Abstract
The federal marine sanctuaries program was established in 1972 by Title III1 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), which primarily established the regulatory program for ocean dumping administered by EPA.2 Title III (“the Marine Sanctuaries Act”) was not originally present in the earlier forms of the MPRSA that were pending in the House of Representatves, although several marine sanctuary bills had been before both houses on various occasions, and it was never before a Senate Committee, having been added only in conference.3 Even in the House, committee hearings were never held on Title III.4 In both houses, objections were raised to the proposed legislation on the floor, on the grounds that it created statutory authority that overlapped that of the Department of the Interior under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and that it would lead to administrative conflicts on the administration of OCS areas for oil and gas development.5 Objections were also raised concerning international questions raised by the bill, since it applied to marine areas, outside the territorial sea, overlying the OCS of the United States;6 management authority over most of the living marine resources of such areas was not actually asserted by the United States until 1976, with passage of the FCMA. In response to the latter objections, a clause was added to the bill stipulating that its provisions would be applied to foreign nationals only in accordance with recognized principles of international law.7 Title III was opposed by the Nixon administration on both these grounds.8
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
16 U.S.C. 1431-1434.
33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.
A comprehensive legislative history of the Marine Sanctuaries Act may be found in Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, “Marine and Estuarine Sanctuaries”, Rpt. No. 70. (1973), at 10.
Title III was originally contained in H.R. 9727 as reported out of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. No hearings were held by the Committee on the bill. Nor was the bill referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, which had jurisdiction over matters affecting the OCS, administered by the Department of the Interior. See Cong. Rec. (daily ed.) (Sept. 8, 1971), at 30864; id. (Sept. 9, 1971), at 31134 (remarks of Mr. Aspinall, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs). Inclusion of Title III in the MPRSA had the effect of providing jurisdiction over some aspects of the regulation of OCS oil and gas exploitation to the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, which exercises oversight responsibilities over actions of the Department of Commerce related to marine resources management.
See Cong. Rec. (daily ed.) (Sept. 8, 1971), at 30863 et seq., (remarks of Rep. Aspinall), 30865 et seq. (remarks of Rep. McClure); (Nov. 24, 1971), at 43058 et seq. (remarks of Sen. Allott), 43059 et seq. (remarks of Sen. Stevens).
See generally Cong. Rec. (daily ed.) (Nov. 24, 1971), at 43052 et seq. (Senate debates); (Sept. 8, 1971), at 30850 et seq. (Sept. 9, 1971), at 31129 (House debates).
Sec. 302, 16 U.S.C. 1432 (g) (1976).
See Letters from the Office of Management and Budget and Department of the Interior, reprinted in Cong. Rec. (daily ed.) (Nov. 24, 1971), at 43061.
MPRSA Sec. 302(a), 16 U.S.C. 1432(a) (1976).
Pub. L. No. 96-332, 94 Stat. 1057 (1980).
Id., Sec. 2, to be codified as 16 U.S.C. 1432(b) (2) (B).
Id., Sec. 2, to be codified as 16 U.S.C. 1432 (f) (2).
Id.
MPRSA Sec. 302(f), 16 U.S.C. 1432(f) (1976).
MPRSA Sec. 303, 16 U.S.C. 1433 (1976).
See Cong. Rec. (daily ed.) (September 9, 1971) at 31152 (remarks of Rep. Boland).
Sen. Rep. No. 451, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 15 (1971).
See Cong. Rec. (daily ed.) (Sept. 9, 1971) at 31136 (remarks of Rep. Pelly).
See Cong. Rec. (daily ed.) (Nov. 24, 1971) at 40357 (remarks of Sen. Nelson).
See Cong. Rec. (daily ed.) (Sept. 8, 1971) at 30857 (remarks of Rep. Dingell).
See Cong. Rec. (daily ed.) (Sept. 9, 1971) at 31134 (remarks of Rep. Lennon).
See 39 Fed. Reg. 10255 (March 19, 1974).
44 Fed. Reg. 44831 (July 31, 1979), replacing 39 Fed. Reg. 23254 (June 27, 1974), to be codified as 15 C.F.R. 922.
Id., 922.20, 922.21(d).
Id., 922.21.
Id., 922.23.
