Regional ocean governance in the United States: Concept and reality

Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 227-265

  Hershman, Marc J ^a   Russell, Craig W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b NOAA EARTH SYSTEM RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; OCEAN;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33745263950     PISSN: 10643958     EISSN: 10643958     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (219)

1. ROG has been a popular topic of discussion in the field of marine affairs for some time. In 2002, a workshop was held with national leaders to share definitions and lessons learned from ROG or other regional ocean coordination activities. See BILIANA CICIN-SAIN & CHARLES EHLER, IMPROVING REGIONAL OCEAN GOVERNANCE IN THE UNITED STATES: WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS (2002).
2. PEW OCEANS COMM'N, AMERICA'S LIVING OCEANS: CHARTING A COURSE FOR SEA CHANGE (2003) [hereinafter PEW REPORT], http://www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/ env_pew_oceans_final_report.pdf.
3. U.S. COMM'N ON OCEAN POLICY, AN OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: FINAL REPORT OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY (2004) [hereinafter USCOP REPORT], http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/full_color_jpt/ 000_ocean_full_report.pdf.
4. U.S. OCEAN ACTION PLAN: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S RESPONSE TO THE U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY (Dec. 17, 2004) [hereinafter U.S. OCEAN ACTION PLAN], http://ocean.ceq.gov/actionplan.pdf.
5. USCOP REPORT, supra note 3, at 24.
6. See USCOP REPORT, supra note 3.
7. See, e.g., Renewable Natural Resources Foundation, Congress on Building Capacity for Coastal Solutions, 43 RENEWABLE RES. J. 23 (2005);
8. A.L. Springer, North American Transjurisdictional Cooperation: The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment, CANADIAN AM. PUB. POL'Y, Apr. 2002, at 15.
9. PEW REPORT, supra note 2, at x.
10. Id. at vii.
11. See id. at v.
12. See id. at vii-viii.
13. Id. at x.
14. See id. at 56, 103.
15. See id. at 56-58.
16. See id. at 33, 103.
17. See id. at 33-34, 103.
18. See id. at 104.
19. Id. at 104.
20. See id. at 103-04;
21. U.S.C. § 1456 (2000).
22. PEW REPORT, supra note 2, at 104.
23. Id. at 94.
24. Id. at 34.
25. See id. at 47, 104 (Pew also allows for the development of advisory groups for receiving "views and advice" from nonfederal interests, including the usual stakeholders, local governments, and the public.);
26. see id. at 34 (But it is unclear how this information would be used in any decisionmaking process.).
27. USCOP REPORT, supra note 3, at 4, 8-9.
28. Id. at 9.
29. Id. at 86.
30. Id. at 90.
31. See id. at 91.
32. See id. at 92.
33. Id. at 95.
34. See id.
35. Id. at 96.
36. Id. at 91.
37. Id.
38. See id.
39. See id. at 86-106, 150-60.
40. See id. at 170-79, 270-329, 331-51.
41. See id. at 138-49, 374-411, 428-41.
42. For a detailed discussion of the Pew concept of ROG, see Craig Russell, A Policy Context and Analytical Framework for Advancing Regional Ocean Governance in the United States 7 (2005) (unpublished Master's thesis) (on file with University of Washington Library).
43. See PEW REPORT, supra note 2, at 103-05.
44. See AMY MATTHEWS AMOS, MOVING FORWARD: A SNAPSHOT OF U.S. ACTIVITIES IN ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT, A REPORT TO THE LENFEST OCEAN PROGRAM AT THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS 1 (2005), available at http://www.lenfestocean.org/publication/ Moving_Forward_EBFM_Final2-7-05.pdf.
45. USCOP REPORT, supra note 3, at 87, 89.
46. See Oceans Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-256, § 3(g)(1)(b), 114 Stat. 644 (2000) (requiring that Governors be given an opportunity to comment on the draft report).
47. See Allan Pred, Place as Historically Contingent Process: Structuration and the Time-geography of Becoming Places, 74 ANNALS ASS'N AM. GEOGRAPHERS 279, 279 (1984).
