Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks for Scientific ...onsulting Team _) to support their work by preparing an evaluation of institutional frameworks for scientific input into the

Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting

Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks for Scientific Input

into Oregon State Ocean and Coastal Decision-Making

A Report Prepared for the Oregon Nearshore Research Task Force

By .ƭǳŜ 9ŀǊǘƘ /ƻƴǎǳƭǘŀƴǘǎ, LLC and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting

July 22, 2010

i | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting

DISCLAIMER: WHILE WE HAVE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO ENSURE THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED

IN THIS REPORT IS ACCURATE, COMPLETE, AND OBTAINED FROM RELIABLE SOURCES, .[¦9 9!w¢I /hb{¦[¢!b¢{Σ LLC & GABRIELA GOLDFARB CONSULTING MAKE NO GUARANTEE OF THE COMPLETENESS OR ACCURACY OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM PROJECT SOURCES, PARTICULARLY INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INDIVIDUALS FROM INTERVIEWS AND SELF-REPORTING. WE HAVE TRIED TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT TIMELINE SET BY THE NEARSHORE RESEARCH TASKFORCE.

COVER PHOTO: NOAA PHOTO LIBRARY (PHOTO CREDITS CLOCKWISE LEFT TO RIGHT) 1) MICHAEL THEBERGE 2) ELINOR DEWIRE, SENTINEL PUBLICATIONS 3) MARY HOLLINGER, NODC BIOLOGIST, NOAA 4)OREGON STATE POLICE

ii | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF

Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting

LOCATION: OREGON, COQUILLE RIVER ENTRANCE PHOTOGRAPHER: ELINOR DEWIRE, SENTINEL PUBLICATIONS.

iii | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... VIII

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1

SECTION I – METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 2

SECTION II – OREGON SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 8

SECTION III – CASE STUDIES ........................................................................................................................ 19

CASE STUDY 1: CALIFORNIA .................................................................................................................... 19 CASE STUDY 2: CHESAPEAKE BAY ............................................................................................................ 38 CASE STUDY 3: GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK (AUSTRALIA/QUEENSLAND) ....................................... 62 CASE STUDY 4: GULF OF MAINE .............................................................................................................. 89

SECTION IV – OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 102

APPENDIX A: CASE STUDY SURVEY TOOL .................................................................................................. 114

APPENDIX B: INFORMANT LIST ................................................................................................................. 118

APPENDIX C: DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF CASE STUDY SCREENING ......................................................... 120

APPENDIX D: CASE STUDY COMMITTEES AND BOARD COMPOSITION INFORMATION AND WEBPAGE LINKS ......................................................................................................................................................... 123

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. IX

TABLE 2: DEFINITION CRITERIA USED IN MECHANISM OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT FOR CASE STUDIES ......... 5

TABLE 3: DEFINITION CRITERIA USED FOR CASE STUDY OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT ...................................... 7

TABLE 4: OVERVIEW OF OREGON STATE RESOURCE AGENCIES, ROLES, AND ACTIVITIES ......................... 11

TABLE 5: OVERVIEW OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN OREGON STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES .................. 17

TABLE 6: MECHANISM OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT FOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL AND OCEAN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 34

TABLE 7: OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF CALIFORNIA COASTAL AND OCEAN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 37

TABLE 8: MECHANISM OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY COASTAL AND OCEAN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... 56

TABLE 9: OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF CHESAPEAKE BAY INSTITUTIONS COASTAL AND OCEAN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... 61

TABLE 10: MECHANISM OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT FOR THE GREAT BARRIER REEF REGION COASTAL AND OCEAN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS .................................................................................................. 82

TABLE 11: 2009 ARC STATEMENT OF OPERATING EXPENDITURE .............................................................. 87

iv | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting

TABLE 12: OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF GREAT BARRIER REEF REGION COASTAL AND OCEAN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... 88

TABLE 13: MECHANISM OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT FOR GULF OF MAINE COASTAL AND OCEAN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... 98

TABLE 14: OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF GULF OF MAINE COASTAL AND OCEAN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................................... 101

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM BUDGET DISBURSEMENT ............................................................ 47

FIGURE 2: ANNUAL REVENUE FOR GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK AUTHORITY ............................... 69

FIGURE 3: GBRMPA EXPENSES FOR 2008-2008 .......................................................................................... 86

