https://www.marinespecies.org/r/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=AnnaKroon&feedformat=atomMarineSpecies Traits Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T08:24:11ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.31.7https://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=Category:Articles_by_Stephen_Bloye_Olsen&diff=26813Category:Articles by Stephen Bloye Olsen2009-01-15T13:47:39Z<p>AnnaKroon: New page: An overview of articles by Stephen Bloye Olsen.</p>
<hr />
<div>An overview of articles by Stephen Bloye Olsen.</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=Category:Articles_by_Glenn_Ricci&diff=26812Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci2009-01-15T13:47:06Z<p>AnnaKroon: New page: An overview of articles by Glenn Ricci.</p>
<hr />
<div>An overview of articles by Glenn Ricci.</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=US_Sea_Grant_College_Program&diff=26809US Sea Grant College Program2009-01-15T13:41:45Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>The US Sea Grant College Program was established in 1966 as a federal-state partnership designed to apply the capacities of universities to coastal resource use and conservation. It is the premiere US program for integrating across education, research and extension to address coastal and marine issues of local and national concern. Sea Grant, with its national network of 32 universities, serves as a model for how to link national topics of concern into sustained responses to those topics within the localized geographic areas where each university operates. The experiences of each member institution in turn nourish the network as a whole. <br />
<br />
==History==<br />
The National Sea Grant College and Program Act of 1966 established a partnership between government, academia and business. Before this program, the predominant model at universities was to focus on pure or basic sciences that were often detached from the needs of society and business. The structure and philosophy of the Sea Grant program is based on the time-tested paradigm of American “Land Grant Colleges” — a network of agricultural colleges that pioneered agricultural innovations resulting from applied research that was coupled with its transfer to farmers and other users through education and extension services. The first four universities joined the program in 1971. This coincided with the establishment of the national coastal zone management program, with which Sea Grant has maintained a close partnership over the years. A Sea Grant intern program was initiated in 1979 to bring graduate students to Washington D.C. to build their leadership skills in policy development and research. <br />
<br />
==Goals==<br />
The Sea Grant College Program operates on a simple premise, i.e. apply the intellect of universities and research institutions to the problems and opportunities associated with the use of coastal ecosystems. Sea Grant’s mission is: “to provide integrated research, extension and education activities that increase citizens’ understanding and responsible use of the nation’s ocean, coastal and Great Lakes resources and support the informed personal, policy and management decisions that are integral to realizing this vision”.<ref name="sea">Sea Grant Strategic Plan 2009-2013 http://www2.vims.edu/seagrant/docs/NSGStrategicPlan.pdf</ref><br />
The Sea Grant network sustains programs in 32 universities with activities in over 300 affiliated universities that together involve several thousand researchers, educators, extension professionals and students <ref>http://www.nsgo.seagrant.org</ref>. In contrast to conventional university-based academic research, Sea Grant institutions are committed to making investments that allow researchers, educators, students and extension agents in the field to work towards collaborative solutions to coastal and marine problems of concern to society. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Framework==<br />
''National''<br />
The National Sea Grant College Program is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce. It is supported by approximately US$62 million annually in federal funds that are distributed to member universities in coastal states. The National Sea Grant Office in NOAA provides administrative and programmatic support by developing national program initiatives, program monitoring and evaluation, and communicating program activities to other NOAA and federal offices. <br />
<br />
The Sea Grant Association is a non-profit organization comprised of a representative from each Sea Grant institution. The Association provides the mechanism for state and national programs to coordinate their activities, set priorities at both the regional and national level, and provide a unified voice for on issues of importance to oceans and coasts. All state programs have Advisory Boards or Councils that provide programmatic advice and counsel. These advisory structures are composed of a wide variety of stakeholders. They play a pivotal role in identifying priority coastal and marine issues and actions that the Sea Grant programs can take to address those issues. <br />
<br />
''State-by-State''<br />
The Sea Grant structure is designed to allow for significant autonomy at the state level. Most programs are administered by a single university; a few programs are structured as consortiums. Each program maintains an administrative office, which manages the research, education, extension, and communication activities, and distributes funds on an annual or biannual basis to a wide range of institutions (i.e., it is not limited to participants at the host university) through a competitive grants process. Programs provide state university resources as matching funds to those disbursed by NOAA. Sea Grant is required to match every $2 of federal funding with $1 of non-federal funds <ref name="sea"/>.<br />
<br />
Much of the strength of the Sea Grant program lies in its local, grass roots approach. Each of the participating universities or university networks has a staff of extension agents and educators that address the needs of their communities and their associated ecosystems. Sea Grant’s dedication to local service is supported by strong regional and national networks. A successful program that is developed in one community may be shared and modified for use in another community thousands of miles away. The national Sea Grant network has formed 10 national “theme teams” to address issues of national importance that have c manifestations at the state and local levels <ref>http://www.nsgo.seagrant.org/SG_Themes/sg_theme_areas.html</ref>. Thematic focus areas gather the intellectual resources from throughout the national network, sharing information and ideas, and acting as a well-informed voice for the responsible stewardship of coastal ecosystems.<br />
<br />
''Adaptive Management''<br />
The National Sea Grant Review Panel is an element of the original legislative structure of the Sea Grant program. The 15 appointed members of the panel advise on overall program policy, comment on strategic directions, and conduct regular four-year assessment reviews of each state Sea Grant Program. Informed by these reviews, each Sea Grant program revises their priorities based on evaluations of past performance and identification of the emerging best management practices.<br />
<br />
The focus of individual Sea Grant College Programs must be both consistent with the overall vision and direction of the NOAA National Sea Grant Program, and attuned to the environmental, social and economic priorities and problems at the state level. State programs are designed to respond in a timely fashion to locally identified education, research and extension needs. This simultaneous “top-down” and “bottom-up” approach provides for focused long-term strategies for impacting national-level marine and coastal priorities, while allowing each program to tackle important local issues. <br />
<br />
==Core Elements of the Sea Grant Program==<br />
*'''Applied Research''' –Sea Grant supports approximately 500 research projects annually <br />
*'''Extension''' – Transferring knowledge and good practices is a crucial component of Sea Grant. Sea Grant’s network of more than 300 outreach experts work with coastal community members and decision makers to provide informal education and transfer new technologies. <br />
*'''Education''' – Sea Grant works with elementary and secondary school teachers to engage students in environmental sciences. Sea Grant also supports undergraduate and graduate students through fellowships and other programs.<br />
*'''Communications''' – Each program within the Sea Grant network has a dedicated communications staff that works to deliver accurate, reliable, science-based information. <br />
<br />
==Priority Activities==<br />
Sea Grants current priority activities include <ref>NOAA Sea Grant website http://www.seagrant.noaa.gov/</ref>:<br />
*Improve Public Safety: initiating boating safety and improving seafood handling techniques<br />
*Develop Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture: to rebuild fish and shellfish populations and develop environmentally sustainable techniques to culture fresh and saltwater species <br />
*Work with Coastal Communities to Plan Growth: Sea Grant connects with coastal communities to foster sustainable growth and development.<br />
*Discover Marine-based Pharmaceutical Drugs <br />
*Combat Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) <br />
*Educate Thousands of Students Each Year<br />
<br />
[[Image:The Sea Grant Network.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1:The Sea Grant Network]]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
* US Sea Grant Program http://www.seagrant.noaa.gov/<br />
*National Sea Grant Library http://nsgd.gso.uri.edu/ <br />
*National Sea Grant Law Center http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/lawcenterhome.htm<br />
*Sea Grant Hazards Theme Team http://www.haznet.org/ <br />
*Sea Grant Education Center http://www.seagranted.net/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Sea Grant Strategic Plan 2009-2013 http://www2.vims.edu/seagrant/docs/NSGStrategicPlan.pdf <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1=Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=US_Sea_Grant_College_Program&diff=26808US Sea Grant College Program2009-01-15T13:41:32Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>The US Sea Grant College Program was established in 1966 as a federal-state partnership designed to apply the capacities of universities to coastal resource use and conservation. It is the premiere US program for integrating across education, research and extension to address coastal and marine issues of local and national concern. Sea Grant, with its national network of 32 universities, serves as a model for how to link national topics of concern into sustained responses to those topics within the localized geographic areas where each university operates. The experiences of each member institution in turn nourish the network as a whole. <br />
<br />
==History==<br />
The National Sea Grant College and Program Act of 1966 established a partnership between government, academia and business. Before this program, the predominant model at universities was to focus on pure or basic sciences that were often detached from the needs of society and business. The structure and philosophy of the Sea Grant program is based on the time-tested paradigm of American “Land Grant Colleges” — a network of agricultural colleges that pioneered agricultural innovations resulting from applied research that was coupled with its transfer to farmers and other users through education and extension services. The first four universities joined the program in 1971. This coincided with the establishment of the national coastal zone management program, with which Sea Grant has maintained a close partnership over the years. A Sea Grant intern program was initiated in 1979 to bring graduate students to Washington D.C. to build their leadership skills in policy development and research. <br />
<br />
==Goals==<br />
The Sea Grant College Program operates on a simple premise, i.e. apply the intellect of universities and research institutions to the problems and opportunities associated with the use of coastal ecosystems. Sea Grant’s mission is: “to provide integrated research, extension and education activities that increase citizens’ understanding and responsible use of the nation’s ocean, coastal and Great Lakes resources and support the informed personal, policy and management decisions that are integral to realizing this vision”.<ref name="sea">Sea Grant Strategic Plan 2009-2013 http://www2.vims.edu/seagrant/docs/NSGStrategicPlan.pdf</ref><br />
The Sea Grant network sustains programs in 32 universities with activities in over 300 affiliated universities that together involve several thousand researchers, educators, extension professionals and students <ref>http://www.nsgo.seagrant.org</ref>. In contrast to conventional university-based academic research, Sea Grant institutions are committed to making investments that allow researchers, educators, students and extension agents in the field to work towards collaborative solutions to coastal and marine problems of concern to society. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Framework==<br />
''National''<br />
The National Sea Grant College Program is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce. It is supported by approximately US$62 million annually in federal funds that are distributed to member universities in coastal states. The National Sea Grant Office in NOAA provides administrative and programmatic support by developing national program initiatives, program monitoring and evaluation, and communicating program activities to other NOAA and federal offices. <br />
<br />
The Sea Grant Association is a non-profit organization comprised of a representative from each Sea Grant institution. The Association provides the mechanism for state and national programs to coordinate their activities, set priorities at both the regional and national level, and provide a unified voice for on issues of importance to oceans and coasts. All state programs have Advisory Boards or Councils that provide programmatic advice and counsel. These advisory structures are composed of a wide variety of stakeholders. They play a pivotal role in identifying priority coastal and marine issues and actions that the Sea Grant programs can take to address those issues. <br />
<br />
''State-by-State''<br />
The Sea Grant structure is designed to allow for significant autonomy at the state level. Most programs are administered by a single university; a few programs are structured as consortiums. Each program maintains an administrative office, which manages the research, education, extension, and communication activities, and distributes funds on an annual or biannual basis to a wide range of institutions (i.e., it is not limited to participants at the host university) through a competitive grants process. Programs provide state university resources as matching funds to those disbursed by NOAA. Sea Grant is required to match every $2 of federal funding with $1 of non-federal funds <ref name="sea"/>.<br />
<br />
Much of the strength of the Sea Grant program lies in its local, grass roots approach. Each of the participating universities or university networks has a staff of extension agents and educators that address the needs of their communities and their associated ecosystems. Sea Grant’s dedication to local service is supported by strong regional and national networks. A successful program that is developed in one community may be shared and modified for use in another community thousands of miles away. The national Sea Grant network has formed 10 national “theme teams” to address issues of national importance that have c manifestations at the state and local levels <ref>http://www.nsgo.seagrant.org/SG_Themes/sg_theme_areas.html</ref>. Thematic focus areas gather the intellectual resources from throughout the national network, sharing information and ideas, and acting as a well-informed voice for the responsible stewardship of coastal ecosystems.<br />
<br />
''Adaptive Management''<br />
The National Sea Grant Review Panel is an element of the original legislative structure of the Sea Grant program. The 15 appointed members of the panel advise on overall program policy, comment on strategic directions, and conduct regular four-year assessment reviews of each state Sea Grant Program. Informed by these reviews, each Sea Grant program revises their priorities based on evaluations of past performance and identification of the emerging best management practices.<br />
<br />
The focus of individual Sea Grant College Programs must be both consistent with the overall vision and direction of the NOAA National Sea Grant Program, and attuned to the environmental, social and economic priorities and problems at the state level. State programs are designed to respond in a timely fashion to locally identified education, research and extension needs. This simultaneous “top-down” and “bottom-up” approach provides for focused long-term strategies for impacting national-level marine and coastal priorities, while allowing each program to tackle important local issues. <br />
<br />
==Core Elements of the Sea Grant Program==<br />
*'''Applied Research''' –Sea Grant supports approximately 500 research projects annually <br />
*'''Extension''' – Transferring knowledge and good practices is a crucial component of Sea Grant. Sea Grant’s network of more than 300 outreach experts work with coastal community members and decision makers to provide informal education and transfer new technologies. <br />
*'''Education''' – Sea Grant works with elementary and secondary school teachers to engage students in environmental sciences. Sea Grant also supports undergraduate and graduate students through fellowships and other programs.<br />
*'''Communications''' – Each program within the Sea Grant network has a dedicated communications staff that works to deliver accurate, reliable, science-based information. <br />
<br />
==Priority Activities==<br />
Sea Grants current priority activities include <ref>NOAA Sea Grant website http://www.seagrant.noaa.gov/</ref>:<br />
*Improve Public Safety: initiating boating safety and improving seafood handling techniques<br />
*Develop Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture: to rebuild fish and shellfish populations and develop environmentally sustainable techniques to culture fresh and saltwater species <br />
*Work with Coastal Communities to Plan Growth: Sea Grant connects with coastal communities to foster sustainable growth and development.<br />
*Discover Marine-based Pharmaceutical Drugs <br />
*Combat Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) <br />
*Educate Thousands of Students Each Year<br />
<br />
[[Image:The Sea Grant Network.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1:The Sea Grant Network]]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
* US Sea Grant Program http://www.seagrant.noaa.gov/<br />
*National Sea Grant Library http://nsgd.gso.uri.edu/ <br />
*National Sea Grant Law Center http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/lawcenterhome.htm<br />
*Sea Grant Hazards Theme Team http://www.haznet.org/ <br />
*Sea Grant Education Center http://www.seagranted.net/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Sea Grant Strategic Plan 2009-2013 http://www2.vims.edu/seagrant/docs/NSGStrategicPlan.pdf <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=US_Sea_Grant_College_Program&diff=26807US Sea Grant College Program2009-01-15T13:40:04Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>The US Sea Grant College Program was established in 1966 as a federal-state partnership designed to apply the capacities of universities to coastal resource use and conservation. It is the premiere US program for integrating across education, research and extension to address coastal and marine issues of local and national concern. Sea Grant, with its national network of 32 universities, serves as a model for how to link national topics of concern into sustained responses to those topics within the localized geographic areas where each university operates. The experiences of each member institution in turn nourish the network as a whole. <br />
<br />
==History==<br />
The National Sea Grant College and Program Act of 1966 established a partnership between government, academia and business. Before this program, the predominant model at universities was to focus on pure or basic sciences that were often detached from the needs of society and business. The structure and philosophy of the Sea Grant program is based on the time-tested paradigm of American “Land Grant Colleges” — a network of agricultural colleges that pioneered agricultural innovations resulting from applied research that was coupled with its transfer to farmers and other users through education and extension services. The first four universities joined the program in 1971. This coincided with the establishment of the national coastal zone management program, with which Sea Grant has maintained a close partnership over the years. A Sea Grant intern program was initiated in 1979 to bring graduate students to Washington D.C. to build their leadership skills in policy development and research. <br />
<br />
==Goals==<br />
The Sea Grant College Program operates on a simple premise, i.e. apply the intellect of universities and research institutions to the problems and opportunities associated with the use of coastal ecosystems. Sea Grant’s mission is: “to provide integrated research, extension and education activities that increase citizens’ understanding and responsible use of the nation’s ocean, coastal and Great Lakes resources and support the informed personal, policy and management decisions that are integral to realizing this vision”.<ref name="sea">Sea Grant Strategic Plan 2009-2013 http://www2.vims.edu/seagrant/docs/NSGStrategicPlan.pdf</ref><br />
The Sea Grant network sustains programs in 32 universities with activities in over 300 affiliated universities that together involve several thousand researchers, educators, extension professionals and students <ref>http://www.nsgo.seagrant.org</ref>. In contrast to conventional university-based academic research, Sea Grant institutions are committed to making investments that allow researchers, educators, students and extension agents in the field to work towards collaborative solutions to coastal and marine problems of concern to society. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Framework==<br />
''National''<br />
The National Sea Grant College Program is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce. It is supported by approximately US$62 million annually in federal funds that are distributed to member universities in coastal states. The National Sea Grant Office in NOAA provides administrative and programmatic support by developing national program initiatives, program monitoring and evaluation, and communicating program activities to other NOAA and federal offices. <br />
<br />
The Sea Grant Association is a non-profit organization comprised of a representative from each Sea Grant institution. The Association provides the mechanism for state and national programs to coordinate their activities, set priorities at both the regional and national level, and provide a unified voice for on issues of importance to oceans and coasts. All state programs have Advisory Boards or Councils that provide programmatic advice and counsel. These advisory structures are composed of a wide variety of stakeholders. They play a pivotal role in identifying priority coastal and marine issues and actions that the Sea Grant programs can take to address those issues. <br />
<br />
''State-by-State''<br />
The Sea Grant structure is designed to allow for significant autonomy at the state level. Most programs are administered by a single university; a few programs are structured as consortiums. Each program maintains an administrative office, which manages the research, education, extension, and communication activities, and distributes funds on an annual or biannual basis to a wide range of institutions (i.e., it is not limited to participants at the host university) through a competitive grants process. Programs provide state university resources as matching funds to those disbursed by NOAA. Sea Grant is required to match every $2 of federal funding with $1 of non-federal funds <ref name="sea"/>.<br />
<br />
Much of the strength of the Sea Grant program lies in its local, grass roots approach. Each of the participating universities or university networks has a staff of extension agents and educators that address the needs of their communities and their associated ecosystems. Sea Grant’s dedication to local service is supported by strong regional and national networks. A successful program that is developed in one community may be shared and modified for use in another community thousands of miles away. The national Sea Grant network has formed 10 national “theme teams” to address issues of national importance that have c manifestations at the state and local levels <ref>http://www.nsgo.seagrant.org/SG_Themes/sg_theme_areas.html</ref>. Thematic focus areas gather the intellectual resources from throughout the national network, sharing information and ideas, and acting as a well-informed voice for the responsible stewardship of coastal ecosystems.<br />
<br />
''Adaptive Management''<br />
The National Sea Grant Review Panel is an element of the original legislative structure of the Sea Grant program. The 15 appointed members of the panel advise on overall program policy, comment on strategic directions, and conduct regular four-year assessment reviews of each state Sea Grant Program. Informed by these reviews, each Sea Grant program revises their priorities based on evaluations of past performance and identification of the emerging best management practices.<br />
<br />
The focus of individual Sea Grant College Programs must be both consistent with the overall vision and direction of the NOAA National Sea Grant Program, and attuned to the environmental, social and economic priorities and problems at the state level. State programs are designed to respond in a timely fashion to locally identified education, research and extension needs. This simultaneous “top-down” and “bottom-up” approach provides for focused long-term strategies for impacting national-level marine and coastal priorities, while allowing each program to tackle important local issues. <br />
<br />
==Core Elements of the Sea Grant Program==<br />
*'''Applied Research''' –Sea Grant supports approximately 500 research projects annually <br />
*'''Extension''' – Transferring knowledge and good practices is a crucial component of Sea Grant. Sea Grant’s network of more than 300 outreach experts work with coastal community members and decision makers to provide informal education and transfer new technologies. <br />
*'''Education''' – Sea Grant works with elementary and secondary school teachers to engage students in environmental sciences. Sea Grant also supports undergraduate and graduate students through fellowships and other programs.<br />
*'''Communications''' – Each program within the Sea Grant network has a dedicated communications staff that works to deliver accurate, reliable, science-based information. <br />
<br />
==Priority Activities==<br />
Sea Grants current priority activities include <ref>NOAA Sea Grant website http://www.seagrant.noaa.gov/</ref>:<br />
*Improve Public Safety: initiating boating safety and improving seafood handling techniques<br />
*Develop Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture: to rebuild fish and shellfish populations and develop environmentally sustainable techniques to culture fresh and saltwater species <br />
*Work with Coastal Communities to Plan Growth: Sea Grant connects with coastal communities to foster sustainable growth and development.<br />
*Discover Marine-based Pharmaceutical Drugs <br />
*Combat Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) <br />
*Educate Thousands of Students Each Year<br />
<br />
[[Image:The Sea Grant Network.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1:The Sea Grant Network]]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
* US Sea Grant Program http://www.seagrant.noaa.gov/<br />
*National Sea Grant Library http://nsgd.gso.uri.edu/ <br />
*National Sea Grant Law Center http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/lawcenterhome.htm<br />
*Sea Grant Hazards Theme Team http://www.haznet.org/ <br />
*Sea Grant Education Center http://www.seagranted.net/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Sea Grant Strategic Plan 2009-2013 http://www2.vims.edu/seagrant/docs/NSGStrategicPlan.pdf <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1=Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2=Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=File:USACE.jpg&diff=26733File:USACE.jpg2009-01-11T15:17:42Z<p>AnnaKroon: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=File:USACE_is_divided_into_several_geographic_regions.jpg&diff=26731File:USACE is divided into several geographic regions.jpg2009-01-11T15:16:22Z<p>AnnaKroon: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=Tampa_Bay_Estuary_Program&diff=26730Tampa Bay Estuary Program2009-01-11T15:11:59Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* Program Administration */</p>
<hr />
<div>In 1990, Tampa Bay was designated an "estuary of national significance" by the US Congress, and joined the ranks of the National Estuary Program (LINK) (which currently contains 28 estuaries) in 1991. As an urban watershed confronted with pollution, habitat loss and increasing development, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) faced significant challenges. Over fifteen years later, TBEP stands as a model for collaborative partnerships, innovative agreements and approaches for habitat restoration and addressing atmospheric nitrogen deposition as a contributor to eutrophication. <br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Tampa Bay is Florida’s largest open-water estuary, spanning 400 square miles, with a drainage area nearly six times that size. While the Bay contains rich biodiversity, it is impacted by a rapidly growing human population and the second largest metropolitan area in the state. As of 2008, more than 2.3 million people lived in the watershed, and that number is expected to grow by nearly 20 percent by the year 2015. <br />
<br />
In the 1950s, rapid population growth in the Tampa Bay watershed and increased urban development caused a significant deterioration in the bay’s water quality and habitat, and natural resources. Urban development, dredging, canals, and causeways have altered approximately half of the bay’s original shoreline. Forty percent (40%) of the Bay’s seagrass beds have disappeared since 1950, as have 21% of its emergent wetlands (Tampa Bay Estuary Program/TBEP).<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
There have been multiple efforts to improve water quality in Tampa Bay. The first major study of Tampa Bay’s water quality was conducted by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA) in 1969. The study’s findings, combined with grass-roots efforts in the early 1970s, led to upgrades in sewage treatment plants and reduced nutrient loadings. Then in 1983, the state established the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission to develop a comprehensive management strategy for the Bay. The regional planning council and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) were requested to identify the priority problems and develop recommendations and projects to be conducted as part of a Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) plan for Tampa Bay. This was the first organized effort to address water quality issues in the Bay, and it laid the groundwork for entry to the national estuary program (NEP).<br />
<br />
==Establishment of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP)==<br />
The Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) was established in 1991. The governance arrangement for Tampa Bay is complex, and includes various programs implemented by multiple local, county, regional, state and federal organizations. The key partners include three counties, three cities, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. TBEP relies upon collaborative action through an integrating governance structure that develops management plans and implements them. TBEP spent its first six years conducting extensive public participation and scientific research to build consensus on program goals and the elements of a comprehensive management plan. <br />
<br />
TBEP’s first Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), titled Charting the Course, was completed in 1996 and approved by the EPA that same year. The CCMP assigns the bay's most pressing problems to eight action plans—water and sediment quality, habitats, wildlife, dredging, oil spills, invasive species, public access and education. The action plans are designed to help contribute to 11 goals, several of which are quantifiable and measurable. The CCMP was updated in 2006 after an assessment and identification of emerging issues.<br />
<br />
==Program Administration==<br />
The TBEP has a small staff that serves as a coordinating body for the management committees and the activities of the partner institutions. The TBEP staff perform a variety of services including: convening groups to discuss bay issues; conducting research, advocating for the protection of the bay; organizing projects to address bay problems; providing mini-grants to community groups; providing technical assistance; coordinating outreach; and serving as a member of other collaborative organizations in the Bay <ref name="imp">Imperial, Mark T., The Tampa Bay Estuary Program: Developing and Implementing an Interlocal Agreement, A technical report prepared to support a final report to the National Academy of Public Administration as part of their Learning from Innovations in Environmental Protection Project (Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration, July 2000)</ref>. <br />
<br />
Two programs stand out as TBEP successes: 1) the Interlocal Agreement, and 2) Partnership to Reduce Nitrogen Loadings<br />
<br />
1. Interlocal Agreement<br />
<br />
While the CCMP sets the goals and priorities, it is at its roots a voluntary plan without enforcement capabilities. Concerned that it would be seen as only yet another plan, leaders advocated for a more formal binding agreement between partners. After much negotiation, the partners signed an “Interlocal Agreement” in 1998, which committed local governments to attaining the CCMP’s goals. <br />
<br />
The Interlocal Agreement has served as a model for other programs striving to meet more stringent standards for water quality. Each partner submits action plans that document how they support the CCMP’s goals and objectives. The regulatory partners have agreed to streamline their regulatory programs. Fifteen partners, including the EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a port authority and local governments have signed on to the Agreement. The Agreement has detailed rules governing its operations and decision-making procedures. It is important to note that there are no legal means to force partners to implement the Interlocal Agreement. Instead, it uses the power of peer accountability to keep partners engaged in the process <ref name="imp"/>. Long-term stakeholder relationships, based on previous projects and initiatives, have built a tradition of cooperation among scientists and managers. <br />
<br />
2. Partnership to Reduce Nitrogen Loadings<br />
<br />
Advanced wastewater treatment for sewage plant discharges was mandated by law in 1972. With sewage treatment in place, it was clear that stormwater and nutrient loading were going to be the biggest issues in the Bay’s future. While the local governments agreed in the CCMP to reduce the portion of the loadings attributed to municipal storm water runoff and sewage treatment plants, the remaining reductions were to be addressed by a Nitrogen Management Consortium. Established in 1998, the Consortium is comprised of municipal governments and regulatory agencies, local companies, agricultural interests and electric utilities. The Consortium took on the task of creating the action plans necessary to meet the CCMP’s goals for reducing nitrogen from atmospheric deposition, industrial point sources, fertilizer shipping and handling practices, and intensive agriculture. The Consortium’s motto of “hold the line” on nutrient loadings from future growth was central to restoring seagrass habitat. <br />
<br />
Instead of allocating specific reductions to each source of nitrogen, the Consortium worked to identify individual or group projects that would achieve the reductions. This innovative approach helped identify the most cost-effective and environmentally beneficial projects.<br />
<br />
==Achievements==<br />
The progress made toward restoring the Tampa Bay habitats is impressive. TBEP has met or exceeded its goals for nitrogen reduction and habitat restoration. Collaborative mechanisms such as the Interlocal Agreement and the Nitrogen Management Consortium have been critical to establishing successful partnerships. <br />
<br />
From this foundation, TBEP has won stable funding, an effective land acquisition program, creation of effective science and citizen advisory committees, and the development of a collaborative monitoring program that has expanded to become the Florida West Coast Regional Ambient Monitoring Program (RAMP). In recognition of these efforts, EPA awarded the TBEP a bronze medal in 1998.<br />
<br />
In spite of these successes, a number of challenges remain. As development increases, there is a pressing need for improved linkages and collaboration with the land use planning regulators. <br />
<br />
[[Image:The Social Network for Tampa Bay.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1: The Social Network for Tampa Bay <ref>http://www.buzzardsbay.org/download/nep-networks-paper.pdf</ref>]]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Estuary]]<br />
*[[Estuaries and tidal rivers]]<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*Tampa Bay NEP http://www.tbep.org/ <br />
*Bay Soundings http://www.baysoundings.com/ <br />
*EPA National Estuary Program http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/ <br />
*Association of NEPs http://www.nationalestuaries.org/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program Mark Schneider http://www.buzzardsbay.org/download/nep-networks-paper.pdf <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=Tampa_Bay_Estuary_Program&diff=26729Tampa Bay Estuary Program2009-01-11T15:11:23Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* Internal Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>In 1990, Tampa Bay was designated an "estuary of national significance" by the US Congress, and joined the ranks of the National Estuary Program (LINK) (which currently contains 28 estuaries) in 1991. As an urban watershed confronted with pollution, habitat loss and increasing development, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) faced significant challenges. Over fifteen years later, TBEP stands as a model for collaborative partnerships, innovative agreements and approaches for habitat restoration and addressing atmospheric nitrogen deposition as a contributor to eutrophication. <br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Tampa Bay is Florida’s largest open-water estuary, spanning 400 square miles, with a drainage area nearly six times that size. While the Bay contains rich biodiversity, it is impacted by a rapidly growing human population and the second largest metropolitan area in the state. As of 2008, more than 2.3 million people lived in the watershed, and that number is expected to grow by nearly 20 percent by the year 2015. <br />
<br />
In the 1950s, rapid population growth in the Tampa Bay watershed and increased urban development caused a significant deterioration in the bay’s water quality and habitat, and natural resources. Urban development, dredging, canals, and causeways have altered approximately half of the bay’s original shoreline. Forty percent (40%) of the Bay’s seagrass beds have disappeared since 1950, as have 21% of its emergent wetlands (Tampa Bay Estuary Program/TBEP).<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
There have been multiple efforts to improve water quality in Tampa Bay. The first major study of Tampa Bay’s water quality was conducted by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA) in 1969. The study’s findings, combined with grass-roots efforts in the early 1970s, led to upgrades in sewage treatment plants and reduced nutrient loadings. Then in 1983, the state established the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission to develop a comprehensive management strategy for the Bay. The regional planning council and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) were requested to identify the priority problems and develop recommendations and projects to be conducted as part of a Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) plan for Tampa Bay. This was the first organized effort to address water quality issues in the Bay, and it laid the groundwork for entry to the national estuary program (NEP).<br />