48. EDWARD RELPH, PLACE AND PLACELESSNESS 141 (1976).
49. See id. at 87-88.
50. Aldaberto Vallega, The Regional Approach to the Ocean, the Ocean Regions, and Ocean Regionalization-A Post-modern Dilemma, 45 OCEAN & COASTAL MGMT 721, 730 (2002).
51. RELPH, supra note 45, at 87-89.
52. See id. at 89.
53. See also Antony S. Cheng & Steven E. Daniels, Examining the Interaction Between Geographic Scale and Ways of Knowing in Ecosystem Management: A Case Study of Place-based Collaborative Planning, 49 FOREST SCI. 841, 843 (2003). Cheng and Daniels delve into this topic further, discussing how the scale of place-based planning greatly affects the success of collaborative processes.
54. Id. at 843-44. Local knowledge of place is smaller in scale than the scale of an ecosystem managed under EBM or ROG. Overcoming this disparity requires developing and building shared ways of knowing.
55. Id.
56. A.D. Guerry, Icarus and Daedalus: Conceptual and Tactical Lessons for Marine Ecosystem-based Management, 3 FRONTIERS ECOLOGY & ENV'T 202, 206 (2005).
57. Cheng & Daniels, supra note 49, at 843.
58. ALLIANCE FOR REG'L STEWARDSHIP, REGIONAL STEWARDSHIP: A COMMITMENT TO PLACE, MONOGRAPH SERIES 1, at 3 (2004);
59. see Victoria Basalo, U.S. Regionalism and Rationality, 40 URB. STUD. 447, 449 (2003).
60. OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, http://dictionary.oed.com/ (search "Find Word" for "regionalism") (last visited Apr. 20, 2006).
61. REFLECTIONS ON REGIONALISM 3 (Bruce Katz ed., 2000).
62. Anssi Paasi, Europe as Social Process and Discourse: Considerations of Place, Boundaries and Identity, 8 EUR. URB. & REGIONA'L STUD. 7, 16 (2001).
63. Howard W. Odum, The Promise of Regionalism, in REGIONALISM IN AMERICA 395, 405 (Merrill Jensen ed., 1951).
64. KATHRYN A. FOSTER, REGIONALISM ON PURPOSE 4 (2001);
65. REFLECTIONS ON REGIONALISM, supra note 54, at 3;
66. ALLIANCE FOR REG'L STEWARDSHIP, supra note 52, at 4.
67. Elizabeth R. Gerber & Clark C. Gibson, Balancing Competing Interests in American Regional Governance 7-8 (Univ. of Mich. Ford Sch. of Pub. Policy, Working Paper, 2005), available at http:// americandemocracy.nd.edu/speaker_series/files/GerberPaper.pdf;
68. Lee A. Kimball, DOALOS/UNITAR Briefing on Developments in Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea Twenty Years After the Conclusion of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea 2 (Sept. 26, 2002), http://www.un.org/ Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_20years/ PresentationLeeKimball.pdf;
69. USCOP REPORT, supra note 3, at 87.
70. See ALLIANCE FOR REG'L STEWARDSHIP, supra note 52, at 7.
71. See id. at 26-27;
72. FOSTER, supra note 57, at 16.
73. ALLIANCE FOR REG'L STEWARDSHIP, supra note 52, at 14.
74. Biliana Cicin-Sain et al., Improving Ocean Management Capacity in the Pacific Coast Region: State and Regional Perspectives, W-91-004 NAT'L RESOURCES RES. & DEV. INST. 89 (1990).
75. Paasi, supra note 55, at 8;
76. Gordon MacLeod, In What Sense a Region? Place Hybridity, Symbolic Shape, and Institutional Formation in Post-modern Scotland, 17 POL. GEOGRAPHY 833, 836-37 (1998);
77. Lawrence Juda, Considerations in Efforts to Effectuate Regional Ocean Governance, in WORKSHOP ON IMPROVING REGIONAL OCEAN GOVERNANCE IN THE UNITED STATES 23 (Biliana Cicin-Sain & Charles Ehler eds., 2002).