LIST OF BOXES

BOX 1: IMPORTANT CONTEXT: THE MARINE LIFE PROTECTION ACT INITIATIVE ....................................... 22

BOX 2: COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRES AND COLLABORATIVE APPROACH ......................................... 76

BOX 3: EXCERPT FROM SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION NEEDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK 2009 ............................................................................................................. 78

v | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting

Acronym List

Acronym Organization

ACE U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

AIMS Australia Institute of Marine Science and its satellite at James Cook University (AIMS@JCU)

AMPTO Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators

AMSA Australia Maritime Safety Authority

ARC Coral Reef Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies

CBP or Bay Program Chesapeake Bay Program

CBT Chesapeake Bay Trust

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CMS Centre for Marine Studies at the University of Queensland

COPA California Ocean Protection Act

CORMA California Ocean Resources Management Act of 1990

CORSA California Ocean Resources Stewardship Act of 2000

CRC Cooperative Research Centre

CSIRO Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization

CSMP California Seafloor Mapping Project

CWRAC Coastal and Watershed Resources Advisory Committee

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality

DFG California Department of Fish and Game

DHS Department of Human Services

DLCD Department of Land Conservation and Development

DOGAMI Department of Geology and Mineral Industries

DPA Dugong Protection Areas

DSL Department of State Lands

ESIP GOMC’s Ecosystem Indicators Partnership

GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office

GBRMPA or the Authority

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

GIS geospatial information systems

GNRO Oregon Governor’s Natural Resources Office

GOM Gulf of Maine

GoMA Gulf of Maine Area Census of Marine Life

GOMC Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment

GOMMI Gulf of Maine Mapping Initiative

Gulfwatch Gulfwatch Contaminants Monitoring Program

vi | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting

IGA Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement

JCU James Cook University

LMAC Local Marine Advisory Committees

LTMP GBRMPA Long Term Monitoring Program

MDNR Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources

ME OST’s Marine Protected Area Monitoring Enterprise

MLPA Marine Life Protection Act

MTSRF Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility

NEMO Network for Education of Municipal Officials

NERACOOS Northeastern Regional Association of Coastal Ocean Observing Systems

NGO Nongovernmental Organization

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPS National Park Service

NROC Northeast Regional Ocean Council

NRTF Nearshore Research Task Force

NTRB Native Title Representative Bodies

OCRM NOAA- Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

OCZMA Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association

ODA Department of Agriculture

ODFW Department of Fish and Wildlife

OPAC Ocean Policy Advisory Council

OPC California Ocean Protection Council

OPC-SAT Ocean Protection Council- Science Advisory Team

OPRD Department of Parks and Recreation

OSMB Oregon State Marine Board

OSP Oregon State Police

OST California Ocean Science Trust

Outlook Report Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009

OWEB Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

OWET Oregon Wave Energy Trust

OWRD Water Resources Department

PIER California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research Program

QDNR Queensland Department of Natural Resources

QDoT Queensland Department of Transport

QDPI&F Queensland Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries

vii | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting

QFMA Queensland Fisheries Management Authority

QPWS Queensland Park and Wildlife Service

RAC Reef Advisory Committees

RARGOM Research Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine

RASGAP Resources Agency Sea Grant Advisory Panel

RFP Request for Proposal process

RGC Reef Guardian Councils

RHMDS Regional Habitat Monitoring Data System

RLFF Resources Legacy Fund Foundation

RRRC Reef and Rainforest Research Centre

SCCWRP Southern California Coastal Water Research Project

SCG Sea Country Guardians

SLOSEA San Luis Obispo Science and Ecosystem Alliance

SMC ARC Coral Reef’s Science Management Committee

SOER State of the Environment Report

STAC Chesapeake Bay Program’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee

STAC OPAC Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee

TAPAS Tracking Action Plan Activities System

the Association Association of US Delegates to the Gulf of Maine Council

TSPAC Territorial Sea Plan Advisory Committee

U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

UCMC University of California Marine Council

UMCES University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USDOI U.S. Department of Interior

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Society

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VIMS Virginia Institute of Marine Science

VMRC Virginia Marine Resources Commission

WCGA West Coast Governors’ Agreement on Ocean Health

viii | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting

Executive Summary

In June 2009, Oregon Legislature enacted House Bill 3106 establishing the Nearshore Research Task

Force (NRTF). Under this legislation, the NRTF must deliver to the legislature by August 2010

recommendations for new frameworks to coordinate and promote research in Oregon’s nearshore. In

April 2009, NRTF commissioned Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting (“the

Consulting Team”) to support their work by preparing an evaluation of institutional frameworks for

scientific input into the State of Oregon’s ocean and coastal decision-making.