See, e. g., U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Ocean Dumping: Oversight Hearings before the Sub-comm. on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment and the Sub-comm. on Oceanography of the House Comm. on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess., Ser. No. 93-38 (1974), at 280.
41 Fed. Reg. 2378 (1976)(interim regulations, still in force), codified as 15 C.F.R. 929 (1980).
40 Fed. Reg. 21706 (1975)(final regulations), codified as 15 C.F.R. 924 (1980).
see 7 Envt’1 L. Rep. ELI 50057, 50063 (May 23, 1977).
44 Fed. Reg. 62552 (October 31, 1979).
Id., at 62553.
See Chap. II.A, text at nn. 58-89, ante.
See Chap. II. C, text at nn. 137-163, ante.
See generally Chap. II. A, ante.
See Chap. II.C, text at nn. 108-125 (Looe Key), 126-135 (Gray’s Reef), 166-193 (Point Reyes-Farallon Islands).
See NOAA, Status of the National Marine Sanctuary Program (Feb. 1981).
See generally Chaps II.C, III.A, ante.
See generally Chap. III.A(4), ante.
See Massachusetts v. Andrus, 594 F.2d 872, 885 (1st Cir. 1979); see generally CRS report, Chap III.B, n. 32.
Sec. 302(f), 16 U.S.C. 1532 (f) (1976).
5 U.S.C. 553 (1976 & Supp. II 1978).
CEQ Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 1506.10 (1980).
Pub. L. No. 96-332, 94 Stat. 1057 (1980).
Id., sec. 2, to be codified as 16 U.S.C. 1432 (f)(1).
44 Fed. Reg. 448 31, 44839 (July 31, 1979), to be codified as 15 C.F.R. 922.26(b).
Id.
Supra, n. 45.
Sec. 302(f), 16 U.S.C. 1532(f)(1976)
Pub. L. No. 96-332, 94 Stat. 1057 (1980), Sec. 2, to be codified as 16 U.S.C. 1532 (f) (2).
For a discussion of divergence of regulatory and management approaches see sec. (b), infra. The language of the House Committee report on the amendments is cited in the text at n. 72, infra.
Unsuccessful 1978 amendments to the Marine Sanctuaries Act, which were reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (S.2767), would have established a special relationship between the program and the regional fisheries management councils created under the FCMA: Furthermore, prior to proposing a marine sanctuary which includes waters lying within the area managed by a Regional Fishery Management Council created pursuant to section 302 of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act..., the Secretary shall consult with, and give due consideration to the views of, the chairman and members of the council involved. S. 2767, sec. 5, reported in Sen. Rep. No. 95-886 (May 15, 1978).
relationship would have been understandable in terms of the general jurisdiction of the councils over living resources, as well as in the reluctance of the councils to yield authority to the marine sanctuaries program. However, as observed in Chap. II.A and C, ante, the objectives of these two programs are not necessarily consonant; the marine sanctuaries program is intended to provide comprehensive management for sensitive or valuable areas, the fishery councils conservation of fisheries in line with fisheries development. It would appear to be inappropriate to create a special relationship between these programs, therefore.
With the exception of the last item, this list has been compiled by the American Petroleum Institute (API). API, Comments on Proposed Draft Supplemental Impact Statement on OCS Lease Sale No. 42 (July 5, 1979), at 10, 14.
NOAA, Issue Paper on Possible California Marine Sanctuary Sites (undated), at 6.
Id.; see also Letter from Robert W. Knecht, Associate Administrator, NOAA, to Hon. John Breaux, Chairman, Subcomm. on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, House of Representatives, July 3, 1979.
Letter from Robert W. Knecht, Assistant Administrator, NOAA, to Robert Kallman, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, County of Santa Barbara, California, October 13, 1978.
44 Fed. Reg. 62553 (October 31, 1979) (withdrawal of Georges Bank as an active candidate).
Industry groups have tended to take the position that while they would support designation of marine sanctuaries if it were “necessary”, such necessity has not been demonstrated in nearly all cases. See, e. g., National Ocean Industries Ass’n, “Where Land and Water Meet” (July 1979), at 18; Western Oil and Gas Association (“WOGA”), Comments on the DEIS for the Flower Gardens Proposed Marine Sanctuary (May 3, 1979), at 5.
See, e. g., Montgomery, supra Chap. III.B, n. 23.