78. Martin Jones & Gordon MacLeod, Regional Spaces, Spaces of Regionalism: Territory, Insurgent Politics and the English Question, 29 TRANSACTIONS INST. BRIT. GEOGRAPHERS 433, 435-36 (2004).
79. FOSTER, supra note 57, at 24-25.
80. Lancaster Pollard, The Pacific Northwest, in REGIONALISM IN AMERICA 187, 206 (Merrill Jensen ed., 1951).
81. MacLeod, supra note 63, at 836.
82. Juda, supra note 63, at 23;
83. MacLeod, supra note 63, at 836-38;
84. Paasi, supra note 55, at 8.
85. MacLeod, supra note 63, at 837.
86. See Large Marine Ecosystem of the World, http://www.edc.uri.edu/lme/ clickablemap.htm (last visited Apr. 7, 2007). The seven U.S. LMEs are: East Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, California Current, Gulf of California, Gulf of Mexico, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf.
87. Id.
88. Id;
89. Kenneth Sherman, Application of the Large Marine Ecosystem Approach to U.S. Regional Ocean Governance, in WORKSHOP ON IMPROVING REGIONAL OCEAN GOVERNANCE IN THE U.S., supra note 65, at 59.
90. U.S. Envt'l Prot. Agency, What is a Watershed Approach?, http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/framework/ch2.html (last visited Apr. 7, 2006).
91. Some boundaries, such as the EEZ, cannot be ignored and do limit the scope of coverage, though it does not preclude international cooperation on shared or common issues.
92. PEW REPORT, supra note 2, at 94;
93. USCOP REPORT, supra note 3, at 91.
94. Sherman, supra note 71, at 59;
95. Large Marine Ecosystem of the World, supra note 70.
96. Lawrence Juda, Considerations in Developing a Functional Approach to the Governance of Large Marine Ecosystems, 30 OCEAN DEV. & INT'L L. 89, 89-90 (1999).
97. BILIANA CICIN-SAIN & ROBERT W. KNECHT, THE FUTURE OF U.S. OCEAN POLICY: CHOICES FOR THE NEW CENTURY 16 (2000).
98. CICIN-SAIN & EHLERS, supra note 1, at viii.
99. USCOP REPORT, supra note 3, at 60-61.
100. See Justic Dubravko et al., Climatic Influences on Riverine Nitrate Flux: Implications for Coastal Marine Eutrophication and Hypoxia, 26 ESTUARIES 1 (2003);
101. P. Hoagland et al., The Economic Effects of Harmful Algal Blooms in the United States: Estimates, Assessment Issues, and Information Needs, 25 ESTUARIES 819 (2002);
102. Rita A. Horner et al., Harmful Algal Blooms and Red Tide Problems on the U.S. West Coast, 42 LIMNOLOGY & OCEANOGRAPHY 1076 (1997).
103. Jeremy Firestone et al., Regulating Offshore Wind Power and Aquaculture: Messages from Land and Sea, 14 CORNELL J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 71, 72 (2004).
104. Biliana Cicin-Sain, An Overview for Policy Issues and Options for Improved Regional Ocean Governance, in WORKSHOP ON IMPROVING REGIONAL OCEAN GOVERNANCE IN THE U.S., supra note 65, at 2.
105. Firestone et al., supra note 81, at 72-73.
106. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 resolves some but not all of these issues. Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, 199 Stat. 594 (2005).
107. CICIN-SAIN & KNECHT, supra note 77, at 14.
108. Juda, supra note 76, at 90-91.
109. L. KIMBALL, INTERNATIONAL OCEAN GOVERNANCE: USING INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ORGANIZATIONS TO MANAGE MARINE RESOURCES SUSTAINABLY (2002).
110. Rosenau, supra note 92, at 4.
111. Oran R. Young, The Effectiveness of International Governance Systems, in GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AND INTERNATIONAL GOVERNANCE 2 (Oran R. Young et al. eds., 1996).