<br />
==Establishment of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP)==<br />
The Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) was established in 1991. The governance arrangement for Tampa Bay is complex, and includes various programs implemented by multiple local, county, regional, state and federal organizations. The key partners include three counties, three cities, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. TBEP relies upon collaborative action through an integrating governance structure that develops management plans and implements them. TBEP spent its first six years conducting extensive public participation and scientific research to build consensus on program goals and the elements of a comprehensive management plan. <br />
<br />
TBEP’s first Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), titled Charting the Course, was completed in 1996 and approved by the EPA that same year. The CCMP assigns the bay's most pressing problems to eight action plans—water and sediment quality, habitats, wildlife, dredging, oil spills, invasive species, public access and education. The action plans are designed to help contribute to 11 goals, several of which are quantifiable and measurable. The CCMP was updated in 2006 after an assessment and identification of emerging issues.<br />
<br />
==Program Administration==<br />
The TBEP has a small staff that serves as a coordinating body for the management committees and the activities of the partner institutions. The TBEP staff perform a variety of services including: convening groups to discuss bay issues; conducting research, advocating for the protection of the bay; organizing projects to address bay problems; providing mini-grants to community groups; providing technical assistance; coordinating outreach; and serving as a member of other collaborative organizations in the Bay <ref name="imp">Imperial, Mark T., The Tampa Bay Estuary Program: Developing and Implementing an Interlocal Agreement, A technical report prepared to support a final report to the National Academy of Public Administration as part of their Learning from Innovations in Environmental Protection Project (Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration, July 2000)</ref>. <br />
<br />
Two programs stand out as TBEP successes: 1) the Interlocal Agreement, and 2) Partnership to Reduce Nitrogen Loadings<br />
<br />
1. Interlocal Agreement<br />
While the CCMP sets the goals and priorities, it is at its roots a voluntary plan without enforcement capabilities. Concerned that it would be seen as only yet another plan, leaders advocated for a more formal binding agreement between partners. After much negotiation, the partners signed an “Interlocal Agreement” in 1998, which committed local governments to attaining the CCMP’s goals. <br />
<br />
The Interlocal Agreement has served as a model for other programs striving to meet more stringent standards for water quality. Each partner submits action plans that document how they support the CCMP’s goals and objectives. The regulatory partners have agreed to streamline their regulatory programs. Fifteen partners, including the EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a port authority and local governments have signed on to the Agreement. The Agreement has detailed rules governing its operations and decision-making procedures. It is important to note that there are no legal means to force partners to implement the Interlocal Agreement. Instead, it uses the power of peer accountability to keep partners engaged in the process <ref name="imp"/>. Long-term stakeholder relationships, based on previous projects and initiatives, have built a tradition of cooperation among scientists and managers. <br />
<br />
2. Partnership to Reduce Nitrogen Loadings<br />
Advanced wastewater treatment for sewage plant discharges was mandated by law in 1972. With sewage treatment in place, it was clear that stormwater and nutrient loading were going to be the biggest issues in the Bay’s future. While the local governments agreed in the CCMP to reduce the portion of the loadings attributed to municipal storm water runoff and sewage treatment plants, the remaining reductions were to be addressed by a Nitrogen Management Consortium. Established in 1998, the Consortium is comprised of municipal governments and regulatory agencies, local companies, agricultural interests and electric utilities. The Consortium took on the task of creating the action plans necessary to meet the CCMP’s goals for reducing nitrogen from atmospheric deposition, industrial point sources, fertilizer shipping and handling practices, and intensive agriculture. The Consortium’s motto of “hold the line” on nutrient loadings from future growth was central to restoring seagrass habitat. <br />
<br />
Instead of allocating specific reductions to each source of nitrogen, the Consortium worked to identify individual or group projects that would achieve the reductions. This innovative approach helped identify the most cost-effective and environmentally beneficial projects.<br />
<br />
Achievements<br />
The progress made toward restoring the Tampa Bay habitats is impressive. TBEP has met or exceeded its goals for nitrogen reduction and habitat restoration. Collaborative mechanisms such as the Interlocal Agreement and the Nitrogen Management Consortium have been critical to establishing successful partnerships. <br />
<br />
From this foundation, TBEP has won stable funding, an effective land acquisition program, creation of effective science and citizen advisory committees, and the development of a collaborative monitoring program that has expanded to become the Florida West Coast Regional Ambient Monitoring Program (RAMP). In recognition of these efforts, EPA awarded the TBEP a bronze medal in 1998.<br />
<br />
In spite of these successes, a number of challenges remain. As development increases, there is a pressing need for improved linkages and collaboration with the land use planning regulators. <br />
<br />
[[Image:The Social Network for Tampa Bay.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1: The Social Network for Tampa Bay <ref>http://www.buzzardsbay.org/download/nep-networks-paper.pdf</ref>]]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Estuary]]<br />
*[[Estuaries and tidal rivers]]<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*Tampa Bay NEP http://www.tbep.org/ <br />
*Bay Soundings http://www.baysoundings.com/ <br />
*EPA National Estuary Program http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/ <br />
*Association of NEPs http://www.nationalestuaries.org/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program Mark Schneider http://www.buzzardsbay.org/download/nep-networks-paper.pdf <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=Tampa_Bay_Estuary_Program&diff=26728Tampa Bay Estuary Program2009-01-11T15:10:17Z<p>AnnaKroon: New page: In 1990, Tampa Bay was designated an "estuary of national significance" by the US Congress, and joined the ranks of the National Estuary Program (LINK) (which currently contains 28 estuari...</p>
<hr />
<div>In 1990, Tampa Bay was designated an "estuary of national significance" by the US Congress, and joined the ranks of the National Estuary Program (LINK) (which currently contains 28 estuaries) in 1991. As an urban watershed confronted with pollution, habitat loss and increasing development, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) faced significant challenges. Over fifteen years later, TBEP stands as a model for collaborative partnerships, innovative agreements and approaches for habitat restoration and addressing atmospheric nitrogen deposition as a contributor to eutrophication. <br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Tampa Bay is Florida’s largest open-water estuary, spanning 400 square miles, with a drainage area nearly six times that size. While the Bay contains rich biodiversity, it is impacted by a rapidly growing human population and the second largest metropolitan area in the state. As of 2008, more than 2.3 million people lived in the watershed, and that number is expected to grow by nearly 20 percent by the year 2015. <br />
<br />
In the 1950s, rapid population growth in the Tampa Bay watershed and increased urban development caused a significant deterioration in the bay’s water quality and habitat, and natural resources. Urban development, dredging, canals, and causeways have altered approximately half of the bay’s original shoreline. Forty percent (40%) of the Bay’s seagrass beds have disappeared since 1950, as have 21% of its emergent wetlands (Tampa Bay Estuary Program/TBEP).<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
There have been multiple efforts to improve water quality in Tampa Bay. The first major study of Tampa Bay’s water quality was conducted by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA) in 1969. The study’s findings, combined with grass-roots efforts in the early 1970s, led to upgrades in sewage treatment plants and reduced nutrient loadings. Then in 1983, the state established the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission to develop a comprehensive management strategy for the Bay. The regional planning council and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) were requested to identify the priority problems and develop recommendations and projects to be conducted as part of a Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) plan for Tampa Bay. This was the first organized effort to address water quality issues in the Bay, and it laid the groundwork for entry to the national estuary program (NEP).<br />
<br />
==Establishment of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP)==<br />
The Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) was established in 1991. The governance arrangement for Tampa Bay is complex, and includes various programs implemented by multiple local, county, regional, state and federal organizations. The key partners include three counties, three cities, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. TBEP relies upon collaborative action through an integrating governance structure that develops management plans and implements them. TBEP spent its first six years conducting extensive public participation and scientific research to build consensus on program goals and the elements of a comprehensive management plan. <br />
<br />
TBEP’s first Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), titled Charting the Course, was completed in 1996 and approved by the EPA that same year. The CCMP assigns the bay's most pressing problems to eight action plans—water and sediment quality, habitats, wildlife, dredging, oil spills, invasive species, public access and education. The action plans are designed to help contribute to 11 goals, several of which are quantifiable and measurable. The CCMP was updated in 2006 after an assessment and identification of emerging issues.<br />
<br />
==Program Administration==<br />
The TBEP has a small staff that serves as a coordinating body for the management committees and the activities of the partner institutions. The TBEP staff perform a variety of services including: convening groups to discuss bay issues; conducting research, advocating for the protection of the bay; organizing projects to address bay problems; providing mini-grants to community groups; providing technical assistance; coordinating outreach; and serving as a member of other collaborative organizations in the Bay <ref name="imp">Imperial, Mark T., The Tampa Bay Estuary Program: Developing and Implementing an Interlocal Agreement, A technical report prepared to support a final report to the National Academy of Public Administration as part of their Learning from Innovations in Environmental Protection Project (Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration, July 2000)</ref>. <br />
<br />
Two programs stand out as TBEP successes: 1) the Interlocal Agreement, and 2) Partnership to Reduce Nitrogen Loadings<br />
<br />
1. Interlocal Agreement<br />
While the CCMP sets the goals and priorities, it is at its roots a voluntary plan without enforcement capabilities. Concerned that it would be seen as only yet another plan, leaders advocated for a more formal binding agreement between partners. After much negotiation, the partners signed an “Interlocal Agreement” in 1998, which committed local governments to attaining the CCMP’s goals. <br />
<br />
The Interlocal Agreement has served as a model for other programs striving to meet more stringent standards for water quality. Each partner submits action plans that document how they support the CCMP’s goals and objectives. The regulatory partners have agreed to streamline their regulatory programs. Fifteen partners, including the EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a port authority and local governments have signed on to the Agreement. The Agreement has detailed rules governing its operations and decision-making procedures. It is important to note that there are no legal means to force partners to implement the Interlocal Agreement. Instead, it uses the power of peer accountability to keep partners engaged in the process <ref name="imp"/>. Long-term stakeholder relationships, based on previous projects and initiatives, have built a tradition of cooperation among scientists and managers. <br />
<br />
2. Partnership to Reduce Nitrogen Loadings<br />
Advanced wastewater treatment for sewage plant discharges was mandated by law in 1972. With sewage treatment in place, it was clear that stormwater and nutrient loading were going to be the biggest issues in the Bay’s future. While the local governments agreed in the CCMP to reduce the portion of the loadings attributed to municipal storm water runoff and sewage treatment plants, the remaining reductions were to be addressed by a Nitrogen Management Consortium. Established in 1998, the Consortium is comprised of municipal governments and regulatory agencies, local companies, agricultural interests and electric utilities. The Consortium took on the task of creating the action plans necessary to meet the CCMP’s goals for reducing nitrogen from atmospheric deposition, industrial point sources, fertilizer shipping and handling practices, and intensive agriculture. The Consortium’s motto of “hold the line” on nutrient loadings from future growth was central to restoring seagrass habitat. <br />
<br />
Instead of allocating specific reductions to each source of nitrogen, the Consortium worked to identify individual or group projects that would achieve the reductions. This innovative approach helped identify the most cost-effective and environmentally beneficial projects.<br />
<br />
Achievements<br />
The progress made toward restoring the Tampa Bay habitats is impressive. TBEP has met or exceeded its goals for nitrogen reduction and habitat restoration. Collaborative mechanisms such as the Interlocal Agreement and the Nitrogen Management Consortium have been critical to establishing successful partnerships. <br />
<br />
From this foundation, TBEP has won stable funding, an effective land acquisition program, creation of effective science and citizen advisory committees, and the development of a collaborative monitoring program that has expanded to become the Florida West Coast Regional Ambient Monitoring Program (RAMP). In recognition of these efforts, EPA awarded the TBEP a bronze medal in 1998.<br />
<br />
In spite of these successes, a number of challenges remain. As development increases, there is a pressing need for improved linkages and collaboration with the land use planning regulators. <br />
<br />
[[Image:The Social Network for Tampa Bay.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1: The Social Network for Tampa Bay <ref>http://www.buzzardsbay.org/download/nep-networks-paper.pdf</ref>]]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Estuary]]<br />
*[[Estuaries and Tidal Rivers]]<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*Tampa Bay NEP http://www.tbep.org/ <br />
*Bay Soundings http://www.baysoundings.com/ <br />
*EPA National Estuary Program http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/ <br />
*Association of NEPs http://www.nationalestuaries.org/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program Mark Schneider http://www.buzzardsbay.org/download/nep-networks-paper.pdf <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=File:The_Social_Network_for_Tampa_Bay.jpg&diff=26727File:The Social Network for Tampa Bay.jpg2009-01-11T15:07:02Z<p>AnnaKroon: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=US_Sea_Grant_College_Program&diff=26726US Sea Grant College Program2009-01-11T14:58:47Z<p>AnnaKroon: New page: The US Sea Grant College Program was established in 1966 as a federal-state partnership designed to apply the capacities of universities to coastal resource use and conservation. It is the...</p>
<hr />
<div>The US Sea Grant College Program was established in 1966 as a federal-state partnership designed to apply the capacities of universities to coastal resource use and conservation. It is the premiere US program for integrating across education, research and extension to address coastal and marine issues of local and national concern. Sea Grant, with its national network of 32 universities, serves as a model for how to link national topics of concern into sustained responses to those topics within the localized geographic areas where each university operates. The experiences of each member institution in turn nourish the network as a whole. <br />
<br />
==History==<br />
The National Sea Grant College and Program Act of 1966 established a partnership between government, academia and business. Before this program, the predominant model at universities was to focus on pure or basic sciences that were often detached from the needs of society and business. The structure and philosophy of the Sea Grant program is based on the time-tested paradigm of American “Land Grant Colleges” — a network of agricultural colleges that pioneered agricultural innovations resulting from applied research that was coupled with its transfer to farmers and other users through education and extension services. The first four universities joined the program in 1971. This coincided with the establishment of the national coastal zone management program, with which Sea Grant has maintained a close partnership over the years. A Sea Grant intern program was initiated in 1979 to bring graduate students to Washington D.C. to build their leadership skills in policy development and research. <br />
<br />
==Goals==<br />
The Sea Grant College Program operates on a simple premise, i.e. apply the intellect of universities and research institutions to the problems and opportunities associated with the use of coastal ecosystems. Sea Grant’s mission is: “to provide integrated research, extension and education activities that increase citizens’ understanding and responsible use of the nation’s ocean, coastal and Great Lakes resources and support the informed personal, policy and management decisions that are integral to realizing this vision”.<ref name="sea">Sea Grant Strategic Plan 2009-2013 http://www2.vims.edu/seagrant/docs/NSGStrategicPlan.pdf</ref><br />
The Sea Grant network sustains programs in 32 universities with activities in over 300 affiliated universities that together involve several thousand researchers, educators, extension professionals and students <ref>http://www.nsgo.seagrant.org</ref>. In contrast to conventional university-based academic research, Sea Grant institutions are committed to making investments that allow researchers, educators, students and extension agents in the field to work towards collaborative solutions to coastal and marine problems of concern to society. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Framework==<br />
''National''<br />
The National Sea Grant College Program is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce. It is supported by approximately US$62 million annually in federal funds that are distributed to member universities in coastal states. The National Sea Grant Office in NOAA provides administrative and programmatic support by developing national program initiatives, program monitoring and evaluation, and communicating program activities to other NOAA and federal offices. <br />
<br />
The Sea Grant Association is a non-profit organization comprised of a representative from each Sea Grant institution. The Association provides the mechanism for state and national programs to coordinate their activities, set priorities at both the regional and national level, and provide a unified voice for on issues of importance to oceans and coasts. All state programs have Advisory Boards or Councils that provide programmatic advice and counsel. These advisory structures are composed of a wide variety of stakeholders. They play a pivotal role in identifying priority coastal and marine issues and actions that the Sea Grant programs can take to address those issues. <br />
<br />
''State-by-State''<br />
The Sea Grant structure is designed to allow for significant autonomy at the state level. Most programs are administered by a single university; a few programs are structured as consortiums. Each program maintains an administrative office, which manages the research, education, extension, and communication activities, and distributes funds on an annual or biannual basis to a wide range of institutions (i.e., it is not limited to participants at the host university) through a competitive grants process. Programs provide state university resources as matching funds to those disbursed by NOAA. Sea Grant is required to match every $2 of federal funding with $1 of non-federal funds <ref name="sea"/>.<br />
<br />
Much of the strength of the Sea Grant program lies in its local, grass roots approach. Each of the participating universities or university networks has a staff of extension agents and educators that address the needs of their communities and their associated ecosystems. Sea Grant’s dedication to local service is supported by strong regional and national networks. A successful program that is developed in one community may be shared and modified for use in another community thousands of miles away. The national Sea Grant network has formed 10 national “theme teams” to address issues of national importance that have c manifestations at the state and local levels <ref>http://www.nsgo.seagrant.org/SG_Themes/sg_theme_areas.html</ref>. Thematic focus areas gather the intellectual resources from throughout the national network, sharing information and ideas, and acting as a well-informed voice for the responsible stewardship of coastal ecosystems.<br />
<br />
''Adaptive Management''<br />
The National Sea Grant Review Panel is an element of the original legislative structure of the Sea Grant program. The 15 appointed members of the panel advise on overall program policy, comment on strategic directions, and conduct regular four-year assessment reviews of each state Sea Grant Program. Informed by these reviews, each Sea Grant program revises their priorities based on evaluations of past performance and identification of the emerging best management practices.<br />
<br />
The focus of individual Sea Grant College Programs must be both consistent with the overall vision and direction of the NOAA National Sea Grant Program, and attuned to the environmental, social and economic priorities and problems at the state level. State programs are designed to respond in a timely fashion to locally identified education, research and extension needs. This simultaneous “top-down” and “bottom-up” approach provides for focused long-term strategies for impacting national-level marine and coastal priorities, while allowing each program to tackle important local issues. <br />
<br />
==Core Elements of the Sea Grant Program==<br />
*'''Applied Research''' –Sea Grant supports approximately 500 research projects annually <br />
*'''Extension''' – Transferring knowledge and good practices is a crucial component of Sea Grant. Sea Grant’s network of more than 300 outreach experts work with coastal community members and decision makers to provide informal education and transfer new technologies. <br />
*'''Education''' – Sea Grant works with elementary and secondary school teachers to engage students in environmental sciences. Sea Grant also supports undergraduate and graduate students through fellowships and other programs.<br />
*'''Communications''' – Each program within the Sea Grant network has a dedicated communications staff that works to deliver accurate, reliable, science-based information. <br />
<br />
==Priority Activities==<br />
Sea Grants current priority activities include <ref>NOAA Sea Grant website http://www.seagrant.noaa.gov/</ref>:<br />
*Improve Public Safety: initiating boating safety and improving seafood handling techniques<br />
*Develop Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture: to rebuild fish and shellfish populations and develop environmentally sustainable techniques to culture fresh and saltwater species <br />
*Work with Coastal Communities to Plan Growth: Sea Grant connects with coastal communities to foster sustainable growth and development.<br />
*Discover Marine-based Pharmaceutical Drugs <br />
*Combat Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) <br />
*Educate Thousands of Students Each Year<br />
<br />
[[Image:The Sea Grant Network.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1:The Sea Grant Network]]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
* US Sea Grant Program http://www.seagrant.noaa.gov/<br />
*National Sea Grant Library http://nsgd.gso.uri.edu/ <br />
*National Sea Grant Law Center http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/lawcenterhome.htm<br />
*Sea Grant Hazards Theme Team http://www.haznet.org/ <br />
*Sea Grant Education Center http://www.seagranted.net/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Sea Grant Strategic Plan 2009-2013 http://www2.vims.edu/seagrant/docs/NSGStrategicPlan.pdf <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=File:The_Sea_Grant_Network.jpg&diff=26725File:The Sea Grant Network.jpg2009-01-11T14:53:52Z<p>AnnaKroon: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=File:Coverage_of_Seven_SAMPs_in_the_State_of_Rhode_Island.jpg&diff=26719File:Coverage of Seven SAMPs in the State of Rhode Island.jpg2009-01-11T14:32:17Z<p>AnnaKroon: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=US_National_Wildlife_Refuge_System&diff=26718US National Wildlife Refuge System2009-01-11T14:26:29Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* Effectiveness */</p>
<hr />
<div>The United States National Wildlife Refuge system (NWRS) was established in 1903 with the mission “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans." The system comprises over 540 refuges and 37 wetland management districts. Managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) within the Department of Interior, these refuges are priority sites for collaborative programs with local partners to restore, protect, and manage habitat for wildlife and recreational purposes.<br />
<br />
==Goals and Priority Issues==<br />
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 brought together the numerous types of lands administered by the Department of the Interior into a single National Wildlife Refuge System. The Act established a unifying mission and a process for determining compatible uses within refuges. It also required comprehensive conservation plans for each refuge. <br />
<br />
In addition to its central task of conserving wildlife, the Refuge System manages six wildlife-dependent recreational uses that range from hunting and fishing to birding and photography.<br />
<br />
==Coastal Element of the NWRS==<br />
There are 177 refuges with coastal or marine conservation responsibilities. These cover an estimated 30,000 coastal miles across 30 million coastal acres, with tidally influenced holdings totaling 7 million acres. Coral reefs within the Refuge System total 2.95 million acres (NWRS). The FWS considers their refuges some of the finest examples of marine conservation in the US dedicated to a ‘wildlife first’ approach (NWRS). The NWRS is also the largest and most ecologically comprehensive series of fully-protected marine areas under unified conservation management in the world.<br />
<br />
Projects include Federal, State, tribal, local, and private partnership efforts. They are directed toward <br />
*habitat enhancement, restoration, and reclamation; <br />
*conservation area management as natural classrooms and laboratories; <br />
*law enforcement; <br />
*removal and control of exotic and invasive plant and animal species; <br />
*removal of hazardous wastes; <br />
*listed species reestablishment, reintroduction, and recovery to historic habitats;<br />
*environmental, economic, and public health and safety risk and threat reduction;<br />
*protected species’ monitoring and research; <br />
*education and outreach efforts.<br />
<br />
The refuges are supported by the FWS Coastal Program, a non-regulatory community-based stewardship effort dedicated to fish and wildlife protection. The Coastal Program provides partners with financial and technical assistance to accomplish stewardship projects that benefit Federal Trust Species.<br />
<br />
The Small Wetlands Program began in 1958 in an effort to halt the loss of wetland habitat for migratory waterfowl. This innovative and highly successful program sells duck stamps (hunting licenses) to fund the protection and restoration of valuable wetland habitat as part of the NWRS. This nationally recognized program focuses on inland wetlands and to date has permanently protected nearly 3 million acres of prairie habitat.<br />
<br />
==Effectiveness==<br />
In 2007, the NWRS was assessed on its effectiveness in achieving 12 strategic goals <ref>Management System International (MSI). 2008. ''An Independent Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System.''</ref>. It was rated as highly effective in facilitating partnerships and cooperative projects. As a result of budget cuts and a decline in purchasing power, it was rated only partially effective in achieving nine of its goals. It was deemed ineffective in achieving two goals—protecting resources and visitors through law enforcement, and strategically growing the system.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*National Wildlife Refuge System http://www.fws.gov/refuges/ <br />
*FWS Coastal Program http://www.fws.gov/coastal/index.html <br />
*National Fish and Wildlife Foundation http://www.nfwf.org/ <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=US_National_Wildlife_Refuge_System&diff=26717US National Wildlife Refuge System2009-01-11T14:25:54Z<p>AnnaKroon: New page: The United States National Wildlife Refuge system (NWRS) was established in 1903 with the mission “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management a...</p>
<hr />
<div>The United States National Wildlife Refuge system (NWRS) was established in 1903 with the mission “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans." The system comprises over 540 refuges and 37 wetland management districts. Managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) within the Department of Interior, these refuges are priority sites for collaborative programs with local partners to restore, protect, and manage habitat for wildlife and recreational purposes.<br />
<br />
==Goals and Priority Issues==<br />
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 brought together the numerous types of lands administered by the Department of the Interior into a single National Wildlife Refuge System. The Act established a unifying mission and a process for determining compatible uses within refuges. It also required comprehensive conservation plans for each refuge. <br />
<br />
In addition to its central task of conserving wildlife, the Refuge System manages six wildlife-dependent recreational uses that range from hunting and fishing to birding and photography.<br />
<br />
==Coastal Element of the NWRS==<br />
There are 177 refuges with coastal or marine conservation responsibilities. These cover an estimated 30,000 coastal miles across 30 million coastal acres, with tidally influenced holdings totaling 7 million acres. Coral reefs within the Refuge System total 2.95 million acres (NWRS). The FWS considers their refuges some of the finest examples of marine conservation in the US dedicated to a ‘wildlife first’ approach (NWRS). The NWRS is also the largest and most ecologically comprehensive series of fully-protected marine areas under unified conservation management in the world.<br />
<br />
Projects include Federal, State, tribal, local, and private partnership efforts. They are directed toward <br />
*habitat enhancement, restoration, and reclamation; <br />
*conservation area management as natural classrooms and laboratories; <br />
*law enforcement; <br />
*removal and control of exotic and invasive plant and animal species; <br />
*removal of hazardous wastes; <br />
*listed species reestablishment, reintroduction, and recovery to historic habitats;<br />
*environmental, economic, and public health and safety risk and threat reduction;<br />
*protected species’ monitoring and research; <br />
*education and outreach efforts.<br />
<br />
The refuges are supported by the FWS Coastal Program, a non-regulatory community-based stewardship effort dedicated to fish and wildlife protection. The Coastal Program provides partners with financial and technical assistance to accomplish stewardship projects that benefit Federal Trust Species.<br />
<br />
The Small Wetlands Program began in 1958 in an effort to halt the loss of wetland habitat for migratory waterfowl. This innovative and highly successful program sells duck stamps (hunting licenses) to fund the protection and restoration of valuable wetland habitat as part of the NWRS. This nationally recognized program focuses on inland wetlands and to date has permanently protected nearly 3 million acres of prairie habitat.<br />
<br />
==Effectiveness==<br />
In 2007, the NWRS was assessed on its effectiveness in achieving 12 strategic goals <ref> Management System International (MSI). 2008. ''An Independent Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System.''</ref>. It was rated as highly effective in facilitating partnerships and cooperative projects. As a result of budget cuts and a decline in purchasing power, it was rated only partially effective in achieving nine of its goals. It was deemed ineffective in achieving two goals—protecting resources and visitors through law enforcement, and strategically growing the system. <br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*National Wildlife Refuge System http://www.fws.gov/refuges/ <br />
*FWS Coastal Program http://www.fws.gov/coastal/index.html <br />
*National Fish and Wildlife Foundation http://www.nfwf.org/ <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=US_National_Marine_Sanctuaries&diff=26716US National Marine Sanctuaries2009-01-11T14:21:31Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>The U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) system is the federal program that designates marine protected areas to protect and enhance biodiversity, ecological integrity and cultural assets of national significance. There are 13 national marine sanctuaries and one national monument covering a total of 150,000 square miles marine waters. The resources protected by sanctuaries range from coral reef and kelp ecosystems to shipwrecks. Established in 1972, the system has worked to expand its coverage across the country and receive sufficient funding for the program.<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
Congress established the Stratton Commission in 1966 to recommend a new approach to ocean and coastal resources management. The commission released its recommendations in 1969, including a call for a new federal agency for ocean management. That same year, a major oil spill off the California coast near Santa Barbara attracted the nation’s attention and underscored the need for improved ocean management. <br />
<br />
Guided by the Stratton Commission and motivated by the Santa Barbara oil spill, Congress passed several environmental laws in the early 1970s including the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act in 1972. Title III of that Act created the National Marine Sanctuaries Program to protect marine parks—a hundred years after the establishment of the terrestrial National Park System. Title III of the Act permits NOAA to:<br />
<br />
“…designate as marine sanctuaries those areas of the oceans, coastal, and other waters, as far seaward as the outer edge of the Continental Shelf…which the Secretary of Commerce determines necessary for the purpose of preserving or restoring such areas for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values <ref name="noa">www.noaa.gov</ref>.”<br />
<br />
The first national marine sanctuary established in 1975 was the USS Monitor, a shipwreck off the North Carolina coast. Later that same year, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Florida was designated. The most recent addition came in 2006 with the establishment of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (originally called the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument), the largest single conservation area in the country.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1: Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries and one Marine National Monument in the United States.]]<br />
<br />
==Evolution of the Program==<br />
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act later became the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). It is reauthorized every four to five years. The first major amendments occurred in 1980 stipulating that the Coast Guard shall provide the enforcement needed to support the sanctuaries. Further amendments came in 1984 to clarify certain issues including public consultations, documenting present and potential uses of the protected areas, and to conduct research and educational programs in sanctuaries. The next round of amendments passed in 1988 gave the NMS authority to permit commercial operations to recover the economic-values in using the resources. Also, vessel groundings or pollution that destroyed sanctuary resources would be liable for response and clean-up costs. Fines collected would be deposited in a specific sanctuary account to be used for conservation. Several changes were made in 1992 including the establishment of citizen advisory councils to assist in planning and management of sanctuaries. The final major amendments occurred in 2000 with the mandate to create a coherent system of sanctuaries. While at the same time, Congress prohibited any further designations until NOAA could demonstrate they could provide adequate resources to manage the existing set of sanctuaries. <br />
<br />
==Governance Framework of the Program==<br />
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (within the Department of Commerce) Office of National Marine Sanctuaries manages the NMSP and is required to balance conservation with compatible commercial and recreational activities. <br />
<br />
There are three ways to designate a marine area for protection. Under the 1972 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and the Congress are authorized to designate discrete areas. The President also has the authority to establish Marine National Monuments under the Antiquities Act. State Governors have the authority to dispute any designations.<br />
<br />
The NMSP is guided by a national strategic plan that sets out seven goals and 19 performance measures. These guide the development of individual sanctuary management plans. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|+ Table 1: Seven goals of the NMS System are divided into Outcome Goals and Activity Goals<ref name="noa"/><br />
! '''Outcome Goals'''<br />
! '''Activity Goals'''<br />
|-<br />
| Protect the sites<br />
| Build a nationwide system of sanctuaries<br />
|- <br />
| Facilitate human uses that are compatible with protection <br />
| Build the operational capability and infrastructure to manage sites effectively<br />
|- <br />
| Enhance nationwide public awareness, understanding, and appreciation <br />
| Work internationally to improve management and protection<br />
|-<br />
| Enhance scientific understanding to support management of the sites and marine ecosystems <br />
| <br />
|}<br />
<br />
All sanctuaries are supported by sanctuary advisory councils (SACs) that review and update sanctuary management plans and develop issue-specific action plans. SACs are composed of local community groups, industry representatives and government agencies. <br />
<br />
All sanctuaries are required to produce management plans with the SACs. The plans summarize existing programs and regulations, articulate goals and priorities, and guide management planning and decision-making. Most NMS management plans are over 10 years old.<br />
<br />
In 2005, the NMSP decentralized the structure to advance coordination between sanctuaries. Four regional offices were established to link staff with other regional programs and partners. <br />
<br />
[[Image:NMSP Regional Structure.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 2: NMSP Regional Structure]]<br />
<br />