The results of the evaluation include a Situational Analysis of existing Oregon institutions, four in-depth

case studies, and recommendations regarding best practices for funding and implementing robust

scientific support for ocean and coastal management activities. The NRTF articulated 12 attributes or

“mechanisms” that it wanted information about (e.g., prioritized and transparent funding process,

incorporation of science in decision-making and adaptive management, data management and sharing)

and six “objectives” (e.g., ability to receive funding from diverse sources, neutrality and trust, flexibility

and adaptability), which guided the Consulting Team’s examination of the case studies and distillation of

recommendations.

The four selected case studies are: California, Chesapeake Bay (focusing on the State of Maryland and

Commonwealth of Virginia), Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (focusing on both Australia and the State of

Queensland), and the Gulf of Maine (focusing on the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment).

The Consulting Team conducted the project in three phases: preliminary research and selection of case

studies, in-depth case study research via review of NRTF documents, web research, and interviews (see

Appendix A for a copy of the survey tool), and report preparation. The selected case studies reflected

both national and international examples of institutional arrangements supporting research and

facilitating incorporation of science into decision-making. Three of the four cases were selected because

their status as long-standing initiatives facilitated the Consulting Team’s ability to distill lessons learned.

The fourth case study of California institutional arrangements was included despite its relative newness

because has innovative new institutions and it is of special interest to Oregon as a neighboring state and

a West Coast institutional example.

The case studies are prefaced by an overview of Oregon’s existing ocean and coastal policy, management, and research arrangements. The Consulting Team developed the overview as baseline information for comparisons with the four case studies and to inform the recommendations for shaping a future Oregon framework for management-relevant marine science. Each of the four case studies presents a description of the local context for ocean and coastal management, principal institutional arrangements, and an assessment and ranking of the mechanisms and objectives described above. Important lessons from each context are bulleted at the close of the case study. The Consulting Team identified twenty high-level recommendations for the NRTF to consider, drawing

on the analysis of mechanisms, objectives, and findings from the four case studies. The

ix | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF


recommendations, organized by their relevance to the mechanisms and objectives, are summarized in

Table 1 below and presented with accompanying detail in Section IV, page 102.

Table 1: Summary of Report Recommendations

MECHANISM OR OBJECTIVE

RECOMMENDATION

Types of Institutional Partners

Recommendation 1: Create institutional partnerships with key coastal and ocean-related constituencies to ensure buy-in and support. This includes research and academic institutions; local, state, and federal agencies; stakeholders in the community and key industries; and nonprofits.

Legislative Mandate Recommendation 2: Have legislative mandates in place outlining clear and distinct roles and responsibilities for participants, and include representation from all entities that are key to the science-policy-and-management process.

Funding Sources and Security

Recommendation 3: Secure funds from diverse sources and when possible develop and secure fee-based revenue sources. Stakeholders at the table who want and will use information may be willing to become funding partners.

Prioritized and Transparent Funding Process

Recommendation 4: Develop a strategic plan or guiding document that outlines priorities and that ideally directs development of a consistent science plan. This will provide clear guidance on how funds will be allocated.

Recommendation 5: Develop clear communication materials and mechanisms to share information with the general public about audited financials, sources of revenue, the decision-making process, fund allocations, and progress toward goals.

Stakeholder Advice Recommendation 6: A formal mechanism or committee structure for representing all stakeholder groups to provide input and advice is essential to secure and maintain support for coastal and ocean management.

Community Engagement, Education, and Outreach

Recommendation 7: Invest in electronic and web-based communication tools and public engagement activities and embed funds for all programs to participate in such activities. This will also help ensure transparency.

Scientific Research

Recommendation 8: Establish a formal role for quality science institutions to support ocean and coastal management goals that links scientists with managers and stakeholders to inform their understanding and research priorities while ensuring that science is independent and safeguarded through peer-review.

Recommendation 9: Consider collaborative research programs that, if designed well, can be an effective and cost- efficient way to produce long-term monitoring data.

Science Advice

Recommendation 10: Develop a formal structure or body of science experts for advice that is also nimble enough to address specific issues. Clearly outline the role(s) of this body and how the advice and peer-review will be utilized. This structure will need a robust conflict of interest policy and transparency in publishing peer-review comments.