112. Kimball, supra note 58.
113. CICIN-SAIN & KNECHT, supra note 77, at 13-14.
114. See id. at 14.
115. Juda, supra note 76.
116. James N. Rosenau, Governance, Order, and Change in World Politics, in GOVERNANCE WITHOUT GOVERNMENT: ORDER AND CHANGE IN WORLD POLITICS 4 (James N. Rosenau & Ernst-Otto Czempiel eds., 1992).
117. See id
118. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1431-1445 (2000).
119. 33 U.S.C. § 1330 (2000).
120. 16 U.S.C. § 1451 (2000).
121. 16 U.S.C. § 668(d) (2000).
122. Edward L. Miles, The Concept of Ocean Governance: Evolution Toward the 21st Century and the Principle of Sustainable Ocean Use, 27 COASTAL MGMT. 1, 1-5 (1999).
123. 16 U.S.C. § 1434(a)(4)-(5) (2000).
124. Coastal Zone Management Programs are limited to state jurisdiction, do not extend into the ocean beyond three nautical miles in most cases, and in most cases do not extend upland into coastal watersheds. supra note 98.
125. CICIN-SAIN & KNECHT, supra note 77, at 14.
126. CICIN-SAIN & EHLER, supra note 1, at 2.
127. See id at vii.
128. See id. at x.
129. ALI MADANIPOUR ET AL., THE GOVERNANCE OF PLACE: SPACE AND PLANNING PROCESSES 1 (2001).
130. ALLIANCE FOR REG'L STEWARDSHIP, supra note 52, at 3.
131. MADANIPOUR ET AL., supra note 105, at 1.
132. CICIN-SAIN & KNECHT, supra note 77, at 279.
133. See supra Section III.
134. See supra Section II.
135. See supra notes 46-53 and accompanying text.
136. See supra notes 81-84 and accompanying text.
137. See supra notes 68-80 and accompanying text.
138. This concept is, in our view, given insufficient attention in both the Pew and USCOP reports.
139. See supra notes 54-67 and accompanying text.
140. See supra notes 85-110 and accompanying text.
141. U.S. OCEAN ACTION PLAN, supra note 4.
142. Committee on Ocean Policy, 69 Fed. Reg. 76591 (Dec. 21, 2004).
143. U.S. OCEAN ACTION PLAN, supra note 4, at 4-6. The USOAP has received mixed reactions from the ocean policy community. Some suggest it is a great start.
144. See, e.g., Press Statement, U.S. Comm'n on Ocean Policy, chairman of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Commends President Bush on Initial Step Toward a National Ocean Policy (Dec. 17, 2004), available at http://www.oceancommission.gov/newsnotices/dec17_04.html;
145. News Release, Envtl. Def., Long Awaited Presidential Response to U.S. Commission on Ocean Polic'y Report (Dec. 17, 2004), available at http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pressrelease.cfm?ContentID=4199;
146. Press Release, The Ocean Conservancy, President's Oceans Committee, Advisor is a Positive Step (Dec. 17, 2004), available at http:// www.oceanconsevancy.org/site/PageServer? pagename=press release041217&autologin=true. Others say it is nothing more than a restatement of mostly existing programs already constrained by tight budgets, and not a sign of additional funding.
147. See, e.g., Press Release, Oceana, Oceana Statement: Bush Response to U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Recommendations a Missed Opportunity (Dec. 20, 2004), available at http://www.oceana.org/index.php?id=802. The USOAP statement in support of EBM will likely garner a few more supporters though many are undoubtedly reserving their enthusiasm in wait of action. In all, the impact of the USOAP is uncertain and its supporters vary; yet it will continue to be the current administration's blueprint for ocean policy developments for the next three years.
148. See infra notes 150-154 and accompanying text.
149. U.S. OCEAN ACTION PLAN, supra note 4, at 8.
150. Id. at 8, 10-11.
151. See infra Section V.
152. John H. Dunnigan, Presentation to State Marine Fisheries Directors Meeting: NOAA's Ecosystem Approaches to Management (Apr. 13, 2005), http://www.ecosystems.noaa.gov/does/ EGT_state_Marine_Fisheries_Directors_04.13.05.ppt.