Jurisdictional conflicts among federal agencies with regard to marine issues have been a factor in several reorganization proposals, including the proposal of the President’s Reorganization Project (PRP), during the Carter administration. The PRP’s proposal would have integrated NOAA with Interior and certain other agencies with marine responsibilities in a marine administration within a new Department of National Resources; the new department would have been largely comprised of Interior Department programs. See National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (“NACOA”), Eighth Annual Report, at I-15 et seq. (June 30, 1979). NACOA, an independent advisory body linked with NOAA, has recommended creation of an oceans department, composed of NOAA and certain functions of Interior, the Coast Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers, and possibly the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. See id., at 1.
Under the original proposal for designation of the East and West Flower Garden Banks, for example, there would have been definite additional restrictions on effluent discharges from oil and gas operations within the entire sanctuary, an enlarged zone in which activities would have been prohibited, and a moratorium on oil and gas. See Chap. II. C(2), ante. Additional regulations of oil and gas activities was also adopted in the Channel Islands and Point Reyes — Farallon Islands sanctuaries. See Chap. II.A, II.B(2), ante.
See Chap. II.A, ante.
NOAA Georges Bank Issue Paper, ante, Chap. II.A, n. 61.
Id.
NOAA Georges Bank Comments, ante Chap. II.A, n. 60, at 3.
See, e. g., Joseph letter, ante Chap. II, A, n. 56.
See text at Chap. II.A, text at n. 81, ante.
Sec. 302(f), 16 U.S.C. 1432(f) (1976), amended by Pub. L. No. 96-332, 94 Stat. 1057 (1980).
Pub. L. No. 96-332, 94 Stat. 1057 (1980), to be codified in 16 U.S.C. 1432.
See text at nn. 50-51, supra.
The bill was introduced as H.R. 10661 (1978) and first reported by the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee that year. H.R. Rep. No. 95-1145, Part 2 (May 15, 1978).
H.R. Rep. No. 96-894, Part 1 (May 13, 1980), at 12. See also Sen. Rep. No. 96-148 (May 15, 1979), at 13. A similar amendment was proposed in S. 2767, reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in 1978; the Committee stated: One problem with the original title III is that in designating a sanctuary the Secretary of Commerce automatically and perhaps inadvertently may assume authority to regulate all activities within a sanctuary: all other statutes may be superseded within the designated site. While the committtee believes the Secretary should have the authority necessary to regulate activities within a marine sanctuary, [sic] it also believes the Secretary should have discretion to select which activities to propose regulating under title III and which one [sic] to propose exempting from this regulation.
Pub. L. No. 96-332, 94 Stat. 1057 (1980), Sec. 2, to be codified as 16 U.S.C. 1532 (f)(3): The Secretary shall conduct such research as is necessary and reasonable to carry out the purposes of this title.
Id., sec. 2, to be codified as 16 U.S.C. 1432 (f)(4): The Secretary and the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall conduct such enforcement activities as are necessary and reasonable to carry out the purposes of this title. The Secretary shall, whenever appropriate and in consultation with the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, utilize by agreement the personnel, services, and facilities of other Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities, or State agencies or instrumentalities, whether on a reimbursable or a nonreimbursable basis in carrying out his responsibilities under this title.”
H.R. Rep. No. 96-894, Part 1 (May 13, 1980), at 12. See also Sen. Rep. No. 96-148 (May 15, 1979), at 13.
See generally Tribe, L., C. Schelling, and Voss, J., When Values C onflict (Harvard University Press, 1976).
See, e. g., Duscik, “The Framework for Analysis”, in Duscik, ed., Power, Pollution, and Public Policy (University of Wisconsin Press, 1970).
See Chap. III. B, text at nn. 3-4, ante.
In American Petroleum Institute v. Knecht, 456 F. Supp. 889, 919 (C.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d 609 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1979), for example, the court found that the comprehensive planning provisions of the Coastal Zone Mangement Act actually contained an environmental priority. 80/ See Chap. III.B text at n. 23 ante.
See Chap. II.B, text at n. 72, ante. But see n. 52, supra (Senate Committee proposes closer coordination between the sanctuaries program office and the regional fishery management councils). The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation repeated its call for special cooperation between the formulation of marine sanctuaries and fisheries controls in the report that led to the 1980 amendments to the Marine Sanctuaries Act. The Committee stated: The committee believes that purpose and function of a marine sanctuary have been much more clearly delineated by this effort, particularly as the program relates to other Federal programs and private activities which may be compatible with sanctuary designation, as for example, commercial fishing. Sen. Rep. No. 96-148 (May 15, 1979), at 2.