Complementary to the NMSP is the National Park Service (NPS). There are over 40 National Parks that encompass marine areas totaling 3 million acres of ocean and coastal waters and more than 4,000 miles of coastline within their boundaries.<br />
<br />
==Key Tools==<br />
The NMSP relies on an assortment of regulatory and compliance tools to achieve its goals. At the core of each tool is the sanctuaries’ collaborative approach to engaging stakeholders in planning and implementation activities.<br />
<br />
Sanctuary regulations identify specific activities that are allowed as well as zoning boundaries. While the NMSP has some regulatory powers, a major issue is the relationship between a sanctuary and fisheries management. This has been an area of much debate with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the regional Fishery Management Councils and the fishing industry. This issue was central to the revision of the Channel Islands Sanctuary in which a network of no-take marine reserves were established within the sanctuary (see CINMS case study). <br />
<br />
Sanctuaries also use a permit system to allow selective commercial activities that are complementary to the conservation goals. Policies are often developed for specific conservation issues such as invasive species. <br />
<br />
Recognizing their limited budgets and staff resources, the NMSP has developed an extensive public education program to increase understanding, awareness and stewardship of marine resources. The enforcement program also emphasizes stakeholder education.<br />
<br />
==Effectiveness==<br />
Several evaluations of the NMSP’s management effectiveness have been conducted over the years. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) identified many successes in 2000 and encouraged the NMSP to focus on results as opposed to process, and to embrace the value and strength of SACs. NAPA released a second report in 2006 citing significant advances in the system and engaging stakeholders in the management process. NMSP is seen as a model for ecosystem-based management as advocated for by two national ocean commissions.<br />
In 2008, the Office of Inspector General <ref>Final Inspection Report by the Office of Inspector General http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2008/IPE-18591.pdf </ref> concluded that the NMSP is making progress towards long-term protection of marine ecosystems and cultural resources. The program has become more of a national system of protected areas as called for by Congress through consistent performance measures, annual operating plans, system-wide monitoring reports and the regional management structure. Areas in need of improvement include the enforcement of sanctuary regulations. <br />
<br />
The MPA Center <ref>MPA Center. 2004. Lessons Learned from Recent Marine Protected Area Designations in the United States http://mpa.gov/helpful_resources/lessons_learned.html</ref> produced lessons learned on the MPA designation process. Highlights of their lessons include the need to understand the social and political history of a place before embarking on a collaborative planning process.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*National Marine Sanctuary Program http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov <br />
*National Marine Sanctuaries Act http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/National/NMSA.pdf <br />
*National Marine Sanctuary Foundation http://nmsfocean.org/ <br />
*OceansLive http://www.oceanslive.org/<br />
*Marine Protected Areas Center http://mpa.gov/<br />
*National Park Service http://www.nps.gov/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Final Inspection Report by the Office of Inspector General http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2008/IPE-18591.pdf <br />
*National Academy of Public Administration http://www.napawash.org/Marine.Sanctuary.pdf<br />
*Owen, Dave. The Disappointing History of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. NYU Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2003 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1009269<br />
*Warburg, Philip and Priscilla Brooks. Stellwagen Bank's unmet mission. May 16, 2008. Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/16/stellwagen_banks_unmet_mission/ <br />
*Morin, Tracey. “Sanctuary Advisory Councils: Involving the Public in the National Marine Sanctuary Program.” Coastal Management 29 (2001): 327–339. <br />
*Helvey, Mark. “Seeking Consensus on Designing Marine Protected Areas: Keeping the Fishing Community Engaged.” Coastal Management 32 (2004): 173-190. <br />
*Chandler, William J., and Hannah Gillelan. The Makings of the National Marine Sanctuary Act: A Legislative History and Analysis. Marine Conservation Biology Institute, 2005. <br />
*Chen, Kathy, Camille Kustin, Joshua Kweller, Carolyn Segalini, and Julia Wondolleck. “Sanctuary Advisory Councils: A Study in Collaborative Resource Management.” University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, 2006.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=US_National_Marine_Sanctuaries&diff=26715US National Marine Sanctuaries2009-01-11T14:20:50Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* Internal Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>The U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) system is the federal program that designates marine protected areas to protect and enhance biodiversity, ecological integrity and cultural assets of national significance. There are 13 national marine sanctuaries and one national monument covering a total of 150,000 square miles marine waters. The resources protected by sanctuaries range from coral reef and kelp ecosystems to shipwrecks. Established in 1972, the system has worked to expand its coverage across the country and receive sufficient funding for the program.<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
Congress established the Stratton Commission in 1966 to recommend a new approach to ocean and coastal resources management. The commission released its recommendations in 1969, including a call for a new federal agency for ocean management. That same year, a major oil spill off the California coast near Santa Barbara attracted the nation’s attention and underscored the need for improved ocean management. <br />
<br />
Guided by the Stratton Commission and motivated by the Santa Barbara oil spill, Congress passed several environmental laws in the early 1970s including the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act in 1972. Title III of that Act created the National Marine Sanctuaries Program to protect marine parks—a hundred years after the establishment of the terrestrial National Park System. Title III of the Act permits NOAA to:<br />
<br />
“…designate as marine sanctuaries those areas of the oceans, coastal, and other waters, as far seaward as the outer edge of the Continental Shelf…which the Secretary of Commerce determines necessary for the purpose of preserving or restoring such areas for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values <ref name="noa">www.noaa.gov</ref>.”<br />
<br />
The first national marine sanctuary established in 1975 was the USS Monitor, a shipwreck off the North Carolina coast. Later that same year, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Florida was designated. The most recent addition came in 2006 with the establishment of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (originally called the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument), the largest single conservation area in the country.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1: Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries and one Marine National Monument in the United States.]]<br />
<br />
==Evolution of the Program==<br />
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act later became the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). It is reauthorized every four to five years. The first major amendments occurred in 1980 stipulating that the Coast Guard shall provide the enforcement needed to support the sanctuaries. Further amendments came in 1984 to clarify certain issues including public consultations, documenting present and potential uses of the protected areas, and to conduct research and educational programs in sanctuaries. The next round of amendments passed in 1988 gave the NMS authority to permit commercial operations to recover the economic-values in using the resources. Also, vessel groundings or pollution that destroyed sanctuary resources would be liable for response and clean-up costs. Fines collected would be deposited in a specific sanctuary account to be used for conservation. Several changes were made in 1992 including the establishment of citizen advisory councils to assist in planning and management of sanctuaries. The final major amendments occurred in 2000 with the mandate to create a coherent system of sanctuaries. While at the same time, Congress prohibited any further designations until NOAA could demonstrate they could provide adequate resources to manage the existing set of sanctuaries. <br />
<br />
==Governance Framework of the Program==<br />
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (within the Department of Commerce) Office of National Marine Sanctuaries manages the NMSP and is required to balance conservation with compatible commercial and recreational activities. <br />
<br />
There are three ways to designate a marine area for protection. Under the 1972 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and the Congress are authorized to designate discrete areas. The President also has the authority to establish Marine National Monuments under the Antiquities Act. State Governors have the authority to dispute any designations.<br />
<br />
The NMSP is guided by a national strategic plan that sets out seven goals and 19 performance measures. These guide the development of individual sanctuary management plans. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|+ Table 1: Seven goals of the NMS System are divided into Outcome Goals and Activity Goals<ref name="noa"/><br />
! '''Outcome Goals'''<br />
! '''Activity Goals'''<br />
|-<br />
| Protect the sites<br />
| Build a nationwide system of sanctuaries<br />
|- <br />
| Facilitate human uses that are compatible with protection <br />
| Build the operational capability and infrastructure to manage sites effectively<br />
|- <br />
| Enhance nationwide public awareness, understanding, and appreciation <br />
| Work internationally to improve management and protection<br />
|-<br />
| Enhance scientific understanding to support management of the sites and marine ecosystems <br />
| <br />
|}<br />
<br />
All sanctuaries are supported by sanctuary advisory councils (SACs) that review and update sanctuary management plans and develop issue-specific action plans. SACs are composed of local community groups, industry representatives and government agencies. <br />
<br />
All sanctuaries are required to produce management plans with the SACs. The plans summarize existing programs and regulations, articulate goals and priorities, and guide management planning and decision-making. Most NMS management plans are over 10 years old.<br />
<br />
In 2005, the NMSP decentralized the structure to advance coordination between sanctuaries. Four regional offices were established to link staff with other regional programs and partners. <br />
<br />
[[Image:NMSP Regional Structure.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 2: NMSP Regional Structure]]<br />
<br />
Complementary to the NMSP is the National Park Service (NPS). There are over 40 National Parks that encompass marine areas totaling 3 million acres of ocean and coastal waters and more than 4,000 miles of coastline within their boundaries.<br />
<br />
==Key Tools==<br />
The NMSP relies on an assortment of regulatory and compliance tools to achieve its goals. At the core of each tool is the sanctuaries’ collaborative approach to engaging stakeholders in planning and implementation activities.<br />
<br />
Sanctuary regulations identify specific activities that are allowed as well as zoning boundaries. While the NMSP has some regulatory powers, a major issue is the relationship between a sanctuary and fisheries management. This has been an area of much debate with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the regional Fishery Management Councils and the fishing industry. This issue was central to the revision of the Channel Islands Sanctuary in which a network of no-take marine reserves were established within the sanctuary (see CINMS case study). <br />
<br />
Sanctuaries also use a permit system to allow selective commercial activities that are complementary to the conservation goals. Policies are often developed for specific conservation issues such as invasive species. <br />
<br />
Recognizing their limited budgets and staff resources, the NMSP has developed an extensive public education program to increase understanding, awareness and stewardship of marine resources. The enforcement program also emphasizes stakeholder education.<br />
<br />
==Effectiveness==<br />
Several evaluations of the NMSP’s management effectiveness have been conducted over the years. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) identified many successes in 2000 and encouraged the NMSP to focus on results as opposed to process, and to embrace the value and strength of SACs. NAPA released a second report in 2006 citing significant advances in the system and engaging stakeholders in the management process. NMSP is seen as a model for ecosystem-based management as advocated for by two national ocean commissions.<br />
In 2008, the Office of Inspector General <ref>Final Inspection Report by the Office of Inspector General http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2008/IPE-18591.pdf </ref> concluded that the NMSP is making progress towards long-term protection of marine ecosystems and cultural resources. The program has become more of a national system of protected areas as called for by Congress through consistent performance measures, annual operating plans, system-wide monitoring reports and the regional management structure. Areas in need of improvement include the enforcement of sanctuary regulations. <br />
<br />
The MPA Center <ref>MPA Center. 2004. Lessons Learned from Recent Marine Protected Area Designations in the United States http://mpa.gov/helpful_resources/lessons_learned.html</ref> produced lessons learned on the MPA designation process. Highlights of their lessons include the need to understand the social and political history of a place before embarking on a collaborative planning process.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*National Marine Sanctuary Program http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov <br />
*National Marine Sanctuaries Act http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/National/NMSA.pdf <br />
*National Marine Sanctuary Foundation http://nmsfocean.org/ <br />
*OceansLive http://www.oceanslive.org/<br />
*Marine Protected Areas Center http://mpa.gov/<br />
*National Park Service http://www.nps.gov/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Final Inspection Report by the Office of Inspector General http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2008/IPE-18591.pdf <br />
*National Academy of Public Administration http://www.napawash.org/Marine.Sanctuary.pdf<br />
*Owen, Dave. The Disappointing History of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. NYU Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2003 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1009269<br />
*Warburg, Philip and Priscilla Brooks. Stellwagen Bank's unmet mission. May 16, 2008. Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/16/stellwagen_banks_unmet_mission/ <br />
*Morin, Tracey. “Sanctuary Advisory Councils: Involving the Public in the National Marine Sanctuary Program.” Coastal Management 29 (2001): 327–339. <br />
*Helvey, Mark. “Seeking Consensus on Designing Marine Protected Areas: Keeping the Fishing Community Engaged.” Coastal Management 32 (2004): 173-190. <br />
*Chandler, William J., and Hannah Gillelan. The Makings of the National Marine Sanctuary Act: A Legislative History and Analysis. Marine Conservation Biology Institute, 2005. <br />
*Chen, Kathy, Camille Kustin, Joshua Kweller, Carolyn Segalini, and Julia Wondolleck. “Sanctuary Advisory Councils: A Study in Collaborative Resource Management.” University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, 2006.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=US_National_Marine_Sanctuaries&diff=26714US National Marine Sanctuaries2009-01-11T14:20:14Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* Effectiveness */</p>
<hr />
<div>The U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) system is the federal program that designates marine protected areas to protect and enhance biodiversity, ecological integrity and cultural assets of national significance. There are 13 national marine sanctuaries and one national monument covering a total of 150,000 square miles marine waters. The resources protected by sanctuaries range from coral reef and kelp ecosystems to shipwrecks. Established in 1972, the system has worked to expand its coverage across the country and receive sufficient funding for the program.<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
Congress established the Stratton Commission in 1966 to recommend a new approach to ocean and coastal resources management. The commission released its recommendations in 1969, including a call for a new federal agency for ocean management. That same year, a major oil spill off the California coast near Santa Barbara attracted the nation’s attention and underscored the need for improved ocean management. <br />
<br />
Guided by the Stratton Commission and motivated by the Santa Barbara oil spill, Congress passed several environmental laws in the early 1970s including the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act in 1972. Title III of that Act created the National Marine Sanctuaries Program to protect marine parks—a hundred years after the establishment of the terrestrial National Park System. Title III of the Act permits NOAA to:<br />
<br />
“…designate as marine sanctuaries those areas of the oceans, coastal, and other waters, as far seaward as the outer edge of the Continental Shelf…which the Secretary of Commerce determines necessary for the purpose of preserving or restoring such areas for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values <ref name="noa">www.noaa.gov</ref>.”<br />
<br />
The first national marine sanctuary established in 1975 was the USS Monitor, a shipwreck off the North Carolina coast. Later that same year, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Florida was designated. The most recent addition came in 2006 with the establishment of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (originally called the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument), the largest single conservation area in the country.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1: Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries and one Marine National Monument in the United States.]]<br />
<br />
==Evolution of the Program==<br />
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act later became the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). It is reauthorized every four to five years. The first major amendments occurred in 1980 stipulating that the Coast Guard shall provide the enforcement needed to support the sanctuaries. Further amendments came in 1984 to clarify certain issues including public consultations, documenting present and potential uses of the protected areas, and to conduct research and educational programs in sanctuaries. The next round of amendments passed in 1988 gave the NMS authority to permit commercial operations to recover the economic-values in using the resources. Also, vessel groundings or pollution that destroyed sanctuary resources would be liable for response and clean-up costs. Fines collected would be deposited in a specific sanctuary account to be used for conservation. Several changes were made in 1992 including the establishment of citizen advisory councils to assist in planning and management of sanctuaries. The final major amendments occurred in 2000 with the mandate to create a coherent system of sanctuaries. While at the same time, Congress prohibited any further designations until NOAA could demonstrate they could provide adequate resources to manage the existing set of sanctuaries. <br />
<br />
==Governance Framework of the Program==<br />
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (within the Department of Commerce) Office of National Marine Sanctuaries manages the NMSP and is required to balance conservation with compatible commercial and recreational activities. <br />
<br />
There are three ways to designate a marine area for protection. Under the 1972 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and the Congress are authorized to designate discrete areas. The President also has the authority to establish Marine National Monuments under the Antiquities Act. State Governors have the authority to dispute any designations.<br />
<br />
The NMSP is guided by a national strategic plan that sets out seven goals and 19 performance measures. These guide the development of individual sanctuary management plans. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|+ Table 1: Seven goals of the NMS System are divided into Outcome Goals and Activity Goals<ref name="noa"/><br />
! '''Outcome Goals'''<br />
! '''Activity Goals'''<br />
|-<br />
| Protect the sites<br />
| Build a nationwide system of sanctuaries<br />
|- <br />
| Facilitate human uses that are compatible with protection <br />
| Build the operational capability and infrastructure to manage sites effectively<br />
|- <br />
| Enhance nationwide public awareness, understanding, and appreciation <br />
| Work internationally to improve management and protection<br />
|-<br />
| Enhance scientific understanding to support management of the sites and marine ecosystems <br />
| <br />
|}<br />
<br />
All sanctuaries are supported by sanctuary advisory councils (SACs) that review and update sanctuary management plans and develop issue-specific action plans. SACs are composed of local community groups, industry representatives and government agencies. <br />
<br />
All sanctuaries are required to produce management plans with the SACs. The plans summarize existing programs and regulations, articulate goals and priorities, and guide management planning and decision-making. Most NMS management plans are over 10 years old.<br />
<br />
In 2005, the NMSP decentralized the structure to advance coordination between sanctuaries. Four regional offices were established to link staff with other regional programs and partners. <br />
<br />
[[Image:NMSP Regional Structure.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 2: NMSP Regional Structure]]<br />
<br />
Complementary to the NMSP is the National Park Service (NPS). There are over 40 National Parks that encompass marine areas totaling 3 million acres of ocean and coastal waters and more than 4,000 miles of coastline within their boundaries.<br />
<br />
==Key Tools==<br />
The NMSP relies on an assortment of regulatory and compliance tools to achieve its goals. At the core of each tool is the sanctuaries’ collaborative approach to engaging stakeholders in planning and implementation activities.<br />
<br />
Sanctuary regulations identify specific activities that are allowed as well as zoning boundaries. While the NMSP has some regulatory powers, a major issue is the relationship between a sanctuary and fisheries management. This has been an area of much debate with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the regional Fishery Management Councils and the fishing industry. This issue was central to the revision of the Channel Islands Sanctuary in which a network of no-take marine reserves were established within the sanctuary (see CINMS case study). <br />
<br />
Sanctuaries also use a permit system to allow selective commercial activities that are complementary to the conservation goals. Policies are often developed for specific conservation issues such as invasive species. <br />
<br />
Recognizing their limited budgets and staff resources, the NMSP has developed an extensive public education program to increase understanding, awareness and stewardship of marine resources. The enforcement program also emphasizes stakeholder education.<br />
<br />
==Effectiveness==<br />
Several evaluations of the NMSP’s management effectiveness have been conducted over the years. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) identified many successes in 2000 and encouraged the NMSP to focus on results as opposed to process, and to embrace the value and strength of SACs. NAPA released a second report in 2006 citing significant advances in the system and engaging stakeholders in the management process. NMSP is seen as a model for ecosystem-based management as advocated for by two national ocean commissions.<br />
In 2008, the Office of Inspector General <ref>Final Inspection Report by the Office of Inspector General http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2008/IPE-18591.pdf </ref> concluded that the NMSP is making progress towards long-term protection of marine ecosystems and cultural resources. The program has become more of a national system of protected areas as called for by Congress through consistent performance measures, annual operating plans, system-wide monitoring reports and the regional management structure. Areas in need of improvement include the enforcement of sanctuary regulations. <br />
<br />
The MPA Center <ref>MPA Center. 2004. Lessons Learned from Recent Marine Protected Area Designations in the United States http://mpa.gov/helpful_resources/lessons_learned.html</ref> produced lessons learned on the MPA designation process. Highlights of their lessons include the need to understand the social and political history of a place before embarking on a collaborative planning process.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*National Marine Sanctuary Program http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov <br />
*National Marine Sanctuaries Act http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/National/NMSA.pdf <br />
*National Marine Sanctuary Foundation http://nmsfocean.org/ <br />
*OceansLive http://www.oceanslive.org/<br />
*Marine Protected Areas Center http://mpa.gov/<br />
*National Park Service http://www.nps.gov/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Final Inspection Report by the Office of Inspector General http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2008/IPE-18591.pdf <br />
*National Academy of Public Administration http://www.napawash.org/Marine.Sanctuary.pdf<br />
*Owen, Dave. The Disappointing History of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. NYU Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2003 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1009269<br />
*Warburg, Philip and Priscilla Brooks. Stellwagen Bank's unmet mission. May 16, 2008. Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/16/stellwagen_banks_unmet_mission/ <br />
*Morin, Tracey. “Sanctuary Advisory Councils: Involving the Public in the National Marine Sanctuary Program.” Coastal Management 29 (2001): 327–339. <br />
*Helvey, Mark. “Seeking Consensus on Designing Marine Protected Areas: Keeping the Fishing Community Engaged.” Coastal Management 32 (2004): 173-190. <br />
*Chandler, William J., and Hannah Gillelan. The Makings of the National Marine Sanctuary Act: A Legislative History and Analysis. Marine Conservation Biology Institute, 2005. <br />
*Chen, Kathy, Camille Kustin, Joshua Kweller, Carolyn Segalini, and Julia Wondolleck. “Sanctuary Advisory Councils: A Study in Collaborative Resource Management.” University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, 2006.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=US_National_Marine_Sanctuaries&diff=26713US National Marine Sanctuaries2009-01-11T14:18:35Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* Governance Framework of the Program */</p>
<hr />
<div>The U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) system is the federal program that designates marine protected areas to protect and enhance biodiversity, ecological integrity and cultural assets of national significance. There are 13 national marine sanctuaries and one national monument covering a total of 150,000 square miles marine waters. The resources protected by sanctuaries range from coral reef and kelp ecosystems to shipwrecks. Established in 1972, the system has worked to expand its coverage across the country and receive sufficient funding for the program.<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
Congress established the Stratton Commission in 1966 to recommend a new approach to ocean and coastal resources management. The commission released its recommendations in 1969, including a call for a new federal agency for ocean management. That same year, a major oil spill off the California coast near Santa Barbara attracted the nation’s attention and underscored the need for improved ocean management. <br />
<br />
Guided by the Stratton Commission and motivated by the Santa Barbara oil spill, Congress passed several environmental laws in the early 1970s including the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act in 1972. Title III of that Act created the National Marine Sanctuaries Program to protect marine parks—a hundred years after the establishment of the terrestrial National Park System. Title III of the Act permits NOAA to:<br />
<br />
“…designate as marine sanctuaries those areas of the oceans, coastal, and other waters, as far seaward as the outer edge of the Continental Shelf…which the Secretary of Commerce determines necessary for the purpose of preserving or restoring such areas for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values <ref name="noa">www.noaa.gov</ref>.”<br />
<br />
The first national marine sanctuary established in 1975 was the USS Monitor, a shipwreck off the North Carolina coast. Later that same year, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Florida was designated. The most recent addition came in 2006 with the establishment of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (originally called the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument), the largest single conservation area in the country.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1: Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries and one Marine National Monument in the United States.]]<br />
<br />
==Evolution of the Program==<br />
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act later became the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). It is reauthorized every four to five years. The first major amendments occurred in 1980 stipulating that the Coast Guard shall provide the enforcement needed to support the sanctuaries. Further amendments came in 1984 to clarify certain issues including public consultations, documenting present and potential uses of the protected areas, and to conduct research and educational programs in sanctuaries. The next round of amendments passed in 1988 gave the NMS authority to permit commercial operations to recover the economic-values in using the resources. Also, vessel groundings or pollution that destroyed sanctuary resources would be liable for response and clean-up costs. Fines collected would be deposited in a specific sanctuary account to be used for conservation. Several changes were made in 1992 including the establishment of citizen advisory councils to assist in planning and management of sanctuaries. The final major amendments occurred in 2000 with the mandate to create a coherent system of sanctuaries. While at the same time, Congress prohibited any further designations until NOAA could demonstrate they could provide adequate resources to manage the existing set of sanctuaries. <br />
<br />
==Governance Framework of the Program==<br />
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (within the Department of Commerce) Office of National Marine Sanctuaries manages the NMSP and is required to balance conservation with compatible commercial and recreational activities. <br />
<br />
There are three ways to designate a marine area for protection. Under the 1972 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and the Congress are authorized to designate discrete areas. The President also has the authority to establish Marine National Monuments under the Antiquities Act. State Governors have the authority to dispute any designations.<br />
<br />
The NMSP is guided by a national strategic plan that sets out seven goals and 19 performance measures. These guide the development of individual sanctuary management plans. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|+ Table 1: Seven goals of the NMS System are divided into Outcome Goals and Activity Goals<ref name="noa"/><br />
! '''Outcome Goals'''<br />
! '''Activity Goals'''<br />
|-<br />
| Protect the sites<br />
| Build a nationwide system of sanctuaries<br />
|- <br />
| Facilitate human uses that are compatible with protection <br />
| Build the operational capability and infrastructure to manage sites effectively<br />
|- <br />
| Enhance nationwide public awareness, understanding, and appreciation <br />
| Work internationally to improve management and protection<br />
|-<br />
| Enhance scientific understanding to support management of the sites and marine ecosystems <br />
| <br />
|}<br />
<br />
All sanctuaries are supported by sanctuary advisory councils (SACs) that review and update sanctuary management plans and develop issue-specific action plans. SACs are composed of local community groups, industry representatives and government agencies. <br />
<br />
All sanctuaries are required to produce management plans with the SACs. The plans summarize existing programs and regulations, articulate goals and priorities, and guide management planning and decision-making. Most NMS management plans are over 10 years old.<br />
<br />
In 2005, the NMSP decentralized the structure to advance coordination between sanctuaries. Four regional offices were established to link staff with other regional programs and partners. <br />
<br />
[[Image:NMSP Regional Structure.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 2: NMSP Regional Structure]]<br />
<br />
Complementary to the NMSP is the National Park Service (NPS). There are over 40 National Parks that encompass marine areas totaling 3 million acres of ocean and coastal waters and more than 4,000 miles of coastline within their boundaries.<br />
<br />
==Key Tools==<br />
The NMSP relies on an assortment of regulatory and compliance tools to achieve its goals. At the core of each tool is the sanctuaries’ collaborative approach to engaging stakeholders in planning and implementation activities.<br />
<br />
Sanctuary regulations identify specific activities that are allowed as well as zoning boundaries. While the NMSP has some regulatory powers, a major issue is the relationship between a sanctuary and fisheries management. This has been an area of much debate with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the regional Fishery Management Councils and the fishing industry. This issue was central to the revision of the Channel Islands Sanctuary in which a network of no-take marine reserves were established within the sanctuary (see CINMS case study). <br />
<br />
Sanctuaries also use a permit system to allow selective commercial activities that are complementary to the conservation goals. Policies are often developed for specific conservation issues such as invasive species. <br />
<br />
Recognizing their limited budgets and staff resources, the NMSP has developed an extensive public education program to increase understanding, awareness and stewardship of marine resources. The enforcement program also emphasizes stakeholder education.<br />
<br />
==Effectiveness==<br />
Several evaluations of the NMSP’s management effectiveness have been conducted over the years. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) identified many successes in 2000 and encouraged the NMSP to focus on results as opposed to process, and to embrace the value and strength of SACs. NAPA released a second report in 2006 citing significant advances in the system and engaging stakeholders in the management process. NMSP is seen as a model for ecosystem-based management as advocated for by two national ocean commissions.<br />
In 2008, the Office of Inspector General concluded that the NMSP is making progress towards long-term protection of marine ecosystems and cultural resources. The program has become more of a national system of protected areas as called for by Congress through consistent performance measures, annual operating plans, system-wide monitoring reports and the regional management structure. Areas in need of improvement include the enforcement of sanctuary regulations. <br />
<br />
The MPA Center <ref>MPA Center. 2004. Lessons Learned from Recent Marine Protected Area Designations in the United States http://mpa.gov/helpful_resources/lessons_learned.html</ref> produced lessons learned on the MPA designation process. Highlights of their lessons include the need to understand the social and political history of a place before embarking on a collaborative planning process.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*National Marine Sanctuary Program http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov <br />
*National Marine Sanctuaries Act http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/National/NMSA.pdf <br />
*National Marine Sanctuary Foundation http://nmsfocean.org/ <br />
*OceansLive http://www.oceanslive.org/<br />
*Marine Protected Areas Center http://mpa.gov/<br />
*National Park Service http://www.nps.gov/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Final Inspection Report by the Office of Inspector General http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2008/IPE-18591.pdf <br />
*National Academy of Public Administration http://www.napawash.org/Marine.Sanctuary.pdf<br />
*Owen, Dave. The Disappointing History of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. NYU Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2003 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1009269<br />
*Warburg, Philip and Priscilla Brooks. Stellwagen Bank's unmet mission. May 16, 2008. Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/16/stellwagen_banks_unmet_mission/ <br />
*Morin, Tracey. “Sanctuary Advisory Councils: Involving the Public in the National Marine Sanctuary Program.” Coastal Management 29 (2001): 327–339. <br />
*Helvey, Mark. “Seeking Consensus on Designing Marine Protected Areas: Keeping the Fishing Community Engaged.” Coastal Management 32 (2004): 173-190. <br />
*Chandler, William J., and Hannah Gillelan. The Makings of the National Marine Sanctuary Act: A Legislative History and Analysis. Marine Conservation Biology Institute, 2005. <br />
*Chen, Kathy, Camille Kustin, Joshua Kweller, Carolyn Segalini, and Julia Wondolleck. “Sanctuary Advisory Councils: A Study in Collaborative Resource Management.” University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, 2006.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=US_National_Marine_Sanctuaries&diff=26712US National Marine Sanctuaries2009-01-11T14:16:47Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* Governance Framework of the Program */</p>
<hr />
<div>The U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) system is the federal program that designates marine protected areas to protect and enhance biodiversity, ecological integrity and cultural assets of national significance. There are 13 national marine sanctuaries and one national monument covering a total of 150,000 square miles marine waters. The resources protected by sanctuaries range from coral reef and kelp ecosystems to shipwrecks. Established in 1972, the system has worked to expand its coverage across the country and receive sufficient funding for the program.<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
Congress established the Stratton Commission in 1966 to recommend a new approach to ocean and coastal resources management. The commission released its recommendations in 1969, including a call for a new federal agency for ocean management. That same year, a major oil spill off the California coast near Santa Barbara attracted the nation’s attention and underscored the need for improved ocean management. <br />
<br />
Guided by the Stratton Commission and motivated by the Santa Barbara oil spill, Congress passed several environmental laws in the early 1970s including the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act in 1972. Title III of that Act created the National Marine Sanctuaries Program to protect marine parks—a hundred years after the establishment of the terrestrial National Park System. Title III of the Act permits NOAA to:<br />
<br />
“…designate as marine sanctuaries those areas of the oceans, coastal, and other waters, as far seaward as the outer edge of the Continental Shelf…which the Secretary of Commerce determines necessary for the purpose of preserving or restoring such areas for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values <ref name="noa">www.noaa.gov</ref>.”<br />
<br />
