the establishment by the President,
in consultation with Congress, of a "special high-level working group within the
United States government" to determine what changes and clarifications in the

CRS-76 Law of the Sea

deep seabed provisions of the Convention would make those sections acceptable
to the U.S.; what steps should be taken to make any such changes acceptable to
other countries; and to determine by what procedures such changes "can best be
introduced into or attached to the Convention." (Statement by James R.
Silkenat to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on May 1, 1990, p. 5;
hearings not printed.)

As of March 1,1992, 49 countries had ratified the Convention and two
countries had acceded to it, for a total of 51 ratifications and accessions. Entry
into force takes place one year after the receipt by the U.N. Secretary-General
of 60 ratifications or accessions.

The Convention has been ratified by: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda,
Bahamas, Bahrain, Belize, Botswana, Brazil, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Cote
d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana,
Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya,
Kuwait, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Nigeria, Oman, Paraguay, Philippines, Saint
Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Togo,
Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen
(Democratic Yemen and Yemen have since merged to form the Republic of
Yemen), Yugoslavia, Zaire, and Zambia. The Convention has been acceded to by:
Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands.

CRS-77 Mineral and
Energy Resources

SEABED HARD MINERALS’

Issue Definition

The decision by the Reagan Administration not to sign the Law of the Sea
(LOS) Convention because of provisions that were "inimical" to the interests of
the United States with regard to mining the seabed beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction still raises concern in some communities. In view of the apparent
near demise of the nascent deep seabed mining industry, the question is raised
whether the United States should review its position regarding the LOS
Convention. Aside from seabed mining, the United States supports most of the
provisions of the Convention. On the other hand, would this revive interest in
the seabed mining industry? Would it be in the national interest, as an
alternative source of copper, nickel, cobalt, manganese, and other metals, to
provide some form of incentives or assistance? Prototype technology has been
developed to recover ferromanganese nodules containing cobalt, copper, and
nickel, and other metals from the deep ocean floor, although economic feasibility
has not been demonstrated.

Background and Analysis

With passage of the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA)
of 1980 (P.L. 96-283), Congress established the framework for what was then
thought to be an interim domestic regime to regulate the activities of U-S.
nationals and firms who wished to engage in deep seabed nodule mining
activities in international waters, pending the entry into force for the United
States of the Law of the Sea (LOS) Convention. Subsequently, in 1982,
President Reagan announced that the United States would not sign the LOS
Convention, basing U.S. objections largely upon the seabed mining provisions
that it contained. Consequently, four seabed mining consortia involving U.S.
firms applied to NOAA, the lead agency under DSHMRA, for exploration
licenses. While the licenses have been granted, and sustained through required
activities and expenditures, the consortia have yet to proceed to the next step
of applying for commercial recovery permits.

By not being a signatory to the LOS Convention, the United States was
precluded from a participatory role in the Preparatory Commission, whose
purpose was to draft rules of procedures to implement the seabed mining regime
established by the Convention. Some argued that U.S. interests would have
been better served by participation in the Preparatory Commission. Others
argued that the seabed mining provisions of the LOS Convention are basically
inimical to the interests of the United States and that U.S. interests are better
served by legislation such as DSHMRA and agreements such as the Provisional

“Prepared by James E. Mielke, Specialist in Marine and Earth Sciences,
Science Policy Research Division.

CRS-78 Mineral and
Energy Resources

Understanding on Deep Seabed Matters, which the United States has with seven
other nations who have developed seabed mining technology.

In March 1993, the Preparatory Commission completed its "provisional final
report". In the meantime, the UN Secretary-General has held a series of
informal consulations on concerns with the seabed mining provisions of the LOS
Convention, and on April 28, 1993, submitted an Information Note outlining
results to date and suggesting options for putting into effect the results of the
consultations. On April 27, 1993, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
announced that the United States would participate in the current (10th) round
of informal consultations. Currently, 56 countries have ratified or acceded to
the LOS Convention of the 60 required for entry into force.

Questions

1. Should the United States reconsider ratifying the Law of the Sea
Convention and seek to move the international community toward more
acceptable provisions for deep seabed mining?

2. Is it in the national interest as an alternative source of copper, nickel,
cobalt, manganese, and other metals to provide some form of support or
incentives for a domestic seabed mining industry?

References

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Marine Minerals: Exploring
Our New Ocean Frontier. OTA-O-342. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
July 1987. 347 p.

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Hard Minerals in
the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone: Resource Assessments and Expectations,
Part I -- Sand and Gravel, Placers, and Phosphorite. CRS Report 87-885
SPR. by James E. Mielke. Washington, Nov. 6, 1987. 50 p.

---- Hard Minerals in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone: Resource Assessments
and Expectations, Part II -- Ferromanganese Nodules, Cobalt-Manganese
Crusts, and Polymetallic Sulfide Deposits. CRS Report 87-975 SPR. by
James E. Mielke. Washington, Dec. 15, 1987. 52 p.

CRS-79 Mineral and
Energy Resources

MARINE MINING WITHIN THE U.S. EEZ’

Issue Definition

From gravel to gold, hard minerals on the ocean floor are attracting
commercial interest. For the United States, the marine minerals with potential
for development include placer deposits of heavy minerals (e.g. gold, platinum,
chromite, and titanium minerals), sand and gravel, and phosphorite deposits.
Mining of gold off Nome, Alaska began in 1987, and sand and gravel have been
dredged from the entrance to New York Harbor as a needed source of
construction aggregate for the New York market. In addition, prototype
technology has been developed to recover ferromanganese nodules containing
cobalt, copper, and nickel, and other metals from the deep ocean floor, although
economic feasibility is still in the future.

Background and Analysis

By proclamation of the President on March 10, 1983, the United States
claimed sovereign rights and jurisdiction within an Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ) extending 200 nautical miles seaward from the coast of the United States
and USS. territories. In joining the majority of coastal nations in declaring a
200-mile EEZ, the United States is left with the question of establishing a
minerals management regime for the area. The Department of the Interior
(DOT) has asserted that the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act is a
suitable mechanism. Legislation was introduced in the 99th, 100th and 101st
Congresses that would establish a much different regime.

The declaration of an Exclusive Economic Zone has given the United States
a vast new frontier, larger than its onshore territory. The EEZ contains
important natural resources, but because most of the EEZ has not been
explored, its resources and their potential are largely undefined. Recently,
deposits of polymetallic sulfides have been discovered in spreading centers such
as the Gorda Ridge off Oregon and cobalt-manganese nodules and crusts have
been found on the flanks and tops of seamounts in the Central Pacific. While
these are years away from being commercially recoverable, they could become
a major future source of strategic and other minerals important to the U.S.
economy.

Legislative authority for managing mineral resources within the EEZ is
somewhat unclear. Two laws could be brought to apply: the OCS Lands Act
under which the Department of the Interior has jurisdiction over the leasing of
minerals on the continental shelf, and the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources
Act under which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
in the Department of Commerce has. jurisdiction over the development of

_ “Prepared by James E. Mielke, Specialist in Marine and Earth Sciences,
Science Policy Research Division.

CRS-80 Mineral and
Energy Resources

ferromanganese nodule resources by U.S. citizens operating in international
waters. While either of these two Acts could be amended to accommodate
development of mineral resources within the EEZ, each serves best its specific
purpose. The Department of the Interior holds the view that the OCS Lands
Act is an adequate vehicle for management of the mineral resources of the EEZ,
but others point out that many of its provisions, such as competitive bidding,
were designed for petroleum development by a mature offshore oil industry, and
are not appropriate for the innovation of deep ocean hard mineral recovery.
Consequently, legislation has been introduced in previous Congresses to address
such questions as revenue sharing, State/Federal relationships, appropriate
managerial procedures and safeguards, and the roles of the Federal agencies,
particularly the DOI and NOAA.

Questions

1. Would management of the seabed mineral resources of the Exclusive
Economic Zone be better organized under the Department of the Interior
or the Department of Commerce?

2. Ifanew Federal regime for management of resources within the Exclusive
Economic Zone were created, should coastal States have greater
participation in development decisions and receive a portion of any
royalties?

References

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Marine Minerals: Exploring
Our New Ocean Frontier. OTA-O-342. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
July 1987. 347 p.

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Hard Minerals in
the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone: Resource Assessments and Expectations,
Part I -- Sand and Gravel, Placers, and Phosphorite. CRS Report 87-885
SPR. by James E. Mielke. Washington, Nov. 6, 1987. 50 p.

---- Hard Minerals in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone: Resource Assessments
and Expectations, Part II -- Ferromanganese Nodules, Cobalt-Manganese
Crusts, and Polymetallic Sulfide Deposits. CRS Report 87-975 SPR. by
James E. Mielke. Washington, Dec. 15, 1987. 52 p.

CRS-81 Mineral and
Energy Resources

OCS LEASING MORATORIA‘’

Issue Definition

In recent years Congress has imposed various one-year leasing moratoria
for defined areas within certain Outer Continental Shelf leasing regions. The
imposition of moratoria has occurred because many coastal States and
environmental groups have convinced Congress that their input into the
planning process has not been adequately considered in the drive for increased
offshore oil and gas production, and that leasing tracts in environmentally
sensitive areas might lead to activities that could cause irreversible damage.
President Bush issued a 1990 statement on the OCS leasing program, in which
he indicated that many of the leasing areas that Congress had placed in
moratoria should be off bounds to leasing until the year 2000. At issue for
Congress is whether to make the sequential one-year moratoria legislation of the
past 10 years (which have effectively precluded leasing in all OCS areas except
the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico) multi-year or permanent moratoria.

Background and Analysis

Congress has enacted moratoria through provisions in the Interior
Department appropriations enactments for the fiscal years 1982 through 1993.
The specific areas covered by the moratoria have varied from year to year: New
England (FY84 through FY93), California (FY82 through FY85, FY89 through
FY93), Eastern Gulf (FY84, FY89 through FY93), Mid-Atlantic (FY83, FY90
through FY93), South Atlantic (FY93), Alaska’s North Aleutian Basin (FY90
through FY93), and the Pacific Northwest (FY91 through FY93). Generally,
however, the total acreage placed off bounds to leasing has increased every
subsequent year: from 736,000 acres in four Northern California basins in FY82,
to 468.6 million acres off California, the Pacific Northwest, the Atlantic Coast,
Florida’s Gulf Coast, and Alaska’s North Aleutian Basin in FY93.

As reflected in President Clinton’s FY1994 budget proposal, the
Administration’s position on OCS leasing is both to continue leasing in areas
where leasing was occurring previously -- that is, in the Central and Western
Gulf of Mexico, and some Alaskan Basins -- and to continue the OCS moratoria
contained in the FY1993 appropriations legislation.

The most recent annual moratoria, enacted as part of the FY1993 Interior
Department appropriations legislation (P.L. 102-381), incorporated President
Bush’s recommendations for California, southwestern Florida, the Georges
Bank, and Washington/Oregon. Additionally, the legislation included moratoria
in the North Aleutian Basin, a 50-mile wide stretch along the entire Atlantic
Coast,.and the.Eastern Gulf OCS. off northwestern Florida. The total acreage

“Prepared by Malcolm M. Simmons, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-82 Mineral and
Energy Resources

in the FY1993 moratoria was 468.6 million acres. Multiyear moratoria were
considered in the comprehensive energy legislation of the previous Congress but
were dropped in conference.

Status of the Issue

The FY1993 Interior Department appropriations legislation (P.L. 102-381)
enacted OCS moratoria off California, the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the entire
Atlantic Coast, Alaska’s North Aleutian Basin, and Washington/Oregon. The
FY1994 Interior Department appropriations legislation (H.R. 2520), as reported
by the House, would continue the FY1993 moratoria for another year.

In previous years, congressional OCS moratoria have been enacted through
annual Department of the Interior appropriations legislation. With the
President’s recommended policy of continuing for FY1994 the OCS annual
moratoria in the FY1993 Interior Department appropriations enactment, it is
unclear to what extent Congress may pursue enactment of annual or multiyear
moratoria. In the 102nd Congress, the Senate passed (S. 2166) multiyear
moratoria (until the year 2000) for OCS areas off California, the North Atlantic,
New Jersey, Washington/Oregon, and southwest Florida, as well as directed the
buyback of existing leases off southwest Florida; on the House side, H.R. 776
would have established multiyear moratoria (until the year 2002) in areas
currently under annual moratoria, and provided for buyback of leases off North
Carolina, southwest Florida, and Alaska’s North Aleutian Basin after October
1, 1995.

Questions

1. How much acreage Congress may place under moratoria, and will it exceed
the current 468.6 million acres in the FY1993 legislation?

2. Will Congress enact multiyear moratoria?

3. How would enactment of moratoria relate to enactment of OCS coastal
impact assistance?

4. How would enactment of moratoria relate to national energy strategy
legislation and the President’s interest in development of domestic natural

gas?
References

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Subcommittee on Oceanography, Great Lakes and the Outer Continental
Shelf. Hearing on Outer Continental Shelf Policy Issues that Impact our
Coastal States and Affect our National Energy Strategy. 102d Cong., 1st
Sess. Sept. 25, 1991. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1991. Serial No.
102-40.

CRS-83 Mineral and

Energy Resources

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Subcommittee on Oceanography, Great Lakes and the Outer Continental
Shelf. Hearing on Review of the President’s Five-Year Plan to Manage
Future Oil and Gas Development in Our Nation’s Outer Continental Shelf
Region. 102d Cong., 1st Sess. April 11, 1991. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1991. Serial No. 102-16.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearing
on Legislation Relating to Oil and Gas Leasing on the Outer Continental
Shelf. 102d Cong., 1st Sess. July 17, 1991. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., 1991. S. Hrg. 102-224

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Outer Continental
Shelf Leasing and Development: Issues in the 103d Congress. CRS Issue
Brief IB93037. by Malcolm M. Simmons. Washington, updated regularly.

soo Congressional Research Service. OCS Leasing Moratoria: Their Overlap
with Estimates of Oil and Gas Resources. CRS Report 92-454 ENR. by
Malcolm M. Simmons. Washington, May 21, 1992.

CRS-84 Mineral and
Energy Resources

OCS COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE”

Issue Definition

The Federal Government receives substantial revenues from offshore oil
and gas development. The principal participants in the debate before Congress
(environmentalists, industry, coastal communities, States, and the
Administration) all seem to agree to the desirability of enacting OCS coastal
impact assistance legislation, although their rationales for such a program, as
well as how such a program would be structured, still may differ.

Most coastal States, except those in the central and western Gulf of Mexico,
have opposed OCS activities off their coasts, mostly because of environmental
concerns, but also because they do not share the OCS revenues produced (except
in the case of shared revenues from so-called "8g” tracts). Coastal impact
assistance was passed by the House and Senate in their respective
comprehensive energy bills in the 102nd Congress, but was dropped in
conference before enactment.

Background and Analysis

The Federal Government receives bonuses, rents and royalties from the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas leasing program. For most sales,
prospective lessees make bids -- called bonus bids -- on a tract (approximately 9
square miles). The winning bidder is entitled to explore and develop the tract.
Once acquired, the lessee pays rent on the tract, until the lease expires or is
relinquished, or development of oil and gas occurs. If oil, gas, or sulphur
production occurs, the lessee pays royalties on that production.

OCS revenues are substantial. Table 1 shows these revenues from 1970
through 1990. OCS revenues were the second largest source of revenue for the
Federal Government before progressively increasing congressionally mandated
OCS moratoria, together with declining oil prices, limited OCS leasing and
development activities. The high year for total OCS receipts was calendar year
1981, when the Federal Government received $9.966 billion in bonuses, rents,
and royalties. In calendar year 1991, the Federal Government received $2.794
billion.

_ “Prepared by Malcolm M. Simmons, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-85 Mineral and
Energy Resources

TABLE 1. Revenues from the Federal OCS Leasing Program,
Calendar Year 1970 through 1992

($ in billions)
Year Bonus Royalty Rent Total
1970 0.945 0.285 0.009 1.239
1971 0.096 0.352 0.008 0.456
1972 2.251 0.366 0.008 2.625
1973 3.082 0.404 0.009 3.495
1974 5.023 0.562 0.014 5.599
1975 1.088 0.618 0.018 a23
1976 2.243 0.702 0.023 2.968
1977 1.568 0.921 0.020 2.510
1978 1.767 152 0.022 2.941
1979 5.079 1.517 0.020 6.616
1980 4.205 2.139 0.019 6.363
1981 6.653 3.291 0.022 9.966
1982 3.987 3.817 0.020 7.825
1983 5.749 3.459 0.032 9.240
1984 3.929 3.968 0.036 7.932
1985 1.558 3.643 0.062 5.262
1986 0.187 2.565 0.053 2.805
1987 0.497 2.372 0.075 2.944
1988 1.259 2.095 0.063 3.418
1989 0.646 2.190 0.079 2.915
1990 0.584 2.704 0.079 3.367
1991 0.339 2.376 0.079 2.794
1992 0.085 2.561 0.060 2.706

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,
"Federal Offshore Statistics: 1992" (1993). See Table 46.

The principal participants in the debate before Congress (environmentalists,
industry, coastal communities, States, and the Administration) have held varying
opinions on coastal impact assistance, or at least as to how it should be
structured. These opinions were most clearly expressed during the debates in
the 98th Congress. In contrast to the Reagan Administration, the Bush
Administration supported coastal impact assistance.

The Bush Administration’s favorable view towards revenue sharing,
expressed in the President’s June 1990 statement on Federal OCS leasing
program, was clearly intended to be an inducement to new OCS leasing and
development activities. Under the Bush Administration-proposed legislation in
the 102nd Congress (H.R.4128/S.2175), coastal States and communities would
receive some royalty revenue--based on a sliding scale beginning at 12.5%--from

CRS-86 Mineral and
Energy Resources

new development, and would have no restrictions placed on their use of these
revenues.

Status of the Issue

A principal consideration regarding OCS coastal impact assistance is how
it may relate to congressional intent as to OCS moratoria, which have increased
acreage unavailable for leasing every year since FY1982. To the extent that
coastal impact assistance is based on new OCS activities offshore individual
States, more acreage under moratoria would mean less potential revenue to
share. It is unclear if, or to what extent, States now opposing OCS development
through support of moratoria would drop that support if offered a share of the
revenues. To a large extent, such a change would likely be conditioned on a
State’s careful evaluation (or reevaluation) of both the potential spill risk and
the interaction between petroleum and other coastal industries; and to a lesser
extent, it would likely be conditioned by a State’s current fiscal situation.

A second consideration is congressional intent as to a national energy
strategy, and the extent that such a strategy would target the OCS as a source
for additional domestic oil and gas production, and the extent to which coastal
impact assistance would be viewed as an incentive for this production.

So far in the 103rd Congress, no OCS coastal impact assistance legislation
has been introduced. In the 102nd Congress, the comprehensive energy
legislation (S. 2166) passed by the Senate contained provisions for two coastal
impact assistance funds: non-federal revenues in the first were based on a
sliding scale beginning at 12.5% of new royalties; non-federal revenues for the
second were based on 4% of the previous year’s royalty revenue. On the House
side, H.R. 776 would have established a coastal impact assistance fund comprised
of 4% of the average annual OCS revenues from the previous three fiscal years
and provided for an annual 5% increase of revenues deposited into the fund.

Questions

1. How does OCS coastal impact assistance relate to congressional intent on
OCS moratoria. Would States now opposing OCS development through
their support of moratoria drop that support if offered a share of the
revenues?

2. To what extent would a State’s support of OCS coastal impact assistance
be related to perception of the potential spill risk and the interaction
between petroleum and other coastal industries?

3. To what extent would a State’s support of OCS coastal impact assistance
be related to that State’s current fiscal situation?

CRS-87 Mineral and
Energy Resources

4. How is OCS coastal impact assistance related to future national energy
strategy legislation? Would such legislation target the OCS as a source for
additional domestic oil and gas production, and to what extent would
coastal impact assistance would be viewed as an incentive for this

production?

References

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Subcommittee on Oceanography, Great Lakes and the Outer Continental
Shelf. Hearing on Outer Continental Shelf Policy Issues that Impact our
Coastal States and Affect our National Energy Strategy. 102d Cong., 1st
Sess. September 25, 1991. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1991.
Serial No. 102-40.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Subcommittee on Oceanography, Great Lakes and the Outer Continental
Shelf. Hearing on Review of the President’s Five-Year Plan to Manage
Future Oil and Gas Development in Our Nation’s Outer Continental Shelf
Region. 102d Cong., lst Sess. April 11, 1991. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1991. Serial No. 102-16.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearing
on Legislation Relating to Oil and Gas Leasing on the Outer Continental
Shelf. 102nd Cong., Ist Sess. July 17, 1991. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., 1991. S. Hrg. 102-224.

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Outer Continental
Shelf Leasing and Development: Issues in the 102d Congress. CRS Issue
Brief IB91063. by Malcolm M. Simmons. Washington, updated regularly.

----- OCS Revenue Sharing. CRS Report 91-182 ENR. by Malcolm M. Simmons.
Washington, February 15, 1991.

----- Comparison of Ten Coastal Impact Assistance Bills. General Memorandum
by Malcolm M. Simmons. Washington, May 8, 1992.