153. JAMES BURGESS ET AL., ECOSYSTEM GOAL TEAM, NOAA'S ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT (2005), http://ecossystems.noaa.gov/does/ EGT_Oceans_2005_Paper_070105.doc. The EGT's prima goals are to improve ocean and coastal ecosystems for human benefit and develop an active and informed public. Note that these objectives reflect areas in which NOAA has legal authority. Other less resource oriented activities (for example, marine transportation, tourism, etc.) are absent.
154. Id.
155. PEW REPORT, supra note 2, at 103-04.
156. USCOP REPORT, supra note 3, at 90-91.
157. Advocates for the EGT approach are primarily expected to be federal managers and NOAA leadership. Since the EGT is not advocating new powers, existing authorities at the state level are also likely supporters. By adopting an EBM approach, the EGT also is likely to gain support from the environmental nongovernmental organization sector since they have been the primary advocates for EBM. See BURGESS, supra note 125.
158. ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES ADVISORY PANEL, ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT; A REPORT TO CONGRESS BY THE ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES ADVISORY PANEL (1999), http://vww.st.nmfs.gov/st7/documents/epap_report.pdf.
159. 16 U.S.C. § 1851 (2000).
160. ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES ADVISORY PANEL, supra note 130, at 1.
161. Id. at 2.
162. These and many other steps were laid out in an action plan for moving from single species essential fish habitat plans to fishery ecosystem plans. See S. ATL. FISHERIES MGMT. COUNCIL, ACTION PLAN: ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT, EVOLUTION FROM THE HABITAT PLAN TO A FISHERY ECOSYSTEM PLAN 4-7 (2004), available at http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/ tnc_egtòup/FEP12_04.pdf.
163. See AMOS,supra note 41, at 35.
164. Memorandum from Diana Evans & Bill Wilson on the Role of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in the Development of an Ecosystem. Approach to Management for the Alaska Large Marine Ecosystems to the N. Pac. Fisheries Mgmt. Council (2005), http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/ current_issues/ecosystem/EcoMgmt405.pdf
165. N. Pac. Fishery Mgmt. Council, Ecosystem Committee Minutes (June 2, 2005), available at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/NorthPacificFMC/ current_issues/ecosystem/605Minutes.pdf.
166. AMOS, supra note 41, at 32. Fisheries-centric ecosystem approaches to management may limit the equitable consideration of other ocean uses and bring with them existing political conflicts and perceptions. Holistic consideration of all interests should be integrated into a management and decisionmaking framework if new developments in fisheries management are to embody EBM. Tribal interests, other ocean-impacting resource oriented interests (for example, timber, minerals, offshore energy, etc.), and nonresource consumption interests already mentioned in the EGT discussion must also be recognized and included in the process. Proposed stakeholder workshops will help this objective and continue to guide FMCs toward EBM and ecosystem-based fisheries management.
167. USCOP REPORT, supra note 3. at 94-95. The USCOP suggested developing regional ocean information programs ("ROIPs") to fulfill many of these functions and support decision makers at all levels. ROIPs would be central clearinghouses for information and serve as focal points for information coordination, collection, and sharing with all levels of government, stakeholders, and the public. How the ROIPs form is up to each region to decide. Regions may wish to capitalize on existing resources or programs or develop new ones. However they are formed, the USCOP recommends staffing ROIPs with a variety of traditional information and data experts (for example, scientists, agency representatives, tribal representatives, and educators). So far, there is little public discourse on the topic of ROIPs, though it is expected that existing information programs are eyeing ways in which their programs could grow to support these needs. Among countless others that could play a role or become a part of a ROIP are newly developing information programs-integrated ocean observing system regional associations. The USCOP suggested developing regional ocean information programs ("ROIPs") to fulfill many of these functions and support decision makers at all levels. ROIPs would be central clearinghouses for information and serve as focal points for information coordination, collection, and sharing with all levels of government, stakeholders, and the public. How the ROIPs form is up to each region to decide. Regions may wish to capitalize on existing resources or programs or develop new ones. However they are formed, the USCOP recommends staffing ROIPs with a variety of traditional information and data experts (for example, scientists, agency representatives, tribal representatives, and educators). So far, there is little public discourse on the topic of ROIPs, though it is expected that existing information programs are eyeing ways in which their programs could grow to support these needs. Among countless others that could play a role or become a part of a ROIP are newly developing information programs-integra
168. See Symposium, Regional Ocean Observing Systems: An Ocean US SUMMIT (2003) [hereinafter OCEAN.US Symposium] (summary available at http://www.ocean.us/documents/docs/Summit-Synthesis-Finall.doc).