NOAA regulations require that the boundaries of a proposed marine sanctuary be appropriate to the resources to be protected. 44 Fed. Reg. 44831 (July 31, 1979), to be codified as 15 C.F.R. 922.21(d).
Pub. L. No. 92-532, 86 Stat. 1052 (1972), sec. 304.
Pub. L. No. 96-332, 94 Stat. 1057 (1980), sec. 3.
See NOAA, “Status of the National Marine Sanctuary Program” (Jan 1982); see also Env’t Rptr. (BNA) (Jan. 15, 1982), at 1149.
See U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Ocean Dumping — Pt. 2, Joint Hearings Before the Sub-comm. on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment and the Sub-comm. on Oceanography of the House Comm. on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 94th Cong., 2d sess. (1976), at 202 (testimony of Robert W. Knecht, Assistant Administrator, NOAA).
See text at n. 28-29, supra.
See, e. g., Howard, “An Analysis of NOAA’s Marine Sanctuary Program”, Marine Affairs J., No. 5 (Univ. Rhode I., January, 1978) (discussing the designation of Key Largo coral reef).
See id.
A rather large contract was let to an independent consultant, the Center for Natural Areas, Inc., but the consultant’s efforts were directed toward legal and institutional studies, and later to the preparation of environmental impact statements. Personal communication.
39 Fed. Reg. 23254, 23256 (June 27, 1974). This approach is still followed in the current regulations. 44 Fed. Reg. 44831, 33837 (July 31, 1979) to be codified as 15 C.F.R. 922.
See Blumm and Blumstein, “The Marine Sanctuaries Program: A Framework for Critical Areas Management in the Sea”, 8 Envt’l L. Rep. ELI 50016, 50018 (1978); Howard, “An Analysis of NOAA’s Marine Sanctuary Program”, Marine Affairs J. (Univ. Rhode Island), No. 5, 96–100 (January 1978).
In its “List of Recommended Areas”, 44 Fed. Reg. 62552 (October 31, 1979), vast areas of the OCS were included in the listed sites. This led to renewed criticism by Congressman Breaux, the program’s archfoe, concerning the program’s lack of focus. See Letter from Rep. John B. Breaux, Chairman, House Committee in Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, to Hon. Luther B. Hodges, Jr., Acting Secretary, Department of Commerce, November 6, 1979.
See text at n. 8, supra.
See text at n. 84, supra.
See text at n. 30, supra.
See, e. g., Letter from M.E. Hoinkes, Assistant Legal Advisor, U.S. Department of State, to R.W. Knecht, Assistant Administrator, NOAA, July 19, 1979 (issue of international applicability); Letter from Assistant Secretary, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, to JoAnn Chandler, Director, Sanctuary Programs Office (NOAA), June 12, 1979 (overlap of statutory authority over oil and gas operations).
See text at n. 92, supra.
44 Fed. Reg. 44831 (July 31, 1979), to be codified as 15 C.F.R. 922, (hereinafter “NOAA Marine Sanctuary Regulations”) 922.20(c).
Id., 922.21.
Id., 922.21(d).
Id., 922.21 (a).
Id., 922.23
Id., 922.23 (a) (2).
Id., 922.23 (b).
Id., 922.23 (c).
See n. 93, supra.
NOAA Marine Sanctuary Regulations, supra n. 99, 922.21(d).
Id.
Id., 922.23 (a) (3) (ii).
44 Fed. Reg. 62553 (October 31, 1979) (withdrawal of Georges Bank as an active candidate).
Id., NOAA Marine Sanctuary Regulations, supra n. 99, 922.23(a)(3).
Id., 922.23(b)
Id., 922.23(d).
See, e. g., 44 Fed. Reg. 47132 (August 10, 1979) (announcement of public workshops and availability of issue paper for Georges Bank marine sanctuary).
NOAA Marine Sanctuary Regulations, supra n. 99, 922.24(b).
Id.
See text at nn. 53-57, supra.