CRS-88 Mineral and
Energy Resources

OCS 5-YEAR LEASING PROGRAM’

Issue Definition

The five-year OCS leasing plan for the years mid-1992 through mid-1997
has fewer sales than the previous plan, and avoids leasing in most, but not all,
areas where Congress has imposed moratoria. It is unclear how the proposed
plan will relate to congressional consideration of OCS development as an
element of a national energy strategy, or OCS coastal impact assistance as an
incentive for OCS development. In looking at these variables, the issue for
Congress is how to balance development of OCS oil and gas resources with
environmental protection.

Background and Analysis

The principal authority for OCS oil and gas development is the OCS Lands
Act of 1953, as amended. Important amendments in 1978 provided for balancing
between expedited exploration and development and protection of the human,
marine, and coastal environments. A provision (§18) was included to authorize
the Department of the Interior to conduct a 5-year lease sale planning process.
Interior’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) has responsibility for the
Federal OCS leasing process and prepares a 5-year-plan for the upcoming sales
in the subregions of the four major leasing regions (Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, and
Alaskan).

The entire process for developing the current five-year plan took three
years. The process began in July 1989 when the MMS issued a Federal Register
notice soliciting information from the States, local governments, industry, and
the public. The MMS developed its proposed final plan from the information
received through the notice.

The MMS released its first draft of the proposed five-year leasing plan in
February 1991. After a 60-day comment period, the MMS reviewed the
comments and modified the proposed plan. The MMS released the second draft
plan and its draft EIS on July 31, 1991 for a 90-day comment period. After
reviewing these comments and modifying the second draft plan, the MMS
released the draft final plan on May 1, 1992. There followed a 60-day
congressional notification period, after which the Interior Department approved
the plan July 1, 1992.

The new plan has fewer sales (18) than the previous one (originally 37).
Except in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico, the proposed plan does not
employ the "“areawide approach;" rather, the plan would target leasing to smaller
areas within planning regions, while deferring certain environmentally sensitive

_ “Prepared by Malcolm M. Simmons, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-89 Mineral and
Energy Resources

areas. Many sales would be limited to a fixed number of tracts: 250 in the only
mid- and South Atlantic sale in 1996, 200 in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico (north
of 26 degrees North Latitude) sale in 1995, and 250 in the Cook Inlet sale in
1994.

The development of the next 5-year plan (mid-1997 through mid-2002) will
begin in 1994. The current 5-year plan is being reviewed.

Status of the Issue

The only areas of the proposed plan that do not coincide with congressional
intent as reflected in the FY1991 moratoria, are the Mid- and South Atlantic
region, and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico off northwest Florida. In these areas,
the plan proposes leasing.

Congress may wish to conduct oversight hearings on the development of the
next plan, to evaluate issues such as the plan’s relationship to congressional
intent on moratoria, national energy strategy, and OCS coastal impact
assistance. Moratoria provisions of one year’s duration were contained in the
FY1993 Interior Department appropriations legislation. Multiyear moratoria
and coastal impact assistance provisions were contained in the comprehensive
energy legislation (S. 2166 and H.R. 776) of the 102nd Congress.

Questions

1. How does current five-year plan relate to current congressional moratoria?
How will it address such moratoria?

2. How does the current five-year plan relate to OCS proposals for coastal
impact assistance?

3. What changes will be necessary for the next five-year plan, for the years
mid-1997 through mid-2002?

Reference
U:S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Outer Continental

Shelf Leasing and Development: Issues in the 102d Congress. CRS Issue
Brief IB91063. by Malcolm M. Simmons. Washington, updated regularly.

CRS-90 Mineral and
Energy Resources

EVALUATION OF OCS ENVIRONMENTAL RISK’

Issue Definition

One of the key congressional concerns over OCS leasing is environmental
risk. This concern is largely responsible for the increasing acreage under
congressional moratoria. In FY1993, 468.6 million acres were under moratoria.
While Congress has imposed OCS moratoria, it was also responding to the Bush
Administration’s position that development of domestic gas would be an
important part of its energy and environmental strategy. Any congressional
resolution of these conflicting developments most likely will involve a
determination of environmental risk.

Background and Analysis

The risk of an oil spill from domestic OCS oil exploration and development
activities has declined dramatically since 1970, although it still remains. The
reasons for this improved environmental record are probably both the success
of new drilling and production technologies and more stringent environmental
controls. An example of successful technology is improved blowout preventers.
Examples of more stringent environmental controls include requirements for
burial of pipelines, worker training programs, inspection programs, and oil spill
contingency plans.

It is widely recognized that the spill risk from domestically produced OCS
oil, piped to a shore facility, is far less than that for tankered oil both from
abroad and from domestic onshore sources (the Exxon Valdez spill was Prudhoe
Bay onshore-produced oil). The volume of oil spilled into U.S. waters is more
likely to increase the more tankered imported oil is substituted for OCS
production.

The spill risk from development of OCS gas is much less than the risk for
OCS oil development. Many undeveloped OCS areas, such as the Baltimore
Canyon in the Mid-Atlantic OCS, the Georges Bank in the North Atlantic OCS,
and the Pacific Northwest OCS, are thought to be gas-prone and the risk of
spills to be minor.

Public perceptions of OCS-related spill damage do not reflect the improved
environmental record, possibly because the oil industry in general is blamed for
oil spill damage whether or not related to a particular activity. The public does
not appear to distinguish between the oil spill risk from OCS oil development -
- where it is very low relative to tankered oil -- and OCS gas development --
where the risk is almost nonexistent.

“Prepared by Malcolm M. Simmons, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.

CRS-91 Mineral and
Energy Resources

Environmentalists and other critics of OCS production, particularly with
regard to pristine areas with few people, maintain that large scale coastal
infrastructure development (such as refining and attendant industries, and
transportation) would accompany OCS development and that oil rigs on the
horizon would ruin ocean views. Proponents of development indicate that, to
some extent, pipeline technology may make possible the “export” of
infrastructure development to other areas more amenable to it. To a lesser
extent, rigs can be made less obtrusive, and, through subsea horizontal drilling,
provide an extended extraction network that can ultimately require fewer rigs.

Oil spill and other environmental risk is sometimes difficult to evaluate.
Equally difficult to determine is whether adequate environmental information
exists for making leasing decisions. Important sources of environmental
information are EISs. Other major sources are the studies produced through
the Department of the Interior’s Environmental Studies Program established
under §20 of the OCSLAA. Still other sources are information from the
processes under OCSLAA §18 (5-year OCS plan) and §19 (State consultation).

It is sometimes difficult for an interested party, such as an affected State,
to review all the sources of OCS environmental information, to review this
information as a comprehensive whole, and to determine its adequacy for
making leasing decisions. Review and adequacy determinations are often done
by an independent agency such as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS); it
has undertaken such reviews for OCS areas off California, south Florida, and
the Georges Bank; and is currently conducting reviews of three Alaskan OCS
areas (Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, and Navarin Basin). Congress may request
the NAS to perform such a review; the most recent reviews have taken at least
a year to complete.

Status of the Issue

Underlying the congressional imposition of moratoria is the public concern
over oil spill risk. Before the possibility of increased OCS production may be
addressed, it is likely that the public will press for re-examination of the relative
risk potential of OCS development compared to other hydrocarbon supply
options. The outcome of such an evaluation could be an important factor in
congressional consideration of OCS moratoria and the President’s interest in the
development of natural gas.

Specific questions the 103d Congress may wish to evaluate include the
different oil spill risks posed by tankered and OCS-produced oil, and how (and
when) the new oil spill liability law (P.L. 101-380) will affect these different
risks. Additionally, the Congress may decide to involve the National Academy
of Sciences in additional independent analyses to determine the adequacy of
area-specific environmental information on which to base leasing decisions.

CRS-92 Mineral and
Energy Resources

Questions

1. Towhat extent is perception or determination of environmental risk related
to enactment of moratoria?

2. Towhat extent is perception or determination of environmental risk related
to the development of natural gas?

3. What are the different oil-spill risks of OCS-produced oil versus tankered
oil? Will the new oil spill liability law affect these differential risks?

4. Are there more potential leasing areas where Congress may want the
National Academy of Sciences, or some other independent organization or
process, to determine the adequacy of area-specific environmental
information on which to base leasing decisions?

References

National Academy of Sciences. National Research Council. Commission on
Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources. Board on Environmental
Studies and Toxicology. The Adequacy of Environmental Information for
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Decisions: Florida and California.

National Academy of Sciences. National Research Council. Physical
Oceanography Panel. Assessment of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf
Environmental Studies Program: I. Physical Oceanography. Washington,
July 1990.

U.S. Department of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. The Offshore
Environmental Studies Program (1973-1989): a Summary of the Minerals
Management Service Research Conducted on the U.S. Outer Continental
Shelf. OCS Report MMS 90-0095. Washington, December 1990.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Offshore Oil and Gas: Environmental Studies
Program Meets Most User Needs But Changes Needed. GAO/RCED-88-104.
Washington, June 1988.

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Outer Continental
Shelf Leasing and Development: Issues in the 102d Congress. CRS Issue
Brief IB91063. by Malcolm M. Simmons. Washington, updated regularly.

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Record of Spillage
Resulting from OCS-Related Activities. General Memorandum. by Malcolm
M. Simmons. Washington, May 9, 1991.

CRS-93 Antarctica

ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND MINERAL RESOURCES’

Issue Definition

Antarctica, home to penguins, seals, and whales, and long of interest to
explorers and scientists, has also attracted controversy as a potential source of
petroleum and other mineral resources, although no recoverable deposits have
yet been discovered. After seven years of negotiation, on June 2, 1988, in
Wellington, New Zealand, the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic
Mineral Resource Activities (also known as CRAMRA or the "Wellington
Convention") was adopted by consensus of the nations that were Consultative
Parties (20 at that time) to the Antarctic Treaty. The convention, negotiated
under the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty, would have established an
environmentally based regulatory framework for possible future development of
mineral resources in Antarctica. Almost immediately, however, it came under
attack by those who feared that any development of mineral resources in
Antarctica would adversely affect the pristine nature of the continent.
Consequently, the negotiators representing the Antarctic Treaty Consultative
Parties (those countries with significant established research interests in
Antarctica, of which there are now 26) negotiated a new measure that would
place a ban on mineral resource development in Antarctica and preserve its
environmental quality. This measure is known as the Protocol on
Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, with Annexes. It was
submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent for ratification and was
approved on October 7, 1992 (Treaty Doc. 102-22).

Background and Analysis

The primary purpose of the Antarctic Treaty is to ensure that "Antarctica
shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not
become the scene or object of international discord." The treaty provides for
freedom of scientific research in Antarctica and promotes international
cooperation toward that end. Through Consultative Meetings and other
provisions of the treaty, a growing complex of arrangements for regulating
activities of nations in the Antarctic has evolved. This complex of arrangements
is known as the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), the center of which is the treaty
itself. Other aspects of the ATS include recommendations adopted at
Consultative Meetings and separate agreements and conventions adopted at
Special Consultative Meetings. Among the separate agreements and conventions
that have been adopted are the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of
Antarctic Fauna and Flora, the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic
Seals, and the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources. CRAMRA was intended to complement these other agreements and
create a more comprehensive management regime for Antarctica.

“Prepared by James E. Mielke, Specialist in Marine and Earth Sciences,
Science Policy Research Division.

CRS-94 Antarctica

Even though CRAMRA was intended to establish an environmentally sound
management regime for mineral resource activities, considerable pressure was
brought forth by those who opposed any future minerals development.
Consequently, on October 4, 1991, the Consultative Parties concluded the
Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty which specifically
prohibits all activities relating to Antarctic mineral resources, except scientific
research, with the proviso that this prohibition cannot be amended by less than
unanimous agreement of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties for at least
50 years after entry into force of the Protocol. Detailed mandatory rules for
environmental protection pursuant to the provisions of the Protocol are
contained in a series of annexes forming an integral part of the Protocol. Any
modification of the minerals ban would require unanimous consent of the
Consultative Parties and that an acceptable binding legal regime on Antarctic
mineral resource activities be in place before the ban could be lifted.

The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty
designates Antarctica as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science and
commits the contracting parties to the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic
environment and dependent and associated ecosystems. The protocol establishes
a Committee for Environmental Protection to provide advice and formulate
recommendations to the Consultative Parties. The protocol is currently
accompanied by five annexes (four were adopted with the Protocol and the fifth
two weeks later) dealing with environmental impact assessment, conservation
of Antarctic fauna and flora, waste disposal and management, prevention of
marine pollution, and area protection and management. Additional annexes may
be adopted and become effective in accordance with provisions of the Antarctic
Treaty.

Questions

1. Although 50 years seems like a long time, there are still many who would
not wish to have any future minerals development occur in Antarctica.
These concerns are often embodied in terms of establishing Antarctica as
a world park. In such an event, how would the contentious question of
territorial claims be resolved?

2. While the issue of mineral development activities in Antarctica is resolved
for the present, the question of negotiating an acceptable minerals
management regime for possible future use still remains. Is CRAMRA still
viable in the future or if not, how might it be improved?

References

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Antarctica:
Environmental Protection Issues. CRS Report 89-272 ENR. Summary of
a CRS workshop. by Susan R. Fletcher. Washington, April 10, 1989. 57

p. w/app.

CRS-95 Antarctica

---- Environmental Effects of Recent Activities in Antarctica. CRS Report 89-
439 SPR. by M. Lynne Corn, Marjorie Ann Browne, Eugene H. Buck, and
James E. Mielke. Washington, June 1988. 46 p.

---- Potential Mineral Resources in Antarctica and the Antarctic Minerals
Convention. CRS Report 90-72 SPR. by James E. Mielke. Washington,
Feb. 5, 1990. 52 p.

---- Antarctica: Environmental Protection and Conservation of Resources.
CRS Issue Brief IB92108. by James E. Mielke and Marjorie Ann Browne.
Washington, updated regularly.

CRS-96 Antarctica

THE ANTARCTIC TREATY SYSTEM
AND THE IMPACT OF UNITED NATIONS DEBATES”

Issue Definition

This fall, the United Nations General Assembly will discuss the possibility
of establishing a U.N.-sponsored station in the Antarctic. The 1991 debate
marks the ninth year that the Assembly has considered the “Question of
Antarctica." Since debate began, in 1983, the number of states parties to the
Antarctic Treaty has increased from 28 to 40. During the same time, the
Consultative Parties have admitted 10 countries to their number. Since 1984,
the overall direction of the Assembly’s considerations seems to be replacement
of the regime established in the 1959 Antarctic Treaty with a new structure
negotiated under U.N. auspices. This chapter discusses the background of U.N.
debate on the issue and the extent to which U.N. considerations have had an
impact on the decisions of the Antarctic Consultative Parties.

Background and Analysis

The Antarctic Treaty, which entered into force on June 23, 1961, serves as
the backbone of a system of treaty organizations often referred to as the
Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). The Treaty establishes a meeting of
consultations among the "Consultative Parties" to it [the original 12 states party
to the Treaty plus those invited, by virtue of establishing scientific research
programs in Antarctica, to participate as consultative parties]. The Antarctic
Consultative Parties meet every other year to discuss common problems
associated with their activities in the Antarctic. They have adopted, for
governmental approval, a total of 199 recommendations, 123 (62 percent) of
which have entered into force.

Other components of the ATS include the other treaties negotiated and
adopted by the Antarctic Consultative Parties. They include the Convention for
the Conservation of Antarctic Seals and the Convention on the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources. In 1988, the Antarctic Consultative Parties
negotiated and opened for signature a Convention on the Regulation of
Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities. This treaty did not enter into force and
was suspended. A Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty
was adopted and opened for signature on October 4, 1991 (until October 3,
1992). Lastly, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research is an active
participant in the ATS, providing scientific information and reports to the
Antarctic Consultative Meetings on a wide variety of issues before the Meetings.

By the early 1980s, the ATS was being criticized by some as "an exclusive
club,” with participation in the consultative meetings excluding both treaty
parties who were not consultative parties and international organizations that

“Prepared by Marjorie Ann Browne, Specialist in International Relations,
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division.

CRS-97 Antarctica

have some expertise on issues discussed at the meetings. Moreover, consultative
meetings were closed to the public and some reports submitted for discussion at
the meetings were never released as public documents. These circumstances
fostered suspicions among those outside the system over the actions of
consultative parties and raised questions over the accountability of the ATS to
the larger international community.

United Nations Considerations

The U.N. debates began in 1983, at the request of Antigua and Barbuda
and Malaysia. Spurred by Antarctic Consultative Party negotiations on a
mineral resource regime, these two countries argued for assurances that
activities in Antarctica be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole.
Australia, speaking on behalf of the Consultative Parties, maintained that the
Antarctic Treaty was open to all nations and had averted international strife
and territorial disputes over Antarctica. The Assembly called on the U.N.
Secretariat to prepare a study of all aspects of Antarctica. The resolutions of
the Assembly in 1983 and 1984 [the resolution took note of the study] were
adopted by a consensus that included the Antarctic Consultative Parties.

Since that time, however, the Consultative Parties have not participated in
the Assembly votes on Antarctica because they were not prepared to accept the
efforts of those U.N. members who are pressing for fundamental changes in the
ATS. One Assembly resolution adopted in 1985 would have labelled any
"benefits" from Antarctic activities as the "common heritage of mankind.” In
later resolutions, the Assembly urged the Consultative Parties to invite the U.N.
Secretary-General or his representative to their Consultative meetings and
expressed regret that this had not been done. Also, in 1985, Assembly members
adopted, for the first time, a resolution that called on Consultative Parties to
exclude "the racist apartheid regime of South Africa" from their meetings. This
resolution has been repeated each year.

The major points of the Assembly’s 1991 resolution (A/RES/46/41) included
the following:

e renewal of the Assembly’s request that the Consultative Parties
deposit information and documents covering all aspects of Antarctica
with the U.N. Secretary-General;

e disappointment that the Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection
was not negotiated with the full participation of the international
community; nin

° support for a permanent ban on prospecting and mining in Antarctica;
and

¢ request that the Secretary-General report annually on the state of the
environment in Antarctica.

CRS-98 Antarctica

Consultative Party Response

A number of decisions have been taken by the Consultative Parties starting
with their September 1983 meeting to expand participation in the ATS process,
make information more accessible, and increase the regulatory basis for
protection of the Antarctic region. They include the following:

e granting the non-consultative treaty parties observer status at the
consultative meetings. They do not participate in the decisionmaking
but receive documentation and, by their presence, might influence the
decisions;

° providing the U.N. Secretary-General with a copy of the consultative
meeting final reports;

° expanding the substantive comments in the final reports of the
meetings to include the content of the discussions, not just the texts
of the adopted recommendations;

e establishing in each Consultative State Party a national contact point
charged with information functions;

e implementing a review procedure for conference and information
documents of the consultative meetings for the first 12 and future
meetings and making most documents publicly available;

° agreeing to a set of guidelines for environmental impact assessments
related to man’s impact on the Antarctic environment; and

° negotiating the text of a document of comprehensive measures for the
protection of the Antarctic environment.

Status of the Issue

United Nations debate contributed to an opening up of the Antarctic Treaty
system, with the Consultative Parties responding to criticisms made during the
first years of discussion. The Consultative Parties have, however, firmly
maintained that they will not agree to a U.N.-imposed system and have refused
to participate in any Assembly resolutions that set any constraints on the
decisions they might take.

The 17th Antarctic Consultative Meeting took place in Venice, Italy,
November 9-20, 1992. Twenty-six Consultative Parties currently are acting to
ratify the Protocol on Environmental Protection and to provide for its
implementation. Ecuador, France, and Spain have taken such action thus far.

CRS-99 Antarctica

Question

What is an appropriate relationship between the United Nations/U.N.
system and the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties/Antarctic Treaty system?

References

Antarctic Treaty Special Consultative Meeting on Antarctic Mineral Resources:
Final Act and Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource
Activities. International Legal Materials. July 1988. 27(4): 859-900.

Antarctic Treaty system in world politics. International challenges; newsletter
from the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, v. 10, no. 1, 1990: whole issue [3-94].

Kimball, Lee A. The Antarctic Minerals Convention: Special Report.
International Institute For Environment and Development (IED).
Washington, July 1988. 36 p.

---- Report on Antarctica, World Resources Institute. Washington, January
1991. 34 p.

Klotz, Frank G. America on the ice: Antarctic Policy Issues. National Defense
University Press. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1990. 345 p.

National Research Council. Polar Research Board. Antarctic Treaty System, an
Assessment. Proceedings of a Workshop held at Beardmore South Field
Camp, Antarctica, January 7-13, 1985. Washington, National Academy
Press, 1986. 435 p.

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Polar Regions Atlas. Washington, 1978. 66
p. (Available from Antarctic Project, 218 D St. SE, Washington DC, 20003.)

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Antarctica:
Environmental Protection Issues. Summary of a CRS research workshop.
CRS Report 89-272 ENR. by Susan R. Fletcher. Washington, April 10,
1989. 57 p. w/app.