169. See National Federation of Regional Associations Home Page, http://www.usnfra.org/ last visited Mar. 27, 2006). While it is anticipated that RAs will continue to generate new data and meet management and user information needs in the oceans, existing and developing coastal information systems and networks will be required to provide coastal and upland information. Additional linkages must be made with state and local entities engaged in environmental and socioeconomic monitoring or regulation in coastal and upland areas.
170. OCEAN.US Symposium, supra note 139, at 3.
171. Id. at 2.
172. Also needed is a more direct connection with ROG activities. Proposed Regional Federal Working Groups for coordinating federal agencies involved with RAs may overlap with existing or proposed regional coordinating groups tackling a broader suite of issues for ROG. In addition, ROG initiatives are potential clients or customers of RAs and could help RAs determine regional priorities as regional plans are developed and a broader suite of issues are addressed. GCOOS-RA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, app. 8, http://www.ocean.tamu.edu/GCOOS/RA/ BOD-1_minutes.pdf (last visited March 14, 2006).
173. See also OCEAN.US Symposium, supra note 139, at 3-4.
174. 33 U.S.C. § 1123(a) (2000).
175. Notice of Availability of Grant Funds, 70 Fed. Reg. 76,258 (Dec. 23, 2005).
176. See id.
177. See id.
178. As part of the authors' 2005 National Workshop on Regional Ocean Governance, Coastal Zone 2005 Conference in New Orleans, LA, a background paper was developed and representatives from each of these regions presented the major new developments in their region. See generally Craig Russell et. al., Preliminary Overview of U.S. Regional Ocean Governance Initiatives, (Univ. of Wash., Working Paper, 2005), available at http://courses.washington.edu/oceangov/czdocs/ USRegProfiles_Revl.pdf (presenting the activities of various regions).
179. See generally Project of Ocean Governance, http://depts.washington.edu/ oceangov/cz05_workshop.html (last visited Apr. 7, 2006).
180. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment-About the Council Home Page, http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/ (last visited Feb. 7, 2006). The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment is one of a handful of existing regional ocean governance initiatives in the U.S. and involves coordination with three U.S. states and two Canadian provinces in what is historically one of the world's most productive fishing grounds. Primary drivers of coordination are long-term sustainable management of coastal and marine resources, habitat restoration and conservation, information management, monitoring, and research to support a diverse group of users.
181. See. id.
182. There are five major efforts underway to encourage regional collaboration in the Great Lakes regional: Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, International Joint Commission, Great Lakes Commission, Council of Great Lakes Governors, and Great Lakes Fishery Commission. These efforts range from improving water quality to promoting economic growth, and they are embodied within organizations that have been established by treaty, executive order, and negotiation. The network of governance structures in this region complicates management efforts as two nations, various states and provinces, tribes, and numerous municipal and local governments share oversight of the areas resources (for more detailed profiles of each of these see Russell et al., supra note 148). There are five major efforts underway to encourage regional collaboration in the Great Lakes regional: Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, International Joint Commission, Great Lakes Commission, Council of Great Lakes Governors, and Great Lakes Fishery Commission. These efforts range from improving water quality to promoting economic growth, and they are embodied within organizations that have been established by treaty, executive order, and negotiation. The network of governance structures in this region complicates management efforts as two nations, various states and provinces, tribes, and numerous municipal and local governments share oversight of the areas resources (for more detailed profiles of each of these
183. The Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership ("SARP") covers the southeast United States. Thirteen states participate: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Agency partners are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the Gulf and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The partnership seeks to address issues in inland waters and watersheds, as well as coastal resources. Members "envision a southeastern United States with healthy and diverse aquatic ecosystems that support sustainable public use." Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership, SARP White Paper Nov. 2004, http://www.sarpaquatic.org/SARPWhitepaper1104.pdf. SARP is a true regional effort, intending to "develop State and Federal partnerships that will extend beyond traditional boundaries of fishery resource management agencies and will establish a commitment to truly work together for the benefit of the resource."