It has been suggested that the withdrawal from consideration of certain sites in the past has resulted from the opposition of certain groups, especially coastal states and affected local governments. See Blumm and Blumstein, supra n. 92, at n. 143.
See generally Chap. VI.
Sec. 302(a), 16 U.S.C. 1432(a) (1976).
See text at nn. 16-21, supra.
NOAA Marine Sancturay Regulations, supra n. 99, 922.21(b).
Id., 922.23(a).
Id., 922.23(a), the deletion of recreational and aesthetic values as qualifying values in the NOAA Marine Sanctuary Regulations (1979) followed an initiative in the Senate in 1978 that would have deleted these terms, S. 2767. The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which favorably reported this bill, commented: In the view of the committee, esthetic reasons alone are not sufficient for creating a sanctuary and then prohibiting or strictly controlling activities within it. Moreover, while the committee feels there may be cases where sanctuaries should be created primarily for recreational rasons, it believes that most sanctuaries should be established for conservation or ecological purposes. Sen. Rep. No. 95-886 (May 15, 1978), at 4.
See text at nn. 53-57, supra.
An example is a sanctuary for killer whales in Puget Sound proposed by Sen. Magnuson. See Blumm and Blumstein, supra n. 60, at n. 93.
See id., at n. 143.
See generally Chap. VI.A, passim.
See Blumm and Blumstein, supra n. 60, at 50028 et seq For a discussion of the old and new versions of sec. 302(f), see text at nn. 49-51, supra.
See text at n. 50, supra.
Blumm and Blumstein, supra n. 130.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Five-Year Oil and Gas Lease Sale Schedule, 1980–1985 (1980).
43 U.S.C. 1344(e) (Supp. II. 1979).
See n. 93, supra.
See e. g., Cong. Rec. (daily ed., July 31, 1979) at H 6979 (Remarks of Rep. Breaux).
See Chasis, “Drilling Offshore: The Environmental Hazards”, Nat’l Parks & Conservation Magazine (August, 1979), 16, 20. To a certain extent a public constituency has developed in the wake of attacks on the program. Major environmental groups argue that the program, although weak, provides a necessary balance to the development of the OCS for oil and gas recovery. See, e. g., Statement of Clifton Curtis, Center for Law and Social Policy, before the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, Feb. 20, 1980. They have also formed a “marine sanctuaries alliance” to combat attacks on the program. See id.; See also Coastal Zone Management and Marine Sanctuaries Reauthorization, Hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate, April 11, 1979, Ser. No. 96-31. Special interest groups have also begun to take note of attacks on the program. See, e. g., Barada, “Save the Sanctuaries”, Skin Diver (July, 1980), 52-56. Environmental organizations have also begun to solicit public support for the program. See Kaplan, “Marine Sanctuaries Under Fire”, in Not Man Apart (publication of Friends of the Earth), (Feb. 1980), at 27.
S. 2767 (1978), reported in Sen. Rep. No. 95-886 (May 15, 1978).
Pub. L. No. 96-332, 94 Stat. 1057 (1980), to be codified as 16 U.S.C. 1431-32, 1434.
See text at n. 45, supra.
Publ. L. No. 96-332, 94 Stat 1057 (1980), sec. 2, to be codified as 16 U.S.C. 1432 (b) (2), (h).
President Carter stated: In approving this legislation, I reaffirm my commitment to environmental protection and, in particular, to the protection of the ocean and the living marine resources in those areas deserving special status as protected marine sanctuaries.
Nevertheless, I am signing S. 1140 reluctantly, as I have serious reservations about the constitutionality of its legislative veto provision. Section 2, which purports to confer authority on Congress to disapprove — by concurrent resolutions not to be presented to the President — certain designations of marine sanctuaries, violates the presentation clauses of the Constitution, Art. I, Section 7, cls. 2 and 3, and violates the separation of powers doctrine by interfering with the discretion of the executive branch in the administration of an ongoing program. Pursuant to my message to Congress dated July 21, 1978, I will treat the legislative veto provision as a “report-and-wait” provision. If Congress adopts a resolution under its authority, the resolution will be given serious consideration but, under my reading of the Constitution, will not be considered binding.
16 Comp. Pres. Doc. 1592 (August 29, 1980).
For a discussion of the capacity of the President as the chief executive officer under the U.S. Const, Art. II, to mediate among federal agencies and establish common policies, see Chap. III.B, n. 20, ante.