Incorporation of Science In Decision-making and Adaptive Management

Recommendation 11: Consider establishing a boundary organization or unit (such as OST, see definitions page 37) to play a key role in bridging the producers and users of knowledge and help facilitate science, the production of useful research, advice, incorporation of science into decision-making, and synthesis. Boundary institutions can ensure that science produced is relevant, timely, and useful for decision-makers and stakeholders.

Recommendation 12: Ensure the use of science in decision-making by establishing a legal mandate to use science for adaptive management.

MECHANISM OR OBJECTIVE RECOMMENDATION

x | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF


Scientific Synthesis for Policy Input

Recommendation 13: Regularly assess and redefine science priorities in collaboration with scientists and end-users (end-users include all users of data, such decision-makers at all levels and scales, and stakeholders representing all sectors).

Recommendation 14: Robust synthesis documents can be effective tools to support management decision-making. Synthesis documents show where key concerns and issues exist and should incorporate neutral and unbiased information to be relevant to decision-makers.

Data Management, Sharing, and Products and Accessible Information

Recommendation 15: Develop a centralized portal or website where all reports, documents, meeting minutes will be stored. Furthermore, develop an information management system that is highly accessible to a wide range of users

Recommendation 16: Invest in good website design to maximize the accessibility, communication, and transparency benefits of providing internet access to an organization’s information.

Ability to Receive and

Distribute Funds from

Various Sources

Recommendation 17: Develop a nonprofit status organization to distribute and receive funds with strong governance, transparent processes, and clear policies on fund distribution and conflicts of interest.

Neutrality and Trust Addressed by other recommendations, in particular Recommendation 5.

Flexibility Recommendation 18: Regularly revisiting and revising guiding strategic documents is important to confirm the validity of an organization’s focus and promote responsiveness to emerging issues.

Transparency Addressed by Recommendations 7, 8, 10, and 13-16.

Objective and Trusted Science for Decision-making

Recommendation 19: To ensure neutrality of science develop mechanisms and firewall, such as a “third party” system to ensure stakeholders and decision-makers are not directly funding science.

Administrative Costs Recommendation 20: Once the NRTF has a prospective structure identified for a new institution or institutional arrangements, it might consider a targeted search for and survey of institutions that are similar to try to identify the real world administrative costs of such an institution(s).

1 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting

Introduction

Oregon is experiencing what may be the most dynamic time in its history with respect to its nearshore

environment. Oregon citizens and policy-makers find themselves at the intersection of traditional ocean

uses such as fishing, new priorities to establish marine protected areas, emerging uses such as

renewable ocean energy, and the regional impacts of global climate change.

This new reality has spurred the development or expansion of a number of policy and program

innovations such as amendments to Oregon’s landmark Territorial Sea Plan that will guide the siting of

renewable ocean energy facilities, negotiation of a memorandum of agreement with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, implementation of a coast-wide action plan under the West Coast Governors’

Agreement on Ocean Health, designation of Oregon’s first marine reserves, and development of the Sea

Grant West Coast regional marine research and information plan. These initiatives build upon the state’s

existing robust ocean and coastal policy framework and other policies guiding decision-making, including

the implementation of land-use Goals 16-19 (Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and

Dunes, and Ocean Resources), establishment of the Ocean Policy Advisory Council, and the Oregon

Nearshore Marine Resource Management Strategy.

Oregon is also fortunate to possess outstanding marine science capabilities in its academic and public

agency research institutions. However, the State of Oregon, like many other state governments,

currently lacks the funding to develop and integrate management-relevant science in its decision-

making about ocean and coastal resources and the human activities affecting those resources.

These circumstances prompted the Oregon legislature to enact House Bill 3106 establishing the

Nearshore Research Task Force (NRTF). Policymakers recognized that new institutional arrangements

and mechanisms for collaborating across institutions, experts, and stakeholders to fund, develop, and

implement effective science-based decision-making are needed. These new processes, to gain public

support, must be transparent and fair, ensure a long-term technical capacity for good management, and

honor Oregon’s long-standing tradition of vigorous engagement by citizens in decisions and programs

affecting Oregon’s ocean resources.

The legislation directs the NRTF report to the legislature by August 2010 with recommendations for new

frameworks to coordinate and promote research in Oregon’s nearshore. The NRTF commissioned

Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting (“the Consulting Team”) to prepare this

evaluation of institutional frameworks for scientific input into Oregon’s ocean and coastal decision-

making to inform its recommendations.

This report is organized into the following four sections:

Section I – Methodology: A description of the approach and methods employed to research

this report.


Section II – Oregon Situational Analysis: A concise overview of Oregon’s current institutional

arrangements, stakeholder engagement, science integration, and funding of ocean and coastal

policy, management, and research.

Section III – Case Studies: A description of institutional arrangements, as well as an assessment

and qualitative discussion of strengths and weaknesses for each of the following case studies:

o California

o Chesapeake Bay (Maryland and Virginia initiatives)

o Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Australia/Queensland)

o Gulf of Maine (Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment)

Section IV – Observations and Recommendations:

o Across all four case studies – overarching trends, lessons, challenges, and opportunities

o Recommendations for changing Oregon’s approach to ocean and coastal policy and

management based on insights and lessons distilled from the case studies, with a

particular emphasis on the integration of science and funding.

Section I – Methodology

The Consulting Team prepared this report in three steps, as follows:

Researching the Oregon Context:

The Consulting Team prepared the Oregon Situational Analysis drawing on research completed by the

NRTF,1 NRTF meeting notes, additional web research, and by select interviews (see Appendix B for a

comprehensive list of informants interviewed for this project). Interviews were conducted using the

same survey tool developed for the case study interviews (see Appendix A for a copy of the survey tool).

The purpose of mapping Oregon’s existing situation was to facilitate comparisons with case studies and

the development of recommendations for changes to that existing framework.

Screening Potential Case Studies:

The Consulting Team conducted a rapid assessment of 15 potential case studies, completing an

assessment tool, performing web-based research, and drawing on past experience to screen for those

ocean and coastal case studies whose institutional arrangements included mechanisms for the

following:

1 NRTF documents included “The Oregon Program Assessment/Oregon Ocean Program Evaluation,” “The Characterization of

Oregon’s Nearshore Research and Monitoring Enterprise” white paper, and the “Schematic Diagram of Ocean Planning and Management” for Oregon.

3 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF


Funding;

Stakeholder advice;

Science advice;

Incorporation of science in

management decision-making;

Data management, sharing, and

products;

Education, outreach, and community

engagement;

Scientific research; and,

Scientific synthesis for policy input.

On May 24, 2010, the Consulting Team met with the NRTF Operations Committee to discuss options for

in-depth case study selection (see Appendix C for case study selection overview). The NRTF members

deferred to the Consulting Team to make the selection of final case studies. Based on this guidance, the

Consulting Team chose the four place-based case studies noted above. With one exception, the

Consulting Team selected case studies that had long-standing programs.

Collecting and Assessing Data for Case Studies:2

For each of the place-based case studies, the Consulting Team conducted in-depth interviews and web

research to document the nature of the institutional arrangements and mechanisms noted above, and

assessed the degree to which the institutional arrangements in each of the four cases met the following

six objective assessment criteria:

Ability to Receive and Distribute Funds from Various Sources;

Neutrality and Trust;

Flexibility and Adaptability;

Transparency; and,


The NRTF was also interested in the question administrative costs associated with various institutional

arrangements; information about this aspect was included when available, but was not assessed

because only limited information was available from informants and documentary sources.

The Consulting Team applied a ranking system to illustrate the relative strengths and weakness of

institutional arrangements and mechanisms in each case study. The Consulting Team then distilled the

most successful approaches and cautionary tales in developing recommendations for a potential

institutional framework in Oregon.

Write-up and Organization of Key Findings and Lessons Learned:

Section II and III of this document contain the core findings and lessons learned from our data collection

and analysis. The text below describes the format used to present the Oregon context and then

2 An in-depth explanation of case study selection may be found in Appendix C.



documents and analyzes the four case studies: California, Chesapeake Bay, Great Barrier Reef Marine

Park, and Gulf of Maine.

Each case study includes the following sections:

CASE STUDY RESEARCH RESULTS

Case study research by the Consulting Team generated the following information:

General overview: A brief description of the context for ocean and coastal management.

Description of principal institutional arrangements and relationships: A narrative description

and a visual presentation of the key institutions involved with ocean and coastal policy,

management, and science in each case study, their interrelationships, and funding flows.

Description of mechanisms: A narrative description and a visual summary of twelve mechanism

categories in each case study. The categories are:

Types of Institutional Partners

Legislative Mandate



Stakeholder Advice

Community Engagement, Education, and Outreach

Scientific Research

Science Advice

Incorporation of Science In Decision-Making and Adaptive Management


Data Management, Sharing, and Products

Accessible Information

See Table 2 below for definitions of case study assessment overview criterion.

CASE STUDY OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT

The Consulting Team’s assessment of a case includes a narrative overview and individual tables

evaluating the institutional arrangements and each of the twelve categories of mechanisms using six

objective assessment evaluation criteria discussed above on page 3. See Table 3 below for definitions of

objective assessment criterion.

IMPORTANT LESSONS FROM THE CASE

Each case study concludes with a distillation of its advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics.



Table 2: Definition Criteria Used in Mechanism Overview Assessment for Case Studies

Criteria Definition 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High Types of Institutional Partners

*Government (Local, State, Federal/National) * Inter-governmental * Academic * Industry * Private foundation * Non-governmental

0-1 institutional partners who lack diversity (e.g,. all are government based)

2-3 institutional partners who are from 1-2 sectors

3 or more institutional partners who are from 2 or more sectors

Legislative Mandate Agreement, Mandate, o governing process in place

Formal agreement, mandate, or governing process not in place

Formal agreement, mandate, or governing process present but not strong

Strong formal agreement, mandate, or governing process present


Diversity and security of revenue and long-term funding mechanism for marine management and research

Little diversity and security of revenue and long-term funding mechanism for marine management and research

Some diversity and security of revenue and long-term funding mechanism for marine management and research

Strong diversity and security of revenue and long-term funding mechanism for marine management and research


Description of process/mechanism for funding institutional activities

Mechanism for prioritizing funding absent and lacks transparency of funding decision processes

Moderate mechanism for prioritizing funding and some funding decision processes transparency

Strong mechanism for prioritizing funding and have transparent funding decision processes

Stakeholder Advice Stakeholders act in advisory role via committee or other representative method

Stakeholder advice rarely sought Stakeholder advice occasionally sought- e.g., comment periods on plans and papers

Stakeholder advice sought regularly-e.g., stakeholder team or commission that informs decision-making process

Community Engagement/ Education/Outreach

Outreach mechanisms (workshops, media campaign, etc.) in place

Few to no outreach or education activities

Some outreach or educations activities-e.g., Website information and media

Strong community engagement via regular workshops, education curricula development, media, and interactions

Scientific Research Institution and capacity (financial and human) to conduct scientific (social and natural science) research relevant for decision-making,

Little capacity to conduct scientific research (financial and human) to conduct scientific (social and natural science) research relevant for decision-making

Some capacity to conduct scientific research (financial and human) to conduct scientific (social and natural science) research relevant for decision-making

Strong capacity to conduct scientific research (financial and human) to conduct scientific (social and natural science) research relevant for decision-making

Science Advice Science advice and peer-review provided /obtained

Science advice and peer-review is rarely sought

Science advice and peer-review is occasionally sought

Science advice and peer-review is sought regularly

= Low = Medium = High


Criteria Definition 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High Incorporation of Science in Decision-making and Adaptive Management

Mechanism, requirements, and capacity for incorporating science and science-based decision-making process, including re-evaluation of data needs and means to adapt strategies and institutional arrangements in light of changing environment

No mechanism, requirements and little capacity for adaptive management

A mechanism, requirements and some capacity for adaptive management

Formal mechanism, requirements and strong capacity for adaptive management


Mechanism and capacity for scientific synthesis for decision-making (e.g., prioritization, gap analysis, synthesis of science and data for decision-making (e.g., bridging, boundary institution)

No mechanism and little capacity for scientific synthesis for decision-making (e.g., prioritization, gap analysis, synthesis of science and data for decision-making (e.g., bridging, boundary institution)

A mechanism with some capacity for scientific synthesis for decision-making (e.g., prioritization, gap analysis, synthesis of science and data for decision-making (e.g., bridging, boundary institution)

Formal mechanism with strong capacity for scientific synthesis for decision-making (e.g., prioritization, gap analysis, synthesis of science and data for decision-making (e.g., bridging, boundary institution)

Data Management/ Sharing/ Products

Mechanisms for data management, sharing, and products

No data easily accessible via web or request

Data management framework present, sharing and products moderately accessibly via web or request

Strong data management framework present, sharing and products easily accessible via web or request


Grants, Strategy, Evaluation, Process, Organizational charts, Legislation etc.