---- Antarctica: Environmental Protection and Conservation of Resources. CRS
Issue Brief IB92108. by Marjorie Ann Browne and James E. Mielke.
Washington, updated regularly.

---- Environmental Effects of Recent Activities in Antarctica. CRS Report
88-439 SPR. by M. Lynne Corn, Marjorie Ann Browne, Eugene H. Buck,
and James E. Mielke. Washington, June 1988. 46 p..

---- Potential Mineral Resources in Antarctica and the Antarctic Minerals
Convention. CRS Report 90-72 SPR. by James E. Mielke. Washington,
Feb. 5, 1990. 52 p..

CRS-100 Antarctica

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Polar prospects: a minerals
treaty for Antarctica. OTA-0-428 Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
September 1989. 218 p.

US. President (1989-1993 ; Bush). Protocol on environmental protection to the
Antarctic Treaty; message. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1992. 108
p. (Treaty doc. 102-22, Senate, 102d Cong., 2d Sess.,) Transmits a copy of
the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, with
annexes, done at Madrid October 4, 1991, and an additional annex done at
Bonn October 17, 1991.

CRS-101

APPENDIX A

AGENDA 21:

Programme of Action for
Sustainable Development

RIO DECLARATION

on Environment and Development

Statement of

FOREST PRINCIPLES

The final text of agreements
negotiated by Governments
at the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED),
3-14 June 1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

CRS-102

FA

Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas,
including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas,

and coastal areas and the protection, rational
use and development of their living resources

oe

INTRODUCTION

17.1 The marine environment — including the oceans
and all seas and adjacent coastal areas — forms an
integrated whole that is an essenual component of the
global life-support system and a positive asset that pre-
sents opportunities for sustainable development. Interna-
tional law, as reflected in the provisions of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea'** referred to
in this chapter of Agenda 21, sets forth nights and obli-
gations of States and provides the international basis
upon which to pursue the protection and sustainable
development of the marine and coastal environment and
its resources. This requires new approaches to marine and
coastal area management and development, at the na-
tional, subregional, regional -and global levels, ap-
proaches that are integrated in content and are precau-
tionary and anticipatory in ambit, as reflected in the
following programme areas:
(a) Integrated management and sustainable develop-
ment of coastal areas, including exclusive economic
zones;
(b) Marine environmental protection;
(c) Sustainable use and conservation of marine living
resources of the high seas;
(d) Sustainable use and conservation of marine living
resources under national jurisdiction;
(e) Addressing critical uncertainties for the manage-
ment of the marine environment and climate change;
(f) Strengthening international, including regional, co-
operation and coordination;
(g) Sustainable development of small islands.
17.2 The implementation by developing countries of
the activities set forth below shall be commensurate with
their individual technological and financial capacities
and priorities in allocating resources for development

needs and ultimately depends on the technology transfer
and financial resources required and made available to
them.

PROGRAMME AREAS

A) INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT OF COASTAL AND MARINE AREAS,
INCLUDING EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONES

BASIS FOR ACTION

17.3. The coastal area contains diverse and productive

habitats important for human settlements, development

and local subsistence. More than half the world’s popu-

lation lives within 60 km of the shoreline, and this could

rise to three quarters by the year 2020. Many of the

world’s poor are crowded in coastal areas. Coastal re-

sources are vital for many local communities and in-
digenous people. The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is
also an important marine area where the States manage
the development and conservation of natural resources
for the benefit of their people. For small island States or
countries, these are the areas most available for develop-
ment activities.

17.4 Despite national, subregional, regional and global
efforts, current approaches to the management of marine
and coastal resources have not always proved capable of
achieving sustainable development, and coastal re-
sources and the coastal environment are being rapidly
degraded and eroded in many parts of the world.

OBJECTIVES
17.5 Coastal States commit themselves to integrated

CRS-103

management and sustainable development of coastal
areas and the marine environment under their national

jurisdiction. To this end, it is necessary to, inter alia:
(a) Provide for an integrated policy and decision-mak-
ing process, including all involved sectors, to promote
compatibility and a balance of uses;

(b) Identify existing and projected uses of coastal areas
and their interactions;

(c) Concentrate on well-defined issues concerning
coastal management;

(d) Apply preventive and precautionary approaches in
project planning and implementation, including pnor
assessment and systematic observation of the impacts of
major projects;

(e) Promote the development and application of meth-
eds, such as national resource and environmental ac-
counting, that reflect changes in value resulting from uses
of coastal and marine areas, including pollution, marine
erosion, loss of resources and habitat destruction;
(f) Provide access, as far as possible, for concerned
individuals, groups and organizations to relevant infor-
mation and opportunities for consultation and participa-
tion in planning and decision-making at appropriate
levels.

ACTIVITIES

A) MANAGEMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES

17.6 Each coastal State should consider establishing, or
where necessary strengthening, appropriate coordinating
mechanisms (such as a high-level policy planning body)
for integrated management and sustainable development
of coastal and marine areas and their resources, at both
the local and national levels. Such mechanisms should
include consultation, as appropriate, with the academic
and private sectors, non-governmental organizations,
local communities, resource user groups, and indigenous
people. Such national coordinating mechanisms could
provide, inter alia, for:

(a) Preparation and implementation of land and water
use and siting policies;

(b) Implementation of integrated coastal and marine
management and sustainable development plans and pro-
grammes at appropriate levels;

(c) Preparation of coastal profiles identifying critical
" areas, including eroded zones, physical processes, devel-
opment patterns, user conflicts and specific priorities for
management;

(d) Prior environmental impact assessment, systematic
observation and follow-up of major projects, including the
systematic incorporation of results in decision-making;
(e) Contingency plans for human induced and natural

148

disasters, including likely effects of potential climate
change and sea-level rise, as well as contingency plans
for degradation and pollution of anthropogenic origin,
including spills of oil and other matenals;

(f) Improvement of coastal human settlements, espe-
cially in housing, drinking water and treatment and dis-
posal of sewage, solid wastes and industrial effluents:
(g) Periodic assessment of the impacts of external fac-
tors and phenomena to ensure that the objectives of
integrated management and sustainable development of
coastal areas and the marine environment are met;

(h) Conservation and restoration of altered critical
habitats;

(i) Integration of sectoral programmes on sustainable
development for settlements, agriculture, tourism, fish-
ing, ports and industries affecting the coastal area:

Qj) Infrastructure adaptation and alternative employ-
ment;

(k) Human resource development and training;

(1) Public education, awareness and information pro-
grammes;

(m) Promoting environmentally sound technology and
sustainable practices;

(n) Development and simultaneous implementation of
environmental quality critena.

17.7 Coastal States, with the support of international
organizations, upon request, should undertake measures
to maintain biological diversity and productivity of
marine species and habitats under national jurisdiction.
Inter alia, these measures might include: surveys of
marine biodiversity, inventories of endangered species
and critical coastal and marine habitats; establishment
and management of protected areas; and support of scien-
tific research and dissemination of its results.

B) DATA AND INFORMATION

17.8 Coastal States, where necessary, should improve
their capacity to collect, analyse, assess and use informa-
tion for sustainable use of resources, including environ-
mental impacts of activities affecting the coastal and
marine areas. Information for management purposes
should receive priority support in view of the intensity
and magnitude of the changes occurring in the coastal
and marine areas. To this end, it is necessary to, inter alia:
(a) Develop and maintain databases for assessment and
management of coastal areas and all seas and their re-
sources;

(b) Develop socio-economic and environmental indi-
cators;

(c) Conduct regular environmental assessment of the
state of the environment of coastal and marine areas;

CRS-104

(d) Prepare and maintain profiles of coastal area re-
sources, activities, uses, habitats and protected areas
based on the criteria of sustainable development;

(e) Exchange information and data.

17.9 Cooperation with developing countries, and,
where applicable, subregional and regional mechanisms,
should be strengthened to improve their capacities to
achieve the above.

C) INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL
COOPERATION AND COORDINATION

17.10 The role of international cooperation and coordi-
Nation on a bilateral basis and, where applicable, within
a subregional, interregional, regional or global frame-
work, is to support and supplement national efforts of
coastal States to promote integrated management and
sustainable development of coastal and manne areas.
17.11 States should cooperate, as appropriate, in the
preparation of national guidelines for integrated coastal
zone management and development, drawing on existing
experience. A globa! conference to exchange experience
in the field could be held before 1994.

MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION

A) FINANCING AND COST EVALUATION

17.12 The Conference secretanat has estimated the aver-
age total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing the
activities of this programme to be about $6 billion includ-
ing about $50 million from the international community
on grant or concessional terms. These are indicative and
order-of-magnitude estimates only and have not been
reviewed by Governments. Actual costs and financial
terms, including any that are non-concessional, will de-
pend upon, inter alia, the specific strategies and pro-
grammes Governments decide upon for implementation.

B) SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS

17.13 States should cooperate in the development of
necessary coastal systematic observation, research and
information management systems. They should provide
access to and transfer environmentally safe technologies
and methodologies for sustainable development of coast-
al and marine areas to developing countries. They should
also develop technologies and endogenous scientific and
technological capacities.

17.14 International organizations, whether subregional,
regional or global, as appropriate, should support coastal

States, upon request, in these efforts, as indicated above,
devoting special attention to developing countnes.

C) HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

17.15 Coastal States should promote and facilitate the
organization of education and training in integrated
coastal and marine management and sustainable devel-
opment for scientists, technologists, managers (including
community-based managers) and users, leaders, indigen-
ous peoples, fisherfolk, women and youth, among others.
Management and development, as well as environmental
protection concerns and local planning issues, should be
incorporated in educational curricula and public aware-
ness campaigns, with due regard to traditional ecological
knowledge and socio-cultural values.

17.16 International organizations, whether subregional,
regional or global, as appropnate, should support coastal
States, upon request, in the areas indicated above, devot-
ing special attention to developing countries.

D) CAPACITY-BUILDING

17.17 Full cooperation should be extended, upon request,

to coastal States in their capacity-building efforts and,

where appropiate, capacity-building should be included

in bilateral and multilateral development cooperation.

Coastal States may consider, inter alia:

(a) Ensuring capacity-building at the local level;

(b) Consulting on coastal and marine issues with local

administrations, the business community, the academic

sector, resource user groups and the general public;

(c) Coordinating sectoral programmes while building

capacity;

(d) Identifying existing and potential capabilities, fa-
cilities and needs for human resources development and
scientific and technological infrastructure;

(e) Developing scientific and technological means and
research;

(f) Promoting and facilitating human resource devel-
opment and education;

(g) Supporting “centres of excellence” in integrated
coastal and marine resource management,

(h) Supporting pilot demonstration programmes and
projects in integrated coastal and marine management.

B) MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

BASIS FOR ACTION
17.18 Degradation of the marine environment can result

149

CRS-105

from a wide range of sources. Land-based sources con-
tnbute 70 per cent of marine pollution, while maritime
transport and dumping-at-sea activities contribute
10 per cent each. The contaminants that pose the greatest
threat to the marine environment are, in vanable order of
importance and depending on differing national or re-
gional situations, sewage, nutrients, synthetic organic
compounds, sediments, litter and plastics, metals, radio-
nuclides, oil/nydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hy-
drocarbons (PAHs). Many of the polluting substances
originating from land-based sources are of particular
concer to the marine environment since they exhibit at
the same time toxicity, persistence and bioaccumulation
in the food chain. There is currently no global scheme
to address marine pollution from land-based sources.
17.19 ‘Degradation of the marine environment can also
result from a wide range of activities on land. Human
settlements, land use, construction of coastal infrastruc-
ture, agriculture, forestry, urban development, tourism
and industry can affect the marine environment. Coastal
erosion and siltation are of particular concern.
17.20 Marine pollution is also caused by shipping and
sea-based activities. Approximately 600,000 tons of oil
enter the oceans each year as a result of normal shipping
operations, accidents and illegal discharges. With respect
to offshore oil and gas activities, currently machinery
space discharges are regulated internationally and six
regional conventions to control platform discharges have
been under consideration. The nature and extent of
environmental impacts from offshore oil exploration and
production activities generally account for a very small
proportion of marine pollution.
17.21 A precautionary and anticipatory rather than a
reactive approach is necessary to prevent the degradation
of the marine environment. This requires, inter alia, the
adoption of precautionary measures, environmental im-
pact assessments, clean production techniques, recy-
cling, waste audits and minimization, construction and/or
improvement of sewage treatment facilities, quality man-
agement criteria for the proper handling of hazardous
substances, and a comprehensive approach to damaging
impacts from air, land and water. Any management
framework must include the improvement of coastal
human settlements and the integrated management and
development of coastal areas.

OBJECTIVES

17.22 States, in accordance with the provisions of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on
protection and preservation of the marine environment,
commit themselves, in accordance with their policies,
prionities and resources, to prevent, reduce and control

150

degradation of the marine environment so as to maintain
and improve its life-support and productive capacities.
To this end, it is necessary to:

(a) Apply preventive, precautionary and anticipatory
approaches so as to avoid degradation of the marine
environment, as well as to reduce the risk of long-term
or irreversible adverse effects upon it;

(b) Ensure pnor assessment of activities that may have
significant adverse impacts upon the marine environment;
(c) Integrate protection of the marine environment into
relevant general environmental, social and economic
development policies;

(d) Develop economic incentives, where appropriate,

to apply clean technologies and other means consistent

with the internalization of environmental costs, such as

the polluter pays principle, so as to avoid degradation of
the marine environment;

(e) Improve the living standards of coastal populations,

particularly in developing countnes, so as to contribute

to reducing the degradation of the coastal and marine

environment.

17.23 States agree that provision of additional financial

resources, through appropmate international mecha-

nisms, as well as access to cleaner technologies and

relevant research, would be necessary to support action

by developing countmes to implement this commitment

ACTIVMES
A) MANAGEMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES

> Prevention, reduction and control of degradation of the
marine environment from land-based activities

17.24 In carrying out their commitment to deal with degra-
dation of the marine environment from land-based activities,
States should take action at the national level and, where
appropriate, at the regional and subregional levels, in concert
with action to implement programme area A, and should take
account of the Montreal Guidelines for the Protection of the
Marine Environment from Land-Based Sources.

17.25 To this end, States, with the support of the relevant
international environmental, scientific, technical and fi-
nancial organizations, should cooperate, inter alia, to:
(a) Consider updating, strengthening and extending the
Montreal Guidelines, as appropriate;

(b) Assess the effectiveness of existing regional agree-
ments and action plans, where appropmate, with a view
to identifying means of strengthening action, where
necessary, to prevent, reduce and control marine degra-
dation caused by land-based activities;

(c) Initiate and promote the development of new re-
gional agreements, where appropnate;

CRS-106

(d) Develop means of providing guidance on technol-
ogies to deal with the major types of pollution of the
marine environment from land-based sources, according
to the best scientific evidence;

(e) Develop policy guidance for relevant global fund-
ing mechanisms;

(f) Identify additional steps requiring international co-
operation.

17.26 The UNEP Governing Council is invited to con-
vene, as soon as practicable, an intergovernmental meet-
ing on protection of the marine environment from land-
based activities.

17.27 As concems sewage, prionty actions to be con-
sidered by States may include:

(a) Incorporating sewage concerns when formulating
or reviewing coastal development plans, including
human settlement plans;

(b) Building and maintaining sewage treatment fa-
cilities in accordance with national policies and capac-
ities and international cooperation available;

(c) Locating coastal outfalls so as to maintain an ac-
ceptable level of environmental quality and to avoid
exposing shell fishenes, water intakes and bathing areas
to pathogens; ey

(d) Promoting environmentally sound co-treatments of
domestic and compatible industrial effluents, with ‘the
introduction, where practicable, of controls on the entry
of effluents that are not compatible with the system;

(e) Promoting primary treatment of municipal sewage
discharged to rivers, estuaries and the sea, or other solu-
tions appropriate to specific sites;

(f) Establishing and improving local, national, sub-
regional and regional, as necessary, regulatory and moni-
toring programmes to control effluent discharge, using
minimum sewage effluent guidelines and water quality
criteria and giving due consideration to the charac-
teristics of receiving bodies and the volume and type of
pollutants.

17.28 As concems other sources of pollution, priority
actions to be considered by States may include:

(a) Establishing or improving, as necessary, regulatory
and monitoring programmes to control effluent dis-
charges and emissions, including the development and
application of control and recycling technologies;

(b) Promoting risk and environmental impact assess-
ments to help ensure an acceptable level of environmental
quality;

(c) Promoting assessment and cooperation at the re- _

gional level, where appropriate, with respect to the input
of point source pollutants from new installations;

(d) Eliminating the emission or discharge of organo-
halogen compounds that threaten to accumulate to dan-
gerous levels in the marine environment; j

(e) Reducing the emission or discharge of other syn-
thetic organic compounds that threaten to accumulate to
dangerous levels in the marine environment;

(f) Promoting controls over anthropogenic inputs of
nitrogen and phosphorus that enter coastal waters where
such problems as eutrophication threaten the marine
environment or its resources;

(g) Cooperating with developing countries, through
financial and technological support, to maximize the best
practicable control and reduction of substances and
wastes that are toxic, persistent or liable to bio-accumu-
late and to establish environmentally sound land-based
waste disposal alternatives to sea dumping;

(h) Cooperating in the development and implementa-

tion of environmentally sound land-use techniques and

practices to reduce run-off to water-courses and estuaries

which would cause pollution or degradation of the marine

environment;

(i) Promoting the use of environmentally less harmful

pesticides and fertilizers and alternative methods for pest

control, and considering the prohibition of those found

to be environmentally unsound;

(j) Adopting new initiatives at national, subregional

and regional levels for controlling the input of non-point

source pollutants, which require broad changes in sewage

and waste management, agricultural practices, mining,

construction and transportation.

17.29 As concems physical destruction of coastal and

marine areas causing degradation of the manne environ-

ment, pnonity actions should include control and preven-

tion of coastal erosion and siltation due to anthropogenic

factors related to, inter alia, land-use and construction

techniques and practices. Watershed management prac-
tices should be promoted so as to prevent, control and
reduce degradation of the marine environment.

> Prevention, reduction and control of degradation of the
marine environment from sea-based activities

17.30 States, acting individually, bilaterally, regionally
or multilaterally and within the framework of IMO and
other relevant international organizations, whether sub-
regional, regional or global, as appropriate, should assess
the need for additional measures to address degradation
of the marine environment:

A) FROM SHIPPING, BY:

(i) Supporting wider ratification and implementation of
relevant shipping conventions and protocols;

(ii) Facilitating the processes in (i), providing support
to individual States upon request to help them overcome
the obstacles identified by them;

151

CRS-107

(iii) Cooperating in monitoring marine pollution from
ships, especially from illegal discharges (e.g., aenal sur-
veillance), and enforcing MARPOL discharge provisions
more rigorously,

(iv) Assessing the state of pollution caused by ships in
particularly sensitive areas identified by IMO and taking
action to implement applicable measures, where neces-
sary, within such areas to ensure compliance with gener-
ally accepted intemational regulations;

(v) Taking action to ensure respect of areas designated
by coastal States, within their exclusive economic zones,
consistent with international law, in order to protect and
preserve rare or fragile ecosystems, such as coral reefs
and mangroves;

(vi) Considering the adoption of appropriate rules on
ballast water discharge to prevent the spread of non-
indigenous organisms;

(vii) Promoting navigational safety by adequate charting
of coasts and ship-routing, as appropnate;

(viii) Assessing the need for stricter international regula-
tions to further reduce the risk of accidents and pollution
from cargo ships (including bulk carers);

(ix) Encouraging IMO and IAEA to work together to
complete consideration of a code on the carriage of
irradiated nuclear fuel in flasks on board ships;

(x) Revising and updating the IMO Code of Safety for
Nuclear Merchant Ships and considering how best to
implement a revised code;

(xi) Supporting the ongoing activity within IMO regard-
ing development of appropriate measures for reducing
air pollution from ships; :

(xii) Supporting the ongoing activity within IMO re-
garding the development of an international regime gov-
eming the transportation of hazardous and noxious sub-
stances carried by ships and further considering whether the
compensation funds similar to the ones established under
the Fund Convention would be appropriate in respect of
pollution damage caused by substances other than oil;

B) FROM DUMPING, BY:

(i) Supporting wider ratification, implementation and
participation in relevant Conventions on dumping at sea,
including early conclusion of a future strategy for the
London Dumping Convention;

(ii) Encouraging the London Dumping Convention par-
ties to take appropriate steps to stop ocean dumping and
incineration of hazardous substances;

C) FROM OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS PLATFORMS, BY:

(i) Assessing existing regulatory measures to address
discharges, emissions and safety and assessing the need
for additional measures;

152

D) FROM PORTS, BY:

(i) Facilitating establishment of port reception facilities
for the collection of oily and chemical residues and
garbage from ships, especially in MARPOL special areas,
and promoting the establishment of smaller scale fa-
cilities in marinas and fishing harbours.

17.31 IMO and as appropriate, other competent United
Nations organizations, when requested by the States
concerned, should assess, where appropiate, the state of
marine pollution in areas of congested shipping, such as
heavily used international straits, with a view to ensuring
compliance with generally accepted international regu-
lations, particularly those related to illegal discharges
from ships, in accordance with the provisions of Part III

of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

17.32 States should take measures to reduce water pol-

lution caused by organotin compounds used in anti-

fouling paints.