For a brief discussion of the multiple use doctrine as applied in marine areas, see Chap III.B, text at nn. 24-27, ante.
See Cassel, “Marine Sanctuaries, A Controversial Concept”, in Edge, ed., Coastal Zone’ 80, Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, Vol. III, at 1959, 1968. See also Statement of Gustave Fritschie, National Fisheries Institute, before the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, February 20, 1980.
See Cassell, supra n. 145.
See text at n. 17-18.
See id.
See id.
Oil industry representatives at March 12, 1981 hearings before the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee were willing to go along with continuation of the program — provided the inevitable prohibition on oil and gas drilling were removed. See Coastal Zone Management, March 16, 1981, at 5.
See generally Chap III.A, ante.
For a discussion of multiple versus dominant use approaches, see Chap III.B, n. 27, supra.
During the ninety-sixth Congress, Rep. Breaux was chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. He has recently become well known as a critic of the Draft Convention on the Law of the Sea. See, e. g., “Suddenly, Heavy Weather for Talks on Law of the Sea”, New York Times, Mar. 15, 1981, at E5, col. 1 (interviews with Elliot L. Richardson, former chief U.S. negotiator, and Rep. John B. Breaux).
See Chap II.C, text at nn. 157-158, ante.
H.R. 5018 (1970); See Cong. Rec. (daily ed.) (July 31,/1979) at H6979-6981 (accompanying statement of Rep. Breaux).
See Coastal Zone Management, Mar. 9, 1981, at 4 (bill introduced Mar. 4).
See id.
See generally Chap VI.A, passim.
Research was sponsored at the site of the U.S.S. Monitor to determine the condition and recoverability of the wreck. See NOAA, Monitor Marine Sanctuary (n. d.). A management plan was recently issued for the Key Largo Coral Reef sanctuary, after cooperative work by NOAA and the Florida Department of Natural Resources. See NOAA, Key Largo Coral Reef Marine Sanctuary, Management Plan, September, 1979. Similar cooperative efforts were undertaken with the State of Georgia even before designation of the Gray’s Reef sanctuary. See Curtis and Phillips, “Proposed Gray’s Reef Marine Sanctuary: A Case Study”, in Edge, ed., Coastal Zone’ 80, Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, Vol. III, 1969–1978. The 1980 amendments to the Marine Sanctuaries Act require the sanctuary administrator to perform essential research and enforcement functions, and authorize him to delegate certain management functions. See text at nn. 73-75, supra.
See text at n. 37, supra.
The issue of the relationship between marine sanctuaries and fisheries management is a difficult one, and there have been pressures in various directions. See, e. g., Chap II.A, n. 83, ante; text at nn. 52, 72, 81, supra.
See, e. g., Channel Island Sanctuary FEIS, ante Chap. II.A, n. 2, App. 1, at 11-12, section 935.7(1), (3).
See Memorandum from J. Milholland, Staff Attorney, NOAA, to R. Hayes, Southeast Regional Counsel, NOAA “Effect of Marine Sanctuary Designation”, October 17, 1979 (inter alia that regulations adopted pursuant to designation of a marine sanctuary would be limited to the scope specified in the “designation document” and that adoption of additional regulations applicable to commercial fishing operations would be precluded unless a new designation process were commenced).
See, e. g., NOAA Issue Paper on Possible California Marine Sanctuary Sites (undated), at 16 (Monterey Bay — Big Sur), 27 (Point Reyes — Farallon Is.), 38 (Santa Barbara Channel Is.); Georges Bank Marine Sanctuary Issue Paper (July 27, 1979), at 31.
The office of Coastal Zone Management administers the federal coastal zone management program established by 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.
See Chap II.B, text at n. 56-62, ante.
See, e. g., Joseph letter, supra Chap II, A, n. 56.
See, e. g., Letter from J. Jackson, Chairman, National CZM Steering Committee, American Petroleum Institute (API), to Manager, Bureau of Land Management, New York OCS Office, July 3, 1979 (transmitting API comments on Interior’s DSES on Lease Sale No. 42).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1982 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Finn, D.P. (1982). The Marine Sanctuaries Program. In: Managing the Ocean Resources of the United States. Lecture Notes in Coastal and Estuarine Studies, vol 2. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45537-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45537-7_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-11583-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-45537-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive