Coastal Zone Management and Ocean Governance

Issue 1

What are the necessary and appropriate roles of states in a national ocean governance regime? To what extent are the federal CZMA and approved state coastal management programs (CMPs) vehicles for carrying out those roles?

Background

States have clear authority and responsibilities for 3-nm territorial sea governance under the Submerged Lands Act
States with approved CMPs have federal consistency authority beyond the TS for certain federal activities, based on state coastal policy
All states and territories bordering marine waters have federally-approved CMPs in place
State CMPs have been relatively successful in affecting horizontal governmental integration at the state level, and through use of federal consistency authority, in affecting vertical governmental integration with respect to coastal activities within state coastal zones
There are many "coastal zone issues" of state concern that express themselves across the land-water interface-fisheries management, nonpoint source pollution control, erosion hazard mitigation, oil and gas development, marine recreation and tourism, and cables, to name a few of the most important (Table 1)
States (and by extension local governments) have major roles in addressing these issues within state coastal zones, including the nearshore ocean, although there is often separate, overlapping or delegated federal authority and oversight.
Given the above points, it is clear that any national ocean governance regime must be a full partnership with states-how to best affect that partnership is the issue.

Suggestions For Discussion

Amend the CZMA to provide for explicit state roles in whatever national/regional ocean governance regime the Commission decides is feasible and advisable.
Consider funding state participation in national/regional ocean governance through enhanced state-federal revenue sharing or tax on ocean resources exploitation.
Examine the successes and failures of the federal consistency process for lessons that can be applied to intergovernmental integration requirements of a national ocean governance regime.

Issue 2

It is becoming increasingly clear that climatic variability on interannual, interdecadal, and longer time scales is an important driver for many of the critical coastal and ocean issues for the 21^st century, yet our present coastal and ocean governance regimes are mostly insensitive to these climate changes.

Background

Interannual and interdecadal climate variability impacts are beginning to be described and refined by the scientific community and climate impact groups, e.g., here at UW, yet management regimes are not sufficiently adaptive to incorporate this new information into policy and decision making.
Long term, directional climate change and its likely impacts, e.g., accelerated sea level rise, still has not significantly influenced coastal policy, particularly along ocean shorelines, where one recent Heinz Center study projected losses of 1500 homes annually due to erosion of U.S. coastlines, resulting in $530 million annually in property loss, of which FEMA will reimburse approximately $80 million.

Suggestion For Discussion

Incorporate climate variability and change and their projected regional impacts into the discussion of ocean governance regimes, perhaps in the contexts of sustainable development/resource use and adaptive management.

UW School of Marine Affairs
3707 Brooklyn Ave. NE
Seattle, WA 98105-6715
uwsma@u.washington.edu