17.33 States should consider ratifying the Convention on

Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation,

which addresses, inter alia, the development of contin-

gency plans on the national and international level, as

appropniate, including provision of oil-spill response ma-

terial and training of personnel, including its possible

extension to chemical spill response.

17.34 States should intensify international cooperation

to strengthen or establish, where necessary, regional
oil/chemical-spill response centres and/or, as appropriate,
mechanisms in cooperation with relevant subregional,
regional or global intergovernmental organizations and,
where appropriate, industry-based organizations.

B) DATA AND INFORMATION

17.35 States should, as appropriate, and in accordance
with the means at their disposal and with due regard for
their technical and scientific capacity and resources,
make systematic observations on the state of the marine
environment. To this end, States should, as appropniate,
consider:

(a) Establishing systematic observation systems to
measure marine environmental quality, including causes
and effects of marine degradation, as a basis for manage-
ment;

(b) Regularly exchanging information on marine deg-
radation caused by land-based and sea-based activities
and on actions to prevent, control and reduce such degra-
dation;

(c) Supporting and expanding international pro-
grammes for systematic observations such as the mussel
watch programme, building on existing facilities with
special attention to developing countnes;

CRS-108

(d) Establishing a clearing-house on marine pollution
control information, including processes and technol-
ogies to address marine pollution control and to support
their transfer to developing countries and other countries
with demonstrated needs;

(e) Establishing a global profile and database providing
information on the sources, types, amounts and effects
of pollutants reaching the marine environment from land-
based activities in coastal areas and sea-based sources;
(f) Allocating adequate funding for capacity-building
and training programmes to ensure the full participation
of developing countries, in particular, in any international
scheme under the organs and organizations of the United
Nations system for the collection, analysis and use of data
and information.

MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION
A) FINANCING AND COST EVALUATION

17.36 The Conference secretariat has estimated the aver-
age total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing the
activities of this programme to be about $200 million
from the international community on grant or conces-
sional terms. These are indicative and order-of-magni-
tude estimates only and have not been reviewed by
Governments. Actual costs and financial terms, including
any that are non-concessional, will depend upon, inter
alia, the specific strategies and programmes Govern-
ments decide upon for implementation.

B) SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS

17.37 National, subregional and regional action pro-
grammes will, where appropriate, require technology
transfer, in conformity with chapter 34, and financial
resources, particularly where developing countries are
concemed, including:

(a) Assistance to industries in identifying and adopting
clean production or cost-effective pollution control tech-
nologies;

(b) Planning development and application of low-cost
and low-maintenance sewage installation and treatment
technologies for developing countries;
(c) Equipment of laboratories to observe systematically
human and other impacts on the marine environment;
(d) Identification of appropriate oil- and chemical-spill
control materials, including low-cost locally available
materials and techniques, suitable for pollution emergen-
cies in developing countries;
(e) Study of the use of persistent organohalogens that
are liable to accumulate in the marine environment to

identify those that cannot be adequately controlled and
to provide a basis for a decision on a time schedule for
phasing them out as soon as practicable;

(f) Establishment of a clearing-house for information
on marine pollution control, including processes and
technologies to address marine pollution control, and
support for their transfer to developing and other coun-
tnes with demonstrated needs.

C) HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

17.38 States individually or in cooperation with each
other and with the support of international organizations,
whether subregional, regional or global, as appropriate,
should:

(a) Provide training for critical personnel required for
the adequate protection of the marine environment as
identified by training needs’ surveys at the national,
regional or subregional levels;

(b) Promote the introduction of marine environmental
protection topics into the curriculum of marine studies
programmes;

(c) Establish training courses for oil- and chemical-
spill response personnel, in cooperation, where appropri-
ate, with the oil and chemical industries;

(d) Conduct workshops on environmental aspects of
port operations and development;

(e) Strengthen and provide secure financing for new
and existing specialized international centres of profes-
sional maritime education;

(f) Through bilateral and multilateral cooperation, sup-
port and supplement the national efforts of developing
countries as regards human resource development in
relation to prevention and reduction of degradation of the
marine environment.

D) CAPACITY-BUILDING

17.39 National planning and coordinating bodies should
be given the capacity and authority to review all land-
based activities and sources of pollution for their impacts
on the marine environment and to propose appropnate
control measures.

17.40 Research facilities should be strengthened or,
where appropriate, developed in developing countries for
systematic observation of marine pollution, environmen-
tal impact assessment and development of control rec-
ommendations and should be managed and staffed by
local experts.

17.41 Special arrangements will be needed to provide
adequate financial and technical resources to assist de-

CRS-109

veloping countries in preventing and solving problems
associated with activities that threaten the marine envi-
ronment.

17.42 An intermational funding mechanism should be
created for the application of appropriate sewage treat-
ment technologies and building sewage treatment fa-
cilities, including grants or concessional loans from
international agencies and appropriate regional funds,
replenished at least in part on a revolving basis by user
fees.

17.43 In carrying out these programme activities, par-
ticular attention needs to be given to the problems of
developing countries that would bear an unequal burden
because of their lack of facilities, expertise or technical
‘Capacities.

C) SUSTAINABLE USE AND CONSERVATION OF
MARINE LIVING RESOURCES OF THE HIGH SEAS

BASIS FOR ACTION

17.44 Over the last decade, fisheries on the high seas
have considerably expanded and currently represent
approximately 5 per cent of total world landings. The
provisions of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea on the marine living resources of the
high seas sets forth rights and obligations of States with
respect to conservation and utilization of those re-
sources.

17.45 However, management of high seas fisheries, in-
cluding the adoption, monitoring and enforcement of
effective conservation measures, is inadequate in many
areas and some resources are overutilized. There are
problems of unregulated fishing, overcapitalization, ex-
cessive fleet size, vessel reflagging to escape controls,
insufficiently selective gear, unreliable databases and
lack of sufficient cooperation between States. Action by
States whose nationals and vessels fish on the high
seas, as well as cooperation at the bilateral, sub-
regional, regional and global levels, is essential par-
ticularly for highly migratory species and straddling
stocks. Such action and cooperation should address
inadequacies in fishing practices, as well as in biologi-
cal knowledge, fisheries statistics and improvement of
systems for handling data. Emphasis should also be on
multi-species management and other approaches that
take into account the relationships among species,
especially in addressing depleted species, but also in
identifying the potential of underutilized or unutilized
populations.

154

OBJECTIVES

17.46 States commit themselves to the conservation and
sustainable use of marine living resources on the high
seas. To this end, it is necessary to:

(a) Develop and increase the potential of marine living
resources to meet human nutritional needs, as well as
social, economic and development goals;

(b) Maintain or restore populations of marine species
at levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield
as qualified by relevant environmental and economic
factors, taking into consideration relationships among
species;

(c) Promote the development and use of selective fish-
ing gear and practices that minimize waste in the catch

of target species and minimize by-catch of non-target

species;

(d) Ensure effective monitoring and enforcement with

respect to fishing activities;

(€) Protect and restore endangered marine species;

(f) Preserve habitats and other ecologically sensitive

areas;

(g) Promote scientific research with respect to the

manine living resources in the high seas.

17.47 Nothing in paragraph 17.46 above restricts the

might of a State or the competence of an international

organization, as appropmiate, to prohibit, limit or regulate

the exploitation of marine mammals on the high seas

more strictly than provided for in that paragraph. States

shall cooperate with a view to the conservation of
marine mammals and, in the case of cetaceans, shall

in particular work through the appropriate inter-
national organizations for their conservation, manage-

ment and study.

17.48 The ability of developing countries to fulfil the
above objectives is dependent upon their capabilities,
including the financial, scientific and technological
means at their disposal. Adequate financial, scientific and
technological cooperation should be provided to support
action by them to implement these objectives.

ACTIVITIES
A) MANAGEMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES

17.49 States should take effective action, including bilat-
eral and multilateral cooperation, where appropnate at
the subregional, regional and global levels, to ensure that
high seas fisheries are managed in accordance with the
provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea. In particular, they should:

(a) Give full effect to these provisions with regard to
fisheries populations whose ranges lie both within and
beyond exclusive economic zones (straddling stocks);

CRS-110

(b) Give full effect to these provisions with regard to
highly migratory species;
(c) Negotiate, where appropriate, international agree-
ments for the effective management and conservation of
fishery stocks;
(d) Define and identify appropriate management units;
17.50 States should convene, as soon as possible, an
intergovernmental conference under United Nations aus-
pices, taking into account relevant activities at the sub-
regional, regional and global levels, with a view to
promoting effective implementation of the provisions of
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on
straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.
The conference, drawing, inter alia, on scientific and
technical studies by FAO, should identify and assess
existing problems related to the conservation and man-
agement of such fish stocks, and consider means of
improving cooperation on fisheries among States, and
formulate appropriate recommendations. The work and
the results of the conference should be fully consistent
with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea, in particular the rights and obligations
of coastal States and States fishing on the high seas.
17.51 States should ensure that fishing activities by ves-
sels flying their flags on the high seas take place in a
manner so as to minimize incidental catches.
17.52 States should take effective action consistent with
international law to monitor and control fishing activities
by vessels flying their flags on the high seas to ensure
compliance with applicable conservation and manage-
ment rules, including full, detailed, accurate and timely
reporting of catches and effort.
17.53 States should take effective action, consistent with
international law, to deter reflagging of vessels by their
nationals as a means of avoiding compliance with applic-
able conservation and management rules for fishing ac-
uvities on the high seas.
17.54 States should prohibit dynamiting, poisoning and
other comparable destructive fishing practices.
17.55 States should fully implement General Assembly
resolution 46/215 on large-scale pelagic drift-net fishing.
17.56 States should take measures to increase the availa-
bility of marine living resources as human food by reducing
wastage, post-harvest losses and discards, and improving
techniques of processing, distribution and transportation.

B) DATA AND INFORMATION

17.57 States, with the support of international organiza-
tions, whether subregional, regional or global, as appro-
priate, should cooperate to:

(a) Promote enhanced collection of data necessary for

the conservation and sustainable use of the marine living
resources of the high seas;

(b) Exchange on a regular basis up-to-date data and
information adequate for fisheries assessment;

(c) Develop and share analytical and predictive tools,
such as stock assessment and bioeconomic models;

(d) Establish or expand appropnate monitoring and
assessment programmes.

C) INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL
COOPERATION AND COORDINATION

17.58 States, through bilateral and multilateral cooper-
ation and within the framework of subregional and re-
gional fisheries bodies, as appropriate, and with the
support of other international intergovernmental agen-
cies, should assess high seas resource potentials and
develop profiles of all stocks (target and non-target). «.
17.59 States should, where and as appropriate, ensure
adequate coordination and cooperation in enclosed and
semi-enclosed seas and between subregional, regional
and global intergovernmental fishenes bodies.

17.60 Effective cooperation within existing subregional,
regional or global fisheries bodies should be encouraged.
Where such organizations do not exist, States should, as
appropmiate, cooperate to establish such organizations.
17.61 States with an interest ina high seas fishery regulated
by an existing subregional and/or regional high seas fish-
eries organization of which they are not members should be
encouraged to join that organization, where appropnate.
17.62 States recognize:

(a) The responsibility of the International Whaling Com-
mission for the conservation and management of whale
stocks and the regulation of whaling pursuant to the 1946
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling;
(b) The work of the International Whaling Commission
Scientific Committee in carrying out studies of large
whales in particular, as well as of other cetaceans;

(c) The work of other organizations, such as the Inter-
American Tropical Tuna Commission and the Agreement
on Small Cetaceans in the Baltic and North Sea under the
Bonn Convention, in the conservation, management and
study of cetaceans and other marine mammals.

17.63 States should cooperate for the conservation, man-
agement and study of cetaceans.

MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION
A) FINANCING AND COST EVALUATION

17.64 The Conference secretariat has estimated the aver-
age total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing the

155

CRS-111

activities of this programme to be about $12 million from
the international community on grant or concessional
terms. These are indicative and order-of-magnitude esti-
mates only and have not been reviewed by Governments.
Actual costs and financial terms, including any that are
non-concessional, will depend upon, inter alia, the spe-
cific strategies and programmes Governments decide
upon for implementation.

B) SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS

17.65 States, with the support of relevant international
Organizations, where necessary, should develop collabo-
Tative technical and research programmes to improve
understanding of the life cycles and migrations of species
. found on the high seas, including identifying critical areas
and life stages.
17.66 States, with the support of relevant international
Organizations, whether subregional, regional or global,
as appropnate, should:
(a) Develop databases on the high seas marine living
resources and fisheries;
(b) Collect and correlate marine environmental data
with high seas marine living resources data, including the
impacts of regional and global changes brought about by
natural causes and by human activities;
(c) Cooperate in coordinating research programmes to
Provide the knowledge necessary to manage high seas
resources.

C) HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

17.67 Human resource development at the national level
should be targeted at both development and management
of high seas resources, including training in high seas
fishing techniques and in high seas resource assessment,
strengthening cadres of personnel to deal with high seas
resource management and conservation and related en-
vironmental issues, and training observers and inspectors
to be placed on fishing vessels.

D) CAPACITY-BUILDING

17.68 States, with the support, where appropriate, of
relevant international organizations, whether sub-
regional, regional or global, should cooperate to develop
or upgrade systems and institutional structures for moni-
toring, control and surveillance, as well as the research
capacity for assessment of marine living resource popu-
lations.

156

17.69 Special support, including cooperation among
States, will be needed to enhance the capacities of de-
veloping countries in the areas of data and information,
scientific and technological means, and human resource
development in order to participate effectively in the
conservation and sustainable utilization of high seas
marine living resources.

D) SUSTAINABLE USE AND CONSERVATION OF
MARINE LIVING RESOURCES UNDER
NATIONAL JURISDICTION

BASIS FOR ACTION

17.70 Marine fisheries yield 80 to 90 million tons of fish

and shellfish per/year, 95 per cent of which is taken from

waters under national jurisdiction. Yields have increased

nearly fivefold over the past four decades. The provisions

of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

on marine living resources of the exclusive economic

zone and other areas under national jurisdiction set forth

nights and obligations of States with respect to conserva-

tion and utilization of those resources.

17.71 Marine living resources provide an important

source of protein in many countries and their use is often

of major importance to local communities and indigenous

people. Such resources provide food and livelihoods to

millions of people and, if sustainably utilized, offer in-

creased potential to meet nutritional and social needs,

particularly in developing countries. To realize this

potential requires improved knowledge and identifica-

tion of marine living resource stocks, particularly of
underutilized and unutilized stocks and species, use of
new technologies, better handling and processing fa-

cilities to avoid wastage, and improved quality and
training of skilled personnel to manage and conserve
effectively the marine living resources of the exclusive
economic zone and other areas under national jurisdic-
tion. Emphasis should also be on multi-species manage-
ment and other approaches that take into account the
relationships among species.

17.72 Fisheries in many areas under national jurisdiction
face mounting problems, including local overfishing,
unauthorized incursions by foreign fleets, ecosystem
degradation, overcapitalization and excessive fleet sizes,
underevaluation of catch, insufficiently selective gear,
unreliable databases, and increasing competition be-
tween artisanal and large-scale fishing, and between
fishing and other types of activities.

17.73 Problems extend beyond fisheries. Coral reefs and
other marine and coastal habitats, such as mangroves and
estuaries, are among the most highly diverse, integrated

CRS-112

and productive of the Earth’s ecosystems. They often
serve important ecological functions, provide coastal
protection, and are critical resources for food, energy,
tourism and economic development. In many parts of
the world, such marine and coastal systems are under
stress or are threatened from a variety of sources, both
human and natural.

OBJECTIVES

17.74 Coastal States, particularly developing countries
and States whose economies are overwhelmingly de-
pendent on the exploitation of the marine living resources
of their exclusive economic zones, should obtain the full
social and economic benefits from sustainable utilization
of marine living resources within their exclusive eco-
nomic zones and other areas under national jurisdiction.
17.75 States commit themselves to the conservation and
sustainable use of marine living resources under national
jurisdiction. To this end, it is necessary to:
(a) Develop and increase the potential of marine living
Tesources to meet human nutnitional needs, as well as
social, economic and development goals;
(b) Take into account traditional knowledge and inter-
ests of local communities, small-scale artisanal fisheries
and indigenous people in development and management
programmes; ee
(c) Maintain or restore populations of marine species at
levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield as
qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors,
taking into consideration relationships among species;
(d) Promote the development and use of selective fish-
ing gear and practices that minimize waste in the catch
of target species and minimize by-catch of non-target
species;
(e) Protect and restore endangered marine species;
(f) Preserve rare or fragile ecosystems, as well as habi-
tats and other ecologically sensitive areas.
17.76 Nothing in paragraph 17.75 above restricts the
right of a coastal State or the competence of an inter-
national organization, as appropriate, to prohibit, limit
or regulate the exploitation of marine mammals more
stnctly than provided for in that paragraph. States shall
cooperate with a view to the conservation of marine
mammals and in the case of cetaceans shall in particular
work through the appropriate international organizations
for their conservation, management and study. ;
17.77 The ability of developing countries to fulfil the
above objectives is dependent upon their capabilities,
including the financial, scientific and technological
means at their disposal. Adequate financial, scientific
and technological cooperation should be provided to
support action by them to implement these objectives.

ACTIVITIES

A) MANAGEMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES

17.78 States should ensure that marine living resources
of the exclusive economic zone and other areas under
national jurisdiction are conserved and managed in ac-
cordance with the provisions of the United Nations Con-
vention on the Law of the Sea.

17.79 States, in implementing the provisions of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, should
address the issues of straddling stocks and highly migra-
tory species, and, taking fully into account the objective
set out in paragraph 17.74, access to the surplus of
allowable catches.

17.80 Coastal States, individually or through bilateral
and/or multilateral cooperation and with the support, as
appropnate of international organizations, whether sub-
regional, regional or global, should inter alia: :
(a) Assess the potential of marine living resources,
including underuulized or unutilized stocks and species,
by developing inventories, where necessary, for their
conservation and sustainable use;

(b) Implement strategies for the sustainable use of
marine living resources, taking into account the special
needs and interests of small-scale artisanal fisheries, local
communities and indigenous people to meet human nu-
tritional and other development needs;

(c) Implement, in particular in developing counmes,
mechanisms to develop mariculture, aquaculture and
small-scale, deep-sea and oceanic fisheries within areas
under national jurisdiction where assessments show that
marine living resources are potentially available;

(d) Strengthen their legal and regulatory frameworks,
where appropriate, including management, enforcement
and surveillance capabilities, to regulate activities related
to the above strategies;

(e) Take measures to increase the availability of marine
living resources as human food by reducing wastage,
post-harvest losses and discards, and improving tech-
niques of processing, distribution and transportation;

(f) Develop and promote the use of environmentally
sound technology under criteria compatible with the
sustainable use of marine living resources, including
assessment of the environmental impact of major new
fishery practices;

(g) Enhance the productivity and utilization of their
marine living resources for food and income.

17.81 Coastal States should explore the scope for
expanding recreational and tourist activities based on
marine living resources, including those for providing
alternative sources of income. Such activities should be
compatible with conservation and sustainable develop-
ment policies and plans.

157

CRS-113

17.82 Coastal States should support the sustainability of
small-scale artisanal fisheries. To this end, they should,
as appropriate:
(a) Integrate small-scale artisanal fisheries develop-
ment in marine and coastal planning, taking into account
the interests and, where appropriate, encouraging repre-
sentation of fishermen, small-scale fisherworkers,
women, local communities and indigenous people;
(b) Recognize the rights of small-scale fishworkers and
the special situation of indigenous people and local com-
munities, including their rights to utilization and protec-
tion of their habitats on a sustainable basis;
(c) Develop systems for the acquisition and recording
of traditional knowledge concerning marine living re-
sources and environment and promote the incorporation
of such knowledge into management systems.
17.83 Coastal States should ensure that, in the negotia-
* tion and implementation of international agreements on
the development or conservation of marine living re-
sources, the interests of local communities and indigen-
Ous people are taken into account, in particular their nght
to subsistence.
17.84 Coastal States, with the support, as appropriate, of
intermational organizations should conduct analyses of
the potential for aquaculture in marine and coastal areas
under national jurisdiction and apply appropnate safe-
guards as to the introduction of new species.
17.85 States should prohibit dynamiting, poisoning and
other comparable destructive fishing practices.
17.86 States shouid identify marine ecosystems exhibit-
ing high levels of biodiversity and productivity and other
cnitical habitat areas and should provide necessary limi-
tations on use in these areas, through, inter alia, desig-
nation of protected areas. Priority should be accorded,
as appropriate, to: ;
(a) Coral reef ecosystems;
(b) Estuaries;
(c) Temperate and tropical wetlands, including mangroves;
(d) Seagrass beds;
(e) Other spawning and nursery areas.