The first national marine sanctuary established in 1975 was the USS Monitor, a shipwreck off the North Carolina coast. Later that same year, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Florida was designated. The most recent addition came in 2006 with the establishment of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (originally called the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument), the largest single conservation area in the country.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1: Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries and one Marine National Monument in the United States.]]<br />
<br />
==Evolution of the Program==<br />
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act later became the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). It is reauthorized every four to five years. The first major amendments occurred in 1980 stipulating that the Coast Guard shall provide the enforcement needed to support the sanctuaries. Further amendments came in 1984 to clarify certain issues including public consultations, documenting present and potential uses of the protected areas, and to conduct research and educational programs in sanctuaries. The next round of amendments passed in 1988 gave the NMS authority to permit commercial operations to recover the economic-values in using the resources. Also, vessel groundings or pollution that destroyed sanctuary resources would be liable for response and clean-up costs. Fines collected would be deposited in a specific sanctuary account to be used for conservation. Several changes were made in 1992 including the establishment of citizen advisory councils to assist in planning and management of sanctuaries. The final major amendments occurred in 2000 with the mandate to create a coherent system of sanctuaries. While at the same time, Congress prohibited any further designations until NOAA could demonstrate they could provide adequate resources to manage the existing set of sanctuaries. <br />
<br />
==Governance Framework of the Program==<br />
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (within the Department of Commerce) Office of National Marine Sanctuaries manages the NMSP and is required to balance conservation with compatible commercial and recreational activities. <br />
<br />
There are three ways to designate a marine area for protection. Under the 1972 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and the Congress are authorized to designate discrete areas. The President also has the authority to establish Marine National Monuments under the Antiquities Act. State Governors have the authority to dispute any designations.<br />
<br />
The NMSP is guided by a national strategic plan that sets out seven goals and 19 performance measures. These guide the development of individual sanctuary management plans. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|+ Table 1: Seven goals of the NMS System are divided into Outcome Goals and Activity Goals<ref "noa"><br />
! '''Outcome Goals'''<br />
! '''Activity Goals'''<br />
|-<br />
| Protect the sites<br />
| Build a nationwide system of sanctuaries<br />
|- <br />
| Facilitate human uses that are compatible with protection <br />
| Build the operational capability and infrastructure to manage sites effectively<br />
|- <br />
| Enhance nationwide public awareness, understanding, and appreciation <br />
| Work internationally to improve management and protection<br />
|-<br />
| Enhance scientific understanding to support management of the sites and marine ecosystems <br />
| <br />
|}<br />
<br />
All sanctuaries are supported by sanctuary advisory councils (SACs) that review and update sanctuary management plans and develop issue-specific action plans. SACs are composed of local community groups, industry representatives and government agencies. <br />
<br />
All sanctuaries are required to produce management plans with the SACs. The plans summarize existing programs and regulations, articulate goals and priorities, and guide management planning and decision-making. Most NMS management plans are over 10 years old.<br />
<br />
In 2005, the NMSP decentralized the structure to advance coordination between sanctuaries. Four regional offices were established to link staff with other regional programs and partners. <br />
<br />
[[Image:NMSP Regional Structure.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 2: NMSP Regional Structure]]<br />
<br />
Complementary to the NMSP is the National Park Service (NPS). There are over 40 National Parks that encompass marine areas totaling 3 million acres of ocean and coastal waters and more than 4,000 miles of coastline within their boundaries.<br />
<br />
==Key Tools==<br />
The NMSP relies on an assortment of regulatory and compliance tools to achieve its goals. At the core of each tool is the sanctuaries’ collaborative approach to engaging stakeholders in planning and implementation activities.<br />
<br />
Sanctuary regulations identify specific activities that are allowed as well as zoning boundaries. While the NMSP has some regulatory powers, a major issue is the relationship between a sanctuary and fisheries management. This has been an area of much debate with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the regional Fishery Management Councils and the fishing industry. This issue was central to the revision of the Channel Islands Sanctuary in which a network of no-take marine reserves were established within the sanctuary (see CINMS case study). <br />
<br />
Sanctuaries also use a permit system to allow selective commercial activities that are complementary to the conservation goals. Policies are often developed for specific conservation issues such as invasive species. <br />
<br />
Recognizing their limited budgets and staff resources, the NMSP has developed an extensive public education program to increase understanding, awareness and stewardship of marine resources. The enforcement program also emphasizes stakeholder education.<br />
<br />
==Effectiveness==<br />
Several evaluations of the NMSP’s management effectiveness have been conducted over the years. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) identified many successes in 2000 and encouraged the NMSP to focus on results as opposed to process, and to embrace the value and strength of SACs. NAPA released a second report in 2006 citing significant advances in the system and engaging stakeholders in the management process. NMSP is seen as a model for ecosystem-based management as advocated for by two national ocean commissions.<br />
In 2008, the Office of Inspector General concluded that the NMSP is making progress towards long-term protection of marine ecosystems and cultural resources. The program has become more of a national system of protected areas as called for by Congress through consistent performance measures, annual operating plans, system-wide monitoring reports and the regional management structure. Areas in need of improvement include the enforcement of sanctuary regulations. <br />
<br />
The MPA Center <ref>MPA Center. 2004. Lessons Learned from Recent Marine Protected Area Designations in the United States http://mpa.gov/helpful_resources/lessons_learned.html</ref> produced lessons learned on the MPA designation process. Highlights of their lessons include the need to understand the social and political history of a place before embarking on a collaborative planning process.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*National Marine Sanctuary Program http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov <br />
*National Marine Sanctuaries Act http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/National/NMSA.pdf <br />
*National Marine Sanctuary Foundation http://nmsfocean.org/ <br />
*OceansLive http://www.oceanslive.org/<br />
*Marine Protected Areas Center http://mpa.gov/<br />
*National Park Service http://www.nps.gov/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Final Inspection Report by the Office of Inspector General http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2008/IPE-18591.pdf <br />
*National Academy of Public Administration http://www.napawash.org/Marine.Sanctuary.pdf<br />
*Owen, Dave. The Disappointing History of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. NYU Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2003 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1009269<br />
*Warburg, Philip and Priscilla Brooks. Stellwagen Bank's unmet mission. May 16, 2008. Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/16/stellwagen_banks_unmet_mission/ <br />
*Morin, Tracey. “Sanctuary Advisory Councils: Involving the Public in the National Marine Sanctuary Program.” Coastal Management 29 (2001): 327–339. <br />
*Helvey, Mark. “Seeking Consensus on Designing Marine Protected Areas: Keeping the Fishing Community Engaged.” Coastal Management 32 (2004): 173-190. <br />
*Chandler, William J., and Hannah Gillelan. The Makings of the National Marine Sanctuary Act: A Legislative History and Analysis. Marine Conservation Biology Institute, 2005. <br />
*Chen, Kathy, Camille Kustin, Joshua Kweller, Carolyn Segalini, and Julia Wondolleck. “Sanctuary Advisory Councils: A Study in Collaborative Resource Management.” University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, 2006.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=US_National_Marine_Sanctuaries&diff=26711US National Marine Sanctuaries2009-01-11T14:16:13Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* History */</p>
<hr />
<div>The U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) system is the federal program that designates marine protected areas to protect and enhance biodiversity, ecological integrity and cultural assets of national significance. There are 13 national marine sanctuaries and one national monument covering a total of 150,000 square miles marine waters. The resources protected by sanctuaries range from coral reef and kelp ecosystems to shipwrecks. Established in 1972, the system has worked to expand its coverage across the country and receive sufficient funding for the program.<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
Congress established the Stratton Commission in 1966 to recommend a new approach to ocean and coastal resources management. The commission released its recommendations in 1969, including a call for a new federal agency for ocean management. That same year, a major oil spill off the California coast near Santa Barbara attracted the nation’s attention and underscored the need for improved ocean management. <br />
<br />
Guided by the Stratton Commission and motivated by the Santa Barbara oil spill, Congress passed several environmental laws in the early 1970s including the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act in 1972. Title III of that Act created the National Marine Sanctuaries Program to protect marine parks—a hundred years after the establishment of the terrestrial National Park System. Title III of the Act permits NOAA to:<br />
<br />
“…designate as marine sanctuaries those areas of the oceans, coastal, and other waters, as far seaward as the outer edge of the Continental Shelf…which the Secretary of Commerce determines necessary for the purpose of preserving or restoring such areas for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values <ref name="noa">www.noaa.gov</ref>.”<br />
<br />
The first national marine sanctuary established in 1975 was the USS Monitor, a shipwreck off the North Carolina coast. Later that same year, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Florida was designated. The most recent addition came in 2006 with the establishment of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (originally called the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument), the largest single conservation area in the country.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1: Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries and one Marine National Monument in the United States.]]<br />
<br />
==Evolution of the Program==<br />
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act later became the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). It is reauthorized every four to five years. The first major amendments occurred in 1980 stipulating that the Coast Guard shall provide the enforcement needed to support the sanctuaries. Further amendments came in 1984 to clarify certain issues including public consultations, documenting present and potential uses of the protected areas, and to conduct research and educational programs in sanctuaries. The next round of amendments passed in 1988 gave the NMS authority to permit commercial operations to recover the economic-values in using the resources. Also, vessel groundings or pollution that destroyed sanctuary resources would be liable for response and clean-up costs. Fines collected would be deposited in a specific sanctuary account to be used for conservation. Several changes were made in 1992 including the establishment of citizen advisory councils to assist in planning and management of sanctuaries. The final major amendments occurred in 2000 with the mandate to create a coherent system of sanctuaries. While at the same time, Congress prohibited any further designations until NOAA could demonstrate they could provide adequate resources to manage the existing set of sanctuaries. <br />
<br />
==Governance Framework of the Program==<br />
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (within the Department of Commerce) Office of National Marine Sanctuaries manages the NMSP and is required to balance conservation with compatible commercial and recreational activities. <br />
<br />
There are three ways to designate a marine area for protection. Under the 1972 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and the Congress are authorized to designate discrete areas. The President also has the authority to establish Marine National Monuments under the Antiquities Act. State Governors have the authority to dispute any designations.<br />
<br />
The NMSP is guided by a national strategic plan that sets out seven goals and 19 performance measures. These guide the development of individual sanctuary management plans. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|+ Table 1: Seven goals of the NMS System are divided into Outcome Goals and Activity Goals<ref>www.noaa.gov</ref><br />
! '''Outcome Goals'''<br />
! '''Activity Goals'''<br />
|-<br />
| Protect the sites<br />
| Build a nationwide system of sanctuaries<br />
|- <br />
| Facilitate human uses that are compatible with protection <br />
| Build the operational capability and infrastructure to manage sites effectively<br />
|- <br />
| Enhance nationwide public awareness, understanding, and appreciation <br />
| Work internationally to improve management and protection<br />
|-<br />
| Enhance scientific understanding to support management of the sites and marine ecosystems <br />
| <br />
|}<br />
<br />
All sanctuaries are supported by sanctuary advisory councils (SACs) that review and update sanctuary management plans and develop issue-specific action plans. SACs are composed of local community groups, industry representatives and government agencies. <br />
<br />
All sanctuaries are required to produce management plans with the SACs. The plans summarize existing programs and regulations, articulate goals and priorities, and guide management planning and decision-making. Most NMS management plans are over 10 years old.<br />
<br />
In 2005, the NMSP decentralized the structure to advance coordination between sanctuaries. Four regional offices were established to link staff with other regional programs and partners. <br />
<br />
[[Image:NMSP Regional Structure.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 2: NMSP Regional Structure]]<br />
<br />
Complementary to the NMSP is the National Park Service (NPS). There are over 40 National Parks that encompass marine areas totaling 3 million acres of ocean and coastal waters and more than 4,000 miles of coastline within their boundaries.<br />
<br />
==Key Tools==<br />
The NMSP relies on an assortment of regulatory and compliance tools to achieve its goals. At the core of each tool is the sanctuaries’ collaborative approach to engaging stakeholders in planning and implementation activities.<br />
<br />
Sanctuary regulations identify specific activities that are allowed as well as zoning boundaries. While the NMSP has some regulatory powers, a major issue is the relationship between a sanctuary and fisheries management. This has been an area of much debate with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the regional Fishery Management Councils and the fishing industry. This issue was central to the revision of the Channel Islands Sanctuary in which a network of no-take marine reserves were established within the sanctuary (see CINMS case study). <br />
<br />
Sanctuaries also use a permit system to allow selective commercial activities that are complementary to the conservation goals. Policies are often developed for specific conservation issues such as invasive species. <br />
<br />
Recognizing their limited budgets and staff resources, the NMSP has developed an extensive public education program to increase understanding, awareness and stewardship of marine resources. The enforcement program also emphasizes stakeholder education.<br />
<br />
==Effectiveness==<br />
Several evaluations of the NMSP’s management effectiveness have been conducted over the years. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) identified many successes in 2000 and encouraged the NMSP to focus on results as opposed to process, and to embrace the value and strength of SACs. NAPA released a second report in 2006 citing significant advances in the system and engaging stakeholders in the management process. NMSP is seen as a model for ecosystem-based management as advocated for by two national ocean commissions.<br />
In 2008, the Office of Inspector General concluded that the NMSP is making progress towards long-term protection of marine ecosystems and cultural resources. The program has become more of a national system of protected areas as called for by Congress through consistent performance measures, annual operating plans, system-wide monitoring reports and the regional management structure. Areas in need of improvement include the enforcement of sanctuary regulations. <br />
<br />
The MPA Center <ref>MPA Center. 2004. Lessons Learned from Recent Marine Protected Area Designations in the United States http://mpa.gov/helpful_resources/lessons_learned.html</ref> produced lessons learned on the MPA designation process. Highlights of their lessons include the need to understand the social and political history of a place before embarking on a collaborative planning process.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*National Marine Sanctuary Program http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov <br />
*National Marine Sanctuaries Act http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/National/NMSA.pdf <br />
*National Marine Sanctuary Foundation http://nmsfocean.org/ <br />
*OceansLive http://www.oceanslive.org/<br />
*Marine Protected Areas Center http://mpa.gov/<br />
*National Park Service http://www.nps.gov/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Final Inspection Report by the Office of Inspector General http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2008/IPE-18591.pdf <br />
*National Academy of Public Administration http://www.napawash.org/Marine.Sanctuary.pdf<br />
*Owen, Dave. The Disappointing History of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. NYU Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2003 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1009269<br />
*Warburg, Philip and Priscilla Brooks. Stellwagen Bank's unmet mission. May 16, 2008. Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/16/stellwagen_banks_unmet_mission/ <br />
*Morin, Tracey. “Sanctuary Advisory Councils: Involving the Public in the National Marine Sanctuary Program.” Coastal Management 29 (2001): 327–339. <br />
*Helvey, Mark. “Seeking Consensus on Designing Marine Protected Areas: Keeping the Fishing Community Engaged.” Coastal Management 32 (2004): 173-190. <br />
*Chandler, William J., and Hannah Gillelan. The Makings of the National Marine Sanctuary Act: A Legislative History and Analysis. Marine Conservation Biology Institute, 2005. <br />
*Chen, Kathy, Camille Kustin, Joshua Kweller, Carolyn Segalini, and Julia Wondolleck. “Sanctuary Advisory Councils: A Study in Collaborative Resource Management.” University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, 2006.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=US_National_Marine_Sanctuaries&diff=26710US National Marine Sanctuaries2009-01-11T14:15:36Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* Internal Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>The U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) system is the federal program that designates marine protected areas to protect and enhance biodiversity, ecological integrity and cultural assets of national significance. There are 13 national marine sanctuaries and one national monument covering a total of 150,000 square miles marine waters. The resources protected by sanctuaries range from coral reef and kelp ecosystems to shipwrecks. Established in 1972, the system has worked to expand its coverage across the country and receive sufficient funding for the program.<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
Congress established the Stratton Commission in 1966 to recommend a new approach to ocean and coastal resources management. The commission released its recommendations in 1969, including a call for a new federal agency for ocean management. That same year, a major oil spill off the California coast near Santa Barbara attracted the nation’s attention and underscored the need for improved ocean management. <br />
<br />
Guided by the Stratton Commission and motivated by the Santa Barbara oil spill, Congress passed several environmental laws in the early 1970s including the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act in 1972. Title III of that Act created the National Marine Sanctuaries Program to protect marine parks—a hundred years after the establishment of the terrestrial National Park System. Title III of the Act permits NOAA to:<br />
<br />
“…designate as marine sanctuaries those areas of the oceans, coastal, and other waters, as far seaward as the outer edge of the Continental Shelf…which the Secretary of Commerce determines necessary for the purpose of preserving or restoring such areas for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values <ref>www.noaa.gov</ref>.”<br />
<br />
The first national marine sanctuary established in 1975 was the USS Monitor, a shipwreck off the North Carolina coast. Later that same year, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Florida was designated. The most recent addition came in 2006 with the establishment of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (originally called the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument), the largest single conservation area in the country.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1: Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries and one Marine National Monument in the United States.]]<br />
<br />
==Evolution of the Program==<br />
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act later became the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). It is reauthorized every four to five years. The first major amendments occurred in 1980 stipulating that the Coast Guard shall provide the enforcement needed to support the sanctuaries. Further amendments came in 1984 to clarify certain issues including public consultations, documenting present and potential uses of the protected areas, and to conduct research and educational programs in sanctuaries. The next round of amendments passed in 1988 gave the NMS authority to permit commercial operations to recover the economic-values in using the resources. Also, vessel groundings or pollution that destroyed sanctuary resources would be liable for response and clean-up costs. Fines collected would be deposited in a specific sanctuary account to be used for conservation. Several changes were made in 1992 including the establishment of citizen advisory councils to assist in planning and management of sanctuaries. The final major amendments occurred in 2000 with the mandate to create a coherent system of sanctuaries. While at the same time, Congress prohibited any further designations until NOAA could demonstrate they could provide adequate resources to manage the existing set of sanctuaries. <br />
<br />
==Governance Framework of the Program==<br />
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (within the Department of Commerce) Office of National Marine Sanctuaries manages the NMSP and is required to balance conservation with compatible commercial and recreational activities. <br />
<br />
There are three ways to designate a marine area for protection. Under the 1972 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and the Congress are authorized to designate discrete areas. The President also has the authority to establish Marine National Monuments under the Antiquities Act. State Governors have the authority to dispute any designations.<br />
<br />
The NMSP is guided by a national strategic plan that sets out seven goals and 19 performance measures. These guide the development of individual sanctuary management plans. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|+ Table 1: Seven goals of the NMS System are divided into Outcome Goals and Activity Goals<ref>www.noaa.gov</ref><br />
! '''Outcome Goals'''<br />
! '''Activity Goals'''<br />
|-<br />
| Protect the sites<br />
| Build a nationwide system of sanctuaries<br />
|- <br />
| Facilitate human uses that are compatible with protection <br />
| Build the operational capability and infrastructure to manage sites effectively<br />
|- <br />
| Enhance nationwide public awareness, understanding, and appreciation <br />
| Work internationally to improve management and protection<br />
|-<br />
| Enhance scientific understanding to support management of the sites and marine ecosystems <br />
| <br />
|}<br />
<br />
All sanctuaries are supported by sanctuary advisory councils (SACs) that review and update sanctuary management plans and develop issue-specific action plans. SACs are composed of local community groups, industry representatives and government agencies. <br />
<br />
All sanctuaries are required to produce management plans with the SACs. The plans summarize existing programs and regulations, articulate goals and priorities, and guide management planning and decision-making. Most NMS management plans are over 10 years old.<br />
<br />
In 2005, the NMSP decentralized the structure to advance coordination between sanctuaries. Four regional offices were established to link staff with other regional programs and partners. <br />
<br />
[[Image:NMSP Regional Structure.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 2: NMSP Regional Structure]]<br />
<br />
Complementary to the NMSP is the National Park Service (NPS). There are over 40 National Parks that encompass marine areas totaling 3 million acres of ocean and coastal waters and more than 4,000 miles of coastline within their boundaries.<br />
<br />
==Key Tools==<br />
The NMSP relies on an assortment of regulatory and compliance tools to achieve its goals. At the core of each tool is the sanctuaries’ collaborative approach to engaging stakeholders in planning and implementation activities.<br />
<br />
Sanctuary regulations identify specific activities that are allowed as well as zoning boundaries. While the NMSP has some regulatory powers, a major issue is the relationship between a sanctuary and fisheries management. This has been an area of much debate with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the regional Fishery Management Councils and the fishing industry. This issue was central to the revision of the Channel Islands Sanctuary in which a network of no-take marine reserves were established within the sanctuary (see CINMS case study). <br />
<br />
Sanctuaries also use a permit system to allow selective commercial activities that are complementary to the conservation goals. Policies are often developed for specific conservation issues such as invasive species. <br />
<br />
Recognizing their limited budgets and staff resources, the NMSP has developed an extensive public education program to increase understanding, awareness and stewardship of marine resources. The enforcement program also emphasizes stakeholder education.<br />
<br />
==Effectiveness==<br />
Several evaluations of the NMSP’s management effectiveness have been conducted over the years. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) identified many successes in 2000 and encouraged the NMSP to focus on results as opposed to process, and to embrace the value and strength of SACs. NAPA released a second report in 2006 citing significant advances in the system and engaging stakeholders in the management process. NMSP is seen as a model for ecosystem-based management as advocated for by two national ocean commissions.<br />
In 2008, the Office of Inspector General concluded that the NMSP is making progress towards long-term protection of marine ecosystems and cultural resources. The program has become more of a national system of protected areas as called for by Congress through consistent performance measures, annual operating plans, system-wide monitoring reports and the regional management structure. Areas in need of improvement include the enforcement of sanctuary regulations. <br />
<br />
The MPA Center <ref>MPA Center. 2004. Lessons Learned from Recent Marine Protected Area Designations in the United States http://mpa.gov/helpful_resources/lessons_learned.html</ref> produced lessons learned on the MPA designation process. Highlights of their lessons include the need to understand the social and political history of a place before embarking on a collaborative planning process.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*National Marine Sanctuary Program http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov <br />
*National Marine Sanctuaries Act http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/National/NMSA.pdf <br />
*National Marine Sanctuary Foundation http://nmsfocean.org/ <br />
*OceansLive http://www.oceanslive.org/<br />
*Marine Protected Areas Center http://mpa.gov/<br />
*National Park Service http://www.nps.gov/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Final Inspection Report by the Office of Inspector General http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2008/IPE-18591.pdf <br />
*National Academy of Public Administration http://www.napawash.org/Marine.Sanctuary.pdf<br />
*Owen, Dave. The Disappointing History of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. NYU Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2003 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1009269<br />
*Warburg, Philip and Priscilla Brooks. Stellwagen Bank's unmet mission. May 16, 2008. Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/16/stellwagen_banks_unmet_mission/ <br />
*Morin, Tracey. “Sanctuary Advisory Councils: Involving the Public in the National Marine Sanctuary Program.” Coastal Management 29 (2001): 327–339. <br />
*Helvey, Mark. “Seeking Consensus on Designing Marine Protected Areas: Keeping the Fishing Community Engaged.” Coastal Management 32 (2004): 173-190. <br />
*Chandler, William J., and Hannah Gillelan. The Makings of the National Marine Sanctuary Act: A Legislative History and Analysis. Marine Conservation Biology Institute, 2005. <br />
*Chen, Kathy, Camille Kustin, Joshua Kweller, Carolyn Segalini, and Julia Wondolleck. “Sanctuary Advisory Councils: A Study in Collaborative Resource Management.” University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, 2006.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=US_National_Marine_Sanctuaries&diff=26709US National Marine Sanctuaries2009-01-11T14:15:12Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* External Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>The U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) system is the federal program that designates marine protected areas to protect and enhance biodiversity, ecological integrity and cultural assets of national significance. There are 13 national marine sanctuaries and one national monument covering a total of 150,000 square miles marine waters. The resources protected by sanctuaries range from coral reef and kelp ecosystems to shipwrecks. Established in 1972, the system has worked to expand its coverage across the country and receive sufficient funding for the program.<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
Congress established the Stratton Commission in 1966 to recommend a new approach to ocean and coastal resources management. The commission released its recommendations in 1969, including a call for a new federal agency for ocean management. That same year, a major oil spill off the California coast near Santa Barbara attracted the nation’s attention and underscored the need for improved ocean management. <br />
<br />
Guided by the Stratton Commission and motivated by the Santa Barbara oil spill, Congress passed several environmental laws in the early 1970s including the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act in 1972. Title III of that Act created the National Marine Sanctuaries Program to protect marine parks—a hundred years after the establishment of the terrestrial National Park System. Title III of the Act permits NOAA to:<br />
<br />
“…designate as marine sanctuaries those areas of the oceans, coastal, and other waters, as far seaward as the outer edge of the Continental Shelf…which the Secretary of Commerce determines necessary for the purpose of preserving or restoring such areas for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values <ref>www.noaa.gov</ref>.”<br />
<br />
The first national marine sanctuary established in 1975 was the USS Monitor, a shipwreck off the North Carolina coast. Later that same year, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Florida was designated. The most recent addition came in 2006 with the establishment of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (originally called the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument), the largest single conservation area in the country.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1: Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries and one Marine National Monument in the United States.]]<br />
<br />
==Evolution of the Program==<br />
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act later became the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). It is reauthorized every four to five years. The first major amendments occurred in 1980 stipulating that the Coast Guard shall provide the enforcement needed to support the sanctuaries. Further amendments came in 1984 to clarify certain issues including public consultations, documenting present and potential uses of the protected areas, and to conduct research and educational programs in sanctuaries. The next round of amendments passed in 1988 gave the NMS authority to permit commercial operations to recover the economic-values in using the resources. Also, vessel groundings or pollution that destroyed sanctuary resources would be liable for response and clean-up costs. Fines collected would be deposited in a specific sanctuary account to be used for conservation. Several changes were made in 1992 including the establishment of citizen advisory councils to assist in planning and management of sanctuaries. The final major amendments occurred in 2000 with the mandate to create a coherent system of sanctuaries. While at the same time, Congress prohibited any further designations until NOAA could demonstrate they could provide adequate resources to manage the existing set of sanctuaries. <br />
<br />
==Governance Framework of the Program==<br />
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (within the Department of Commerce) Office of National Marine Sanctuaries manages the NMSP and is required to balance conservation with compatible commercial and recreational activities. <br />
<br />
There are three ways to designate a marine area for protection. Under the 1972 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and the Congress are authorized to designate discrete areas. The President also has the authority to establish Marine National Monuments under the Antiquities Act. State Governors have the authority to dispute any designations.<br />
<br />
The NMSP is guided by a national strategic plan that sets out seven goals and 19 performance measures. These guide the development of individual sanctuary management plans. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|+ Table 1: Seven goals of the NMS System are divided into Outcome Goals and Activity Goals<ref>www.noaa.gov</ref><br />
! '''Outcome Goals'''<br />
! '''Activity Goals'''<br />
|-<br />
| Protect the sites<br />
| Build a nationwide system of sanctuaries<br />
|- <br />
| Facilitate human uses that are compatible with protection <br />
| Build the operational capability and infrastructure to manage sites effectively<br />
|- <br />
| Enhance nationwide public awareness, understanding, and appreciation <br />
| Work internationally to improve management and protection<br />
|-<br />
| Enhance scientific understanding to support management of the sites and marine ecosystems <br />
| <br />
|}<br />
<br />
All sanctuaries are supported by sanctuary advisory councils (SACs) that review and update sanctuary management plans and develop issue-specific action plans. SACs are composed of local community groups, industry representatives and government agencies. <br />
<br />
All sanctuaries are required to produce management plans with the SACs. The plans summarize existing programs and regulations, articulate goals and priorities, and guide management planning and decision-making. Most NMS management plans are over 10 years old.<br />
<br />
In 2005, the NMSP decentralized the structure to advance coordination between sanctuaries. Four regional offices were established to link staff with other regional programs and partners. <br />
<br />
[[Image:NMSP Regional Structure.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 2: NMSP Regional Structure]]<br />
<br />
Complementary to the NMSP is the National Park Service (NPS). There are over 40 National Parks that encompass marine areas totaling 3 million acres of ocean and coastal waters and more than 4,000 miles of coastline within their boundaries.<br />
<br />
==Key Tools==<br />
The NMSP relies on an assortment of regulatory and compliance tools to achieve its goals. At the core of each tool is the sanctuaries’ collaborative approach to engaging stakeholders in planning and implementation activities.<br />
<br />
Sanctuary regulations identify specific activities that are allowed as well as zoning boundaries. While the NMSP has some regulatory powers, a major issue is the relationship between a sanctuary and fisheries management. This has been an area of much debate with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the regional Fishery Management Councils and the fishing industry. This issue was central to the revision of the Channel Islands Sanctuary in which a network of no-take marine reserves were established within the sanctuary (see CINMS case study). <br />
<br />
Sanctuaries also use a permit system to allow selective commercial activities that are complementary to the conservation goals. Policies are often developed for specific conservation issues such as invasive species. <br />
<br />
Recognizing their limited budgets and staff resources, the NMSP has developed an extensive public education program to increase understanding, awareness and stewardship of marine resources. The enforcement program also emphasizes stakeholder education.<br />
<br />
==Effectiveness==<br />
Several evaluations of the NMSP’s management effectiveness have been conducted over the years. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) identified many successes in 2000 and encouraged the NMSP to focus on results as opposed to process, and to embrace the value and strength of SACs. NAPA released a second report in 2006 citing significant advances in the system and engaging stakeholders in the management process. NMSP is seen as a model for ecosystem-based management as advocated for by two national ocean commissions.<br />
In 2008, the Office of Inspector General concluded that the NMSP is making progress towards long-term protection of marine ecosystems and cultural resources. The program has become more of a national system of protected areas as called for by Congress through consistent performance measures, annual operating plans, system-wide monitoring reports and the regional management structure. Areas in need of improvement include the enforcement of sanctuary regulations. <br />
<br />
The MPA Center <ref>MPA Center. 2004. Lessons Learned from Recent Marine Protected Area Designations in the United States http://mpa.gov/helpful_resources/lessons_learned.html</ref> produced lessons learned on the MPA designation process. Highlights of their lessons include the need to understand the social and political history of a place before embarking on a collaborative planning process.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*National Marine Sanctuary Program http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov <br />
*National Marine Sanctuaries Act http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/National/NMSA.pdf <br />
*National Marine Sanctuary Foundation http://nmsfocean.org/ <br />
*OceansLive http://www.oceanslive.org/<br />
*Marine Protected Areas Center http://mpa.gov/<br />
*National Park Service http://www.nps.gov/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Final Inspection Report by the Office of Inspector General http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2008/IPE-18591.pdf <br />
*National Academy of Public Administration http://www.napawash.org/Marine.Sanctuary.pdf<br />
*Owen, Dave. The Disappointing History of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. NYU Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2003 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1009269<br />
*Warburg, Philip and Priscilla Brooks. Stellwagen Bank's unmet mission. May 16, 2008. Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/16/stellwagen_banks_unmet_mission/ <br />
*Morin, Tracey. “Sanctuary Advisory Councils: Involving the Public in the National Marine Sanctuary Program.” Coastal Management 29 (2001): 327–339. <br />
*Helvey, Mark. “Seeking Consensus on Designing Marine Protected Areas: Keeping the Fishing Community Engaged.” Coastal Management 32 (2004): 173-190. <br />
*Chandler, William J., and Hannah Gillelan. The Makings of the National Marine Sanctuary Act: A Legislative History and Analysis. Marine Conservation Biology Institute, 2005. <br />
*Chen, Kathy, Camille Kustin, Joshua Kweller, Carolyn Segalini, and Julia Wondolleck. “Sanctuary Advisory Councils: A Study in Collaborative Resource Management.” University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, 2006.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=US_National_Marine_Sanctuaries&diff=26708US National Marine Sanctuaries2009-01-11T14:14:37Z<p>AnnaKroon: New page: The U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) system is the federal program that designates marine protected areas to protect and enhance biodiversity, ecological integrity and cultural asset...</p>
<hr />
<div>The U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) system is the federal program that designates marine protected areas to protect and enhance biodiversity, ecological integrity and cultural assets of national significance. There are 13 national marine sanctuaries and one national monument covering a total of 150,000 square miles marine waters. The resources protected by sanctuaries range from coral reef and kelp ecosystems to shipwrecks. Established in 1972, the system has worked to expand its coverage across the country and receive sufficient funding for the program.<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
Congress established the Stratton Commission in 1966 to recommend a new approach to ocean and coastal resources management. The commission released its recommendations in 1969, including a call for a new federal agency for ocean management. That same year, a major oil spill off the California coast near Santa Barbara attracted the nation’s attention and underscored the need for improved ocean management. <br />
<br />
Guided by the Stratton Commission and motivated by the Santa Barbara oil spill, Congress passed several environmental laws in the early 1970s including the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act in 1972. Title III of that Act created the National Marine Sanctuaries Program to protect marine parks—a hundred years after the establishment of the terrestrial National Park System. Title III of the Act permits NOAA to:<br />
<br />
“…designate as marine sanctuaries those areas of the oceans, coastal, and other waters, as far seaward as the outer edge of the Continental Shelf…which the Secretary of Commerce determines necessary for the purpose of preserving or restoring such areas for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values <ref>www.noaa.gov</ref>.”<br />
<br />
The first national marine sanctuary established in 1975 was the USS Monitor, a shipwreck off the North Carolina coast. Later that same year, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Florida was designated. The most recent addition came in 2006 with the establishment of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (originally called the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument), the largest single conservation area in the country.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1: Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries and one Marine National Monument in the United States.]]<br />
<br />
==Evolution of the Program==<br />
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act later became the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). It is reauthorized every four to five years. The first major amendments occurred in 1980 stipulating that the Coast Guard shall provide the enforcement needed to support the sanctuaries. Further amendments came in 1984 to clarify certain issues including public consultations, documenting present and potential uses of the protected areas, and to conduct research and educational programs in sanctuaries. The next round of amendments passed in 1988 gave the NMS authority to permit commercial operations to recover the economic-values in using the resources. Also, vessel groundings or pollution that destroyed sanctuary resources would be liable for response and clean-up costs. Fines collected would be deposited in a specific sanctuary account to be used for conservation. Several changes were made in 1992 including the establishment of citizen advisory councils to assist in planning and management of sanctuaries. The final major amendments occurred in 2000 with the mandate to create a coherent system of sanctuaries. While at the same time, Congress prohibited any further designations until NOAA could demonstrate they could provide adequate resources to manage the existing set of sanctuaries. <br />
<br />
==Governance Framework of the Program==<br />
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (within the Department of Commerce) Office of National Marine Sanctuaries manages the NMSP and is required to balance conservation with compatible commercial and recreational activities. <br />
<br />
There are three ways to designate a marine area for protection. Under the 1972 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and the Congress are authorized to designate discrete areas. The President also has the authority to establish Marine National Monuments under the Antiquities Act. State Governors have the authority to dispute any designations.<br />
<br />
The NMSP is guided by a national strategic plan that sets out seven goals and 19 performance measures. These guide the development of individual sanctuary management plans. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|+ Table 1: Seven goals of the NMS System are divided into Outcome Goals and Activity Goals<ref>www.noaa.gov</ref><br />
! '''Outcome Goals'''<br />
! '''Activity Goals'''<br />
|-<br />
| Protect the sites<br />
| Build a nationwide system of sanctuaries<br />
|- <br />
| Facilitate human uses that are compatible with protection <br />
| Build the operational capability and infrastructure to manage sites effectively<br />
|- <br />
| Enhance nationwide public awareness, understanding, and appreciation <br />
| Work internationally to improve management and protection<br />
|-<br />
| Enhance scientific understanding to support management of the sites and marine ecosystems <br />
| <br />
|}<br />
<br />
All sanctuaries are supported by sanctuary advisory councils (SACs) that review and update sanctuary management plans and develop issue-specific action plans. SACs are composed of local community groups, industry representatives and government agencies. <br />
<br />
All sanctuaries are required to produce management plans with the SACs. The plans summarize existing programs and regulations, articulate goals and priorities, and guide management planning and decision-making. Most NMS management plans are over 10 years old.<br />
<br />
In 2005, the NMSP decentralized the structure to advance coordination between sanctuaries. Four regional offices were established to link staff with other regional programs and partners. <br />
<br />
[[Image:NMSP Regional Structure.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 2: NMSP Regional Structure]]<br />
<br />
Complementary to the NMSP is the National Park Service (NPS). There are over 40 National Parks that encompass marine areas totaling 3 million acres of ocean and coastal waters and more than 4,000 miles of coastline within their boundaries.<br />
<br />
==Key Tools==<br />
The NMSP relies on an assortment of regulatory and compliance tools to achieve its goals. At the core of each tool is the sanctuaries’ collaborative approach to engaging stakeholders in planning and implementation activities.<br />
<br />
Sanctuary regulations identify specific activities that are allowed as well as zoning boundaries. While the NMSP has some regulatory powers, a major issue is the relationship between a sanctuary and fisheries management. This has been an area of much debate with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the regional Fishery Management Councils and the fishing industry. This issue was central to the revision of the Channel Islands Sanctuary in which a network of no-take marine reserves were established within the sanctuary (see CINMS case study). <br />
<br />
Sanctuaries also use a permit system to allow selective commercial activities that are complementary to the conservation goals. Policies are often developed for specific conservation issues such as invasive species. <br />
<br />
Recognizing their limited budgets and staff resources, the NMSP has developed an extensive public education program to increase understanding, awareness and stewardship of marine resources. The enforcement program also emphasizes stakeholder education.<br />
<br />
==Effectiveness==<br />
Several evaluations of the NMSP’s management effectiveness have been conducted over the years. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) identified many successes in 2000 and encouraged the NMSP to focus on results as opposed to process, and to embrace the value and strength of SACs. NAPA released a second report in 2006 citing significant advances in the system and engaging stakeholders in the management process. NMSP is seen as a model for ecosystem-based management as advocated for by two national ocean commissions.<br />
In 2008, the Office of Inspector General concluded that the NMSP is making progress towards long-term protection of marine ecosystems and cultural resources. The program has become more of a national system of protected areas as called for by Congress through consistent performance measures, annual operating plans, system-wide monitoring reports and the regional management structure. Areas in need of improvement include the enforcement of sanctuary regulations. <br />
<br />
The MPA Center <ref>MPA Center. 2004. Lessons Learned from Recent Marine Protected Area Designations in the United States http://mpa.gov/helpful_resources/lessons_learned.html</ref> produced lessons learned on the MPA designation process. Highlights of their lessons include the need to understand the social and political history of a place before embarking on a collaborative planning process.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*National Marine Sanctuary Program http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov <br />
*National Marine Sanctuaries Act http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/National/NMSA.pdf <br />
*National Marine Sanctuary Foundation http://nmsfocean.org/ <br />
*OceansLive http://www.oceanslive.org/<br />
*Marine Protected Areas Center http://mpa.gov/<br />
*National Park Service http://www.nps.gov/ <br />
<br />
Further Reading:<br />
*Final Inspection Report by the Office of Inspector General http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2008/IPE-18591.pdf <br />
*National Academy of Public Administration http://www.napawash.org/Marine.Sanctuary.pdf<br />
*Owen, Dave. The Disappointing History of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. NYU Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2003 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1009269<br />
*Warburg, Philip and Priscilla Brooks. Stellwagen Bank's unmet mission. May 16, 2008. Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/16/stellwagen_banks_unmet_mission/ <br />
*Morin, Tracey. “Sanctuary Advisory Councils: Involving the Public in the National Marine Sanctuary Program.” Coastal Management 29 (2001): 327–339. <br />
*Helvey, Mark. “Seeking Consensus on Designing Marine Protected Areas: Keeping the Fishing Community Engaged.” Coastal Management 32 (2004): 173-190. <br />
*Chandler, William J., and Hannah Gillelan. The Makings of the National Marine Sanctuary Act: A Legislative History and Analysis. Marine Conservation Biology Institute, 2005. <br />
*Chen, Kathy, Camille Kustin, Joshua Kweller, Carolyn Segalini, and Julia Wondolleck. “Sanctuary Advisory Councils: A Study in Collaborative Resource Management.” University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, 2006.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=File:NMSP_Regional_Structure.jpg&diff=26707File:NMSP Regional Structure.jpg2009-01-11T14:06:33Z<p>AnnaKroon: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=File:Map_of_13_National_Marine_Sanctuaries.jpg&diff=26706File:Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries.jpg2009-01-11T13:46:49Z<p>AnnaKroon: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=US_National_Estuarine_Research_Reserve_System&diff=26705US National Estuarine Research Reserve System2009-01-11T13:42:13Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* Internal Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>The United States National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) was established as an element of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. It creates a representative system of locally managed estuarine reserves that conduct long-term research, water quality monitoring and educational programs designed to promote coastal stewardship. As of 2008, this network of protected areas includes 27 reserves. The program oversees more than one million acres (4,000 km²) of estuarine land, wetlands, and water.<br />
<br />
==Goals and Priority Issues==<br />
NERRS is structured as a partnership between individual states and the Federal Government and is the research arm of the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Program. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce administers the program. The goal of NERRS is to conduct long-term research and education on, and promote stewardship of, coastal wetlands and estuaries in a range of sites from those that are pristine to those heavily impacted. Strategic goals for 2005-2010 are to “strengthen the protection and management of representative estuarine ecosystems to advance estuarine conservation, research and education; increase the use of reserve science and sites to address priority coastal management issues; and enhance people’s ability and willingness to make informed decisions and take responsible actions that affect coastal communities and ecosystems (NOAA website).”<br />
<br />
A NERRS priority is to communicate research findings to coastal managers. The system’s 2005-2010 Strategic Plan identifies four priority national issues for research: impacts of land use and population growth; habitat loss and alteration; water quality degradation; and changes in biological communities. <br />
<br />
==Governance Framework of the Program==<br />
The process for designating new NERRs begins when a state governor submits a letter of interest to NOAA requesting funds to identify a site and select the local lead agency. If NOAA approves the request, it provides up to $100,000 (a 50% match from the state is required) to select the site and prepare a basic characterization of the site’s physical, chemical and biological characteristics; an Environmental Impact Statement; and a Management Plan. NOAA requires extensive public participation and collaboration in the designation process.<br />
<br />
Management partners in a NERR may include state agencies, non-profit groups, universities and members of the local community. The NERR may also work with SeaGrant extension and education staff and others in identifying key coastal resource issues to address. <br />
<br />
==Core Programs==<br />
NOAA provides annual core funding and the state must provide matching funds. Combined, these are used to develop management plans, conduct school and public education programs, maintain reserve facilities and acquire new properties. As a national system of protected areas, the NERRS conducts the following core programs at each site:<br />
<br />
*''System-wide Monitoring Program:'' tracks changes over the long-term to understand how human activities and natural events impact coastal ecosystems <br />
*''Graduate Research Fellows Program:'' provides students the opportunity to conduct research at a reserve<br />
*''Coastal Training Program(CTP):'' targets the needs of local decision-maker by offering information, skills building, lectures, and demonstration projects and providing networking opportunities that can foster new collaborative solutions<br />
*''School and Public Education Programs:'' build stewardship for coastal estuaries within the general public. NERRS is mandated "to enhance public awareness and understanding of estuarine areas, and provide suitable opportunities for public education and interpretation." Most reserves provide experiential education programs for elementary and secondary schools. The Estuary Live program enables students to learn over the internet. <br />
*''Stewardship'' through working with the surrounding local communities to participate in such activities as land acquisition, restoration habitat mapping and policy development. <br />
<br />
The NERRS, NOAA and state coastal management programs work together with the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET) to produce practical tools for restoring and managing coastal ecosystems.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Map of Reserves in the NERRS.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1: Map of Reserves in the NERRS.]]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Estuary]]<br />
*[[Estuaries and tidal rivers]]<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*NERRS Homepage http://nerrs.noaa.gov/<br />
*Estuaries.Gov http://www.estuaries.gov<br />
*http://www.epa.gov/nep/about1.htm<br />
*Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation http://erf.org/ <br />
*National Estuarine Research Reserve Association http://nerra.org/<br />
*Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology http://ciceet.unh.edu/<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=US_National_Estuarine_Research_Reserve_System&diff=26704US National Estuarine Research Reserve System2009-01-11T13:41:50Z<p>AnnaKroon: New page: The United States National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) was established as an element of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. It creates a representative system of locally...</p>
<hr />
<div>The United States National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) was established as an element of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. It creates a representative system of locally managed estuarine reserves that conduct long-term research, water quality monitoring and educational programs designed to promote coastal stewardship. As of 2008, this network of protected areas includes 27 reserves. The program oversees more than one million acres (4,000 km²) of estuarine land, wetlands, and water.<br />
<br />
==Goals and Priority Issues==<br />
NERRS is structured as a partnership between individual states and the Federal Government and is the research arm of the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Program. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce administers the program. The goal of NERRS is to conduct long-term research and education on, and promote stewardship of, coastal wetlands and estuaries in a range of sites from those that are pristine to those heavily impacted. Strategic goals for 2005-2010 are to “strengthen the protection and management of representative estuarine ecosystems to advance estuarine conservation, research and education; increase the use of reserve science and sites to address priority coastal management issues; and enhance people’s ability and willingness to make informed decisions and take responsible actions that affect coastal communities and ecosystems (NOAA website).”<br />
<br />
A NERRS priority is to communicate research findings to coastal managers. The system’s 2005-2010 Strategic Plan identifies four priority national issues for research: impacts of land use and population growth; habitat loss and alteration; water quality degradation; and changes in biological communities. <br />
<br />
==Governance Framework of the Program==<br />
The process for designating new NERRs begins when a state governor submits a letter of interest to NOAA requesting funds to identify a site and select the local lead agency. If NOAA approves the request, it provides up to $100,000 (a 50% match from the state is required) to select the site and prepare a basic characterization of the site’s physical, chemical and biological characteristics; an Environmental Impact Statement; and a Management Plan. NOAA requires extensive public participation and collaboration in the designation process.<br />
<br />
Management partners in a NERR may include state agencies, non-profit groups, universities and members of the local community. The NERR may also work with SeaGrant extension and education staff and others in identifying key coastal resource issues to address. <br />
<br />
==Core Programs==<br />
NOAA provides annual core funding and the state must provide matching funds. Combined, these are used to develop management plans, conduct school and public education programs, maintain reserve facilities and acquire new properties. As a national system of protected areas, the NERRS conducts the following core programs at each site:<br />
<br />
*''System-wide Monitoring Program:'' tracks changes over the long-term to understand how human activities and natural events impact coastal ecosystems <br />
*''Graduate Research Fellows Program:'' provides students the opportunity to conduct research at a reserve<br />
*''Coastal Training Program(CTP):'' targets the needs of local decision-maker by offering information, skills building, lectures, and demonstration projects and providing networking opportunities that can foster new collaborative solutions<br />
*''School and Public Education Programs:'' build stewardship for coastal estuaries within the general public. NERRS is mandated "to enhance public awareness and understanding of estuarine areas, and provide suitable opportunities for public education and interpretation." Most reserves provide experiential education programs for elementary and secondary schools. The Estuary Live program enables students to learn over the internet. <br />
*''Stewardship'' through working with the surrounding local communities to participate in such activities as land acquisition, restoration habitat mapping and policy development. <br />
<br />
The NERRS, NOAA and state coastal management programs work together with the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET) to produce practical tools for restoring and managing coastal ecosystems.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Map of Reserves in the NERRS.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1: Map of Reserves in the NERRS.]]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Estuary]]<br />
*[[Estuaries and tidal rivers]]<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*NERRS Homepage http://nerrs.noaa.gov/<br />
*Estuaries.Gov http://www.estuaries.gov<br />
*http://www.epa.gov/nep/about1.htm<br />
*Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation http://erf.org/ <br />
*National Estuarine Research Reserve Association http://nerra.org/<br />
*Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology http://ciceet.unh.edu/<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=File:Map_of_Reserves_in_the_NERRS.jpg&diff=26703File:Map of Reserves in the NERRS.jpg2009-01-11T13:36:44Z<p>AnnaKroon: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=US_National_Estuary_Program&diff=26702US National Estuary Program2009-01-11T13:29:56Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* External Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>In 1987, Congress established the US National Estuary Program (US NEP), as an element of the [[Clean Water Act]] (CWA), to restore and maintain the integrity of estuaries of national importance. The US NEP was designed to apply an ecosystem-based watershed approach implemented through collaborative partnerships. It complements the Coastal Zone Management Programs led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Twenty eight estuaries participate in the US NEP, which is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Participating states must develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for each estuary in the US NEP Program. <br />
<br />
==Objectives==<br />
The Clean Water Act (Section 320) directs EPA to develop plans for attaining or maintaining water quality in estuaries by addressing both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Estuaries included in the U.S. National Estuaries Program are nominated by individual states and use a holistic ecosystem-based approach to address water pollution and related environmental issues of concern to stakeholders. The NEPs are long-term planning and management programs, rather than short term projects. NEPs support rather than replace existing controls on pollution. <br />
<br />
==History==<br />
The NEP is modeled on the success of the EPA’s Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay programs. In 1987, in the reauthorization of the CWA, Congress selected an initial six estuaries into the NEP. Each NEP receives annual implementation funding. As of 2008, the Program contained 28 estuaries, including the [[Tampa Bay Estuary Program|Tampa Bay Estuary]].<br />
<br />
==Key Features==<br />
State governors may nominate estuaries for inclusion in the NEP that face significant ecological risks, are of commercial importance, and could benefit from a comprehensive planning and management program. Incentives for nominating an estuary include federal funding, and the option of applying more stringent water quality standards than those provided through the [[Clean Water Act|Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)]] system. <br />
<br />
Once the EPA approves an estuary to be accepted into the NEP, the first step is to establish a governance structure to serve as the forum for bringing stakeholders together to identify issues and develop the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. This governance structure, known as the Management Conference, is composed of the NEP Program Office and several stakeholder committees. The Management Conference acts as the organizational umbrella through which each program is implemented. The Conference defines program goals, identifies the causes of the estuary’s environmental problems, and designs actions to protect and restore habitats and living resources. Developing the CCMP is a three to five year process that involves convening stakeholders and reaching consensus on solutions. Stakeholders on committees typically include local governments, affected businesses and industries, public and private institutions, nongovernmental organizations, the general public, and representatives from EPA, other federal agencies, state governments, and interstate or regional agencies. Its committee structure provides the platform for collaborative decision-making and reflects citizen concerns and the problems and characteristics of the watershed. All Management Conferences establish several core committees to carry out their work. These generally include a Policy Committee, a Management Committee, and advisory committees for technical and citizen input. Some NEPs also have committees dealing with finance and local government.<br />
<br />
Each NEP has a Program Office that facilitates the work of the committees and is accountable to the Management Conference. The Program Office consists of a director and a small staff of usually three to five professionals. The NEP Program Office facilitates development of the Management Plan, supports its implementation, and produces documents such as annual budgets and work plans. Figure 1 represents a typical organizational structure of an NEP Management Conference. The NEP Program Office can be located in a variety of institutions ranging from state or local agencies to universities or nonprofits.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Typical NEP Management Conference Organizational Structure.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1 Typical NEP Management Conference Organizational Structure]]<br />
<br />
EPA’s role is to provide financial and technical assistance, participate in the Management Conference and review program performance. <br />
<br />
The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) serves as the road map for coordinated actions to address priority issues. Since the CCMP is not a regulatory document, NEPs rely upon partners to implement their action plans. The CCMP is based on a scientific characterization of the estuary and is developed and approved by a broad-based coalition of stakeholders. It addresses a wide range of environmental protection issues including water quality, habitat, fish and wildlife, pathogens, land use, and invasive species. <br />
<br />
==Evolution==<br />
Initially, the Clean Water Act authorized EPA to award grants for 75% of the planning costs for a CCMP. When it came to implementing the CCMP, the States again had insufficient funds. Hence, Congress amended Section 320 of the Clean Water Act in 2000 to provide federal grants of up to 50% for implementation. The Association of National Estuary Programs was established in 1996 as a nonprofit group building support for the NEP at the national level. It serves as a forum for estuary sites to discuss issues and lobby Congress. <br />
<br />
==Progress/Effectiveness==<br />
The strength of the NEP is attributed to four factors. Its collaborative non-regulatory approach to holistic watershed management encourages stakeholder-based visioning and action, leverages partner resources, applies science to emerging issues, the action strategies to address those issues, and develops programs based on local priorities. Second, the NEP model allocates considerable time to reaching consensus through the use of bylaws and memoranda of agreement as a framework for resolving conflicts. Third, the NEPs promote high levels of commitment by involving stakeholders in committees and keeping them informed of goals and progress. Finally NEPs focus on developing long term finance strategies. For example, by forming strategic alliances and developing new funding sources (e.g., stormwater utilities), the NEP raises an average of $15 for every $1 provided by EPA. <br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Estuary]]<br />
*[[Estuaries and tidal rivers]]<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*http://www.epa.gov/nep/about1.htm<br />
*EPA Community Based Watershed Management: Lessons from the National Estuary Program http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/nepprimer/handbook.htm <br />
*EPA Office of Water, National Estuary Program http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/ <br />
*Congressional Research Service, National Estuary Program: A Collaborative Approach<br />
to Protecting Coastal Water Quality http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/Wetlands/wet-9.cfm#_1_4 <br />
*Association of National Estuary Program http://www.nationalestuaries.org/ <br />
*Tampa Bay NEP www.tbep.org<br />
*Narragansett Bay NEP www.nbep.org <br />
*Chesapeake Bay Program http://www.chesapeakebay.net/<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<References/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=US_National_Estuary_Program&diff=26701US National Estuary Program2009-01-11T13:28:57Z<p>AnnaKroon: New page: In 1987, Congress established the US National Estuary Program (US NEP), as an element of the Clean Water Act (CWA), to restore and maintain the integrity of estuaries of national impor...</p>
<hr />
<div>In 1987, Congress established the US National Estuary Program (US NEP), as an element of the [[Clean Water Act]] (CWA), to restore and maintain the integrity of estuaries of national importance. The US NEP was designed to apply an ecosystem-based watershed approach implemented through collaborative partnerships. It complements the Coastal Zone Management Programs led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Twenty eight estuaries participate in the US NEP, which is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Participating states must develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for each estuary in the US NEP Program. <br />
<br />
==Objectives==<br />
The Clean Water Act (Section 320) directs EPA to develop plans for attaining or maintaining water quality in estuaries by addressing both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Estuaries included in the U.S. National Estuaries Program are nominated by individual states and use a holistic ecosystem-based approach to address water pollution and related environmental issues of concern to stakeholders. The NEPs are long-term planning and management programs, rather than short term projects. NEPs support rather than replace existing controls on pollution. <br />
<br />
==History==<br />
The NEP is modeled on the success of the EPA’s Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay programs. In 1987, in the reauthorization of the CWA, Congress selected an initial six estuaries into the NEP. Each NEP receives annual implementation funding. As of 2008, the Program contained 28 estuaries, including the [[Tampa Bay Estuary Program|Tampa Bay Estuary]].<br />
<br />
==Key Features==<br />
State governors may nominate estuaries for inclusion in the NEP that face significant ecological risks, are of commercial importance, and could benefit from a comprehensive planning and management program. Incentives for nominating an estuary include federal funding, and the option of applying more stringent water quality standards than those provided through the [[Clean Water Act|Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)]] system. <br />
<br />
Once the EPA approves an estuary to be accepted into the NEP, the first step is to establish a governance structure to serve as the forum for bringing stakeholders together to identify issues and develop the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. This governance structure, known as the Management Conference, is composed of the NEP Program Office and several stakeholder committees. The Management Conference acts as the organizational umbrella through which each program is implemented. The Conference defines program goals, identifies the causes of the estuary’s environmental problems, and designs actions to protect and restore habitats and living resources. Developing the CCMP is a three to five year process that involves convening stakeholders and reaching consensus on solutions. Stakeholders on committees typically include local governments, affected businesses and industries, public and private institutions, nongovernmental organizations, the general public, and representatives from EPA, other federal agencies, state governments, and interstate or regional agencies. Its committee structure provides the platform for collaborative decision-making and reflects citizen concerns and the problems and characteristics of the watershed. All Management Conferences establish several core committees to carry out their work. These generally include a Policy Committee, a Management Committee, and advisory committees for technical and citizen input. Some NEPs also have committees dealing with finance and local government.<br />
<br />
Each NEP has a Program Office that facilitates the work of the committees and is accountable to the Management Conference. The Program Office consists of a director and a small staff of usually three to five professionals. The NEP Program Office facilitates development of the Management Plan, supports its implementation, and produces documents such as annual budgets and work plans. Figure 1 represents a typical organizational structure of an NEP Management Conference. The NEP Program Office can be located in a variety of institutions ranging from state or local agencies to universities or nonprofits.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Typical NEP Management Conference Organizational Structure.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1 Typical NEP Management Conference Organizational Structure]]<br />
<br />
EPA’s role is to provide financial and technical assistance, participate in the Management Conference and review program performance. <br />
<br />
The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) serves as the road map for coordinated actions to address priority issues. Since the CCMP is not a regulatory document, NEPs rely upon partners to implement their action plans. The CCMP is based on a scientific characterization of the estuary and is developed and approved by a broad-based coalition of stakeholders. It addresses a wide range of environmental protection issues including water quality, habitat, fish and wildlife, pathogens, land use, and invasive species. <br />
<br />
==Evolution==<br />
Initially, the Clean Water Act authorized EPA to award grants for 75% of the planning costs for a CCMP. When it came to implementing the CCMP, the States again had insufficient funds. Hence, Congress amended Section 320 of the Clean Water Act in 2000 to provide federal grants of up to 50% for implementation. The Association of National Estuary Programs was established in 1996 as a nonprofit group building support for the NEP at the national level. It serves as a forum for estuary sites to discuss issues and lobby Congress. <br />
<br />
==Progress/Effectiveness==<br />
The strength of the NEP is attributed to four factors. Its collaborative non-regulatory approach to holistic watershed management encourages stakeholder-based visioning and action, leverages partner resources, applies science to emerging issues, the action strategies to address those issues, and develops programs based on local priorities. Second, the NEP model allocates considerable time to reaching consensus through the use of bylaws and memoranda of agreement as a framework for resolving conflicts. Third, the NEPs promote high levels of commitment by involving stakeholders in committees and keeping them informed of goals and progress. Finally NEPs focus on developing long term finance strategies. For example, by forming strategic alliances and developing new funding sources (e.g., stormwater utilities), the NEP raises an average of $15 for every $1 provided by EPA. <br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Estuary]]<br />
*[[Estuaries and tidal rivers]]<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*http://www.epa.gov/nep/about1.htm<br />
*EPA Community Based Watershed Management: Lessons from the National Estuary Program http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/nepprimer/handbook.htm <br />
*EPA Office of Water, National Estuary Program http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/ <br />
*Congressional Research Service, National Estuary Program: A Collaborative Approach<br />
to Protecting Coastal Water Quality http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/Wetlands/wet-9.cfm#_1_4 <br />
*Association of National Estuary Program http://www.nationalestuaries.org/ <br />
*Tampa Bay NEP www.tbep.org<br />
*Narragansett Bay NEP www.nbep.org <br />
*Chesapeake Bay Program http://www.chesapeakebay.net/ <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<References/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=File:Typical_NEP_Management_Conference_Organizational_Structure.jpg&diff=26700File:Typical NEP Management Conference Organizational Structure.jpg2009-01-11T13:16:01Z<p>AnnaKroon: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=Clean_Water_Act&diff=26698Clean Water Act2009-01-10T17:00:57Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* External Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 <ref>Clean Water Act Legislation http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/index.html#env</ref> is the overarching federal law for managing surface water quality in the United States. The CWA employs regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce point sources of pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. The CWA’s goal is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” so as to improve “water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water”, wherever attainable. The fundamental purpose of the CWA has been widely communicated as making the nation’s waters “fishable and swimmable”.<br />
<br />
==Statutory Provisions of the CWA==<br />
The CWA includes several major programs and delegations of authority. Below is a summary of the major statutory provisions related to coastal management:<br />
*'''NPDES permit program'''<br />
Covers point sources of pollution discharging into a surface water body. <br />
*'''Section 311'''<br />
Addresses oil spill pollution by providing EPA and the Coast Guard with authority to prevent and respond to oil spills.<br />
*'''Section 319 '''<br />
Provides grants to address nonpoint sources of pollution, from sources such as farming and forestry operations <br />
*'''Section 404''' <br />
Gives the US Army Corps of Engineers regulatory power over the placement of dredged or fill materials into wetlands <br />
*'''Section 401'''<br />
Requires federal agencies to obtain certification from the states before issuing permits that would result in increased pollutant loads to a water body. <br />
*'''State Revolving Funds (SRF)'''<br />
Provides sizable federal loans to municipalities to address point and nonpoint sources .<br />
<br />
'''The CWA Signaled a Dramatically Different Approach to Pollution Abatement.''' The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 preceded the CWA as the principle mechanism by which water use permits were issued, including permits to discharge wastes to water bodies. Until 1872 the regulation of discharges to water bodies by the federal government, and by complimentary legislation adopted by individual states, was based on the principle that any limitations to such discharges required a scientifically convincing demonstration that the discharge had an adverse impact on the receiving water body. This science based requirement for cause and effect linkages was very difficult to demonstrate – particularly where multiple sources of pollution were flowing into a polluted water body. There was increasing evidence that this approach was producing increasingly severe water pollution in some areas and was not reducing pollution in others. After many years of debate a consensus emerged that water quality regulation should be based on the universal application of the best available pollution control technology to all discharges. This technology based approach lies at the heart of the CWA. Application of best available technology has been a successful strategy for reducing point sources of pollution. It has been less successful for non-point sources which are not regulated under the CWA. <br />
<br />
'''Water Quality Standards.''' The first national water quality standards (WQS) were defined in 1965 and applied only to interstate waters – not water bodies that were contained within the boundaries of a single state. The water quality standards specified the uses of a water body and the attainment and maintenance of these uses was to be the basis for regulating discharges. This system proved to be ineffective due to their limitation to interstate waters and a lack of enforcement. Water quality standards continue to be used under the CWA and are used to designate the uses of the water body – recreation, water supply or agriculture - and specify the quantifiable pollutant concentrations to achieve the specified uses. However, under the CWA, these use standards are only used to condition permits after the technology-based standards have been met. If a water body continues to be impaired, permits may be changed based on more stringent WQS that require increased reductions in pollutants. <br />
<br />
==The Regulation of Point Sources of Water Pollution==<br />
'''The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)''' is the major mechanism for implementing the CWA. This requires that all industrial and government discharge facilities as well as animal feedlots obtain a permit for discharging pollutants to surface waters. Amendments to the act have added industrial and urban stormwater dischargers to the NPDES. Stringent regulations have been developed to address wet weather point sources like urban storm sewer systems and construction sites. The EPA administers the NPDES in partnership with the states. Forty-five states have been granted the authority by EPA to issue permits.<br />
<br />
'''The Evolution of CWA Strategies.'''<br />
Reducing point source pollutant discharge was the initial focus of the programs developed to implement the CWA with the assumption that control of point sources of pollution would lead to fishable and swimmable waters. Massive amounts of federal funds were directed to the states for construction of publically owned waste water treatment plants and industries had to make large investments in applying the best available treatment technologies to their effluents. Over time it was recognized that nonpoint sources of pollutants are as or more important that point sources. Figure 1 highlights the importance of addressing nonpoint sources of pollutants for various types of waters. <br />
<br />
'''Reduction of Nonpoint Sources of Pollution.'''<br />
Pollutants from nonpoint sources (NPS) include contamination from agriculture and urban stormwater runoff. The NPDES does not address these sources. However, in 1998, EPA reported that NPS were responsible for more than 40 percent of all impaired waters, while only 10 percent was caused by point source discharges <ref>EPA Watershed Academy Website: Introduction to the Clean Water Act http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/</ref>.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Ranking of Sources Contributing to Water Quality Impairment.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1. Ranking of Sources Contributing to Water Quality Impairment]]<br />
<br />
In 1987, the EPA through the authority of the CWA created a federal grants program (Section 319) to address nonpoint sources of pollution. This voluntary program encourages states to develop nonpoint source (NPS) management programs. Funds provided to the states for NPS programs are used to create state regulations for NPS and to implement Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). The federal government has applied only voluntary measures to address NPS.<br />
<br />
'''The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Strategy.''' The CWA mandates that if a water body is not meeting WQS through the use of technology-based controls, a means for meeting these standards must be developed. In these instances the most common approach is to produce a ‘pollution budget’ that is the basis for calculating the total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that will meet the WQS. TMDLs were not applied during the first two decades of the CWA. While NPDES has been effective in reducing point source discharges, water bodies continue to need a more comprehensive strategy to address all sources, specifically nonpoint. TMDLs or equivalent comprehensive strategies for impaired waters are required by the act. EPA is encouraging states to apply TMDLs at the watershed scale in order to promote efficiencies, holistic analysis and collaboration across states.<br />
<br />
==The CWA Planning Process==<br />
The state-by-state process of implementing the CWA and planning the many activities that are undertaken is an iterative process with defined steps. One version of this process (which includes nonpoint sources) is shown in Figure 1. The progress made by each state is periodically reviewed and priorities for action are revised accordingly. <br />
<br />
[[Image:The Water Quality Based Approach to the CWA.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 2. The Water Quality Based Approach to the CWA <ref>California State Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Based Approach. Presentation. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/academy/courses/wqstandards/materials/mod2/02module.pdf </ref>]]<br />
<br />
'''Other Strategies to Reduce Nonpoint Sources.''' The CWA has drawn upon other programs administered by the EPA to address nonpoint sources of water pollution.<br />
These include:<br />
*The EPA’s watershed planning program that allows the EPA and states to address additional issues beyond the mandate of the CWA and engage citizens in the planning and implementation<br />
*The National Estuary Program. The CWA was amended in 1987 (Section 320) to establish the National Estuary Program (NEP). This program is designed specifically to improve the water quality of nationally important estuaries. States make a request to EPA to establish an NEP and develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. NEPs can make use of TMDLs or other mechanisms to achieve water quality standards. NEPs encourage states to apply a watershed approach to managing and restoring water quality and habitat protection. <br />
*The Coastal Zone Management Act encourages a voluntary program for comprehensive land and water planning in the coastal zone that is designed specifically to contribute to CWA goals and programs. <br />
*Voluntary programs such as cost-sharing and education are other methods for addressing nonpoint runoff.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*EPA Watershed Academy Website: Introduction to the Clean Water Act http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/ <br />
*EPA Office of Water http://www.epa.gov/water/<br />
*Clean Water Act Legislation http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/index.html#env <br />
*California State Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Based Approach. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/academy/courses/wqstandards/materials/mod2/02module.pdf <br />
*Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Act<br />
<br />
==Further Reading==<br />
*Ryan, Mark. 2004. The Clean Water Act Handbook, Second Edition. American Bar Association<br />
*Boyd, James. 2000. The New Face of the Clean Water Act: A Critical Review of the EPA’s Proposed TMDL Rules. Discussion Paper 00-12 March 2000<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=Clean_Water_Act&diff=26697Clean Water Act2009-01-10T16:57:21Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* The CWA Planning Process */</p>
<hr />
<div>The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 <ref>Clean Water Act Legislation http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/index.html#env</ref> is the overarching federal law for managing surface water quality in the United States. The CWA employs regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce point sources of pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. The CWA’s goal is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” so as to improve “water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water”, wherever attainable. The fundamental purpose of the CWA has been widely communicated as making the nation’s waters “fishable and swimmable”.<br />
<br />
==Statutory Provisions of the CWA==<br />
The CWA includes several major programs and delegations of authority. Below is a summary of the major statutory provisions related to coastal management:<br />
*'''NPDES permit program'''<br />
Covers point sources of pollution discharging into a surface water body. <br />
*'''Section 311'''<br />
Addresses oil spill pollution by providing EPA and the Coast Guard with authority to prevent and respond to oil spills.<br />
*'''Section 319 '''<br />
Provides grants to address nonpoint sources of pollution, from sources such as farming and forestry operations <br />
*'''Section 404''' <br />
Gives the US Army Corps of Engineers regulatory power over the placement of dredged or fill materials into wetlands <br />
*'''Section 401'''<br />
Requires federal agencies to obtain certification from the states before issuing permits that would result in increased pollutant loads to a water body. <br />
*'''State Revolving Funds (SRF)'''<br />
Provides sizable federal loans to municipalities to address point and nonpoint sources .<br />
<br />
'''The CWA Signaled a Dramatically Different Approach to Pollution Abatement.''' The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 preceded the CWA as the principle mechanism by which water use permits were issued, including permits to discharge wastes to water bodies. Until 1872 the regulation of discharges to water bodies by the federal government, and by complimentary legislation adopted by individual states, was based on the principle that any limitations to such discharges required a scientifically convincing demonstration that the discharge had an adverse impact on the receiving water body. This science based requirement for cause and effect linkages was very difficult to demonstrate – particularly where multiple sources of pollution were flowing into a polluted water body. There was increasing evidence that this approach was producing increasingly severe water pollution in some areas and was not reducing pollution in others. After many years of debate a consensus emerged that water quality regulation should be based on the universal application of the best available pollution control technology to all discharges. This technology based approach lies at the heart of the CWA. Application of best available technology has been a successful strategy for reducing point sources of pollution. It has been less successful for non-point sources which are not regulated under the CWA. <br />
<br />
'''Water Quality Standards.''' The first national water quality standards (WQS) were defined in 1965 and applied only to interstate waters – not water bodies that were contained within the boundaries of a single state. The water quality standards specified the uses of a water body and the attainment and maintenance of these uses was to be the basis for regulating discharges. This system proved to be ineffective due to their limitation to interstate waters and a lack of enforcement. Water quality standards continue to be used under the CWA and are used to designate the uses of the water body – recreation, water supply or agriculture - and specify the quantifiable pollutant concentrations to achieve the specified uses. However, under the CWA, these use standards are only used to condition permits after the technology-based standards have been met. If a water body continues to be impaired, permits may be changed based on more stringent WQS that require increased reductions in pollutants. <br />
<br />
==The Regulation of Point Sources of Water Pollution==<br />
'''The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)''' is the major mechanism for implementing the CWA. This requires that all industrial and government discharge facilities as well as animal feedlots obtain a permit for discharging pollutants to surface waters. Amendments to the act have added industrial and urban stormwater dischargers to the NPDES. Stringent regulations have been developed to address wet weather point sources like urban storm sewer systems and construction sites. The EPA administers the NPDES in partnership with the states. Forty-five states have been granted the authority by EPA to issue permits.<br />
<br />
'''The Evolution of CWA Strategies.'''<br />
Reducing point source pollutant discharge was the initial focus of the programs developed to implement the CWA with the assumption that control of point sources of pollution would lead to fishable and swimmable waters. Massive amounts of federal funds were directed to the states for construction of publically owned waste water treatment plants and industries had to make large investments in applying the best available treatment technologies to their effluents. Over time it was recognized that nonpoint sources of pollutants are as or more important that point sources. Figure 1 highlights the importance of addressing nonpoint sources of pollutants for various types of waters. <br />
<br />
'''Reduction of Nonpoint Sources of Pollution.'''<br />
Pollutants from nonpoint sources (NPS) include contamination from agriculture and urban stormwater runoff. The NPDES does not address these sources. However, in 1998, EPA reported that NPS were responsible for more than 40 percent of all impaired waters, while only 10 percent was caused by point source discharges <ref>EPA Watershed Academy Website: Introduction to the Clean Water Act http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/</ref>.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Ranking of Sources Contributing to Water Quality Impairment.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1. Ranking of Sources Contributing to Water Quality Impairment]]<br />
<br />
In 1987, the EPA through the authority of the CWA created a federal grants program (Section 319) to address nonpoint sources of pollution. This voluntary program encourages states to develop nonpoint source (NPS) management programs. Funds provided to the states for NPS programs are used to create state regulations for NPS and to implement Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). The federal government has applied only voluntary measures to address NPS.<br />
<br />
'''The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Strategy.''' The CWA mandates that if a water body is not meeting WQS through the use of technology-based controls, a means for meeting these standards must be developed. In these instances the most common approach is to produce a ‘pollution budget’ that is the basis for calculating the total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that will meet the WQS. TMDLs were not applied during the first two decades of the CWA. While NPDES has been effective in reducing point source discharges, water bodies continue to need a more comprehensive strategy to address all sources, specifically nonpoint. TMDLs or equivalent comprehensive strategies for impaired waters are required by the act. EPA is encouraging states to apply TMDLs at the watershed scale in order to promote efficiencies, holistic analysis and collaboration across states.<br />
<br />
==The CWA Planning Process==<br />
The state-by-state process of implementing the CWA and planning the many activities that are undertaken is an iterative process with defined steps. One version of this process (which includes nonpoint sources) is shown in Figure 1. The progress made by each state is periodically reviewed and priorities for action are revised accordingly. <br />
<br />
[[Image:The Water Quality Based Approach to the CWA.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 2. The Water Quality Based Approach to the CWA <ref>California State Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Based Approach. Presentation. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/academy/courses/wqstandards/materials/mod2/02module.pdf </ref>]]<br />
<br />
'''Other Strategies to Reduce Nonpoint Sources.''' The CWA has drawn upon other programs administered by the EPA to address nonpoint sources of water pollution.<br />
These include:<br />
*The EPA’s watershed planning program that allows the EPA and states to address additional issues beyond the mandate of the CWA and engage citizens in the planning and implementation<br />
*The National Estuary Program. The CWA was amended in 1987 (Section 320) to establish the National Estuary Program (NEP). This program is designed specifically to improve the water quality of nationally important estuaries. States make a request to EPA to establish an NEP and develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. NEPs can make use of TMDLs or other mechanisms to achieve water quality standards. NEPs encourage states to apply a watershed approach to managing and restoring water quality and habitat protection. <br />
*The Coastal Zone Management Act encourages a voluntary program for comprehensive land and water planning in the coastal zone that is designed specifically to contribute to CWA goals and programs. <br />
*Voluntary programs such as cost-sharing and education are other methods for addressing nonpoint runoff.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*EPA Watershed Academy Website: Introduction to the Clean Water Act http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/ <br />
*EPA Office of Water http://www.epa.gov/water/<br />
*Clean Water Act Legislation http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/index.html#env <br />
*California State Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Based Approach. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/academy/courses/wqstandards/materials/mod2/02module.pdf <br />
*Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Act<br />
Further Reading:<br />
*Ryan, Mark. 2004. The Clean Water Act Handbook, Second Edition. American Bar Association<br />
*Boyd, James. 2000. The New Face of the Clean Water Act: A Critical Review of the EPA’s Proposed TMDL Rules. Discussion Paper 00-12 March 2000<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=Clean_Water_Act&diff=26696Clean Water Act2009-01-10T16:56:48Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* The Regulation of Point Sources of Water Pollution */</p>
<hr />
<div>The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 <ref>Clean Water Act Legislation http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/index.html#env</ref> is the overarching federal law for managing surface water quality in the United States. The CWA employs regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce point sources of pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. The CWA’s goal is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” so as to improve “water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water”, wherever attainable. The fundamental purpose of the CWA has been widely communicated as making the nation’s waters “fishable and swimmable”.<br />
<br />
==Statutory Provisions of the CWA==<br />
The CWA includes several major programs and delegations of authority. Below is a summary of the major statutory provisions related to coastal management:<br />
*'''NPDES permit program'''<br />
Covers point sources of pollution discharging into a surface water body. <br />
*'''Section 311'''<br />
Addresses oil spill pollution by providing EPA and the Coast Guard with authority to prevent and respond to oil spills.<br />
*'''Section 319 '''<br />
Provides grants to address nonpoint sources of pollution, from sources such as farming and forestry operations <br />
*'''Section 404''' <br />
Gives the US Army Corps of Engineers regulatory power over the placement of dredged or fill materials into wetlands <br />
*'''Section 401'''<br />
Requires federal agencies to obtain certification from the states before issuing permits that would result in increased pollutant loads to a water body. <br />
*'''State Revolving Funds (SRF)'''<br />
Provides sizable federal loans to municipalities to address point and nonpoint sources .<br />
<br />
'''The CWA Signaled a Dramatically Different Approach to Pollution Abatement.''' The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 preceded the CWA as the principle mechanism by which water use permits were issued, including permits to discharge wastes to water bodies. Until 1872 the regulation of discharges to water bodies by the federal government, and by complimentary legislation adopted by individual states, was based on the principle that any limitations to such discharges required a scientifically convincing demonstration that the discharge had an adverse impact on the receiving water body. This science based requirement for cause and effect linkages was very difficult to demonstrate – particularly where multiple sources of pollution were flowing into a polluted water body. There was increasing evidence that this approach was producing increasingly severe water pollution in some areas and was not reducing pollution in others. After many years of debate a consensus emerged that water quality regulation should be based on the universal application of the best available pollution control technology to all discharges. This technology based approach lies at the heart of the CWA. Application of best available technology has been a successful strategy for reducing point sources of pollution. It has been less successful for non-point sources which are not regulated under the CWA. <br />
<br />
'''Water Quality Standards.''' The first national water quality standards (WQS) were defined in 1965 and applied only to interstate waters – not water bodies that were contained within the boundaries of a single state. The water quality standards specified the uses of a water body and the attainment and maintenance of these uses was to be the basis for regulating discharges. This system proved to be ineffective due to their limitation to interstate waters and a lack of enforcement. Water quality standards continue to be used under the CWA and are used to designate the uses of the water body – recreation, water supply or agriculture - and specify the quantifiable pollutant concentrations to achieve the specified uses. However, under the CWA, these use standards are only used to condition permits after the technology-based standards have been met. If a water body continues to be impaired, permits may be changed based on more stringent WQS that require increased reductions in pollutants. <br />
<br />
==The Regulation of Point Sources of Water Pollution==<br />
'''The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)''' is the major mechanism for implementing the CWA. This requires that all industrial and government discharge facilities as well as animal feedlots obtain a permit for discharging pollutants to surface waters. Amendments to the act have added industrial and urban stormwater dischargers to the NPDES. Stringent regulations have been developed to address wet weather point sources like urban storm sewer systems and construction sites. The EPA administers the NPDES in partnership with the states. Forty-five states have been granted the authority by EPA to issue permits.<br />
<br />
'''The Evolution of CWA Strategies.'''<br />
Reducing point source pollutant discharge was the initial focus of the programs developed to implement the CWA with the assumption that control of point sources of pollution would lead to fishable and swimmable waters. Massive amounts of federal funds were directed to the states for construction of publically owned waste water treatment plants and industries had to make large investments in applying the best available treatment technologies to their effluents. Over time it was recognized that nonpoint sources of pollutants are as or more important that point sources. Figure 1 highlights the importance of addressing nonpoint sources of pollutants for various types of waters. <br />
<br />
'''Reduction of Nonpoint Sources of Pollution.'''<br />
Pollutants from nonpoint sources (NPS) include contamination from agriculture and urban stormwater runoff. The NPDES does not address these sources. However, in 1998, EPA reported that NPS were responsible for more than 40 percent of all impaired waters, while only 10 percent was caused by point source discharges <ref>EPA Watershed Academy Website: Introduction to the Clean Water Act http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/</ref>.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Ranking of Sources Contributing to Water Quality Impairment.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1. Ranking of Sources Contributing to Water Quality Impairment]]<br />
<br />
In 1987, the EPA through the authority of the CWA created a federal grants program (Section 319) to address nonpoint sources of pollution. This voluntary program encourages states to develop nonpoint source (NPS) management programs. Funds provided to the states for NPS programs are used to create state regulations for NPS and to implement Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). The federal government has applied only voluntary measures to address NPS.<br />
<br />
'''The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Strategy.''' The CWA mandates that if a water body is not meeting WQS through the use of technology-based controls, a means for meeting these standards must be developed. In these instances the most common approach is to produce a ‘pollution budget’ that is the basis for calculating the total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that will meet the WQS. TMDLs were not applied during the first two decades of the CWA. While NPDES has been effective in reducing point source discharges, water bodies continue to need a more comprehensive strategy to address all sources, specifically nonpoint. TMDLs or equivalent comprehensive strategies for impaired waters are required by the act. EPA is encouraging states to apply TMDLs at the watershed scale in order to promote efficiencies, holistic analysis and collaboration across states.<br />
<br />
==The CWA Planning Process==<br />
The state-by-state process of implementing the CWA and planning the many activities that are undertaken is an iterative process with defined steps. One version of this process (which includes nonpoint sources) is shown in Figure 1. The progress made by each state is periodically reviewed and priorities for action are revised accordingly. <br />
<br />
[[Image:The Water Quality Based Approach to the CWA.jpg<br />
|thumb|350px|center|Figure 2. The Water Quality Based Approach to the CWA <ref>California State Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Based Approach. Presentation. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/academy/courses/wqstandards/materials/mod2/02module.pdf </ref>]]<br />
<br />
'''Other Strategies to Reduce Nonpoint Sources.''' The CWA has drawn upon other programs administered by the EPA to address nonpoint sources of water pollution.<br />
These include:<br />
*The EPA’s watershed planning program that allows the EPA and states to address additional issues beyond the mandate of the CWA and engage citizens in the planning and implementation<br />
*The National Estuary Program. The CWA was amended in 1987 (Section 320) to establish the National Estuary Program (NEP). This program is designed specifically to improve the water quality of nationally important estuaries. States make a request to EPA to establish an NEP and develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. NEPs can make use of TMDLs or other mechanisms to achieve water quality standards. NEPs encourage states to apply a watershed approach to managing and restoring water quality and habitat protection. <br />
*The Coastal Zone Management Act encourages a voluntary program for comprehensive land and water planning in the coastal zone that is designed specifically to contribute to CWA goals and programs. <br />
*Voluntary programs such as cost-sharing and education are other methods for addressing nonpoint runoff. <br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*EPA Watershed Academy Website: Introduction to the Clean Water Act http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/ <br />
*EPA Office of Water http://www.epa.gov/water/<br />
*Clean Water Act Legislation http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/index.html#env <br />
*California State Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Based Approach. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/academy/courses/wqstandards/materials/mod2/02module.pdf <br />
*Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Act<br />
Further Reading:<br />
*Ryan, Mark. 2004. The Clean Water Act Handbook, Second Edition. American Bar Association<br />
*Boyd, James. 2000. The New Face of the Clean Water Act: A Critical Review of the EPA’s Proposed TMDL Rules. Discussion Paper 00-12 March 2000<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=Clean_Water_Act&diff=26695Clean Water Act2009-01-10T16:54:24Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* The Regulation of Point Sources of Water Pollution */</p>
<hr />
<div>The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 <ref>Clean Water Act Legislation http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/index.html#env</ref> is the overarching federal law for managing surface water quality in the United States. The CWA employs regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce point sources of pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. The CWA’s goal is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” so as to improve “water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water”, wherever attainable. The fundamental purpose of the CWA has been widely communicated as making the nation’s waters “fishable and swimmable”.<br />
<br />
==Statutory Provisions of the CWA==<br />
The CWA includes several major programs and delegations of authority. Below is a summary of the major statutory provisions related to coastal management:<br />
*'''NPDES permit program'''<br />
Covers point sources of pollution discharging into a surface water body. <br />
*'''Section 311'''<br />
Addresses oil spill pollution by providing EPA and the Coast Guard with authority to prevent and respond to oil spills.<br />
*'''Section 319 '''<br />
Provides grants to address nonpoint sources of pollution, from sources such as farming and forestry operations <br />
*'''Section 404''' <br />
Gives the US Army Corps of Engineers regulatory power over the placement of dredged or fill materials into wetlands <br />
*'''Section 401'''<br />
Requires federal agencies to obtain certification from the states before issuing permits that would result in increased pollutant loads to a water body. <br />
*'''State Revolving Funds (SRF)'''<br />
Provides sizable federal loans to municipalities to address point and nonpoint sources .<br />
<br />
'''The CWA Signaled a Dramatically Different Approach to Pollution Abatement.''' The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 preceded the CWA as the principle mechanism by which water use permits were issued, including permits to discharge wastes to water bodies. Until 1872 the regulation of discharges to water bodies by the federal government, and by complimentary legislation adopted by individual states, was based on the principle that any limitations to such discharges required a scientifically convincing demonstration that the discharge had an adverse impact on the receiving water body. This science based requirement for cause and effect linkages was very difficult to demonstrate – particularly where multiple sources of pollution were flowing into a polluted water body. There was increasing evidence that this approach was producing increasingly severe water pollution in some areas and was not reducing pollution in others. After many years of debate a consensus emerged that water quality regulation should be based on the universal application of the best available pollution control technology to all discharges. This technology based approach lies at the heart of the CWA. Application of best available technology has been a successful strategy for reducing point sources of pollution. It has been less successful for non-point sources which are not regulated under the CWA. <br />
<br />
'''Water Quality Standards.''' The first national water quality standards (WQS) were defined in 1965 and applied only to interstate waters – not water bodies that were contained within the boundaries of a single state. The water quality standards specified the uses of a water body and the attainment and maintenance of these uses was to be the basis for regulating discharges. This system proved to be ineffective due to their limitation to interstate waters and a lack of enforcement. Water quality standards continue to be used under the CWA and are used to designate the uses of the water body – recreation, water supply or agriculture - and specify the quantifiable pollutant concentrations to achieve the specified uses. However, under the CWA, these use standards are only used to condition permits after the technology-based standards have been met. If a water body continues to be impaired, permits may be changed based on more stringent WQS that require increased reductions in pollutants. <br />
<br />
==The Regulation of Point Sources of Water Pollution==<br />
'''The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)''' is the major mechanism for implementing the CWA. This requires that all industrial and government discharge facilities as well as animal feedlots obtain a permit for discharging pollutants to surface waters. Amendments to the act have added industrial and urban stormwater dischargers to the NPDES. Stringent regulations have been developed to address wet weather point sources like urban storm sewer systems and construction sites. The EPA administers the NPDES in partnership with the states. Forty-five states have been granted the authority by EPA to issue permits.<br />
<br />
'''The Evolution of CWA Strategies.'''<br />
Reducing point source pollutant discharge was the initial focus of the programs developed to implement the CWA with the assumption that control of point sources of pollution would lead to fishable and swimmable waters. Massive amounts of federal funds were directed to the states for construction of publically owned waste water treatment plants and industries had to make large investments in applying the best available treatment technologies to their effluents. Over time it was recognized that nonpoint sources of pollutants are as or more important that point sources. Figure 1 highlights the importance of addressing nonpoint sources of pollutants for various types of waters. <br />
<br />
'''Reduction of Nonpoint Sources of Pollution.'''<br />
Pollutants from nonpoint sources (NPS) include contamination from agriculture and urban stormwater runoff. The NPDES does not address these sources. However, in 1998, EPA reported that NPS were responsible for more than 40 percent of all impaired waters, while only 10 percent was caused by point source discharges <ref>EPA Watershed Academy Website: Introduction to the Clean Water Act http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/</ref>.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Ranking of Sources Contributing to Water Quality Impairment.jpg<br />
|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1. Ranking of Sources Contributing to Water Quality Impairment]]<br />
<br />
In 1987, the EPA through the authority of the CWA created a federal grants program (Section 319) to address nonpoint sources of pollution. This voluntary program encourages states to develop nonpoint source (NPS) management programs. Funds provided to the states for NPS programs are used to create state regulations for NPS and to implement Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). The federal government has applied only voluntary measures to address NPS.<br />
<br />
'''The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Strategy.''' The CWA mandates that if a water body is not meeting WQS through the use of technology-based controls, a means for meeting these standards must be developed. In these instances the most common approach is to produce a ‘pollution budget’ that is the basis for calculating the total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that will meet the WQS. TMDLs were not applied during the first two decades of the CWA. While NPDES has been effective in reducing point source discharges, water bodies continue to need a more comprehensive strategy to address all sources, specifically nonpoint. TMDLs or equivalent comprehensive strategies for impaired waters are required by the act. EPA is encouraging states to apply TMDLs at the watershed scale in order to promote efficiencies, holistic analysis and collaboration across states.<br />
<br />
==The CWA Planning Process==<br />
The state-by-state process of implementing the CWA and planning the many activities that are undertaken is an iterative process with defined steps. One version of this process (which includes nonpoint sources) is shown in Figure 1. The progress made by each state is periodically reviewed and priorities for action are revised accordingly. <br />
<br />
[[Image:The Water Quality Based Approach to the CWA.jpg<br />
|thumb|350px|center|Figure 2. The Water Quality Based Approach to the CWA <ref>California State Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Based Approach. Presentation. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/academy/courses/wqstandards/materials/mod2/02module.pdf </ref>]]<br />
<br />
'''Other Strategies to Reduce Nonpoint Sources.''' The CWA has drawn upon other programs administered by the EPA to address nonpoint sources of water pollution.<br />
These include:<br />
*The EPA’s watershed planning program that allows the EPA and states to address additional issues beyond the mandate of the CWA and engage citizens in the planning and implementation<br />
*The National Estuary Program. The CWA was amended in 1987 (Section 320) to establish the National Estuary Program (NEP). This program is designed specifically to improve the water quality of nationally important estuaries. States make a request to EPA to establish an NEP and develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. NEPs can make use of TMDLs or other mechanisms to achieve water quality standards. NEPs encourage states to apply a watershed approach to managing and restoring water quality and habitat protection. <br />
*The Coastal Zone Management Act encourages a voluntary program for comprehensive land and water planning in the coastal zone that is designed specifically to contribute to CWA goals and programs. <br />
*Voluntary programs such as cost-sharing and education are other methods for addressing nonpoint runoff. <br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*EPA Watershed Academy Website: Introduction to the Clean Water Act http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/ <br />
*EPA Office of Water http://www.epa.gov/water/<br />
*Clean Water Act Legislation http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/index.html#env <br />
*California State Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Based Approach. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/academy/courses/wqstandards/materials/mod2/02module.pdf <br />
*Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Act<br />
Further Reading:<br />
*Ryan, Mark. 2004. The Clean Water Act Handbook, Second Edition. American Bar Association<br />
*Boyd, James. 2000. The New Face of the Clean Water Act: A Critical Review of the EPA’s Proposed TMDL Rules. Discussion Paper 00-12 March 2000<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=Clean_Water_Act&diff=26694Clean Water Act2009-01-10T16:53:26Z<p>AnnaKroon: New page: The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 <ref>Clean Water Act Legislation http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/index.html#env</ref> is the overarching federal law for managing surface water quality i...</p>
<hr />
<div>The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 <ref>Clean Water Act Legislation http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/index.html#env</ref> is the overarching federal law for managing surface water quality in the United States. The CWA employs regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce point sources of pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. The CWA’s goal is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” so as to improve “water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water”, wherever attainable. The fundamental purpose of the CWA has been widely communicated as making the nation’s waters “fishable and swimmable”.<br />
<br />
==Statutory Provisions of the CWA==<br />
The CWA includes several major programs and delegations of authority. Below is a summary of the major statutory provisions related to coastal management:<br />
*'''NPDES permit program'''<br />
Covers point sources of pollution discharging into a surface water body. <br />
*'''Section 311'''<br />
Addresses oil spill pollution by providing EPA and the Coast Guard with authority to prevent and respond to oil spills.<br />
*'''Section 319 '''<br />
Provides grants to address nonpoint sources of pollution, from sources such as farming and forestry operations <br />
*'''Section 404''' <br />
Gives the US Army Corps of Engineers regulatory power over the placement of dredged or fill materials into wetlands <br />
*'''Section 401'''<br />
Requires federal agencies to obtain certification from the states before issuing permits that would result in increased pollutant loads to a water body. <br />
*'''State Revolving Funds (SRF)'''<br />
Provides sizable federal loans to municipalities to address point and nonpoint sources .<br />
<br />
'''The CWA Signaled a Dramatically Different Approach to Pollution Abatement.''' The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 preceded the CWA as the principle mechanism by which water use permits were issued, including permits to discharge wastes to water bodies. Until 1872 the regulation of discharges to water bodies by the federal government, and by complimentary legislation adopted by individual states, was based on the principle that any limitations to such discharges required a scientifically convincing demonstration that the discharge had an adverse impact on the receiving water body. This science based requirement for cause and effect linkages was very difficult to demonstrate – particularly where multiple sources of pollution were flowing into a polluted water body. There was increasing evidence that this approach was producing increasingly severe water pollution in some areas and was not reducing pollution in others. After many years of debate a consensus emerged that water quality regulation should be based on the universal application of the best available pollution control technology to all discharges. This technology based approach lies at the heart of the CWA. Application of best available technology has been a successful strategy for reducing point sources of pollution. It has been less successful for non-point sources which are not regulated under the CWA. <br />
<br />
'''Water Quality Standards.''' The first national water quality standards (WQS) were defined in 1965 and applied only to interstate waters – not water bodies that were contained within the boundaries of a single state. The water quality standards specified the uses of a water body and the attainment and maintenance of these uses was to be the basis for regulating discharges. This system proved to be ineffective due to their limitation to interstate waters and a lack of enforcement. Water quality standards continue to be used under the CWA and are used to designate the uses of the water body – recreation, water supply or agriculture - and specify the quantifiable pollutant concentrations to achieve the specified uses. However, under the CWA, these use standards are only used to condition permits after the technology-based standards have been met. If a water body continues to be impaired, permits may be changed based on more stringent WQS that require increased reductions in pollutants. <br />
<br />
==The Regulation of Point Sources of Water Pollution==<br />
'''The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)''' is the major mechanism for implementing the CWA. This requires that all industrial and government discharge facilities as well as animal feedlots obtain a permit for discharging pollutants to surface waters. Amendments to the act have added industrial and urban stormwater dischargers to the NPDES. Stringent regulations have been developed to address wet weather point sources like urban storm sewer systems and construction sites. The EPA administers the NPDES in partnership with the states. Forty-five states have been granted the authority by EPA to issue permits.<br />
<br />
'''The Evolution of CWA Strategies.'''<br />
Reducing point source pollutant discharge was the initial focus of the programs developed to implement the CWA with the assumption that control of point sources of pollution would lead to fishable and swimmable waters. Massive amounts of federal funds were directed to the states for construction of publically owned waste water treatment plants and industries had to make large investments in applying the best available treatment technologies to their effluents. Over time it was recognized that nonpoint sources of pollutants are as or more important that point sources. Figure 1 highlights the importance of addressing nonpoint sources of pollutants for various types of waters. <br />
<br />
'''Reduction of Nonpoint Sources of Pollution'''<br />
Pollutants from nonpoint sources (NPS) include contamination from agriculture and urban stormwater runoff. The NPDES does not address these sources. However, in 1998, EPA reported that NPS were responsible for more than 40 percent of all impaired waters, while only 10 percent was caused by point source discharges <ref>EPA Watershed Academy Website: Introduction to the Clean Water Act http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/</ref>.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Ranking of Sources Contributing to Water Quality Impairment.jpg<br />
|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1. Ranking of Sources Contributing to Water Quality Impairment]]<br />
<br />
In 1987, the EPA through the authority of the CWA created a federal grants program (Section 319) to address nonpoint sources of pollution. This voluntary program encourages states to develop nonpoint source (NPS) management programs. Funds provided to the states for NPS programs are used to create state regulations for NPS and to implement Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). The federal government has applied only voluntary measures to address NPS.<br />
<br />
'''The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Strategy.''' The CWA mandates that if a water body is not meeting WQS through the use of technology-based controls, a means for meeting these standards must be developed. In these instances the most common approach is to produce a ‘pollution budget’ that is the basis for calculating the total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that will meet the WQS. TMDLs were not applied during the first two decades of the CWA. While NPDES has been effective in reducing point source discharges, water bodies continue to need a more comprehensive strategy to address all sources, specifically nonpoint. TMDLs or equivalent comprehensive strategies for impaired waters are required by the act. EPA is encouraging states to apply TMDLs at the watershed scale in order to promote efficiencies, holistic analysis and collaboration across states. <br />
<br />
==The CWA Planning Process==<br />
The state-by-state process of implementing the CWA and planning the many activities that are undertaken is an iterative process with defined steps. One version of this process (which includes nonpoint sources) is shown in Figure 1. The progress made by each state is periodically reviewed and priorities for action are revised accordingly. <br />
<br />
[[Image:The Water Quality Based Approach to the CWA.jpg<br />
|thumb|350px|center|Figure 2. The Water Quality Based Approach to the CWA <ref>California State Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Based Approach. Presentation. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/academy/courses/wqstandards/materials/mod2/02module.pdf </ref>]]<br />
<br />
'''Other Strategies to Reduce Nonpoint Sources.''' The CWA has drawn upon other programs administered by the EPA to address nonpoint sources of water pollution.<br />
These include:<br />
*The EPA’s watershed planning program that allows the EPA and states to address additional issues beyond the mandate of the CWA and engage citizens in the planning and implementation<br />
*The National Estuary Program. The CWA was amended in 1987 (Section 320) to establish the National Estuary Program (NEP). This program is designed specifically to improve the water quality of nationally important estuaries. States make a request to EPA to establish an NEP and develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. NEPs can make use of TMDLs or other mechanisms to achieve water quality standards. NEPs encourage states to apply a watershed approach to managing and restoring water quality and habitat protection. <br />
*The Coastal Zone Management Act encourages a voluntary program for comprehensive land and water planning in the coastal zone that is designed specifically to contribute to CWA goals and programs. <br />
*Voluntary programs such as cost-sharing and education are other methods for addressing nonpoint runoff. <br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*EPA Watershed Academy Website: Introduction to the Clean Water Act http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/ <br />
*EPA Office of Water http://www.epa.gov/water/<br />
*Clean Water Act Legislation http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/index.html#env <br />
*California State Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Based Approach. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/academy/courses/wqstandards/materials/mod2/02module.pdf <br />
*Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Act<br />
Further Reading:<br />
*Ryan, Mark. 2004. The Clean Water Act Handbook, Second Edition. American Bar Association<br />
*Boyd, James. 2000. The New Face of the Clean Water Act: A Critical Review of the EPA’s Proposed TMDL Rules. Discussion Paper 00-12 March 2000<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=File:The_Water_Quality_Based_Approach_to_the_CWA.jpg&diff=26693File:The Water Quality Based Approach to the CWA.jpg2009-01-10T16:43:49Z<p>AnnaKroon: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=File:Ranking_of_Sources_Contributing_to_Water_Quality_Impairment.jpg&diff=26692File:Ranking of Sources Contributing to Water Quality Impairment.jpg2009-01-10T16:41:32Z<p>AnnaKroon: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=Chesepeake_Bay_Program&diff=26691Chesepeake Bay Program2009-01-10T16:32:02Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>Efforts at integrated management began in the Chesapeake Bay region in the 1970s after decades of steadily declining water quality. The Chesapeake Bay Program evolved from a well-funded scientific study to a national model for a participatory ecosystem approach that is very popular at the community level. Hallmarks of the Program include use of the best available science, consensus driven decision-making, strong public involvement in planning and implementation, adaptation of specific management goals, flexible methods for states to meet federal requirements, and significant long-term federal and state funding. Despite large and sustained investments and some notable environmental improvements, the overall health of the bay remains poor. <br />
<br />
==Characterization of the System==<br />
The Chesapeake Bay is the United State’s largest and most biologically productive estuary. The Chesapeake lies along the nation’s eastern seaboard and its watershed includes all or portions of six states: Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. About 15 million people live along the shore of the bay or its tributaries. Most of the population is concentrated in two large urban centres: Baltimore and Washington, DC. The watershed extends over about 172,000 km2, and the area of the Bay itself is 6,475 km2. Thus the watershed-to-estuary ratio is very high. The large watershed funnels in nutrient-rich freshwater from six tributaries. Nutrients and other non-point source pollution from his large area enters the bay as run off, and is then concentrated into the relatively narrow bottle neck of the estuary. Much of the Chesapeake’s watershed is forest and agricultural land that contains some of the highest concentrations of livestock and intensive cropping in the United States.<br />
<br />
The Chesapeake is renowned for its fishery production, recreational opportunities, and high value waterfront property. The two salient characteristics of the Chesapeake are its shallowness—the average depth is seven meters—and its very large watershed. This shallowness creates conditions where sunlight can penetrate to the bottom, allowing for the growth of seagrasses and abundant bottom-dwelling communities. <br />
<br />
[[Image:Map of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1: Map of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed]]<br />
<br />
==How the Program Has Evolved==<br />
By 1970, significant losses in fishery resources, the disappearance of seagrasses, and the decline in oyster harvests all appeared to be linked to the very visible impacts of water pollution. It had been assumed that the construction of sewage treatment plants would solve these problems. Instead, the classic evidence of euthrophic conditions was becoming more prevalent each summer. In 1974, a group of legislators from the bay region were successful in convincing Congress to provide $27 million to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to undertake a five-year study of the Chesapeake. The initial findings scientific studies were controversial and inconclusive. In response to the inability of the scientists to agree on recommendations to address the issues, EPA established a resource users group in 1981 that succeeded in crystallizing the issues. It recommended that the program focus its efforts upon nutrient over-enrichment, pollution by toxics and the dwindling abundance of seagrasses. The program’s early decision to involve non-scientists representing important stakeholders to identify policy choices was essential in turning around the image of the project from that of a well-funded research effort to a practical restoration effort. This time period coincided with the passage of the Federal [[Clean Water Act]] which mandated reductions in point sources of pollution. Section 117 of the Act provided significant funding for developing the Chesapeake Bay Program.<br />
<br />
In 1983, spurred by mounting public concern, the governors of states bordering the bay, the mayor of Washington and the administrator of the EPA came together and negotiated the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This was a formal commitment by the states to participate in a regional decision making partnership, to commit to specific goals for restoring the bay’s living resources, and to a sustained program of water quality monitoring. <br />
<br />
The second Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed in 1987. This was a specific plan of action that set forth a comprehensive set of 29 commitments. Its central goal was to achieve a 40 percent reduction in nitrogen loadings by the year 2000, using 1985 as the base year. The 1987 agreement became the model for the quantitative and time-limited goals that have been the keystone of the program’s approach to ecosystem governance ever since.<br />
<br />
The 1992 amendments to the 1987 Agreement called for the allocation of specific loads to each of the major tributary systems, and for the development of the strategies that would demonstrate how each tributary would achieve a 40 percent reduction by 2000 and sustain those nitrogen levels thereafter. However, this goal was not met—even though major reductions were achieved for point sources of pollution. The difficulties in achieving nutrient reduction goals lay in the unexpectedly large contributions of nonpoint sources. Controlling these dispersed sources of nutrients and other contaminants require major changes in land use, in the management of urban areas and in agricultural practices. Resent research has demonstrated that a major source of nutrients is atmospheric contamination generated within an “airshed” that is considerably larger than the Bay’s watershed. Figure 2 for the State of the Bay Report Card highlights the continued pollutant loads, habitat degradation and low fish stocks for selected species. Figure 3 highlights the progress made towards the goals. <br />
<br />
Chesapeake 2000 is the most recent statement of the program’s goals. It is the result of the program setting increasingly more ambitious targets as it has learned more about the issues. While the 1987 Bay Agreement set the first quantitative target for nitrogen only, Chesapeake 2000 sets a more stringent target for nitrogen while also setting targets with timeframes for achievements on all the issues. <br />
<br />
==Program Achievements==<br />
The Program made major investments in public education and this has contributed to sustained popular support. Focusing efforts on unambiguous goals signed by top-level elected state representatives and national government officials avoided difficulties associated with negotiating all-encompassing and detailed plans. Providing freedom to regional and local bodies to come up with their own solutions and plans to achieving the commonly agreed upon goals empowered a wide variety of groups including local communities and non-governmental organisations, and encouraged them to make a deep commitment, take practical steps and implement innovative ideas.<br />
<br />
The Program has catalysed a number of environmental achievements. These include increase in the quality of fish spawning habitats that have produced improvements in the abundance of such important species as stripped bass and shad. By 1999, 476 miles of streamside forests had been restored. Although the goals have not been achieved for nutrient reduction, phosphorus and nitrogen loads have declined since 1988. Turbidity has also declined, but algal blooms continue to occur in the once-clear waters. Oysters, which used to filter the Bay’s entire water volume in less than a week, are still only about 1% of the 1950’s population level. Blue crabs remain a threatened fishery. <br />
<br />
[[Image:Status of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 2. 2007 Status of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed <ref>Chesapeake Bay Foundation -http://www.cbf.org/site/DocServer/2007SOTBReport.pdf?docID=10923 </ref>]]<br />
<br />
[[Image:Progress Made on Key Indicators.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 3. Progress Made on Key Indicators <ref>http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_bayhealth.aspx?menuitem=15045</ref>]]<br />
<br />
==The Governance Structure of the Program==<br />
The Chesapeake Bay Program’s management structure has evolved significantly. The initial management structure during the research and issue identification stage provided for a Policy Advisory Committee that oversaw the program and the activities of committees. Following the 1983 agreement, the Policy Advisory Committee was replaced by a higher level Executive Council composed of representatives of the states, the EPA. The 1987 Agreement further elevated the Executive Council so that these states are represented by their governors—the highest elected state official. The Council has met annually since 1987 and operates through directives, agreements and amendments. It defines the goals and the program’s key management procedures. <br />
<br />
The Implementation Committee is composed of state representatives, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the EPA, and the 10 federal and state agencies that contribute most directly to the program. <br />
<br />
Through the Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) the science community has played an essential role in identifying the issues that are most critical to the functioning of a healthy estuary and to bringing new insights into the processes of debate, evaluation and adaptation <ref>GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). 1996. The contributions of science to coastal zone management. Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (61):66 p. http://www.crc.uri.edu/download/GESAMPEng.pdf</ref>. The STAC establishes peer review systems for all bay program funded competitive research, reviews and comments on all proposed budget items, holds symposia and carries out technical reviews of key scientific issues.<br />
<br />
The Citizens Advisory Committee has 23 members, with representatives from agriculture, business, conservation, industry, and civic groups. Since 1984, this group has provided a non-governmental perspective on the bay cleanup effort and on how bay program policies affect citizens who live and work in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.<br />
<br />
The program’s strategy of focusing its efforts on unambiguous agreements signed by top-level elected state representatives and federal government officials has avoided the difficulties that come with negotiating the more usual and all-encompassing and detailed plans. The strategy has been to leave each state the freedom to decide how it will make its commitment to achieving each goal. This, in turn, encourages an atmosphere of competition and empowers local communities, NGOs and a wide diversity of groups and organizations to come forward with their own ideas and commitments.<br />
<br />
A highly critical report to Congress, issued by the United States Government Accountability Office in 2005, has questioned the success and effectiveness of the Program. This report asserts that the Bay Program lacks an integrated approach for assessing progress towards its stated goals, and states that the Bay Program’s reports do not realistically communicate the condition of the Bay despite direct and indirect state and federal funding that approaches $6 billion over the ten year period of 1995 to 2004. By 2008 there is evidence that these recommendations have been taken to heart. An easily navigable website provides a host of information and the new “Eco-check” <ref>http://www.eco-check.org/reportcard/chesapeake/2007/indicators/bay_health_index/</ref> Bay report cards provide a new approach to tracking and reporting the health of waterways at both local and regional scales.” These reports apply a Bay Habitat Health Index to present a score, or “grade” (A through F), for the health of each Bay’s tributary. The 2007 Report Cards awarded scores for the tributaries and main stem of the Bay that range between B and D-. This new approach reaffirms the enormous difficulty of restoring lost qualities in a severely impacted estuarine ecosystem where nonpoint sources of contaminants dominate.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*Case study brochure of how the Chesapeake Bay is addressing Climate Change http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/downloads/CS_Ches.pdf <br />
*THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF SCIENCE TO INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) http://www.crc.uri.edu/download/GESAMPEng.pdf <br />
*The Governance Of Large Ecosystems at the Regional Scale: Analysis of the Strategies and Outcomes of Long-Term Programs http://www.crc.uri.edu/download/GovLargeEcosystems_OlsenNickerson.pdf <br />
*Chesapeake Bay Program website http://www.chesapeakebay.net <br />
*Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay http://www.acb-online.org/ <br />
*Chesapeake Bay Commission http://www.chesbay.state.va.us/ <br />
*Chesapeake Research Consortium http://www.chesapeake.org/<br />
*Chesapeake Bay Foundation http://www.cbf.org/<br />
*Chesapeake Bay Journal http://www.bayjournal.com/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Inquiry in a Culture of Consensus: Science and Management for the Chesapeake Bay. Matuszeski, William. 2008. UM-SG-CP-2008-01. http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/store/subject.shtml?q=pubs1 <br />
*Hennessey, TM. 1994. Governance and adaptive management for estuarine ecosystems: The case of Chesapeake Bay Coastal Management. Journal of Coastal Management. Vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 119-145. 1994.<br />
<br />
==References== <br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=Chesepeake_Bay_Program&diff=26690Chesepeake Bay Program2009-01-10T16:31:27Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* The Governance Structure of the Program */</p>
<hr />
<div>Efforts at integrated management began in the Chesapeake Bay region in the 1970s after decades of steadily declining water quality. The Chesapeake Bay Program evolved from a well-funded scientific study to a national model for a participatory ecosystem approach that is very popular at the community level. Hallmarks of the Program include use of the best available science, consensus driven decision-making, strong public involvement in planning and implementation, adaptation of specific management goals, flexible methods for states to meet federal requirements, and significant long-term federal and state funding. Despite large and sustained investments and some notable environmental improvements, the overall health of the bay remains poor. <br />
<br />
==Characterization of the System==<br />
The Chesapeake Bay is the United State’s largest and most biologically productive estuary. The Chesapeake lies along the nation’s eastern seaboard and its watershed includes all or portions of six states: Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. About 15 million people live along the shore of the bay or its tributaries. Most of the population is concentrated in two large urban centres: Baltimore and Washington, DC. The watershed extends over about 172,000 km2, and the area of the Bay itself is 6,475 km2. Thus the watershed-to-estuary ratio is very high. The large watershed funnels in nutrient-rich freshwater from six tributaries. Nutrients and other non-point source pollution from his large area enters the bay as run off, and is then concentrated into the relatively narrow bottle neck of the estuary. Much of the Chesapeake’s watershed is forest and agricultural land that contains some of the highest concentrations of livestock and intensive cropping in the United States.<br />
<br />
The Chesapeake is renowned for its fishery production, recreational opportunities, and high value waterfront property. The two salient characteristics of the Chesapeake are its shallowness—the average depth is seven meters—and its very large watershed. This shallowness creates conditions where sunlight can penetrate to the bottom, allowing for the growth of seagrasses and abundant bottom-dwelling communities. <br />
<br />
[[Image:Map of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1: Map of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed]]<br />
<br />
==How the Program Has Evolved==<br />
By 1970, significant losses in fishery resources, the disappearance of seagrasses, and the decline in oyster harvests all appeared to be linked to the very visible impacts of water pollution. It had been assumed that the construction of sewage treatment plants would solve these problems. Instead, the classic evidence of euthrophic conditions was becoming more prevalent each summer. In 1974, a group of legislators from the bay region were successful in convincing Congress to provide $27 million to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to undertake a five-year study of the Chesapeake. The initial findings scientific studies were controversial and inconclusive. In response to the inability of the scientists to agree on recommendations to address the issues, EPA established a resource users group in 1981 that succeeded in crystallizing the issues. It recommended that the program focus its efforts upon nutrient over-enrichment, pollution by toxics and the dwindling abundance of seagrasses. The program’s early decision to involve non-scientists representing important stakeholders to identify policy choices was essential in turning around the image of the project from that of a well-funded research effort to a practical restoration effort. This time period coincided with the passage of the Federal [[Clean Water Act]] which mandated reductions in point sources of pollution. Section 117 of the Act provided significant funding for developing the Chesapeake Bay Program.<br />
<br />
In 1983, spurred by mounting public concern, the governors of states bordering the bay, the mayor of Washington and the administrator of the EPA came together and negotiated the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This was a formal commitment by the states to participate in a regional decision making partnership, to commit to specific goals for restoring the bay’s living resources, and to a sustained program of water quality monitoring. <br />
<br />
The second Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed in 1987. This was a specific plan of action that set forth a comprehensive set of 29 commitments. Its central goal was to achieve a 40 percent reduction in nitrogen loadings by the year 2000, using 1985 as the base year. The 1987 agreement became the model for the quantitative and time-limited goals that have been the keystone of the program’s approach to ecosystem governance ever since.<br />
<br />
The 1992 amendments to the 1987 Agreement called for the allocation of specific loads to each of the major tributary systems, and for the development of the strategies that would demonstrate how each tributary would achieve a 40 percent reduction by 2000 and sustain those nitrogen levels thereafter. However, this goal was not met—even though major reductions were achieved for point sources of pollution. The difficulties in achieving nutrient reduction goals lay in the unexpectedly large contributions of nonpoint sources. Controlling these dispersed sources of nutrients and other contaminants require major changes in land use, in the management of urban areas and in agricultural practices. Resent research has demonstrated that a major source of nutrients is atmospheric contamination generated within an “airshed” that is considerably larger than the Bay’s watershed. Figure 2 for the State of the Bay Report Card highlights the continued pollutant loads, habitat degradation and low fish stocks for selected species. Figure 3 highlights the progress made towards the goals. <br />
<br />
Chesapeake 2000 is the most recent statement of the program’s goals. It is the result of the program setting increasingly more ambitious targets as it has learned more about the issues. While the 1987 Bay Agreement set the first quantitative target for nitrogen only, Chesapeake 2000 sets a more stringent target for nitrogen while also setting targets with timeframes for achievements on all the issues. <br />
<br />
==Program Achievements==<br />
The Program made major investments in public education and this has contributed to sustained popular support. Focusing efforts on unambiguous goals signed by top-level elected state representatives and national government officials avoided difficulties associated with negotiating all-encompassing and detailed plans. Providing freedom to regional and local bodies to come up with their own solutions and plans to achieving the commonly agreed upon goals empowered a wide variety of groups including local communities and non-governmental organisations, and encouraged them to make a deep commitment, take practical steps and implement innovative ideas.<br />
<br />
The Program has catalysed a number of environmental achievements. These include increase in the quality of fish spawning habitats that have produced improvements in the abundance of such important species as stripped bass and shad. By 1999, 476 miles of streamside forests had been restored. Although the goals have not been achieved for nutrient reduction, phosphorus and nitrogen loads have declined since 1988. Turbidity has also declined, but algal blooms continue to occur in the once-clear waters. Oysters, which used to filter the Bay’s entire water volume in less than a week, are still only about 1% of the 1950’s population level. Blue crabs remain a threatened fishery. <br />
<br />
[[Image:Status of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 2. 2007 Status of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed <ref>Chesapeake Bay Foundation -http://www.cbf.org/site/DocServer/2007SOTBReport.pdf?docID=10923 </ref>]]<br />
<br />
[[Image:Progress Made on Key Indicators.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 3. Progress Made on Key Indicators <ref>http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_bayhealth.aspx?menuitem=15045</ref>]]<br />
<br />
==The Governance Structure of the Program==<br />
The Chesapeake Bay Program’s management structure has evolved significantly. The initial management structure during the research and issue identification stage provided for a Policy Advisory Committee that oversaw the program and the activities of committees. Following the 1983 agreement, the Policy Advisory Committee was replaced by a higher level Executive Council composed of representatives of the states, the EPA. The 1987 Agreement further elevated the Executive Council so that these states are represented by their governors—the highest elected state official. The Council has met annually since 1987 and operates through directives, agreements and amendments. It defines the goals and the program’s key management procedures. <br />
<br />
The Implementation Committee is composed of state representatives, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the EPA, and the 10 federal and state agencies that contribute most directly to the program. <br />
<br />
Through the Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) the science community has played an essential role in identifying the issues that are most critical to the functioning of a healthy estuary and to bringing new insights into the processes of debate, evaluation and adaptation <ref>GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). 1996. The contributions of science to coastal zone management. Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (61):66 p. http://www.crc.uri.edu/download/GESAMPEng.pdf</ref>. The STAC establishes peer review systems for all bay program funded competitive research, reviews and comments on all proposed budget items, holds symposia and carries out technical reviews of key scientific issues.<br />
<br />
The Citizens Advisory Committee has 23 members, with representatives from agriculture, business, conservation, industry, and civic groups. Since 1984, this group has provided a non-governmental perspective on the bay cleanup effort and on how bay program policies affect citizens who live and work in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.<br />
<br />
The program’s strategy of focusing its efforts on unambiguous agreements signed by top-level elected state representatives and federal government officials has avoided the difficulties that come with negotiating the more usual and all-encompassing and detailed plans. The strategy has been to leave each state the freedom to decide how it will make its commitment to achieving each goal. This, in turn, encourages an atmosphere of competition and empowers local communities, NGOs and a wide diversity of groups and organizations to come forward with their own ideas and commitments.<br />
<br />
A highly critical report to Congress, issued by the United States Government Accountability Office in 2005, has questioned the success and effectiveness of the Program. This report asserts that the Bay Program lacks an integrated approach for assessing progress towards its stated goals, and states that the Bay Program’s reports do not realistically communicate the condition of the Bay despite direct and indirect state and federal funding that approaches $6 billion over the ten year period of 1995 to 2004. By 2008 there is evidence that these recommendations have been taken to heart. An easily navigable website provides a host of information and the new “Eco-check” <ref>http://www.eco-check.org/reportcard/chesapeake/2007/indicators/bay_health_index/</ref> Bay report cards provide a new approach to tracking and reporting the health of waterways at both local and regional scales.” These reports apply a Bay Habitat Health Index to present a score, or “grade” (A through F), for the health of each Bay’s tributary. The 2007 Report Cards awarded scores for the tributaries and main stem of the Bay that range between B and D-. This new approach reaffirms the enormous difficulty of restoring lost qualities in a severely impacted estuarine ecosystem where nonpoint sources of contaminants dominate.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*Case study brochure of how the Chesapeake Bay is addressing Climate Change http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/downloads/CS_Ches.pdf <br />
*THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF SCIENCE TO INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) http://www.crc.uri.edu/download/GESAMPEng.pdf <br />
*The Governance Of Large Ecosystems at the Regional Scale: Analysis of the Strategies and Outcomes of Long-Term Programs http://www.crc.uri.edu/download/GovLargeEcosystems_OlsenNickerson.pdf <br />
*Chesapeake Bay Program website http://www.chesapeakebay.net <br />
*Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay http://www.acb-online.org/ <br />
*Chesapeake Bay Commission http://www.chesbay.state.va.us/ <br />
*Chesapeake Research Consortium http://www.chesapeake.org/<br />
*Chesapeake Bay Foundation http://www.cbf.org/<br />
*Chesapeake Bay Journal http://www.bayjournal.com/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Inquiry in a Culture of Consensus: Science and Management for the Chesapeake Bay. Matuszeski, William. 2008. UM-SG-CP-2008-01. http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/store/subject.shtml?q=pubs1 <br />
*Hennessey, TM. 1994. Governance and adaptive management for estuarine ecosystems: The case of Chesapeake Bay Coastal Management. Journal of Coastal Management. Vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 119-145. 1994.<br />
<br />
==References== <br />
<references/></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=Chesepeake_Bay_Program&diff=26689Chesepeake Bay Program2009-01-10T16:29:58Z<p>AnnaKroon: New page: Efforts at integrated management began in the Chesapeake Bay region in the 1970s after decades of steadily declining water quality. The Chesapeake Bay Program evolved from a well-funded sc...</p>
<hr />
<div>Efforts at integrated management began in the Chesapeake Bay region in the 1970s after decades of steadily declining water quality. The Chesapeake Bay Program evolved from a well-funded scientific study to a national model for a participatory ecosystem approach that is very popular at the community level. Hallmarks of the Program include use of the best available science, consensus driven decision-making, strong public involvement in planning and implementation, adaptation of specific management goals, flexible methods for states to meet federal requirements, and significant long-term federal and state funding. Despite large and sustained investments and some notable environmental improvements, the overall health of the bay remains poor. <br />
<br />
==Characterization of the System==<br />
The Chesapeake Bay is the United State’s largest and most biologically productive estuary. The Chesapeake lies along the nation’s eastern seaboard and its watershed includes all or portions of six states: Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. About 15 million people live along the shore of the bay or its tributaries. Most of the population is concentrated in two large urban centres: Baltimore and Washington, DC. The watershed extends over about 172,000 km2, and the area of the Bay itself is 6,475 km2. Thus the watershed-to-estuary ratio is very high. The large watershed funnels in nutrient-rich freshwater from six tributaries. Nutrients and other non-point source pollution from his large area enters the bay as run off, and is then concentrated into the relatively narrow bottle neck of the estuary. Much of the Chesapeake’s watershed is forest and agricultural land that contains some of the highest concentrations of livestock and intensive cropping in the United States.<br />
<br />
The Chesapeake is renowned for its fishery production, recreational opportunities, and high value waterfront property. The two salient characteristics of the Chesapeake are its shallowness—the average depth is seven meters—and its very large watershed. This shallowness creates conditions where sunlight can penetrate to the bottom, allowing for the growth of seagrasses and abundant bottom-dwelling communities. <br />
<br />
[[Image:Map of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1: Map of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed]]<br />
<br />
==How the Program Has Evolved==<br />
By 1970, significant losses in fishery resources, the disappearance of seagrasses, and the decline in oyster harvests all appeared to be linked to the very visible impacts of water pollution. It had been assumed that the construction of sewage treatment plants would solve these problems. Instead, the classic evidence of euthrophic conditions was becoming more prevalent each summer. In 1974, a group of legislators from the bay region were successful in convincing Congress to provide $27 million to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to undertake a five-year study of the Chesapeake. The initial findings scientific studies were controversial and inconclusive. In response to the inability of the scientists to agree on recommendations to address the issues, EPA established a resource users group in 1981 that succeeded in crystallizing the issues. It recommended that the program focus its efforts upon nutrient over-enrichment, pollution by toxics and the dwindling abundance of seagrasses. The program’s early decision to involve non-scientists representing important stakeholders to identify policy choices was essential in turning around the image of the project from that of a well-funded research effort to a practical restoration effort. This time period coincided with the passage of the Federal [[Clean Water Act]] which mandated reductions in point sources of pollution. Section 117 of the Act provided significant funding for developing the Chesapeake Bay Program.<br />
<br />
In 1983, spurred by mounting public concern, the governors of states bordering the bay, the mayor of Washington and the administrator of the EPA came together and negotiated the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This was a formal commitment by the states to participate in a regional decision making partnership, to commit to specific goals for restoring the bay’s living resources, and to a sustained program of water quality monitoring. <br />
<br />
The second Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed in 1987. This was a specific plan of action that set forth a comprehensive set of 29 commitments. Its central goal was to achieve a 40 percent reduction in nitrogen loadings by the year 2000, using 1985 as the base year. The 1987 agreement became the model for the quantitative and time-limited goals that have been the keystone of the program’s approach to ecosystem governance ever since.<br />
<br />
The 1992 amendments to the 1987 Agreement called for the allocation of specific loads to each of the major tributary systems, and for the development of the strategies that would demonstrate how each tributary would achieve a 40 percent reduction by 2000 and sustain those nitrogen levels thereafter. However, this goal was not met—even though major reductions were achieved for point sources of pollution. The difficulties in achieving nutrient reduction goals lay in the unexpectedly large contributions of nonpoint sources. Controlling these dispersed sources of nutrients and other contaminants require major changes in land use, in the management of urban areas and in agricultural practices. Resent research has demonstrated that a major source of nutrients is atmospheric contamination generated within an “airshed” that is considerably larger than the Bay’s watershed. Figure 2 for the State of the Bay Report Card highlights the continued pollutant loads, habitat degradation and low fish stocks for selected species. Figure 3 highlights the progress made towards the goals. <br />
<br />
Chesapeake 2000 is the most recent statement of the program’s goals. It is the result of the program setting increasingly more ambitious targets as it has learned more about the issues. While the 1987 Bay Agreement set the first quantitative target for nitrogen only, Chesapeake 2000 sets a more stringent target for nitrogen while also setting targets with timeframes for achievements on all the issues. <br />
<br />
==Program Achievements==<br />
The Program made major investments in public education and this has contributed to sustained popular support. Focusing efforts on unambiguous goals signed by top-level elected state representatives and national government officials avoided difficulties associated with negotiating all-encompassing and detailed plans. Providing freedom to regional and local bodies to come up with their own solutions and plans to achieving the commonly agreed upon goals empowered a wide variety of groups including local communities and non-governmental organisations, and encouraged them to make a deep commitment, take practical steps and implement innovative ideas.<br />
<br />
The Program has catalysed a number of environmental achievements. These include increase in the quality of fish spawning habitats that have produced improvements in the abundance of such important species as stripped bass and shad. By 1999, 476 miles of streamside forests had been restored. Although the goals have not been achieved for nutrient reduction, phosphorus and nitrogen loads have declined since 1988. Turbidity has also declined, but algal blooms continue to occur in the once-clear waters. Oysters, which used to filter the Bay’s entire water volume in less than a week, are still only about 1% of the 1950’s population level. Blue crabs remain a threatened fishery. <br />
<br />
[[Image:Status of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 2. 2007 Status of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed <ref>Chesapeake Bay Foundation -http://www.cbf.org/site/DocServer/2007SOTBReport.pdf?docID=10923 </ref>]]<br />
<br />
[[Image:Progress Made on Key Indicators.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 3. Progress Made on Key Indicators <ref>http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_bayhealth.aspx?menuitem=15045</ref>]]<br />
<br />
==The Governance Structure of the Program==<br />
The Chesapeake Bay Program’s management structure has evolved significantly. The initial management structure during the research and issue identification stage provided for a Policy Advisory Committee that oversaw the program and the activities of committees. Following the 1983 agreement, the Policy Advisory Committee was replaced by a higher level Executive Council composed of representatives of the states, the EPA. The 1987 Agreement further elevated the Executive Council so that these states are represented by their governors—the highest elected state official. The Council has met annually since 1987 and operates through directives, agreements and amendments. It defines the goals and the program’s key management procedures. <br />
<br />
The Implementation Committee is composed of state representatives, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the EPA, and the 10 federal and state agencies that contribute most directly to the program. <br />
<br />
Through the Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) the science community has played an essential role in identifying the issues that are most critical to the functioning of a healthy estuary and to bringing new insights into the processes of debate, evaluation and adaptation <ref>GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). 1996. The contributions of science to coastal zone management. Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (61):66 p. http://www.crc.uri.edu/download/GESAMPEng.pdf</ref>. The STAC establishes peer review systems for all bay program funded competitive research, reviews and comments on all proposed budget items, holds symposia and carries out technical reviews of key scientific issues.<br />
<br />
The Citizens Advisory Committee has 23 members, with representatives from agriculture, business, conservation, industry, and civic groups. Since 1984, this group has provided a non-governmental perspective on the bay cleanup effort and on how bay program policies affect citizens who live and work in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.<br />
<br />
The program’s strategy of focusing its efforts on unambiguous agreements signed by top-level elected state representatives and federal government officials has avoided the difficulties that come with negotiating the more usual and all-encompassing and detailed plans. The strategy has been to leave each state the freedom to decide how it will make its commitment to achieving each goal. This, in turn, encourages an atmosphere of competition and empowers local communities, NGOs and a wide diversity of groups and organizations to come forward with their own ideas and commitments.<br />
<br />
A highly critical report to Congress, issued by the United States Government Accountability Office in 2005, has questioned the success and effectiveness of the Program. This report asserts that the Bay Program lacks an integrated approach for assessing progress towards its stated goals, and states that the Bay Program’s reports do not realistically communicate the condition of the Bay despite direct and indirect state and federal funding that approaches $6 billion over the ten year period of 1995 to 2004. By 2008 there is evidence that these recommendations have been taken to heart. An easily navigable website provides a host of information and the new “Eco-check” <ref>link http://www.eco-check.org/reportcard/chesapeake/2007/indicators/bay_health_index/</ref> Bay report cards provide a new approach to tracking and reporting the health of waterways at both local and regional scales.” These reports apply a Bay Habitat Health Index to present a score, or “grade” (A through F), for the health of each Bay’s tributary. The 2007 Report Cards awarded scores for the tributaries and main stem of the Bay that range between B and D-. This new approach reaffirms the enormous difficulty of restoring lost qualities in a severely impacted estuarine ecosystem where nonpoint sources of contaminants dominate.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*Case study brochure of how the Chesapeake Bay is addressing Climate Change http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/downloads/CS_Ches.pdf <br />
*THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF SCIENCE TO INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) http://www.crc.uri.edu/download/GESAMPEng.pdf <br />
*The Governance Of Large Ecosystems at the Regional Scale: Analysis of the Strategies and Outcomes of Long-Term Programs http://www.crc.uri.edu/download/GovLargeEcosystems_OlsenNickerson.pdf <br />
*Chesapeake Bay Program website http://www.chesapeakebay.net <br />
*Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay http://www.acb-online.org/ <br />
*Chesapeake Bay Commission http://www.chesbay.state.va.us/ <br />
*Chesapeake Research Consortium http://www.chesapeake.org/<br />
*Chesapeake Bay Foundation http://www.cbf.org/<br />
*Chesapeake Bay Journal http://www.bayjournal.com/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Inquiry in a Culture of Consensus: Science and Management for the Chesapeake Bay. Matuszeski, William. 2008. UM-SG-CP-2008-01. http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/store/subject.shtml?q=pubs1 <br />
*Hennessey, TM. 1994. Governance and adaptive management for estuarine ecosystems: The case of Chesapeake Bay Coastal Management. Journal of Coastal Management. Vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 119-145. 1994.<br />
<br />
==References== <br />
<references/></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=File:Status_of_the_Chesapeake_Bay_Watershed.jpg&diff=26688File:Status of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.jpg2009-01-10T16:16:22Z<p>AnnaKroon: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=File:Progress_Made_on_Key_Indicators.jpg&diff=26687File:Progress Made on Key Indicators.jpg2009-01-10T16:14:56Z<p>AnnaKroon: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=File:Map_of_the_Chesapeake_Bay_Watershed.jpg&diff=26686File:Map of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.jpg2009-01-10T16:14:21Z<p>AnnaKroon: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=Coastal_Barrier_Resources_System&diff=26685Coastal Barrier Resources System2009-01-10T16:05:27Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>In 1982, the U.S. Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA), to prohibit using federal funds for development on sensitive coastal barrier islands. Undeveloped sensitive areas are mapped and incorporated into the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). Areas so designated are ineligible for direct or indirect Federal expenditures and financial assistance, including flood insurance, funding for infrastructure or federal housing loans. As of 2008, the CBRS includes approximately 800 barriers, an area of almost 1.3 million acres. While the exclusion of federal funds has slowed development on these barriers, it is state and local governments that make the final decision on whether development occurs. Due to the high value of coastal lands and the need to pay compensation if development of private property is prohibited, state and municipal regulators often grant permits for development on barriers within the CBRS system. <br />
<br />
==History==<br />
Heavy federal subsidies poured into U.S. coastal development projects in the 1970s and 1980s helping to create a coastal development boom. Some members of Congress such as Senator John H. Chafee (Senate 1976-1999), of the coastal state of Rhode Island, recognized the vulnerability of coastal barriers to development and declared such subsidies a ‘travesty’. Chafee built bipartisan support for a non-regulatory approach to reducing such federal subsidies, in order to reduce development in high risk areas, and protect fish and wildlife and other natural resources <ref>Salvesen, David. 2005. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act: Has It Discouraged Coastal Development? Coastal Management, Volume 33, Number 2, April-June 2005, pp. 181-195(15).</ref>. The result was CBRA—a fiscally conservative, free market pproach to coastal conservation—underpinned by the principle that taxpayers should not subsidize or bear the risk of development in areas highly vulnerable to coastal hazards.<br />
<br />
==Key Features==<br />
The Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) includes undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic, Gulf, Caribbean Territories and Great Lakes coasts. The Act does not include the Pacific Coast which has fewbarrier islands. Coastal barriers are unique land forms that provide protection for distinct aquatic habitats and serve as the mainland's first line of defense against damage from coastal storms and erosion. Coastal barriers are defined in the CBRA to include [[barrier islands]], [[bar|bars]], spits, and [[tombolo|tombolos]], and include the associated aquatic habitats, such as adjacent [[estuaries]] and [[wetlands]].<br />
<br />
The CBRA prohibits federal financial assistance (e.g., loans, grants, insurance payments, rebates, subsidies, or financial guarantees), for roads, bridges, utilities, [[erosion]] control, and post-storm disaster relief for new development on designated “undeveloped” areas on coastal barriers. Existing insurance policies for properties within the CBRS remain in force until such time as that property is expanded or replaced, at which point insurance coverage is cancelled. In cases where newly built property is damaged, federal flood insurance assistance is available only if the cost of rebuilding is less than 50 percent of the value of the property.<br />
<br />
==Evolution==<br />
In 1990, the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) amended the CBRA to include existing protected areas owned by the government, termed as ‘otherwise protected areas’ (OPA). This included national and state parks, national wildlife refuges and other conservation areas that contain coastal barriers. The inclusion of OPAs tripled the size of the CBRS. In 2000, the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act required the development of digital mapping to improve the precision and accessibility of information about those areas in the CBRS. It also provided guidance for determining if an area was undeveloped at the time it was included within the CBRS. The Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to produce digital maps for the entire CBRS. <br />
<br />
==Governance Framework of the Program==<br />
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), within the Department of the Interior, is authorized to implement the CBIA. FWS is the repository for CBRS maps. FWS also advises federal and state agencies, landowners, and Congress on whether properties are within the CBRS and on the types of Federal expenditures allowed in the system (FWS website). FWS approves exclusions in cases of emergency assistance, national security, navigability, and energy exploration. The CBIA is not implemented through regulations. However, agencies are required to consult with the FWS and secure their review and opinions on proposed actions.<br />
<br />
The CBIA is not intended to prevent or regulate development in high-risk areas. It does not restrict the use of private, local, or state funding within CBRS units, although some coastal states have adopted legislation that limits state funding of certain projects. The intent of the CBIA is to ensure no federal dollars are spent on development in these areas.<br />
<br />
==Effectiveness==<br />
Approximately 3.1 million acres of land and associated aquatic habitat are part of the CBRS and the FWS calculates that CBRA has saved over $1 billion in Federal subsidies. A 2007 study of the CBRA by the U.S. Government Accounting Office estimated that 84 percent of the area within the CBRS remains undeveloped, 29 percent has experienced some development, and approximately 3 percent has undergone significant development. The influence that CBRA has had in limiting development is unclear, however, as federal and state officials have identified other factors that are considered to play an even larger role in deciding development. These include (1) the lack of land suitable for development; (2) the lack of accessibility to the unit; (3) state laws that discourage development within coastal areas; and (4) group ownership of land within the unit (GAO, Salvensen). Reasons for development occurring in certain areas of the CBRS include: (1) strong demand by private and public groups to build, (2) a pro-development local government, and (3) the availability of affordable private flood insurance. In cases where federal funds were issued for areas within the CBRS, inaccurate maps are most frequently cited as the reason for such error. <br />
<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html <br />
*USFWS legislation http://www.fws.gov/laws/ <br />
*CBRS Maps http://projects.dewberry.com/FWS/CBRS%20Maps/Forms/AllItems1.aspx <br />
*CBRS Digital Boundaries http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/cbra_exit.cfm <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=Coastal_Barrier_Resources_System&diff=26684Coastal Barrier Resources System2009-01-10T16:05:16Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>In 1982, the U.S. Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA), to prohibit using federal funds for development on sensitive coastal barrier islands. Undeveloped sensitive areas are mapped and incorporated into the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). Areas so designated are ineligible for direct or indirect Federal expenditures and financial assistance, including flood insurance, funding for infrastructure or federal housing loans. As of 2008, the CBRS includes approximately 800 barriers, an area of almost 1.3 million acres. While the exclusion of federal funds has slowed development on these barriers, it is state and local governments that make the final decision on whether development occurs. Due to the high value of coastal lands and the need to pay compensation if development of private property is prohibited, state and municipal regulators often grant permits for development on barriers within the CBRS system. <br />
<br />
==History==<br />
Heavy federal subsidies poured into U.S. coastal development projects in the 1970s and 1980s helping to create a coastal development boom. Some members of Congress such as Senator John H. Chafee (Senate 1976-1999), of the coastal state of Rhode Island, recognized the vulnerability of coastal barriers to development and declared such subsidies a ‘travesty’. Chafee built bipartisan support for a non-regulatory approach to reducing such federal subsidies, in order to reduce development in high risk areas, and protect fish and wildlife and other natural resources <ref>Salvesen, David. 2005. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act: Has It Discouraged Coastal Development? Coastal Management, Volume 33, Number 2, April-June 2005, pp. 181-195(15).</ref>. The result was CBRA—a fiscally conservative, free market pproach to coastal conservation—underpinned by the principle that taxpayers should not subsidize or bear the risk of development in areas highly vulnerable to coastal hazards.<br />
<br />
==Key Features==<br />
The Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) includes undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic, Gulf, Caribbean Territories and Great Lakes coasts. The Act does not include the Pacific Coast which has fewbarrier islands. Coastal barriers are unique land forms that provide protection for distinct aquatic habitats and serve as the mainland's first line of defense against damage from coastal storms and erosion. Coastal barriers are defined in the CBRA to include [[barrier islands]], [[bar|bars]], spits, and [[tombolo|tombolos]], and include the associated aquatic habitats, such as adjacent [[estuaries]] and [[wetlands]].<br />
<br />
The CBRA prohibits federal financial assistance (e.g., loans, grants, insurance payments, rebates, subsidies, or financial guarantees), for roads, bridges, utilities, [[erosion]] control, and post-storm disaster relief for new development on designated “undeveloped” areas on coastal barriers. Existing insurance policies for properties within the CBRS remain in force until such time as that property is expanded or replaced, at which point insurance coverage is cancelled. In cases where newly built property is damaged, federal flood insurance assistance is available only if the cost of rebuilding is less than 50 percent of the value of the property.<br />
<br />
==Evolution==<br />
In 1990, the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) amended the CBRA to include existing protected areas owned by the government, termed as ‘otherwise protected areas’ (OPA). This included national and state parks, national wildlife refuges and other conservation areas that contain coastal barriers. The inclusion of OPAs tripled the size of the CBRS. In 2000, the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act required the development of digital mapping to improve the precision and accessibility of information about those areas in the CBRS. It also provided guidance for determining if an area was undeveloped at the time it was included within the CBRS. The Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to produce digital maps for the entire CBRS. <br />
<br />
==Governance Framework of the Program==<br />
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), within the Department of the Interior, is authorized to implement the CBIA. FWS is the repository for CBRS maps. FWS also advises federal and state agencies, landowners, and Congress on whether properties are within the CBRS and on the types of Federal expenditures allowed in the system (FWS website). FWS approves exclusions in cases of emergency assistance, national security, navigability, and energy exploration. The CBIA is not implemented through regulations. However, agencies are required to consult with the FWS and secure their review and opinions on proposed actions.<br />
<br />
The CBIA is not intended to prevent or regulate development in high-risk areas. It does not restrict the use of private, local, or state funding within CBRS units, although some coastal states have adopted legislation that limits state funding of certain projects. The intent of the CBIA is to ensure no federal dollars are spent on development in these areas.<br />
<br />
==Effectiveness==<br />
Approximately 3.1 million acres of land and associated aquatic habitat are part of the CBRS and the FWS calculates that CBRA has saved over $1 billion in Federal subsidies. A 2007 study of the CBRA by the U.S. Government Accounting Office estimated that 84 percent of the area within the CBRS remains undeveloped, 29 percent has experienced some development, and approximately 3 percent has undergone significant development. The influence that CBRA has had in limiting development is unclear, however, as federal and state officials have identified other factors that are considered to play an even larger role in deciding development. These include (1) the lack of land suitable for development; (2) the lack of accessibility to the unit; (3) state laws that discourage development within coastal areas; and (4) group ownership of land within the unit (GAO, Salvensen). Reasons for development occurring in certain areas of the CBRS include: (1) strong demand by private and public groups to build, (2) a pro-development local government, and (3) the availability of affordable private flood insurance. In cases where federal funds were issued for areas within the CBRS, inaccurate maps are most frequently cited as the reason for such error. <br />
<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html <br />
*USFWS legislation http://www.fws.gov/laws/ <br />
*CBRS Maps http://projects.dewberry.com/FWS/CBRS%20Maps/Forms/AllItems1.aspx <br />
*CBRS Digital Boundaries http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/cbra_exit.cfm <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<reference/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=Coastal_Barrier_Resources_System&diff=26683Coastal Barrier Resources System2009-01-10T16:04:56Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>In 1982, the U.S. Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA), to prohibit using federal funds for development on sensitive coastal barrier islands. Undeveloped sensitive areas are mapped and incorporated into the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). Areas so designated are ineligible for direct or indirect Federal expenditures and financial assistance, including flood insurance, funding for infrastructure or federal housing loans. As of 2008, the CBRS includes approximately 800 barriers, an area of almost 1.3 million acres. While the exclusion of federal funds has slowed development on these barriers, it is state and local governments that make the final decision on whether development occurs. Due to the high value of coastal lands and the need to pay compensation if development of private property is prohibited, state and municipal regulators often grant permits for development on barriers within the CBRS system. <br />
<br />
==History==<br />
Heavy federal subsidies poured into U.S. coastal development projects in the 1970s and 1980s helping to create a coastal development boom. Some members of Congress such as Senator John H. Chafee (Senate 1976-1999), of the coastal state of Rhode Island, recognized the vulnerability of coastal barriers to development and declared such subsidies a ‘travesty’. Chafee built bipartisan support for a non-regulatory approach to reducing such federal subsidies, in order to reduce development in high risk areas, and protect fish and wildlife and other natural resources <ref>Salvesen, David. 2005. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act: Has It Discouraged Coastal Development? Coastal Management, Volume 33, Number 2, April-June 2005, pp. 181-195(15).</ref>. The result was CBRA—a fiscally conservative, free market pproach to coastal conservation—underpinned by the principle that taxpayers should not subsidize or bear the risk of development in areas highly vulnerable to coastal hazards.<br />
<br />
==Key Features==<br />
The Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) includes undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic, Gulf, Caribbean Territories and Great Lakes coasts. The Act does not include the Pacific Coast which has fewbarrier islands. Coastal barriers are unique land forms that provide protection for distinct aquatic habitats and serve as the mainland's first line of defense against damage from coastal storms and erosion. Coastal barriers are defined in the CBRA to include [[barrier islands]], [[bar|bars]], spits, and [[tombolo|tombolos]], and include the associated aquatic habitats, such as adjacent [[estuaries]] and [[wetlands]].<br />
<br />
The CBRA prohibits federal financial assistance (e.g., loans, grants, insurance payments, rebates, subsidies, or financial guarantees), for roads, bridges, utilities, [[erosion]] control, and post-storm disaster relief for new development on designated “undeveloped” areas on coastal barriers. Existing insurance policies for properties within the CBRS remain in force until such time as that property is expanded or replaced, at which point insurance coverage is cancelled. In cases where newly built property is damaged, federal flood insurance assistance is available only if the cost of rebuilding is less than 50 percent of the value of the property.<br />
<br />
==Evolution==<br />
In 1990, the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) amended the CBRA to include existing protected areas owned by the government, termed as ‘otherwise protected areas’ (OPA). This included national and state parks, national wildlife refuges and other conservation areas that contain coastal barriers. The inclusion of OPAs tripled the size of the CBRS. In 2000, the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act required the development of digital mapping to improve the precision and accessibility of information about those areas in the CBRS. It also provided guidance for determining if an area was undeveloped at the time it was included within the CBRS. The Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to produce digital maps for the entire CBRS. <br />
<br />
==Governance Framework of the Program==<br />
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), within the Department of the Interior, is authorized to implement the CBIA. FWS is the repository for CBRS maps. FWS also advises federal and state agencies, landowners, and Congress on whether properties are within the CBRS and on the types of Federal expenditures allowed in the system (FWS website). FWS approves exclusions in cases of emergency assistance, national security, navigability, and energy exploration. The CBIA is not implemented through regulations. However, agencies are required to consult with the FWS and secure their review and opinions on proposed actions.<br />
<br />
The CBIA is not intended to prevent or regulate development in high-risk areas. It does not restrict the use of private, local, or state funding within CBRS units, although some coastal states have adopted legislation that limits state funding of certain projects. The intent of the CBIA is to ensure no federal dollars are spent on development in these areas.<br />
<br />
==Effectiveness==<br />
Approximately 3.1 million acres of land and associated aquatic habitat are part of the CBRS and the FWS calculates that CBRA has saved over $1 billion in Federal subsidies. A 2007 study of the CBRA by the U.S. Government Accounting Office estimated that 84 percent of the area within the CBRS remains undeveloped, 29 percent has experienced some development, and approximately 3 percent has undergone significant development. The influence that CBRA has had in limiting development is unclear, however, as federal and state officials have identified other factors that are considered to play an even larger role in deciding development. These include (1) the lack of land suitable for development; (2) the lack of accessibility to the unit; (3) state laws that discourage development within coastal areas; and (4) group ownership of land within the unit (GAO, Salvensen). Reasons for development occurring in certain areas of the CBRS include: (1) strong demand by private and public groups to build, (2) a pro-development local government, and (3) the availability of affordable private flood insurance. In cases where federal funds were issued for areas within the CBRS, inaccurate maps are most frequently cited as the reason for such error. <br />
<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html <br />
*USFWS legislation http://www.fws.gov/laws/ <br />
*CBRS Maps http://projects.dewberry.com/FWS/CBRS%20Maps/Forms/AllItems1.aspx <br />
*CBRS Digital Boundaries http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/cbra_exit.cfm <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
</reference><br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroonhttps://www.marinespecies.org/r/index.php?title=Coastal_Barrier_Resources_System&diff=26682Coastal Barrier Resources System2009-01-10T16:04:33Z<p>AnnaKroon: /* History */</p>
<hr />
<div>In 1982, the U.S. Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA), to prohibit using federal funds for development on sensitive coastal barrier islands. Undeveloped sensitive areas are mapped and incorporated into the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). Areas so designated are ineligible for direct or indirect Federal expenditures and financial assistance, including flood insurance, funding for infrastructure or federal housing loans. As of 2008, the CBRS includes approximately 800 barriers, an area of almost 1.3 million acres. While the exclusion of federal funds has slowed development on these barriers, it is state and local governments that make the final decision on whether development occurs. Due to the high value of coastal lands and the need to pay compensation if development of private property is prohibited, state and municipal regulators often grant permits for development on barriers within the CBRS system. <br />
<br />
==History==<br />
Heavy federal subsidies poured into U.S. coastal development projects in the 1970s and 1980s helping to create a coastal development boom. Some members of Congress such as Senator John H. Chafee (Senate 1976-1999), of the coastal state of Rhode Island, recognized the vulnerability of coastal barriers to development and declared such subsidies a ‘travesty’. Chafee built bipartisan support for a non-regulatory approach to reducing such federal subsidies, in order to reduce development in high risk areas, and protect fish and wildlife and other natural resources <ref>Salvesen, David. 2005. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act: Has It Discouraged Coastal Development? Coastal Management, Volume 33, Number 2, April-June 2005, pp. 181-195(15).</ref>. The result was CBRA—a fiscally conservative, free market pproach to coastal conservation—underpinned by the principle that taxpayers should not subsidize or bear the risk of development in areas highly vulnerable to coastal hazards.<br />
<br />
==Key Features==<br />
The Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) includes undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic, Gulf, Caribbean Territories and Great Lakes coasts. The Act does not include the Pacific Coast which has fewbarrier islands. Coastal barriers are unique land forms that provide protection for distinct aquatic habitats and serve as the mainland's first line of defense against damage from coastal storms and erosion. Coastal barriers are defined in the CBRA to include [[barrier islands]], [[bar|bars]], spits, and [[tombolo|tombolos]], and include the associated aquatic habitats, such as adjacent [[estuaries]] and [[wetlands]].<br />
<br />
The CBRA prohibits federal financial assistance (e.g., loans, grants, insurance payments, rebates, subsidies, or financial guarantees), for roads, bridges, utilities, [[erosion]] control, and post-storm disaster relief for new development on designated “undeveloped” areas on coastal barriers. Existing insurance policies for properties within the CBRS remain in force until such time as that property is expanded or replaced, at which point insurance coverage is cancelled. In cases where newly built property is damaged, federal flood insurance assistance is available only if the cost of rebuilding is less than 50 percent of the value of the property.<br />
<br />
==Evolution==<br />
In 1990, the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) amended the CBRA to include existing protected areas owned by the government, termed as ‘otherwise protected areas’ (OPA). This included national and state parks, national wildlife refuges and other conservation areas that contain coastal barriers. The inclusion of OPAs tripled the size of the CBRS. In 2000, the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act required the development of digital mapping to improve the precision and accessibility of information about those areas in the CBRS. It also provided guidance for determining if an area was undeveloped at the time it was included within the CBRS. The Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to produce digital maps for the entire CBRS. <br />
<br />
==Governance Framework of the Program==<br />
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), within the Department of the Interior, is authorized to implement the CBIA. FWS is the repository for CBRS maps. FWS also advises federal and state agencies, landowners, and Congress on whether properties are within the CBRS and on the types of Federal expenditures allowed in the system (FWS website). FWS approves exclusions in cases of emergency assistance, national security, navigability, and energy exploration. The CBIA is not implemented through regulations. However, agencies are required to consult with the FWS and secure their review and opinions on proposed actions.<br />
<br />
The CBIA is not intended to prevent or regulate development in high-risk areas. It does not restrict the use of private, local, or state funding within CBRS units, although some coastal states have adopted legislation that limits state funding of certain projects. The intent of the CBIA is to ensure no federal dollars are spent on development in these areas.<br />
<br />
==Effectiveness==<br />
Approximately 3.1 million acres of land and associated aquatic habitat are part of the CBRS and the FWS calculates that CBRA has saved over $1 billion in Federal subsidies. A 2007 study of the CBRA by the U.S. Government Accounting Office estimated that 84 percent of the area within the CBRS remains undeveloped, 29 percent has experienced some development, and approximately 3 percent has undergone significant development. The influence that CBRA has had in limiting development is unclear, however, as federal and state officials have identified other factors that are considered to play an even larger role in deciding development. These include (1) the lack of land suitable for development; (2) the lack of accessibility to the unit; (3) state laws that discourage development within coastal areas; and (4) group ownership of land within the unit (GAO, Salvensen). Reasons for development occurring in certain areas of the CBRS include: (1) strong demand by private and public groups to build, (2) a pro-development local government, and (3) the availability of affordable private flood insurance. In cases where federal funds were issued for areas within the CBRS, inaccurate maps are most frequently cited as the reason for such error. <br />
<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html <br />
*USFWS legislation http://www.fws.gov/laws/ <br />
*CBRS Maps http://projects.dewberry.com/FWS/CBRS%20Maps/Forms/AllItems1.aspx <br />
*CBRS Digital Boundaries http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/cbra_exit.cfm <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
*Salvesen, David. 2005. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act: Has It Discouraged Coastal Development? Coastal Management, Volume 33, Number 2, April-June 2005, pp. 181-195(15).<br />
<br />
<br />
{{authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>AnnaKroon