184. The Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership ("SARP") covers the southeast United States. Thirteen states participate: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Agency partners are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the Gulf and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The partnership seeks to address issues in inland waters and watersheds, as well as coastal resources.
185. U.S. OCEAN ACTION PLAN, supra note 119, at 11.
186. See supra notes 137-138 and accompanying text.
187. The Alliance is a regional partnership among the five Gulf States (Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas) and includes participation by the EPA's Gulf of Mexico Program, NOAA, and the Gulf of Mexico States Accord. See Gulf of Mexico Alliance, http:// www.dep.state.fl.us/gulf/default.htm (last visited Mar. 27, 2006).
188. The Alliance is still in its formative stage, having emerged from Florida Governor Jeb Bush's office in the spring of 2004. Workshop on Regional Governance, Workshop Proceedings 4-5 (July 20, 2005), http:// courses.washington.edu/oceangov/czdocs/ROGWSProceedings.pdf. As such, the Alliance is still in the process of exploring partnership opportunities.
189. See id. Mexico is being considered as a potential international partner.
190. See id.
191. See Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Policy, http://www.spc.int/piocean/ forum/New/forum.htm (last visited Mar. 27, 2006).
192. Press Release, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Resolution 29-3 Resolution Concerning Oceans (Aug. 29, 2005), http://www.releasesgov.nl.ca/releases/2005/exec/resolutions/english/PDF/ oceans.pdf.
193. See generally COMPASS 2005 Workshop, Implementing Marine Ecosystem-Based Management: Integrating Perspectives from Science and Management (Dec. 12-13, 2005) (on file with author and available at http:compassonline.org/?q=meetings_and_events/#ime). Three other activities are: a University of Washington Regional Ocean Governance Project, a Nature Conservancy Marine Initiative on Ecoregional Planning, and regional ocean observing systems (NANOOS & PACOOS).
194. There are other regional collaboration or coordinating entities in the Pacific Northwest. Most of these are focused on single issues such as oil spill response, see Oil Spill Task Force, http://www.oilspilltaskforce.org/ (last visited March 15, 2006);
195. fisheries management, see Pacific Fishery Management Council,
196. salmon recovery, see Shared Salmon Strategy, http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/about.htm (last visited Mar. 15, 2006);
197. water quality, see Puget Sound Action Team, http://www.psat.wa.gov/ Who_we_are/Actionteam.htm (last visited Mar. 15, 2006);
198. and sediment management, see Lower Columbia Solutions Group, http://www.orsolutions.org/northwest/lcsg.htm (last visited Mar. 15, 2006).
199. The regional ocean governance activities in the Mid-Atlantic Region include the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Delaware River Basin Commission, and the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Ocean Observing Regional Association ("MACOORA"). In addition to the three regional activities mentioned above, two National Estuarine Research Reserves and the Coastal Zone Management offices from Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia have begun regional meetings to discuss mutually beneficial projects to protect estuaries along the Delmarva Peninsula. Supra note 150.
200. The regional ocean governance activities in the Southeast Atlantic are focused thus far on the region's ocean observing system, the South East Atlantic Coastal Ocean Observing System ("SEACOOS"), and its regional association, the South East Coastal Ocean Observations Regional Association ("SECOORA"). These activities provide ocean observation data and information to the Southeast region for weather prediction, satellite imagery,environmental modeling, and ocean data management. Overall, regional coordination beyond that of information resources is limited if not nonexistent. See Russell et al., supra note 150.