B) DATA AND INFORMATION

17.87 States, individually or through bilateral and multi-
lateral cooperation and with the support, as appropriate,
of international organizations, whether subregional, re-
gional or global, should:

(a) Promote enhanced collection and exchange of data
necessary for the conservation and sustainable use of the
marine living resources under national jurisdiction;

(b) Exchange on a regular basis up-to-date data and
information necessary for fisheries assessment;

158

(c) Develop and share analytical and predictive tools,
such as stock assessment and bioeconomic models;

(d) Establish or expand appropriate monitoring and
assessment programmes;

(e) Complete or update marine biodiversity, marine
living resource and critical habitat profiles of exclusive
economic zones and other areas under national jurisdic-
tion, taking account of changes in the environment
brought about by natural causes and human activities.

C) INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL
COOPERATION AND COORDINATION

17.88 States, through bilateral and multilateral cooper-

ation, and with the support of relevant United Nations

and other international organizations, should cooperate

to:

(a) Develop financial and technical cooperation to en-

hance the capacities of developing countries in small-

scale and oceanic fisheries, as well as in coastal aquacul-

ture and manculture;

(b) Promote the contribution of marine living resources

to eliminate malnumition and to achieve food self-suffi-

ciency in developing countnes, inter alia, by minimizing

post-harvest losses and managing stocks for guaranteed

sustainable yields;

(c) Develop agreed criteria for the use of selective

fishing gear and practices to minimize waste in the catch

of target species and minimize by-catch of non-target

species;

(d)’ Promote seafood quality, including through na-

tional quality assurance systems for seafood, in order to

promote access to markets, improve consumer con-

fidence and maximize economic returns.

17.89 States should, where and as appropriate, ensure
adequate coordination and cooperation in enclosed and
semi-enclosed seas and between subregional, regional
and global intergovernmental fisheries bodies.

17.90 States recognize:

(a) The responsibility of the International Whaling
Commission for the conservation and management of
whale stocks and the regulation of whaling pursuant to
the 1946 Intemational Convention for the Regulation of
Whaling;

(b) The work of the International Whaling Commission
Scientific Committee in carrying out studies of large
whales in particular, as well as of other cetaceans;

(c) The work of other organizations, such as the Inter-
American Tropical Tuna Commission and the Agreement
on Small Cetaceans in the Baltic and North Sea under the
Bonn Convention, in the conservation, management and
study of cetaceans and other marine mammals.

RS-114

17.91 States should cooperate for the conservation, man-
agement and study of cetaceans.

MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION

A) FINANCING AND COST EVALUATION

17.92 The Conference secretariat has estimated the aver-
age total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing the
activities of this programme to be about $6 billion,
including about $60 million from the international com-
munity on grant or concessional terms. These are indica-
tive and order-of-magnitude estimates only and have not
been reviewed by Governments. Actual costs will depend
upon, inter alia, the specific strategies and programmes
Governments decide upon for implementation.

B) SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS

17.93 States, with the support of relevant intergovern-
mental organizations, as appropnate, should:

(a) Provide for the transfer of environmentally sound
technologies to develop fisheries, aquaculture and man-
culture, particularly to developing countries;

(b) Accord special attention to mechanisms for.trans-
ferring resource information and improved fishing and
aquaculture technologies to fishing communities at the
local level;

(c) Promote the study, scientific assessment and use of
appropnate traditional management systems,

(d) Consider observing, as appropriate, the FAO/ICES
Code of Practice for Consideration of Transfer and Intro-
duction of Marine and Freshwater Organisms;

(e) Promote scientific research on marine areas of par-
ticular importance for marine living resources, such as
areas of high diversity, endemism and productivity and
migratory stopover points.

C) HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

17.94 States individually, or through biiateral and multi-
lateral cooperation and with the support of relevant in-
ternational organizations, whether subregional, regional
or global, as appropriate, should encourage and provide
support for developing countries, inter alia, to:

(a) Expand multidisciplinary education, training and
research on marine living resources, particularly in the
social and economic sciences;

(b) Create training opportunities at national and re-
gional levels to support artisanal (including subsistence)
fisheries, to develop small-scale use of marine living

resources and to encourage equitable participation of
local communities, small-scale fish workers, women :nd
indigenous people;

(c) Introduce topics relating to the importance of
marine living resources in educational curmicula at all
levels.

D) CAPACITY-BUILDING

17.95 Coastal States, with the support of relevant sub-
regional, regional and global agencies, where appropri-
ate, should:

(a) Develop research capacities for assessment of
marine living resource populations and monitoring;

(b) Provide support to local fishing communities, in
particular those that rely on fishing for subsistence, in-
digenous people and women, including, as appropriate,
the technical and financial assistance to organize, main-
tain, exchange and improve traditional knowledge of
marine living resources and fishing techniques, and up-
grade knowledge on marine ecosystems; ;
(c) Establish sustainable aquaculture development
strategies, including environmental management in sup-
port of rural fish-farming communities;

(d) Develop and strengthen, where the need may arise,
institutions capable of implementing the objectives and
activities related to the conservation and management of
manine living resources.

17.96 Special support, including cooperation among
States, will be needed to enhance the capacities of de-
veloping countries in the areas of data and information,
scientific and technological means and human resource
development in order to enable them to participate effec-
tively in the conservation and sustainable use of marine
living resources under national jurisdiction.

E) ADDRESSING CRITICAL UNCERTAINTIES FOR
THE MANAGEMENT OF THE MARINE
ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

BASIS FOR ACTION

17.97 The marine environment is vulnerable and sensi-
tive to climate and atmospheric changes. Rational use
and development of coastal areas, all seas and marine
resources, as well as conservation of the marine environ-
ment, requires the ability to determine the present state
of these systems and to predict future conditions. The
high degree of uncertainty in present information inhibits
effective management and limits the ability to make
predictions and assess environmental change. Systematic

159

CRS-115

collection of data on marine environmental parameters
will be needed to apply integrated management ap-
proaches and to predict effects of global climate change
and of atmospheric phenomena, such as ozone depletion,
on living marine resources and the marine environment.
In order to determine the role of the oceans and all seas
in diving global systems and to predict natural and
human-induced changes in marine and coastal environ-
ments, the mechanisms to collect, synthesize and dis-
seminate information from research and systematic ob-
servation activities need to be restructured and reinforced
considerably.
17.98 There are many uncertainties about climate change
and particularly about sealevel rise. Small increases in
sealevel have the potential of causing significant damage
to small islands and low-lying coasts. Response strategies
should be based on sound data. A long-term cooperative
research commitment is needed to provide the data re-
quired for global climate models and to reduce uncer-
tainty. Meanwhile, precautionary measures should be
undertaken to diminish the risks and effects, particularly
On small islands and on low-lying and coastal areas of
the world.
17.99 Increased ultraviolet radiation derived from ozone
depletion has been reported in some areas of the world.
An assessment of its effects in the marine environment
is needed to reduce uncertainty and to provide a basis for
action.

OBJECTIVES

17.100 States, in accordance with provisions of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on
marine scientific research, commit themselves to im-
prove the understanding of the marine environment and
its role on global processes. To this end, it is necessary
to:

(a) Promote scientific research on and systematic
observation of the marine environment within the
limits of national jurisdiction and high seas, including
interactions with atmospheric phenomena, such as
ozone depletion;

(b) Promote exchange of data and information resulting
from scientific research and systematic observation and
from traditional ecological knowledge and ensure its
availability to policy makers and the public at the national
level;

(c) Cooperate with a view to the development of stand-
ard inter-calibrated procedures, measuring techniques,
data storage and management capabilities for scientific
research on and systematic observation of the marine
environment.

160

ACTIVITIES

A) MANAGEMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES

17.101 States should consider, inter alia:

(a) Coordinating national and regional observation
programmes for coastal and near-shore phenomena re-
lated to climate change and for research parameters
essential for marine and coastal management in all re-
gions;

(b) Providing improved forecasts of marine conditions
for the safety of inhabitants of coastal areas and for the
efficiency of maritime operations;

(c) Cooperating with a view to adopting special
measures to cope with and adapt to potential climate
change and sealevel rise, including the development of
globally accepted methodologies for coastal vulnera-
bility assessment, modelling and response Strategies par-
ticularly for priority areas, such as small islands and
low-lying and cnitical coastal areas:

(d) Idenufying ongoing and planned programmes of
systematic observation of the marine environment, with
a view to integrating activities and establishing prionties
to address critical uncertainties for oceans and all seas:
(€) Initiating a programme of research to determine the
marine biological effects of increased levels of ultraviolet
Tays due to the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer
and to evaluate the possible effects.

17.102 Recognizing the important role that oceans and
all seas play in attenuating potential climate change, IOC
and other relevant competent United Nations bodies, with
the support of countries having the resources and exper-
tise, should carry out analysis, assessments and system-
atic observation of the role of oceans as a carbon sink.

B) DATA AND INFORMATION

17.103 States should consider, inter alia:

(a) Increasing international cooperation particularly
with a view to strengthening national scientific and tech-
nological capabilities for analysing, assessing and pre-
dicting global climate and environmental change;

(b) Supporting the role of the IOC in cooperation with
WMO, UNEP and other international organizations in
the collection, analysis and distribution of data and in-
formation from the oceans and all seas, including as
appropnate, through the Global Ocean Observing Sys-
tem, giving special attention to the need for IOC to
develop fully the strategy for providing training and
technica! assistance for developing countries through its
Training, Education and Mutual Assistance (TEMA) pro-
gramme;

CRS-116

(c) Creating national multisectoral information bases,
covering the results of research and systematic observa-
tion programmes;

(d) Linking these databases to existing data and infor-
mation services and mechanisms, suchas World Weather
Watch and Earthwatch;

(e) Cooperating with a view to the exchange of data
and information and its storage and archiving through the
world and regional data centres;

(f) Cooperating to ensure full participation of develop-
ing countries, in particular, in any international scheme
under the organs and organizations of the United Nations
system for the collection, analysis and use of data and
information.

C}) INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL
COOPERATION AND COORDINATION

17.104 States should consider bilaterally and multilat-
erally and in cooperation with international organiza-
tions, whether subregional, regional, interregional or
global, where appropriate:
(a) Providing technical cooperation in developing the
capacity of coastal and island States for marine research
and systematic observation and for using its results;
(b) Strengthening existing national institutions and-cre-
ating, where necessary, international analysis and predic-
tion mechanisms in order to prepare and exchange re-
gional and global oceanographic analyses and forecasts
and to provide facilities for international research and
training at national, subregional and regional levels,
where applicable.
17.105 Inrecognition of the value of Antarcticaas an area
for the conduct of scientific research, in particular re-
search essental to understanding the global environment,
States carrying out such research activities in Antarctica
should, as provided for in Article III of the Antarctic
Treaty, continue to:
(a) Ensure that data and information resulting from
such research are freely available to the international
community;
(b) Enhance access of the international scientific com-
munity and specialized agencies of the United Nations
to such data and information, including the encourage-
ment of periodic seminars and symposia.
17.106 States should strengthen high-level inter-agency,
subregional, regional and global coordination, as appro-
pniate, and review mechanisms to develop and integrate
systematic observation networks. This would include:
(a) Review of existing regional and global databases;
(b) Mechanisms to develop comparable and compatible
techniques, validate methodologies and measurements,

organize regular scientific reviews, develop options for
corrective measures, agree on formats for presentation
and storage, and communicate the information gathered
to potential users;

(c) Systematic observation of coastal habitats and
sealevel changes, inventones of marine pollution sources
and reviews of fisheries statistics;

(d) Organization of periodic assessments of ocean and
all seas and coastal area status and trends.

17.107 International cooperation, through relevant or-
ganizations within the United Nations system, should
support countries to develop and integrate regional

systematic long-term observation programmes, when

applicable, into the Regional Seas Programmes in a

coordinated fashion to implement, where appropriate,

subregional, regional and global observing systems

based on the pnnciple of exchange of data. One aim

should be the predicting of the effects of climate-related

emergencies on existing coastal physical and socio-

economic infrastructure.

17.108 Based on the results of research on the effects of

the additional ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth’s

surface, in the fields of human health, agriculture and

marine environment, States and international organiza-

tions should consider taking appropriate remedial

measures.

MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION
A) FINANCING AND COST EVALUATION

17.109 The Conference secretariat has estimated the

average total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing

the activities of this programme to be about $750 million,

including about $480 million from the international com-

munity on grant or concessional terms. These are indica-
tive and order-of-magnitude estimates only and have not
been reviewed by Governments. Actual costs and finan-
cial terms, including any that are non-concessional, will
depend upon, inter alia, the specific strategies and pro-
grammes Governments decide upon for implementation.
17.110 Developed countries should provide the financ-
ing for the further development and implementation of
the Global Ocean Observing System.

B) SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS

17.111 To address critical uncertainties through system-
atic coastal and marine observations and research, coastal
States should cooperate in the development of procedures
that allow for comparable analysis and soundness of data.
They should also cooperate on a subregional and regional

161

CRS-117

basis, through existing programmes where applicable,
share infrastructure and expensive and sophisticated
equipment, develop quality assurance procedures and
develop human resources jointly. Special attention
should be given to transfer of scientific and technological
knowledge and means to support States, particularly
developing countries, in the development of endogenous
capabilities.

17.112 International organizations should support, when
requested, coastal countries in implementing research
projects on the effects of additional ultraviolet radiation.

C) HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

17.113 ,States, individually or through bilateral and multi-
lateral cooperation and with the support, as appropmiate,
of international organizations whether subregional, re-
gional or global, should develop and implement compre-
hensive programmes, particularly in developing coun-
tnes, for a broad and coherent approach to meeting their
core human resource needs in the marine sciences.

D) CAPACITY-BUILDING

17.114 States should strengthen or establish as necessary,
national scientific and technological oceanographic com-
missions or equivalent bodies to develop, support and
coordinate marine science activities and work closely
with international organizations.

17.115 States should use existing subregional and re-
gional mechanisms, where applicable, to develop know-
ledge of the marine environment, exchange information,
organize systematic observations and assessments, and
make the most effective use of scientists, facilities and
equipment. They should also cooperate in the promotion
of endogenous research capabilities in developing
counties.

F) STRENGTHENING INTERNATIONAL, INCLUDING
REGIONAL, COOPERATION AND COORDINATION

BASIS FOR ACTION

17.116 It is recognized that the role of international co-
operation is to support and supplement national efforts.
Implementation of strategies and activities under the
programme areas relative to marine and coastal areas and
seas requires effective institutional arrangements at na-
tional, subregional, regional and global levels, as appro-
priate. There are numerous national and international,

162

including regional, institutions, both within and outside
the United Nations system, with competence in marine
issues, and there is a need to improve coordination and
Strengthen links among them. It is also important to
ensure that an integrated and multisectoral approach to
marine issues is pursued at all levels.

OBJECTIVES

17.117 States commit themselves, in accordance with
their policies, priorities and resources, to promote institu-
tional arrangements necessary to support the implemen-
tation of the programme areas in this chapter. To this end,
it is necessary, as appropmiate, to:

(a) Integrate relevant sectoral activities addressing en-
vironment and development in marine and coastal areas
at national, subregional, regional and global levels, as
appropmiate;

(b) Promote effective information exchange and,
where appropnate, institutional linkages between bilat-
eral and multilateral national, regional, subregional and
interregional instituuons dealing with environment and
development in marine and coastal areas;

(c) Promote within the United Nations system, regular
intergovernmental review and consideration of environ-
ment and development issues with respect to marine and
coastal areas;

(d) Promote the effective operation of coordinating
mechanisms for the components of the United Nations
system dealing with issues of environment and develop-
ment in marine and coastal areas, as well as links with
relevant intemational development bodies.

ACTIVITIES
A) MANAGEMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES

GLOBAL

17.118 The General Assembly should provide for regular
consideration, within the United Nations system, at the
intergovernmental level of general manne and coastal
issues, including environment and development matters,
and should request the Secretary-General and executive
heads of United Nations agencies and organizations to:
(a) Strengthen coordination and develop improved ar-
rangements among the relevant United Nations organi-
zations with major marine and coastal responsibilities,
including their subregional and regional components;
(b) Strengthen coordination between those organiza-
tions and other United Nations organizations, institutions
and specialized agencies dealing with development, trade
and other related economic issues, as appropriate;

CRS-118

(c) Improve representation of United Nations agencies
dealing with the marine environment in United Nations
system-wide coordination efforts;

(d) Promote, where necessary, greater collaboration
between the United Nations agencies and subregional
and regional coastal and marine programmes;

(e) Develop acentralized system to provide for infor-
mation on legislation and advice on implementation of
legal agreements on marine environmental and develop-
ment issues.

17.119 States recognize that environmental policies
should deal with the root causes of environmental degra-
dation, thus preventing environmental measures from
resulting in unnecessary restrictions to trade. Trade pol-
icy measures for environmental purposes should not
constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimi-
Nation or a disguised restriction on international trade.
Unilateral actions to deal with environmental challenges
Outside the jurisdiction of the importing country should
be avoided. Environmental measures addressing interna-
tional environmental problems should, as far as possible,
be based on an international consensus. Domestic
measures targeted to achieve certain environmental ob-
Jectives may need trade measures to render them effec-
tive. Should trade policy measures be found necessary
for the enforcement of environmental policies, certain
principles and rules should apply. These could include,
inter alia, the principle of non-discnmination, the prin-
ciple that the trade measure chosen should be the least
trade-restrictive necessary to achieve the objectives; an
obligation to ensure transparency in the use of trade
measures related to the environment and to provide ade-
quate notification of national regulations; and the need to
give consideration to the special conditions and develop-
ment requirements of developing countries as they move
towards intemationally agreed environmental objectives.

SUBREGIONAL AND REGIONAL

17.120 States should consider, as appropriate:

(a) Strengthening, and extending where necessary, in-
tergovernmental regional cooperation, the Regional Seas
Programmes of UNEP, regional and subregional fisheries
Organizations and regional commissions;

(b) Introduce, where necessary, coordination among
relevant United Nations and other multilateral organiza-
tions at the subregional and regional levels, including
consideration of co-location of their staff;

(c) Arrange for periodic intraregional consultations;
(d) Facilitate access to and use of expertise and tech-
nology through relevant national bodies to subregional
and regional centres and networks, such as the Regional
Centres for Marine Technology.

B) DATA AND INFORMATION

17.121 States should, where appropriate:

(a) Promote exchange of information on manne and
coastal issues;

(b) Strengthen the capacity of international organiza-
tions to handle information and support the development
of national, subregional and regional data and informa-
tion systems, where appropriate. This could also include
networks linking countries with comparable environ-
mental problems;

(c) Further develop existing intemational mechanisms
such as Earthwatch and GESAMP.

MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION

A) FINANCING AND COST EVALUATION

17.122 The Conference secretariat has estimated the
average total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing
the activities of this programme to be about $50 million
from the international community on grant or conces-
sional terms. These are indicative and order-of-magni-
tude estimates only and have not been reviewed by
Governments. Actual costs and financial terms, including

any that are non-concessional, will depend upon, inter

alia, the specific strategies and programmes Govern-
ments decide upon for implementation.

B) SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS, HUMAN
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND CAPACITY-BUILDING

17.123 The means of implementation outlined in the
other programme areas on marine and coastal issues,
under the sections on scientific and technological means,
human resource development and capacity-building are
entirely relevant for this programme area as well. Addi-
tionally, States should, through international cooperation,
develop acomprehensive programme for meeting the core
human resource needs in marine sciences at all levels.

G) SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL ISLANDS

BASIS FOR ACTION

17.124 Small island developing States, and islands sup-
porting small communities are a special case both for
environment and development. They are ecologically
fragile and vulnerable. Their small size, limited re-
sources, geographic dispersion and isolation from mar-
kets, place them at a disadvantage economically and

163

CRS-119

prevent economies of scale. For small island developing
States the ocean and coastal environment is of strategic
importance and constitutes a valuable development re-
source.

17.125 Their geographic isolation has resulted in their
habitation by a comparatively large number of unique
species of flora and fauna, giving them a very high share
of global biodiversity. They also have rich and diverse
cultures with special adaptations to island environments
and knowledge of the sound management of island
resources. :

17.126 Small island developing States have all the envi-
ronmental problems and challenges of the coastal.zone
concentrated in a limited land area. They are considered
extremely vulnerable to global warming and sealevel
rise, with certain small low-lying islands facing the in-
creasing threat of the loss of their entire national tern-
tones. Most tropical islands are also now experiencing
the more immediate impacts of increasing frequency of
cyclones, storms and hurncanes associated with climate
change. These are causing major set-backs to their socio-
economic development.

17.127 Because small island development options are
limited, there are special challenges to planning for and
implementing sustainable development. Small island de-
veloping States will be constrained in meeting these
challenges without the cooperation and assistance of the
international community.

OBJECTIVES

17.128 States commit themselves to addressing the prob-
lems of sustainable development of small island develop-
ing States. To this end, it is necessary:

(a) To adopt and implement plans and programmes to
support the sustainable development and utilization of
their manne and coastal resources, including meeting
essential human needs, maintaining biodiversity and im-
proving the quality of life for island people;

(b) To adopt measures which will enable small island
developing States to cope effectively, creatively and
sustainably with environmental change and to mitigate
impacts and reduce the threats posed to marine and
coastal resources.