201. See Kirk Moore, The Crisis is Now-Sweeping Changes Called for in Coastal, Ocean Protection, ASBURY PARK PRESS, Oct. 7, 2005, available http://www.monmouth.edu/news/news§ory.asp?NewsID=3321&strBack=/ default.asp (discussing the Urban Coast Institute's symposium).
202. For a more complete picture of regional activities, see Russell et al., supra note 148.
203. Modified slightly from the JOINT OCEAN COMM'N INITIATIVE, REGIONAL OCEAN ACTIVITIES SUMMARY (Jan. 18, 2006)
204. WASH. STATE OCEAN POLICY WORK GROUP, INTERIM REPORT: ACTION FOR WASHINGTON'S OCEAN: INITIAL STEPS TO ENHANCE MANAGEMENT OF WASHINGTON STATE'S OCEAN AND OUT COASTS (Dec. 31, 2005), available at http://courses.washington.edu/oceangov/OPWG_Docs/ WashingtonOPWGReport.pdf.
205. Hawaii Governor Lingle recently announced an effort to make the Council permanent. Press Release, Haw. Dep't of Land and Natural Res., Hawaii Ocean and Coastal Council Recommended for Formalization in State Statue (Feb. 2, 2006), http://www.hawaii.gov/dlnr/chair/pio/HtmINR/06-N017.htm.
206. M. Hershman & J. Hansen, The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy: An Historical Overview (1997-2005), 20 OCEAN YEARBOOK (forthcoming Spring 2006).
207. See generally Workshop on Regional Ocean Governance, Workshop Proceedings (July 20, 2005), http://courses.washington.edu/oceangov/ czdocs/ROGWSProceedings.pdf (providing a summary of the workshop).
208. The COMPASS meeting came to a similar conclusion. See infra note 171-173 and accompanying text.
209. See supra notes 126-131 and accompanying text. This approach is a strong step toward incorporating EBM thinking into ocean management. In the ROG context, there are other regional issues or needs that could be added, such as preventing oil spills, promoting marine transportation and port development, or sustainable economic activitics such as nonliving resource extraction, tourism, and new offshore energy (for example, wind farms and wave power), and many other non-NOAA issues (for example, national security). Since NOAA lacks the regulatory authority over many of those activities, it is necessary to integrate those interests and jurisdictions in any new ROG approach.
210. See supra notes 132-139 and accompanying text.
211. Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Agency Internal Ecosystem Research & Sci. Task Team, Framework for an External Review of NOAA's Ecosystem Research and Science Enterprise, available at http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Doc/ Ext_Rev_of_NOAAs_Ecosystem_Research_and_Science_Enteiprise_Framework.pdf (last visited Mar. 1, 2006).
212. COMPASS 2005 Workshop, supra note 157.
213. Amanda Leland, Ocean Stewardship Through Effective Regional Governance (July 20, 2005) (presentation on file with University of Washington), available at http://courses.washinpton.edu/oceangov/czdocs/presentations/ 13_OPP_Leland.pdf.
214. See COMPASS 2005 Workshop, supra note 157.
215. Letter from Governor Theodore Kulongoski to Senator Ron Wyden (Dec. 13, 2005), available at http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/pdf/letters/ 121305r̄ine.pdf.
216. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, The California Current Marine Conservation Initiative: Conservation Science and Implementation Framework, http://www.prbo.org/cms/index.php?med=231 (last visited Mar. 27, 2006).
217. See supra notes 135-136 and accompanying text. The North Pacific FMC is using the Aleutian Islands FEP as input into the Aleutian Islands Ecosystem Plan. See N. Pac. Fishery Mgmt. Council, Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Aleutian Islands (Revised Discussion Paper, Feb. 1, 2006).
218. Examples include the work of NOAA's Coastal Services Center which provides training, tools, and communication to coastal managers, the COMPASS group, Coastal Zone conferences, The Coastal Society and Conferences, and the major environmental nongovernmental organizations tracking U.S. ocean policy, and others.
219. Alliance for Regional Stewardship, http://www.regionalstewardship.org/ (last visited Mar. 17, 2006).