ACTIVITIES
A) MANAGEMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES

17.129 Small island developing States, with the assist-
ance as appropniate of the international community and
on the basis of existing work of national and intemational
organizations, should:

(a) Study the special environmental and developmental
characteristics of small islands, producing an environ-
mental profile and inventory of their natural resources,
critical marine habitats and biodiversity;

(b) Develop techniques for determining and monitor-
ing the carrying capacity of small islands under different
development assumptions and resource constraints;

(c) Prepare medium- and long-term plans for sustainable
development that emphasize multiple use of resources,
integrate environmental considerations with economic and
sectoral planning and policies, define measures for main-
taining cultural and biological diversity and conserve en-
dangered species and cnitical marine habitats;

(d) Adapt coastal area management techniques, such
as planning, siting and environmental impact assess-

ments, using Geographical Information Systems (GIS),

suitable to the special characteristics of small islands,

taking into account the traditional and cultural values of
indigenous people of island countries;

(e) Review the existing institutional arrangements and

identify and undertake appropriate institutional reforms

essential to the effective implementation of sustainable

development plans, including intersectoral coordination

and community participation in the planning process;

(f) Implement sustainable development plans, includ-

ing the review and modification of existing unsustainable

policies and practices;

(g) Based on precautionary and anticipatory ap-

proaches, design and implement rational response

Strategies to address the environmental, social and eco-

nomic impacts of climate change and sealevel rise, and

prepare appropniate contingency plans;

(h) Promote environmentally sound technology for
sustainable development within small island developing
States and identify technologies that should be excluded
because of their threats to essential island ecosystems.

B) DATA AND INFORMATION

17.130 Additional information on the geographic, envi-
ronmental, cultural and socio-economic characteristics
of islands should be compiled and assessed to assist in the
planning process. Existing island databases should be ex-
panded and geographic information systems developed and
adapted to suit the special characteristics of islands.

C) INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL
COOPERATION AND COORDINATION

17.131 Small island developing States, with the support,
as appropriate, of international organizations, whether

CRS-120

subregional, regional or global, should develop and
strengthen inter-island, regional and interregional co-
operation and information exchange, including periodic
regional and global meetings on sustainable development
of small island developing States with the first global
conference on the sustainable development of small is-
land developing States, to be held in 1993.

17.132 International organizations, whether subregional,
regional or global, must recognize the special develop-
ment requirements of small island developing States and
give adequate prionty in the provision of assistance,
particularly with respect to the development and im-
plementation of sustainable development plans.

MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION

A) FINANCING AND COST EVALUATION

17.133 The Conference secretariat has estimated the
average total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing
the activities of this programme to be about $130 million,
including about $50 million from the international com-
munity on grant or concessional terms. These are indica-
tive and order-of-magnitude estimates only and have not
been reviewed by Governments. Actual costs and finan-
cial terms, including any that are non-concessional, will
depend upon, inter alia, the specific strategies and pro-
grammes Governments decide upon for implementation.

B) SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MEANS

17.134 Centres for the development and diffusion of
scientific information and advice on technical means and
technologies appropriate to small island developing
States, especially with reference to the management of
the coastal zone, the exclusive economic zone and marine
resources, should be established or strengthened, as ap-
propmiate, on a regional basis.

C) HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

17.135 Since populations of small island developing
States cannot maintain all necessary specializations,
training for integrated coastal management and develop-
ment should aim to produce cadres of managers or scien-
tists, engineers and coastal planners able to integrate the
many factors that need to be considered in integrated
coastal management. Resource users should be prepared
to execute both management and protection functions
and to apply the polluter pays principle and support the
training of their personnel. Educational systems should

be modified to meet these needs and special training
programmes developed in integrated island management
and development. Local planning should be integrated
in educational curricula of all levels and public awareness
campaigns developed with the assistance of non-govern-
mental organizations and indigenous coastal populations.

D) CAPACITY-BUILDING

17.136 The total capacity of small island developing
States will always be limited. Existing capacity must
therefore be restructured to meet efficiently the immedi-
ate needs for sustainable development and integrated
management. At the same time, adequate and appropn-
ate assistance from the intemational community must be
directed at strengthening the full range of human re-
sources needed on a continuous basis to implement sus-
tainable development plans.

17.137 New technologies that can increase the output and
range of capability of the limited human resources should
be employed to increase the capacity of very small
populations to meet their needs. The development and
application of traditional knowledge to improve the ca-
pacity of ‘countries to implement sustainable develop-
ment should be fostered.

=

References to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea in this chapter of Agenda 21 do not prejudice the position of
any State with respect to signature, ratification of or accession to
the Convention.

2 References to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea in this chapter of Agenda 21 do not prejudice the position of
States which view the Convention as having a unified character.

3Nothing in the programme areas of this chapter should be
interpreted as prejudicing the rights of the States involved in a
dispute of sovereignty or in the delimitation of the maritime areas
concerned.

165

CRS-121

UNITED NATIONS

CONFERENCE ON
ENVIRONMENT & DEVELOPMENT

United
States ©
of
. America

National
Report

CRS-122

ES

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSU

= hn) )——
Oceans and Coastal Resources

Do Pp ot

feel

= 247 —

eye te re

CRS-123

Puerto Rico

Northern 2 and
Mariana Islands : Virgin Islands

@

Wake Island

—) Hawaii
Johnston Island
a =] Palmyra Atoll

‘N\
* Howland Island =| Jarvis Island

Q :
\ P BEN American Samoa

The Exclusive Economic Zone
(Baker Island, Kingman Reef and Navassa Island are not shown.)

By proclamation of the President on March 10, 1983, the United States claimed sovereign rights and jurisdiction within an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
The United States is responsible for wisely developing, managing and protecting the EEZ’s environment and marine resources within an area of over three
million square nautical miles.

Exhibit 6d.1

CRS-124
CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Overview
he states and insular areas of the United States have a total of
over 20,000 kilometers of coastline. The United States exercises
sovereignty over the estuarine and near-coastal waters of its
adjacent territorial seas. In accordance with international law, the
United States also exercises rights and responsibilities for resource
conservation and management and environmental protection in its
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).’ Coastal and ocean ecosystems
often extend beyond U.S. maritime zones into areas where similar rights and
responsibilities are exercised by Canada, the former Soviet Union, Mexico and
several nations of the Caribbean and Pacific. Exhibit 6d.2 summarizes
selected ocean and coastal resource facts.

The Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States, an area of 3.36
million square nautical miles (1.14 thousand-million hectares), contains
approximately one-fifth of the world’s harvestable fish and shellfish. Exhibit
6d.1 illustrates the extent of the U.S. EEZ. In 1990 commercial landings by
U.S. fishing vessels were valued at $3.9 thousand-million dollars. The value-
added contribution of commercial marine fishery products added
approximately $16.6 thousand-million to the U.S. gross national product.
Consumers spent $26.6 thousand-million on seafood products.” A substantial
portion of oceanborne trade occurs in territorial waters and the EEZ.

Coastal and estuarine areas include some of the richest, most diverse
and most productive ecosystems on Earth. Important coastal habitats include:
estuaries, salt and fresh marshes, tidal flats, coastal wetlands, sandy beaches,
barmier islands, seagrass beds, mangrove forests, coral reef ecosystems, and
deltas and dunes. It is difficult to quantify the economic benefits of some of
these habitats and ecosystems. However, coastal waters sustain complex food
webs that support important spawning, nursery and feeding grounds for
commercially, recreationally and ecologically important fish and shellfish
species.* Almost 70 percent of commecially and recreationally important
species of fish and shellfish rely on estuaries for part of their life cycle.

At least 30 percent of North American waterfowl winter in estuarine
areas. Many other migratory birds depend on coastal or estuarine areas for
breeding or migration. Shallow water estuaries and wetland areas provide
important refuges or “staging points” for migratory birds during their annual
flight patterns. A number of marine mammals and endangered species spend
part or all of their lives in coastal areas and specially protected areas of the
United States. Coastal wetland vegetation filters pollutants, retains
sediments, buffers coastal lands against erosion and flooding, and maintains
integrity of groundwater quality and supply. However, these coastal areas
and habitats are susceptible to degradation from human activities as well as
natural events.

Coastal areas are highly desired locations for people seeking either
permanent or “second home’ residences. In 1990, approximately 110 million
people in the United States (40 percent of the total population) lived within 80
kilometers of a coastline. By 2010, the population of the United States’
coastal counties is expected to rise to 127 million people. The nation’s most
densely populated coastal region stretches along the U.S. northeast coast from
Boston, Massachusetts, to Washington, D.C., and accounts for one-third of the
nation’s coastal population. The Southeast’s coastal population is expected to
increase 200 percent by 2010 with development of “retirement-oriented”
communities.‘ In addition to the 50 states, over 3.6 million citizens and U.S.
nationals live in eight inhabited insular areas that are under U.S. sovereignty
in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The population is also increasing rapidly
in these areas. (See Exhibit 1.5 in Chapter 1.)

— 249 —

CRS-125

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

COASTAL LAND
AND WATER AREA

FISHERIES DATA

SELECTED OCEAN AND COASTAL DATA

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) area:
Total EEZ: 3.36 million square nautical miles (1.14 thousand-million hectares)

Estuarine Drainage Area:
676,000 square kilometers

Coastal Wetlands:
84,000 square kilometers (11 million hectares), approximately 12 percent of
total estuarine drainage area

Coastline Exclusive Economic Zone
(statute miles) (square nautical miles)

Conterminous only: 4,993

Atiantic 2069 253.800

Gulf 1631 186.200

Pacific” 1.293 236.800
Alaska (total) 6640 950,000
Hawaill 750 695 000
Extra-territorial:

Caribbean” 44) 58 A400

Pacific” 335 981 000
Total: 13,056 3,362,600

* excluding Hawaii, Alaska, American Samoa and Guam, and other U.S. insular areas

** including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands

*** including only American Samoa, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northem Manana
Islands

Commercial:

w USS fisheries accounted for six percent of total world commercial fishery
landings in 1989.

ws 5 thousand-million kilos (4.995 million metric tons), valued at $3.89
thousand-million were landed by U.S. commercial fishermen in 1990.

8 92,900 craft were used In commercial fishing activities in 1988.

es Approximately 274,000 men and women were engaged in commercial
fishing full-time in 1988. An additional 90,000 persons were employed by
4,600 processors and wholesalers of fishery products.

Recreational marine fisheries: (data from Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
coasts only)

s Approximately 17 million U.S. marine recreational fishermen made 39.8
million fishing trips.

a Approximately 231 million fish (roughly 143 million kilos) were caught.

B 86 percent of these fishing tips occurred within 16 kilometers of shore.

Exhibit 6d.2-

CRS-126

CrrTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

NON-LIVING Off-Shore Oil and Gas Production
RESOURCES 1.65 million square nautical miles (S60 thousand-million hectares) of Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS).°

B In 1989, 13.2 million hectares were under lease. Of that, 3.16 million
hectares were under exploration, development and production for oil
and gas.

B® 85 billion barrels of oil and condensate were Produced from federal
waters in the OCS between 1954 and 1989.

B 2.46 million-million Cubic meters of natural gas were produced from
federal waters in the OCS between 1954 and 1989.

Year Crude oil Natural gas
(thousana-million cubic meters) (thousand-million Cubic meters)

1954 0.525 1.70

1972 65.480 84.95

1989 48.518 118.93
OIL SPILLS Year Vessels°* Non-vessels TOTAL
INVESTIGATED BY (cubic meters) (Cubic meters) (Cubic meters)
THE U.S. COAST 1982 14,383 24,981 39,364
GUARD IN 1982, 1986 12 869 4,921 17.790
1986 AND 1989 1989 OAT Ons ; 227) 53.747

° This is the federal portion of the United States EEZ plus Continental Shelf Extensions covered by the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act.
“Includes tankships, tank barges and other vessels:
* On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez Spilled 40,878 cubic meters of crude oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound.

SOURCES:

Coastal Land and Water Area

U.S. Deparment of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Ocean Survey. Coast and
Geodetic Survey. Chief Geographer.

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Ocean Service. Strategic
Assessments Branch. Estuaries of the United States: Vital Statstics of a Natonal Resource Base. Rockville, MD:
October 1990: 79pp.

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service. Rockville, MD:
Ocean Assessments Division, in cooperation with Department of Interior. National Wetlands Inventory. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Washington, D.C.; and the National Wetlands Research Center. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sidell, Louisiana.
Coastal Wetands of the United States. An Accounting of A Valuable National Resource. February 1991: 59pp.

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Coastline of the United States.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office: 1975.

Fisheries Data
U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmespheric Administration. National Marine Fisheries Service.
Fishenes of the United States, 1989. Current Fishery Statistcs no. 8900. 111pp., and Fisheries of the United States,
1990. Current Fishery Statistics, no. 9000. 111pp. Silver Spring, MD.: May 1990; May 1991.

Non-Living Resources
U.S. Department of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. Federal Offshore Statstics: 1989: Leasing, Exploration and
Revenues. OCS Report MMS 90-0072: 1990: 104pp.

Oil Spills
U.S. Department of Transportation. U.S. Coast Guard. GMEP Office. Washington, D.C.

-—251—-

CRS-127

HAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

eae Cee oreo ee ee ess ee

Increasing population and development are stressing U.S. coastal
systems. Demand for prime coastal property for residential and industrial
purposes has created intense competition and controversy over appropriate
uses of these lands. Constructing harbors, industrial facilities and services for
tourists and others leads to filling and draining wetlands, modifying
shorelines to protect investments and increases in pollution loads.

Development in many coastal areas has “sprawled” across the
landscape. Residential and industrial developments have replaced farms,
forests, wetlands, woodlands, and fish and wildlife habitats. Between 43 and
51 percent of annual U.S. residential construction between 1970 and 1989 was
in coastal areas. Some 6.7 million housing units were constructed in the
nation’s coastal areas during the 1980s. The most dramatic growth occurred
in Florida and California, where almost 45 percent of the nation’s coastal
housing was built. Florida and California have lost 46 percent and 91
percent, respectively, of their original wetlands.

Natural coastal ecosystems have been disrupted by poorly planned or
inefficient development patterns. Commercial fishing and industrial activities
are especially vulnerable to rising property values along waterways.
Condominiums and second- or vacation-home developers purchase dock space,
particularly fish docks, and develop waterfront condominiums and marinas,
displacing fishermen from this area. Development of recreational facilities in
some undeveloped areas has created pollution from “point” and “non-point”
sources, and destroyed fish and wildlife habitat. Coastal erosion and public
access to beaches remain problems in many areas with high property values.

Additional leisure time has increased the demand for parks,
recreational facilities and fishery resources. Excluding Hawaii, Alaska and
the US. insular areas, over 27,000 recreation sites covering 114,400 square
kilometers, under public ownership and/or management by local, state and
federal governments, are in U.S. coastal areas. Local governments own the
majority of these. Almost 4,000 of these sites are adjacent to tidally
influenced waters, and about 1,500 are adjacent to the open ocean. Over 200
million hectares of federal lands are managed by the National Park Service
and the Fish and Wildlife Service in Hawaii. In Alaska, over 51.6 million
hectares are managed by the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife
Service. These areas are protected for public enjoyment.

Coastal areas support major population and transportation centers,
commercial and recreational fishing industries, agricultural activities and
industrial facilities. Traders, guides and equipment suppliers in coastal areas
contribute thousands of millions of dollars to the national economy. Scenic
and recreational appeal of coastal and marine areas greatly enhance many
local economies. The economic base of many coastal communities centers on
providing visitors with opportunities to enjoy beaches and related recreational
activities such as swimming, surfing, fishing and boating. Tourism and
related activities generate thousands of millions of dollars each year in coastal
U.S. communities.

The offshore oil and gas industry in the coastal states (located
primarily in the Gulf of Mexico, off southern California, and in the Arctic
Ocean) is of national strategic and economic importance. Approximately 11
percent of the nation’s oil production and 23 percent of the nation’s natural
gas production were produced from these areas in 1989.5 (See Box 6d.1.)
Thousands of millions of dollars of economically recoverable resources remain
in the Gulf of Mexico and other outer continental shelf (OCS) areas; only
about five percent of the total number of designated OCS tracts have been
leased for energy exploration and development. Coastal areas are also a
potentially important source of non-energy mineral resources, including sand

— 252—

CRS-128

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

U.S. COASTAL AREAS: ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

Over the past several decades, the United States has made substantial
progress in correcting poor resource management practices. This
includes curbing the loss and modification of some types of coastal
habitats, and reducing environmental loadings of some types of
contaminants such as nutrients, certain pesticides and toxic industrial
chemicals. However, many of our coastal areas continue to suffer from
over-utilization, continuing losses of important habitat and damage from
pollution. For example:

B Striped bass have shown a steady decline over the past 15 years in
almost every estuary on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Salmonid
populations continue to drop in San Francisco and Willapa Bays, and
the Columbia River. Other interjurisdictional and estuarine species,
such as sturgeon, shad, redfish, oysters and dungeoness crab are also
declining in at least part of their ranges. Maryiand’s oyster harvest has
declined more than 90 percent from levels of a century ago.

Waterfow are declining in all coastal areas. Black duck, canvasback,
redhead, pintail, blue wing teal, scaup and cackling Canada goose
populations are showing significant declines.

Coastal wetiands, which support many fish and wildlife species, are still
being lost in many areas. In Louisiana alone, there is an estimated loss
of 12,800 hectares of coastal wetlands annually.

Submerged aquatic vegetation, which is a source of food and
essential habitat for many aquatic species, has decreased drastically
in several estuaries in recent times, including the Chesapeake, Tampa,
Mobile, Galveston, San Francisco and Willapa bays, and the Laguna
Madre. At least 65 percent of the submerged aquatic vegetation
present in the Chesapeake Bay in 1960 had been lost by 1988.

In 1990, of the 6.88 million hectares of estuarine waters that were
classified for harvest, 37 percent are harvest-limited. In Louisiana in
1985, harvest from 24 percent of the state’s classified estaurine wasters
was prohibited. In 1990, this had risen to 35 percent.

Restrictions or health advisories for the consumption of certain types of
fish and shellfish are in effect in many coastal areas.

Beach closures due to bacterial contamination or presence of debris,
including medical wastes, remain a problem in some areas.

and gravel, phosphorite, manganese nodules, cobalt-ferromanganese crusts
and polymetallic sulfides.

The United States has many federal, state and local programs to
manage and protect marine areas and resources subject to its jurisdiction.
These include the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act, the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA), the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, among others. A
description of these environmental laws is presented in Chapter 5. State and
federal coastal-zone management programs are intended to balance
development and use of coastal resources with environmental and social

— 253—

CRS-129

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

considerations. These programs encourage multiple use and long-term
protection of U.S. coastal areas.

More than half of the U.S. population resides in coastal areas. These
coastal areas account for less than 10 percent of the nation’s land. A number
of approaches have been taken to manage the effect of population growth on
the coastal environment. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, for
example, established a national framework for coastal resources management
to assist states and insular areas in developing the capability to manage their
coastal resources. The federal government provides financial and technical
assistance and policy guidance to states and territorial governments to
prepare and implement programs. State and local governments must balance
the use and conservation of coastal and ocean resources. The federal
government has invested over $600 million in these state programs. Twenty-
nine coastal states and insular areas covering 94 percent of the U.S. coastline
now have federally approved coastal zone management programs. In 1990,
the act added a requirement for states and insular areas with approved CZM
programs to develop coastal non-point pollution control programs. State
programs must contain enforceable policies and mechanisms to reduce non-
point sources of pollution and protect coastal waters.

Individual U.S. states take the lead role in other programs such as the
National Estuary Program. This program, created under the Clean Water
Act, identifies significant estuaries, and establishes a process for improving
and protecting water quality and enhancing coastal resources in the estuarine
ecosystem. An estuary is nominated by a state governor and approved by the
federal government. A Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan
(CCMP) for managing the estuarine watershed is developed cooperatively with
the participation of all interested parties. These include the appropriate
government agencies, elected officials, academic institutions, interest groups
and the public. The CCMP identifies the specific actions needed to restore
and maintain the estuary and establishes a schedule for implementation. The
program currently includes 17 estuaries.

Characterization of the U.S. Coastal Areas and Resources’

Northeast
Atlantic

Middle Atlantic

long the Northeast Atlantic coast, rocky tidal shorelines and
islands are the dominant geologic feature. Estuaries are generally
small. Boston, Massachusetts is the only major urban area.
Forested areas predominate in this region. Harvesting is allowed
in 83 percent of the shellfish growing areas (approximately 3,120
square kilometers). Over 325,000 metric tons of seafood valued at
over $542 million were landed in the region in 1990. Lobsters,
scallops and cod are the commercially important species. The Northeast
Atlantic region has the fewest point sources of pollution and the lowest rate of
pesticide application of all the regions.

The Middle Atlantic is the most densely populated coastal region of the
United States. It contains the greatest percentage of urban land, and includes
New York City and Washington, D.C. Nevertheless, forest and agricultural
land uses dominate in this region. Sixty percent of the wetlands in this region
are found around the Chesapeake and Delaware bays. Approximately 84
percent of the 19,500 square kilometers of classified shellfish growing areas
are approved for harvesting. About 550,000 metric tons of seafood worth
approximately $310 million were landed in this region in 1990. Major
fisheries of the region include the sea scallop and estuarine-dependant blue
crab. Estuaries in this area provide important habitat for striped bass and
bluefish.

=.254'—

CRS-130

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Southeast
Atlantic

Gulf of Mexico

Pacific

Alaska

Hawaii

The Southeast Atlantic coast is characterized by two shorelines: lagoons
fronted by barrier islands and low-lying marshy shoreline formations. The
population density varies significantly from sparsely populated areas of North
and South Carolina to high densities in Florida. Extensive forests cover the
landscape adjoining several estuaries, such as the Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds.
Agriculture is also a major land use. This region contains the second highest
amount of wetlands of all the regions. Harvesting is allowed in over 75
percent of the classified shellfish waters. Over 131,000 metric tons of seafood
valued at $169 million were landed in the region in 1990. Estuarine-
dependant species, including shrimp, crabs and menhaden accounted for over
half of the harvest. Municipal wastewater treatment plants and pesticides
applied to agricultural lands are the major sources of coastal pollution.

Large shallow estuaries dominate the Gulf of Mexico coast. They provide
important habitats for many estuarine-dependant living resources. Abundant
wetlands are found in this area. Significant wetland losses are occurring due
to natural erosion, accelerated erosion caused by river diversions, damming
and channelization, and pollution. Conversion to agriculture has been a major
cause of loss of wetlands in the Mississippi delta and Florida Everglades.
Agricultural and forestry activities are the most prevalent land uses.
Although only five percent of the region is considered urban, the Gulf of
Mexico region is the second fastest growing coastal area. Most of the region’s
population is concentrated in Florida and Texas. Approximately 42 percent of
classified shellfish-growing waters are open for harvesting. In 1990, the Gulf
of Mexico region landed almost 800 metric tons of seafood valued at $640
million. Shrimp landings are second to menhaden in volume, but accounted
for more than half of the value of all landings. The Gulf of Mexico has more
point sources of pollution than any other region. Over half of these point
sources are associated with the petrochemical industry. Farmers in the Gulf
of Mexico apply more pesticides to their crops than in any other coastal
region.

The Pacific region has the second highest percentage of urban land. Forests
are the major land use along the coast and estuaries north of San Francisco
Bay. Next to the Northeast Atlantic coast, the Pacific has the fewest point
sources of pollution and the lowest amount of pesticide application of coastal
regions. The Pacific region contains the least amount of coastal wetlands.
Harvesting is limited in more than 70 percent of the approved shellfish-
growing waters. This region landed 310,000-metric tons of seafood valued at
$315 million in 1990 in this region. Over half of the total value is from
anadromous salmon fisheries.

Alaska has two distinct types of coastlines: deep glacial fjords and wide
dendritic fluvial plains. Coastal bays and rivers provide important habitats
for major runs of anadramous fish, marine mammals and commercially sought
species. Millions of seabirds nest and marine mammals haul out on numerous
islands around the coast. Pacific cod, pollock and other trawl-caught species
dominate fish landings in Alaska. In 1990, the fishing industry landed
approximately 2.7 million metric tons of seafood products valued at over $1.5
thousand-million in Alaskan ports.

The Hawaiian islands, a chain of volcanic islands, rise from the seafloor in the
tropical Pacific. Forested land dominates in Hawaii, and much of the
coastline is undeveloped. The population is concentrated on Oahu, one of the
eight major islands. Tourism is a major part of the economic base of the state.
In 1990, over 6 million visitors generated over $9 thousand-million in the

— 255—

CRS-131

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Insular Areas of
the Pacific and
Caribbean

tourist industry. In 1990, 1,300 metric tons of seafood valued at $6.5 million
were landed in Hawaii.

Insular areas under U.S. sovereignty or administration range from coralline-
fringed volcanic seamounts of American Samoa, Guam, Palau and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana islands in the Pacific, to the U.S.
Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico in the Caribbean. Approximately 30 percent of
the U.S. EEZ lies in the insular areas. Fishing for tuna and nearshore reef
species and tourism are important components of the economies of many
Pacific islands. Tourism, light industry and petroleum refining are integral to
the economic base of the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Chapter 3 on
indigenous peoples gives a more detailed description of these insular areas.

Ocean Resources

Living Marine
Resources

ver 20,000 species of fish and shellfish inhabit marine, estuarine
and freshwater ecosystems in the waters of the United States. Of
these, approximately 300 species are fished for commercial and
recreational purposes. Many species are enjoyed in their
environment for their aesthetic value.

Commercial Fisheries. During the 1960s and 1970s, foreign
distant water fleets exploited highly productive waters off the United States
such as the Georges Bank region. Foreign factory freezer trawlers
revolutionized deepwater commercial fishing. In 1976, Congress enacted the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Through eight
regional fishery management councils, fisheries resources within the EEZ are
managed for their maximum sustained and optimum yield. States regulate
the nearshore fisheries within their coastal waters.

Since 1976, the United States harvesting capacity has increased
allowing a higher proportion of the maximum sustainable and optimum yield
within the U.S. EEZ to be harvested the U.S. fishing fleet. For certain
fisheries, however, the average catch per unit effort has declined. Reasons for
these declines vary. Over-exploitation of target and non-target species, coastal
habitat alteration, and point and non-point source pollution discharges have
had major impacts on fishery resources.

Total landings and their value have increased substantially since
1970. Exhibit 6d.3 illustrates the trends in total landings and their value
from 1970 to 1989. Almost 5 million metric tons of edible fish and shellfish
and industrial fishery products were landed by U.S. commercial fishing
operators in 1990. The total value of this harvest was worth $3.89 thousand-
million. This compares with landings of 2.2 million metric tons of fish and
shellfish valued at $602 million in 1970. In 1970, Americans consumed
approximately 5.13 kilos of edible seafood per person. By 1990, consumption
had increased to 7.2 kilos per person.

Marine species comprise 85 percent of the commercial, non-
aquaculture catch of seafood in the United States. In 1990, 1.44 million
metric tons of pollock were landed from the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska.
This catch alone accounted for approximately 30 percent of the total
commercial] landings and was valued at $272 million. The other important
fisheries landings were: 900,000 metric tons of menhaden valued at $94
million from the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico; 330,000 metric tons of
salmon from the Pacific Northwest and Alaska valued at $612 million; and
157,000 metric tons of shrimp from the Gulf of Mexico valued at $491

million.’

— 256 —

CRS-132

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

=
C3)
6
=
8
=
eo
=
=
[-)
@
€
2
=
=
@
a
£
a=)
5

U.S. Commercial Landings

Value (Thousand-Miilion Dollars)

1975 1980 1985 1989

A 1989 survey of commercial fisheries resources of the United States
concluded that of 81 commercially harvested stocks (i.e., species or species
groups):®

m@ 14 are over-exploited and another 36 are fully exploited;

®B 10 of 14 over-exploited stocks would require five to 20 years to recover if
fishing stopped altogether, but commercial fishing continues in eight of
these 10 fisheries;

@ Nearly 30 percent of all species and stocks studied have experienced
population declines since 1977;

® Insufficient information exists on the status of 29 percent of U.S. fisheries.

Aquaculture. Although the U.S. aquaculture industry is relatively new, it
is expanding rapidly. Aquaculture of some species is especially important in
certain U.S. regions. Catfish, trout and salmon are among the most valuable
species cultured in the United States. In 1989, 373.5 million kilos, worth
$740 million of aquacultured species were produced by the U.S. aquaculture
industry."°

Marine Recreational Fisheries. Fishing is one of the most popular
recreational activities in the United States. In 1990, approximately 143
million kilos of marine fish were caught during an estimated 39.8 million
fishing trips. Popular marine sportfish include bluefish, mahi mahi, spotted
seatrout, sea bass, marlin, striped bass, red drum, weakfish, summer and
winter flounder, sharks and Atlantic croaker in the Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico regions. Mackerel, smelt, striped bass, rockfish and flounder are
species caught on the Pacific coast. Most recreational fishing occurs within 16
kilometers of the shore. Although the number of marine recreational fishing
trips has remained relatively constant, as Exhibit 6d.4 illustrates, the total
annual catch has declined substantially since 1980.”

— 257 -—

CRS-133

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

e
i
i)
=

Exhibit 6d.4

U.S. Marine Recreational Fisheries

Marine Mammals. All marine mammals found in the waters of the United
States are protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Ten
species of large whales, 34 species of small cetaceans (porpoises and dolphins),
13 species of pinnipeds (seals, sea lions and walrus), and five other species
(sea otters, polar bear, manatee and dugong) of marine mammals spend part
or all of their time in waters of the United States and its insular areas.
Population levels of manatees, Hawaiian monk seals, northern right whales,
humpback whales, California sea otters, Stellar sea lions and the Gulf of
California harbor porpoises are much lower than historical levels and have
been designated as endangered or threatened.’* The MMPA, enacted in

1972, was the first national law to prohibit taking (defined as actual or
attempted killing, hunting, capturing, harming or harassing) of marine
mammals. The MMPA allows taking by permit for scientific research, public
education, enhancing the survival or recovery of a species or stock, and by
Alaska Natives for subsistence and handicraft purposes. Small numbers of
marine mammals may also be taken incidental to commercial fishing activities
and specified activities other than commercial fishing, if the federal
government determines that such taking will have a negligible impact on the
marine mammal species. Concerns that led Congress to enact the MMPA
included: declining populations, particularly of large whales; calls for a global
moratorium on commercial whaling; and the incidental capture of marine
mammals by commercial tuna fishermen, particularly in the eastern tropical
Pacific. The box on the next page highlights advances in the protection of
marine mammal populations since enactment of the MMPA.

Marine Turtles. The five species of sea turtles which are listed by the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) as endangered or threatened are green,
hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback and loggerhead. Despite protection
under the ESA, incidental capture in commercial shrimp trawls, loss of
nesting habitat and marine pollution have prevented turtle populations from
recovering. Scientists have identified incidental capture of sea turtles in
commercial shrimp trawls as the single most serious threat to population

— 258 —

— “$4 (eaeeRS 154 a a

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Marine Mammal Protection Act

Several significant changes have occurred since the United States Congress passed the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in 1972:

Eastem Pacific population of gray whales recovers.

Population estimates indicate that the eastern Pacific population of gray whales numbered
15,000 to 20,000 prior to the initiation of commercial exploitation in 1846. By the turn of the
century, the population was severely depleted. All commercial whaling on the species
ceased in 1946. The population has recovered to the pre-exploitation levels, which is currently
estimated at 21,000 animals. Between 1967 and 1988, the population grew at an annual rate
of 3.2 percent (Breiwick and Braham, 1984).

Dolphin captures by U.S. tuna fishermen reduced over 90 percent.

In 1972, American tuna fishermen killed 423,678 dolphins in purse-seine fishery in the eastern
tropical Pacific. By using new gear, United States fishermen reduced incidental capture to less
than 20,000 per year in the 1980s. In 1990, three U.S. canneries—suppliers of nearly 75 percent
of canned tuna consumed nationwide—terminated purchase of tuna caught in dolphin-
threatening operations. In 1990, the observed kill of dolphins by U.S. fishing boats was 5,083
(Hall and Boyer, 1990).

Commercial fur seal harvests ended.
A commercial harvest of Northern fur seal for their pelts was conducted under the supervision

of the U.S. government in the Pribilof Islands from 1916 to 1984 under the North Pacific Fur Seal
Convention. The meat from these animals was also used for subsistence by the Pribilof
islanders. Beginning in 1985, the harvest has been for subsistence use only and the kill was
limited to 3,713. The kill since then has been less than 2,000 per year. The population has
been declining for many years and is considered depieted. The current population of fur seals
in the entire eastern Bering Sea is thought to be 871,000 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990).

Sea otter populations in Alaska are thriving.

Between 1742 and 1911, commercial fur hunters reduced sea otters in Alaska to extremely low
population levels. Since sea ofters are now protected under the MMPA, their numbers and
distribution in Alaska continue to increase. Between 1965 and 1969, 402 sea otters were
translocated to six sites in southeastern Alaska. Nearly 4,000 sea otters were counted in the
same areas between 1987 to 1988. Most recent population estimates put the number of
Alaska sea otters at between 100,000 and 150,000 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990).

Florida manatee populations currently number between 1,200 to 2,000.

The most recent survey counted 1,465 manatees. Species decline has been linked to killing or
injury of animals by vessels in Florida waterways, degradation of habitat by extensive coastal
development, and episodes of intense cold weather beyond the animals’ ability to survive.
Recovery programs by local, state, federal government, and non-profit organizations have
targeted increased scientific research and public education as tools to hatt species decline. In
spite of these efforts, known annual mortality from all causes has been increasing (Marine
Mammal Commission, 1991).

recovery of loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley turtles. In 1987, the federal
government required commercial shrimp trawlers to use Turtle Excluder
Devices (TEDs) to minimize the then-estimated annual loss of 50,000 sea
turtles drowned when taken incidentally in shrimp nets. Since
implementation of these regulations, the number of dead sea turtles washing
ashore on beaches during shrimping season has dropped dramatically.™*

Specially The section on plants, animals and biodiversity addresses specially protected
Protected Areas aquatic and terrestrial areas. Areas within U.S. maritime zones which are

— 259 —

CRS-135

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Challenges:
Ongoing and in
the Future

representative of various ecosystems have been set aside for the conservation
of plant and animal species.

National Marine Sanctuaries.’ | National Marine Sanctuaries range in
size from less than 1 to over 2,600 square nautical miles (over 883,000
hectares). These sanctuaries harbor a diverse array of marine plants and
animals, from huge whales to tiny brightly colored sea snails. In many cases,
these protected waters provide a secure habitat for marine species close to
extinction. The nine national marine sanctuaries represent distinct marine
environments in temperate and tropical areas, such as nearshore, open water
and benthic (or ocean floor) ecosystems. They are: Gulf of the Farallones
(northern California); Channel Islands (southern California); Cordell Bank
(northern California); Gray’s Reef (Georgia coast); the MONITOR (North
Carolina); Fagatele Bay (American Samoa); Florida Keys including Looe Key
and Key Largo. Additional locations are in the process of being designated.

National Estuarine Research Reserves." Currently, there are 19

National Estuarine Research Reserves (NERR) preserving approximately
120,000 hectares of estuarine waters and salt and freshwater wetlands. These
areas are protected for support of long-term research. NERR sites are
selected which represent biogeographical and typological ecosystems of U.S.
mainland and trust territories. Four NERR’s are located in the Gulf of Mexico
and the Caribbean, eight on the Atlantic coast, one in the Great Lakes, and
five in the Pacific. The most recent addition, the Chesapeake Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve in Virginia, was designated in June 1991. It
protects nearly 1,200 hectares of wetland and upland habitat. Additional sites
are currently being developed.”

National Park Service. The National Park System has many holdings in
coastal areas in the United States and its territories. These coastal areas not
only provide spectacular scenery, but allow for conservation, protection and
research of wildlife, plants, and natural and cultural resources. Coastal and
riparian parks include: the Everglades (Florida), Channel Islands (southern
California), Acadia National Park (Maine); Big Cypress National Preserve
(Florida); Pu’uohonua o Honaunau (Hawaii); Buck Island Reef (Virgin
Islands), and Fort Jefferson (Dry Tortugas, Florida) National Monuments;
USS Arizona Memorial (Hawaii); Sitka National Historical Park (Alaska);
Assateague Island (Virginia) and Point Reyes (California) National
Seashores.®

National Wildlife Refuges. | The National Wildlife Refuge System is a
unique and highly diverse network of over 36 million hectares of lands and
waters in the United States. Over 470 national wildlife refuges are managed
to conserve and enhance populations of fish and wildlife and their habitats.
There are over 150 coastal refuges that provide nursery areas for anadromous,
estuarine and marine fish, habitat for nesting and wintering migratory
waterfowl and seabirds, and the necessary environment for the enhancement
of endangered or threatened species such as manatees. Some of these coastal
refuges include: Yukon Delta (Alaska), San Juan Islands (Washington),
Howland Island (U.S. Pacific insular area), Arkansas (Texas), Key West
(Florida) and Chincoteague (Virginia).

Federal and state regulatory agencies are facing many challenges regarding
the management and conservation of the nation’s living marine resources and
their habitats. Many are currently being addressed through various federal
programs. These include: addressing the competition for resources among

— 260—

CRS-136

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Non-Living
Marine
Resources

commercial, recreational and indigenous fishermen; improving the
effectiveness of international fisheries relationships with foreign fishermen;
reducing bycatch/incidental catch; improving predictability of stock
assessments; improving compliance with fisheries management regulations;
resolving conflicts between Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered
Species Act and fisheries; rebuilding overfished marine fisheries; protecting
living marine resource habitat; assessing the effects of climate change on
living marine resources and their habitats; and improving the safety of
seafood for human consumption.”

The continental shelves off the Atlantic, northwestern and southwestern
Pacific (Alaska and California), and Gulf of Mexico coasts contain significant
mineral and energy resources. The United States manages the minerals,
natural gas and oil resources of the outer continental shelf (OCS) under the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The OCSLA authorizes leasing
publicly owned offshore areas to private companies for environmentally sound
extraction of sub-seabed mineral resources. Exploration and development may
occur only after analysis of potential environmental impacts, compliance with
federal environmental laws and compliance with state coastal-zone
management plans. From 1973 to 1988, the federal government spent over
$500 million dollars on studies relating to the effects of OCS development on
the marine, coastal and human environments.”

Oil and Gas Deposits. The federal OCS encompasses approximately 560
million hectares. Of this total, 13.2 million hectares were under lease to oil
and gas exploration, development and production companies during 1989. In
1989, the OCS oil and gas program generated more than $2.9 thousand-
million in production royalties and lease-related revenues for the federal
government. Approximately 1.35 thousand-million cubic meters of oil and
2.46 million-million cubic meters of natural gas have been produced from the
OCS between 1954 to 1989. An additional 651.8 million cubic meters were
produced from the states’ waters during this period for a U.S. EEZ total of
about 2 thousand-million cubic meters. Between 1971 and 1988, oil
production from OCS wells averaged almost one million barrels per day. In
1972, the OCS supplied almost 14 percent of the U.S. production of natural
gas and 12 percent of the oil produced. By 1989, the OCS supplied almost 24
percent of all natural gas produced in the U.S and more than 10 percent of
the nation’s oil production.”!

Balancing development of oil and gas resources on the outer
continental shelf with protecting the coastal and marine environments and
their living resources has been controversial. In response to public concern
over adverse environmental effects of OCS oil and gas activities, and in light
of some uncertainties in the scientific analysis of potential ecological and
social impacts of offshore development, in June 1990, President George Bush
announced a delay on OCS leasing until after the year 2000 in many areas off
California, Florida, the Pacific Northwest and the North Atlantic. The Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 initiated a comprehensive federal oil spill liability,
compensation, prevention and response program. This act established a $1
thousand-million trust fund to improve prevention and cleanup of oil spills.
The act includes monies for cleanup activities, improving the safety of marine
transportation of oil and research. It also imposed a moratorium on oil and
gas leasing off the North Carolina coast.

Mineral Deposits. Blanket deposits of sand and gravel, placer deposits

containing gold, platinum, chromite and titanium, polymetallic sulfides
containing copper, lead, zinc and other minerals, ferromanganese crusts and

— 261—

CRS-137

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

nodules, and thick beds of phosphorite occur on the ocean floor in the U.S.
EEZ. At present, there are no mining operations in the U.S. EEZ; however,
sand and gravel are dredged from the entrance to New York Harbor and sold
for commercial use. Gold was mined in Alaskan state waters near the city of
Nome from 1986 to 1990. Sand is also dredged periodically from state coastal
waters for beach nourishment.

Coastal and Marine Pollution

n the 1970s, municipal sewage and contaminants in industrial
wastewater were the primary sources of pollution. The construction of
sewage treatment plants in coastal cities and installation of
wastewater treatment plants at industrial facilities during the past two
decades has curtailed many of the problems caused by these sources.
Additional efforts currently underway should address remaining
sewage treatment problems.” Non-point sources, stormwater, and

combined storm and sanitary sewers, remain the largest challenges to fully

addressing coastal pollution.

Coastal Growing coastal populations are generating an increasing amount of

Pollution municipal sewage, urban runoff, and marine debris. Industrial manufacturing
and processing plants, landfills, dock and marina structures, agricultural
runoff and littering by the general population also contribute to marine
pollution problems. The United States has initiated a number of measures to
combat coastal pollution problems. The status of some of these programs is
discussed below. In addition, special programs have been established for the
Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Mexico.

Sewage Treatment. In the past, one of the most severe sources of coastal
pollution was municipal sewage. In some areas, coastal waters subject to
limited tidal flushing action received sewage treated by only very basic, or
primary, treatment procedures, and some received entirely untreated sewage
either all the time or when rainfall overloaded combined storm and sanitary
sewer systems. More municipal sewage is now treated prior to discharge into
coastal as well as fresh waters. The U.S. population served by sewage
treatment facilities providing secondary treatment or better has increased
from 85 million in 1972 to 144 million in 1988 and the population served by
raw discharge facilities has dropped from five million to one million during
the same period.” Significant improvements in coastal water quality have
been achieved for many of the nation’s coastal cities since implementation of
secondary, and in a few cases tertiary, or advanced, wastewater treatment.
However, in a few of the nation’s largest and oldest cities, such as the Boston,
Massachusetts metropolitan area, antiquated treatment plants have not yet
been fully upgraded; improvements have been undertaken in the past several
years. Rebuilding sewer systems to separate combined sanitary and storm
sewers also presents formidable problems due to the high cost and logistic
difficulties of rebuilding old sewer systems in extremely dense population
centers such as the New York and Boston metropolitan areas.

Non-point and Other Diffuse Sources. Non-point source runoff from
agricultural and urban areas has been more difficult to control. The United
States continues to use focused geographic approaches designed to protect
particularly fragile or threatened coastal areas from non-point and other
diffuse sources. Model urban runoff/stormwater programs are in place for
Puget Sound in the state of Washington and in severa! other cities; these
programs have demonstrated reductions in toxic and other pollutant loadings.

— 262—

CRS-138
CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Agricultural management practices are being implemented through voluntary
programs specifically aimed at coastal protection in the Chesapeake Bay, the
North Carolina sounds and other coastal areas. Some states also limit
suburban development and other construction in buffer zones along their
estuarine coastlines. However, continuing development and incomplete
protection against non-point source impacts continue to threaten water quality
in many coastal areas. The United States is trying a new approach under the
1990 amendments of the Coastal Zone Management Act. The act combines
water quality and coastal zone management activities into Coastal Non-point
Pollution Control Programs, which coastal states are required to develop by
the end of 1994.

One area currently receiving increased recognition and remaining to
be addressed is the contribution of airborne sources of nutrient and toxic
pollutants. Airborne sources of pollutants deposited into coastal water bodies
are now estimated, in some cases, to contribute from 10 to 46 percent of
nitrogen loads and significant portions of phosphorus loads to some major
northeast estuaries.”

Direct and Indirect Industrial Discharges. __ Direct discharges into coastal
waters from industrial point sources have been markedly controlled in the
past 20 years. Large proportions of previously released toxic and conventional
pollutants have been removed from the waste streams of many large
industrial and manufacturing facilities. This has resulted in improved coastal
water quality in the immediate vicinity of the plants. Development of
regulations for some additional industrial categories which are not yet
covered, as well as revisions to existing regulations, are expected to bring
about additional reductions in the discharge of toxic and conventional water
pollutants.

Additional efforts are needed to adequately control toxic water
pollutants from industrial and commercial facilities that discharge waste to
municipal sewage treatment plants. The program for controlling these
industrial releases, called the pretreatment program, requires each
municipality to regulate these “indirect” dischargers. Most sewage treatment
plants have not been designed to treat toxic pollutants. These pollutants can
kill microbes that are part of the treatment process at the sewage treatment
plant. Therefore, most industrial facilities must "pretreat" their effluent
before discharging to the municipal sewer system. Pretreatment programs are
now in place in almost all large municipalities. However, compliance
monitoring difficulties combined with municipal budget constraints have made
this a difficult program for some cities to conduct with full success.

Cumulative *‘Minor’’ Point Source Effects. Toxic and conventional
pollution of the coastal environment from a myriad of small commercial,
industrial or resource extraction facilities has not yet been adequately
addressed. These facilities have sometimes not been thoroughly controlled
because a higher regulatory priority has been placed on large dischargers to
achieve the largest individual pollutant load reductions. However, in some
areas it appears that concentrations of many “minor” facilities are causing
serious coastal water quality impairments.

Floatables, Non-Biodegradables and Other Trash. Floatable trash is an

aesthetic problem and poses serious ecological risks. Several states and
municipalities have begun major trash cleanup programs, often mobilizing

=263\=

CRS-139

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

CASE STUDY
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM

The Chesapeake Bay, with a surface area of 5,720 square kilometers, is the largest estuary in
the United States. It is fed by 150 tributary rivers and streams, and supports 2,500 species of
plants and animals and 13 million people.

In recent decades, the bay suffered serious declines in quality and productivity. In
1975, elevated public concerns led to a $27 million, Environmental Protection Agency-directed
study of the causes of the decline. Overabundance of phosphorus and nitrogen was seen as
the dominant cause of explosive algal growth that blocked out sunlight which bay grasses
needed to survive, and depleted dissolve oxygen levels essential to all bay life. These
conditions triggered a downward spiral of plants and animals competing for the depleted
oxygen. The main sources of the excess nutrient loads include agricultural lands, specifically
fertilizers and animal wastes, as well as urban and suburban waste discharges and runoff, and
atmospheric deposition.

Though numerous federal and state pollution control and resource restoration
programs were in operation, they were fragmented and unfocused. The EPA study
recommendations provided a framework for coordinated, goal-driven actions by the three
bay-bordering states (Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia), the District of Columbia, the
Chesapeake Bay Commission (an interstate body for legislative coordination) and the federal
government. To reduce algal growth and its impacts on submerged aquatic vegetation and
dissolved oxygen levels, a 40-percent reduction in nitrogen and phosphorous loadings to the
bay became a dominant goal of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement.

The Chesapeake Bay restoration has proceeded on many fronts. These include
improved sewage treatment, phosphate detergent bans, better compliance with
environmental requirements by federal facilities, reduced fertilizer use and improved animal
waste management, better erosion control, a moratorium on striped-bass fishing, and
construction of a fish passage facility at Conowingo Dam on the Susquehanna River. Plans are
underway or already being implemented to restrict shoreline development, further improve
controls on urban and farm runoff, protect wetiands, reduce pollutant discharges from
recreational boats, improve fisheries management and limit discharges of toxic chemicals.

Bay water quality improvements reported in 1991 included a 20-percent reduction in
total phosphorus since 1985, even though wastewater flows from municipal sources continued
to grow. This progress is attributed primarily to reductions of phosphorus loadings from point
source discharges. But nom-point source control efforts on farm lands and a ban on
phosphate detergents also contributed to reductions. Submerged aquatic vegetation, the
most sensitive indicator of overall water quality improvement in the bay. increased its
coverage in the mid-bay by 57 percent since 1984. Striped bass are increasing, again allowing
sport and commercial fishing for this popular fish.

Nitrogen levels, however, have continued to rise due mostly to continuing population
growth and related increases in wastewater flows without removal of their nitrate content. A
major reduction is expected frorn the 30-percent cut in nitrogen fertilizer use. But this result will
take some time to show up because nitrogen travels from fields to the bay predominantly
through groundwater, a process that takes several years. Another concem is nitrogen
deposition from the air (prirnarily from power plants and vehicle emissions), which may
constitute nearly 40 percent of the loadings to the bay from human sources.

The parties to the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement are currently reevaluating their
commitment to a 40-percent reduction of phosphorus and nitrogen entering the bay by the
year 2000. This evaluation is expected to provide a refined bay-wide nutrient reduction
commitment, including basin-specific nutrient reduction targets and revised strategies to
achieve the water quality and living resources goals.

— 264—

CRS-140

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Open Ocean
Pollution

citizen volunteers and instituting public education campaigns. In 1990,
109,000 volunteers nation-wide cleared 5,850 kilometers of coastline and
collected more than 1,320 tons of trash.~ New York City has been re-
examining the management of its enormous solid waste stream in an effort to
minimize contributions to the sea via storm sewers, spills from trash barges
and other sources. The United States is working toward better control of
storm sewers and combined sewer overflow and expects these controls to
reduce the release of floatables from these sources.

Since the early 1970s, major progress has been made by the United States in
controlling pollution in the open ocean. Ocean waters within the U.S. EEZ
are relatively unpolluted compared to near-shore coastal waters. This is in
part because pollutants disperse in the open ocean, but also because the
United States has significantly reduced most direct ocean releases of
pollutants. Material being disposed of in open ocean areas along the U.S.
outer continental shelf now consists primarily of oil and gas drill rg
discharges (mainly from drill cuttings with some drilling mud), sediments
from dredging operations and ship discharges. Strict regulations limit
materials that can legally be disposed of in the open ocean. Federal agencies
have taken steps to discourage the use of some kinds of fishing gear and other
shipboard equipment that increase the amount of trash in marine waters.

Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge. Dumping of sewage sludge increased
from 4.8 million tons in 1973 to 8.7 million tons in 1989. Until 1986, sludge
from nine New York and New Jersey sewage authorities was dumped at a site
19 kilometers offshore. In 1986, this dumping was moved to another site 170
kilometers offshore. Six of these nine sludge dumpers terminated their
operation in March 1991. Two more will cease dumping in December 1991,
and the last remaining offender is scheduled to cease dumping in June 1992.
In order to end their ocean dumping, these sewerage authorities either have
switched or will soon switch to beneficial re-use (recycling) of sludge or more
costly sludge disposal methods, such as land disposal at permitted facilities or
incineration, as a result of the Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988.

Cessation of Industrial Ocean Dumping. Between 1973 and 1987, the
amount of U.S. industrial waste dumped in the ocean annually declined
steadily from about six million tons to well under one million tons. Permitted
ocean dumping of industrial wastes ceased in September 1988. Pollution
traces from old sites can still be found in some areas, but the current impacts
are considered minor or negligible. There are also prohibitions on disposal of
high-level radioactive waste in ocean waters.

— 265 —

CRS-141

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Chesapeake Bay Oyster Harvest Has Dropped Dramatically

nase Total
Ea Maryland

[2] Virginia

z
@
®
iS
Gq
<=
&
©
£
@
3
a
x)
a
&
2
=

1981 1984 1986

Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Water, National Water Quality Inventory: 1988 Report to Congress,
EPA 440-4-90-003, April 1990, p.65.

Exhibit 6d.5

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Increasing Mid-Bay

=>
<
on
r)
o
@
=
=
©
@
<=

1978 1984 1985 1986 1987 1989
Source: U.S. EPA, The Chesapeake Bay ... A Progress Report, August 1991, p.5.

Exhibit 6d.6

— 266—

CRS-142

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Endnotes:

it,

The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) defines the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as that region that extends 200 nautical miles
seaward from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured. The United
States is responsible for wisely developing, managing and protecting the EEZ’s
environment and its living and non-living marine resources contained within.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries of the United States, 1990. Current
Fishery Statistics, no. 9000 (Silver Spring, MD.: May 1991), 11pp.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Ocean Service, Strategic Assessments Branch, Estuaries of the United
States: Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base (Rockville, MD: October 1990),

79pp.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Ocean Service, Ocean Assessments Division (Rockville, MD), in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Wetlands Inventory,
Fish and Wildlife Service, (Washington, D.C.), and the National Wetlands Research
Center (Sidell, LA), Coastal Wetlands of the United States: An Accounting of a
Valuable National Resource (February 1991), 59pp.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
50 Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coasts, 1960-2010 (April 1990),
41pp. :
U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Federal Offshore
Statistics: 1989: Leasing, Exploration and Revenues, OCS Report MMS 90-0072:
1990: 104pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, The Offshore
Environmental Studies Program (1973 - 1989): A Summary of Minerals
Management Service Research Conducted on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, OCS
Report MMS 90-0095: 1990: 104pp.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Ocean Service, Strategic Assessments Branch, Estuaries of the United
States: Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base (Rockville, MD: October 1990),

79pp.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Ocean Service, Ocean Assessments Division (Rockville, MD), in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Wetlands Inventory,
Fish and Wildlife Service, (Washington, D.C.), and the National Wetlands Research
Center (Sidell, LA), Coastal Wetlands of the United States: An Accounting of a
Valuable National Resource (February 1991), 59pp.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Ocean Service, Strategic Assessments Branch, The 1990 National Shellfish
Register of Classified Estuarine Waters (Rockville, MD: November 1991), 100pp.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries of the United States, 1990. Current
Fishery Statistics, no. 9000 (Silver Spring, MD.: May 1991), 11pp.

Hawaii Visitors Bureau, Research Department, Honolulu, Hawaii.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Territorial and International Affairs
(Washington, D.C.)

— 267 —

CRS-143

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

8.

10.

12.

13.
14.

15.

16.

Wel

18.

19:

20.

21.

23.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States, 1990. Current
Fishery Statistics, no. 9000 (Silver Spring, MD: May 1991), 11pp.

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Needs Assessment of the National Marine
Fisheries Service (January 1990), 315pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Aqua-6,
Aquaculture—Situation and Outlook Report, March 1991.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States, 1990. Current Fishery
Statistics, no. 9000 (Silver Spring, MD: May 1991), 11pp.

Marine Mammal Commission, Annual Report of the Marine

Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1990, A Report to Congress (January 1991),
270pp.

Ibid.

National Academy of Science, National Research Council, Decline of the Sea Turtles. Causes
and Prevention (National Academy Press: 1990), 259pp.

The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Title III, authorizes
the designation of certain areas of the marine environment which possess
conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational or aesthetic
qualities which should be conserved and managed as a marine sanctuary. It also
authorizes study and designation of others.

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 established the National Estuarine
Research Reserves program which designates an area that is a representative
estuarine ecosystem that is suitable for long-term research and designation. The
designation of the area will serve to enhance public awareness and understanding
of estuarine factors. Additional areas may be designated in the future.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Ocean Service, Marine and Estuarine Management Division, National
Estuarine Research Reserve System: Site Catalog (Washington, D.C.: 1990), 37pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Park System Map
and Guide (1990).

U.S. Department of eta National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Strategic Plan of the National Marine Fisheries
Service: Goals and Objectives (June 10, 1991), 2ipp.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, The Offshore
Environmental Studies Program (1973 - 1989): A Summary of Minerals
Management Service Research Conducted on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, OCS
Report MMS 90-0095 (1990), 104pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Federal Offshore
Statistics: 1989: Leasing, Exploration and Revenues, OCS Report MMS 90-0072
(1990), 104pp.

M.M. Main, D.R.G. Farrow and F.D. Arnold, Publicly Owned Treatment Works in
Coastal Areas of the U.S.A. (Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service,
Strategic Assessment Branch, Oceans Assessments Division: 1987), 20pp +
Appendices.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Municipal Pollution Control, 1988
Needs Survey Report to Congress, EPA 430/09-89-001 (February 1989), p. C-9.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation,
Environmental Progress and Challenges (August 1988), p. 49.

CRS-144
CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, A Plan for Research and Monitoring of
Atmospheric Nitrogen and Toxic Pollutants in Coastal Waters: A Report to
Congress, EPA/600/9-89/061 (June 1, 1989).

Peter M. Groffman and N.A. Jaworski, Upper Potomac River Basin Case Study,
New Perspectives in the Chesapeak System, A Research and Management
Partnership: Proceedings of a Conference, December 4-6, 1990, CRC Publication
no. 137 (Baltimore, MD: Chesapeake Research Consortium: 1990).

25. Center for Marine Conservation, Cleaning North America’s Beaches: Results of the
1990 National Beach Cleanup (Washington, D.C.: May 1991), 291pp.

Additional References: oe)

a

Breiwick, J.M., and H.W. Braham. “The Status of Endangered Whales.” Marine Fisheries Review
vol. 46, no.4 (1984): pp. 1-64. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.

Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality - 21st Annual Report. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Service: 1990. 388pp.

Groffman, P.M., and N.A. Jaworski. “Upper Potomac River Basin Case Study.” New Perspectives
in the Chesapeake System, A Research and Management Partnership: Proceedings of a Conference.
December 4-6, 1990. CRC Publication no. 137. Chesapeake Research Consortium, 1990.

Hall, M.H., and S.D. Boyer. “Incidental Mortality of Dolphins in the Tuna Purse-Seine Fishery in
the Eastern Pacific Ocean During 1988.” Report of the International Whaling Commission, no. 40:
1990: pp. 461-462.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Waterborne Commerce of the United States. Calendar Year 1988.
Part 5, National Summaries. WRSC-WCUS-88-5. Water Resources Support Center. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office: 1990. 107pp.

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National
Ocean Service. Coastal Environmental Quality in the United States, 1990. Chemical
Contamination in Sediment and Tissues. Rockville, MD: Strategic Assessment Branch, Oceans
Assessments Division: October 1990. 34pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Administration of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972 - Annual Report. January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1989.
Washington, D.C.: Fish and Wildlife Service: 1990: 54pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Plan for Research and Monitoring of Atmospheric
Nitrogen and Toxic Pollutants in Coastal Waters: A Report to Congress. June 1, 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Progress in the National Estuary
Program. Report to Congress. (WH-556F) (EPA 503/9-90-005). February 1990. 44pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress on the Implementation of Section 403C

of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency: June 1990.

— 269 —

CRS-145

APPENDIX C. SELECTED OCEANS AND
COASTAL RESOURCES STATUTES’

Marine and Coastal Resources

Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (1965)
Authorizes programs to conserve, develop and enhance federal
anadromous fisheries resources.

Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act (1984)
Authorizes programs for the conservation and management of Atlantic

striped bass.

Coastal Barrier Resources Act

Prohibits development of barrier islands within the Coastal Barrier
Resource System to conserve fish, wildlife and other natural resources
in those areas.

The Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990

Amends the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1986, which established
the Coastal Barrier Resources System consisting of undeveloped
coastal barriers and other areas located on the coasts of the United
States.

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

Makes federal funds available to encourage states to develop
comprehensive management programs in an effort to increase the
effective management, beneficial use, protection and development of
the coastal zone.

Driftnet Impact Monitoring, Assessment and Control Act of
1987

Directs the government to assess and minimize the adverse effects of
driftnets in the North Pacific ocean on marine resources.

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)

Establishes a comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy to
develop measures for maximum sustainable yield to insure stability of
domestic fisheries.

Provides for agency consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) whenever the "waters of any stream or other body of water are
to be impounded, directed or otherwise controlled”.

“Source: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
United States of America National Report. pp.407-409.

CRS-146

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (Non-game Act")

Requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to monitor and assess non-game
migratory birds and to identify those likely to be candidates for listing
as endangered species.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934)
Authorizes FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service to assist
federal, state and other agencies in developing, protecting, rearing and

-~stocking-fish and wildlife-on federal-lands.

Fisherman’s Protective Act (“Pelly Amendment") of 1967

‘= Ensures that foreign fishing activities are in accordance with

international fishery conservation program, and activities do not affect
endangered/threatened species.

Fur Seal Act Amendments of 1983
Prohibits taking of fur seals, with exception of subsistence harvest by
Alaska Natives.

Lacey Act Amendments of 1981
Prohibits commerce of fish and wildlife in violation of federal, state
and international laws.

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1976)

Conserves and manages fishery resources within the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) for maximum sustainable yield.

Creates eight regional fishery management councils to prepare fishery
management plans for their respective regions.

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, and Amendments of
1988

Provides for long-term management, research, conservation and
recovery programs for marine mammals.

Establishes a moratorium on the taking and importing of marine
mammals and marine mammal products.

Shore Protection Act of 1988
Requires vessels to protect coastal areas from disposal of solid waste.

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (1953) and Amendments of
1978 and 1985

Regulates offshore oil, gas and mineral leasing.

Requires compliance with natural resource protection programs from
damages associated with oil, gas and mineral development activities.

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act (1939)
Establishes fisheries research and development fund.

CRS-147

°¢ South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988
Regulates tuna harvest by U.S. flag vessels within the Exclusive
Economic Zones of Pacific Island Parties.

Marine Pollution Control

¢ National Ocean Pollution Planning Act, 1978
Establishes a comprehensive five-year plan for federal ocean pollution
- --research-and development and monitoring programs, and coordinates
research of the Great Lakes and estuaries of national importance.
Develops an information base for use in conservation, equitable
distribution and development of ocean and coastal resources.

e The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (1980)
Implements international agreement "Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution by Ships" (MARPOL Annexes I-V).
Prevents pollution from ships by the discharge of harmful substances
or effluent.

e Oil Pollution Act of 1990
Increases and extends civil and criminal liability limits for the cleanup
of oil spilled from vessels.
Requires better planning and preparedness and measures to increase
navigation safety, new standards for vessel construction, crew licensing
and manning of vessels.

° Marine Pollution and Research and Control Act, 1989
Implements the provisions of MARPOL Annex V.
Prohibits the disposal of plastics at sea by any vessel within the U.S.
EEZ.

° Ocean Dumping Ban Act (ODBA) of 1988
Prohibits issuance of new permits for dumping of sewage sludge or
industrial wastes into ocean waters; existing sewage sludge or
industrial waste dumping (existing permittees) under compliance
schedules/enforcement agreements to phase out dumping activities.
Statutory deadline December 31, 1991.

Columbia River Basin Fishery Development Program (“The
Mitchell Act") (1938)

Establishes cultural stations and funds programs to facilitate
conservation of Columbia River fishery resources.

e Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (Title I, I,
and ITT)
Prohibits ocean dumping of wastes generated on land.
Authorizes designation of marine sanctuaries. (Eight National Marine
Sanctuaries currently are designated; seven more are proposed).

| simi

ta)
|
2562 [om