Information not accessible Some present, but limited Present and available-e.g., strategic plan is prominent on website and accessible




Table 3: Definition Criteria Used for Case Study Objective Assessment

Criteria Definition 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High

Ability to Receive and Distribute Funds from Various Sources

Mechanisms in place to acquire/ disburse funding from various sources to areas of need

Little or no ability to obtain and channel funds from the spectrum of governmental, nongovernmental, and private sources

Some ability to obtain and channel funds from the spectrum of governmental, nongovernmental, and private sources

Can easily obtain and channel funds from the spectrum of governmental, nongovernmental, and private sources

Neutrality and Trust

Mechanism in place to ensure neutral and trustworthy decision-making-such as review panel, use of published information, expert advice, and oversight

Few, if any, mechanisms in place to ensure neutral and trustworthy decision-making

Ad-hoc mechanisms in place for obtaining trustworthy information, some level of formal committee or review available

Strong diversity of mechanisms in place to ensure trustworthy and neutral decision-making. Committee/ review/oversight is strong

Flexibility Level of ability to adapt to new information and needs

No framework for adapting institutional framework to new needs

Some process of review and programmatic changes occasionally made based on assessments and benchmarks

Strong process of review and programmatic changes made based on assessments and benchmarks

Transparency Mechanisms in place to ensure that decision-making process (funding choices, science advice, management decisions) is clear to public, partners, government

Few, if any, mechanisms in place to ensure neutral and trustworthy decision-making

Ad-hoc mechanisms in place for obtaining trustworthy information. Some form of committee or review available

Strong diversity of mechanisms in place to ensure trustworthy and neutral decision-making-committee/ review/ oversight strong

Objective and trusted Science for Decision-making

Mechanism in place to ensure objective and trusted scientific advice is provided to decision-makers

Few or no mechanism to provide review/guidance/oversight of science

Some mechanisms to provide review/guidance/ oversight of science

Many mechanisms in place to provide review/guidance/oversight of science

Administrative Costs

Cost of administering programs-staffing and financial



Section II – Oregon Situational Analysis

The following presents a concise overview of Oregon’s current institutional arrangements, stakeholder

engagement, science integration, and funding of ocean and coastal policy, management, and research.

This information is offered as context and baseline for considering the case studies in section III of this

report and the observations and recommendations in section IV. The information was distilled from

NRTF documents, internet research, and interviews with select state-affiliated individuals. The section

concludes with some observations about existing elements in Oregon that provide a solid foundation for

improving the state’s institutional capacity to carry out its nearshore priorities.

General Overview of the Oregon Context:

Oregon’s coastal and ocean policy, management, and science evolved largely in response to traditional

uses of commercial and sport fishing, harbor maintenance and associated disposal of dredged materials,

municipal waste discharge, ports activities, tourism and recreation, shellfish cultivation, and farmland

conversion. During the late 1970s and 1980s, opposition to the federal government’s efforts to promote

offshore oil and gas and mineral development in the Northwest prompted the State of Oregon, in the

1990s, to establish the elements of a framework governing ocean and coastal resource use and

protection. The framework was grounded in state statutes, described in the introduction of this report

(ocean, estuarine, shoreline, beach and dune land use goals, the Ocean Plan, the Territorial Sea Plan, the

Ocean Policy Advisory Council). Subsequent policy changes are detailed below.

In terms of the socioeconomic context for managing Oregon’s coastal and ocean resources, the coast

has become increasingly dependent upon retiree income, small businesses, and public agency

employment, though resource-based extractive industries and tourism remain important components of

the economy.3 Despite these recent economic and demographic trends and concentrated urban centers,

the State of Oregon remains a state that has relatively low population pressures in its coastal regions.

Today, approximately 225,000 people reside on the Oregon Coast compared to a statewide population

of 3.8 million. The relatively small size of the population of the state in general (both coastal and

statewide) makes it possible to coordinate policy decisions both at a formal and informal level.

Principal Institutions and Arrangements:

The following highlights the principal Oregon coastal and ocean policy-setting bodies, management

institutions, advisory and stakeholder bodies, science sources, and funding flows, with their

interrelationships described throughout.

3 Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association. 2006. A Demographic and Economic Description of the Oregon Coast: 2006

Update. OCZMA. Newport, OR.



Policy Institutions

Policy is established by the state legislature, the Governor, and agency Commissions. Policy institutions

that are distinctive to Oregon’s coastal and ocean policy regime are the legislative Coastal Caucus and

the Governor’s Natural Resources Office and Marine Cabinet.

The Coastal Caucus

In addition to a number of legislative committees with formal purview over legislation affecting ocean

and coastal policy, programs, and funding, a bipartisan legislative group known as the “Coastal Caucus”

has regularly taken a leading role in crafting and shaping legislation affecting coastal and ocean issues.

Within the Oregon Legislature, the Coastal Caucus is given a large degree of deference from non-coastal

legislators regarding these issues. The Coastal Caucus consists of eight members of the Oregon Senate

(3 members) and House (5 members) with coastal areas in their districts. The Coastal Caucus meets

weekly during Oregon’s biennial legislative sessions to track and provide input into coastal issues and

bills in committees, and meets at other times as needed. The Caucus communicates with relevant state

agencies and ocean and coastal stakeholders, and has received the assistance of an Oregon State

University Sea Grant fellow to staff their activities during the legislative session.4

Governor’s Natural Resources Office and Marine Cabinet

The staff of the Oregon Governor’s Natural Resources Office (GNRO) provides policy analysis and advice

to the Governor on natural resource issues, coordinates with the state natural resource agencies to

advance their budget and legislative proposals to the legislature and facilitate cooperation on

interagency matters.5 The Office also serves as the liaison between the state and federal agencies

involved in natural resource and environmental protection issues. The GNRO convenes a Natural

Resources Cabinet comprising the heads of all natural resource related agencies on a regular basis, and

on an as-needed basis a subset of those agencies known as the Marine Cabinet (identified below), with

other agencies invited to participate on a case-by-case basis.

Agency Commissions

The agencies with the most direct responsibilities for ocean and coastal issues are governed by

Commissions whose members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the state Senate (see

list of “Management Institutions” below). The key ocean and coastal-related Commissions appoint

agency directors, establish agency policies, and adopt rules; some are regulatory and set fees. These

Commissions include:

4 The Coastal Caucus does not maintain its own website, but its functions can be inferred from the position description posted

for the Sea Grant Fellow here: http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/funding/fellowships/legislative_fellow.html. A list of the members is posted at the website of the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association here: http://www.oczma.org/pdfs/2009 Coastal Legislators.pdf. Accessed June 7,2010. 5

Information about the GNRO is available at http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/GNRO/index.shtml. Accessed June 7,2010.

http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/funding/fellowships/legislative_fellow.html

http://www.oczma.org/pdfs/2009%20Coastal%20Legislators.pdf

http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/GNRO/index.shtml


Land Conservation and Development Commission

Fish and Wildlife Commission

Environmental Quality Commission

Parks and Recreation Commission

Oregon State Marine Board.

The Department of State Lands is the exception; the State Land Board, comprised of the Governor,

Secretary of State, and State Treasurer carries out the policy and rulemaking functions for that agency.

Management Institutions

A dozen state agencies are responsible to various degrees for implementing state policies and programs

related to coastal and ocean resources.6 All of the agencies do or may participate in the GNRO Marine

Cabinet. The agencies, their primary roles, and key activities are presented in Table 4. The agencies are

listed roughly in order of their relative prominence in ocean and coastal management.

6 A State of Oregon website lists many, though not all of the permits and agencies involved in permitting projects in wetlands

and waterways provides a helpful snapshot of Oregon’s institutional arrangements for ocean and coastal management:

http://licenseinfo.oregon.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=license_wlcm&pfa=welcome_keyword&link_item_id=26428. Accessed

June 10,2010.

http://licenseinfo.oregon.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=license_wlcm&pfa=welcome_keyword&link_item_id=26428


Table 4: Overview of Oregon State Resource Agencies, Roles, and Activities

State Agency Primary Role(s) Key Activities

Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)

Coastal Ocean Management Program

Funding

Policy

Federal consistency review

Information and technical assistance

Support to local governments, other agencies, federal project and permit review, ocean and coastal policy framework

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)

Marine Resources Program Regulation

Management

Science

Fishery management, endangered species, marine reserves implementation

Department of State Lands (DSL)

Divisions of Land Management and Wetlands and Waterways

Submerged lands management

Regulation

Dredge/fill permitting, wetland protection and restoration, state submerged land management and leasing

Department of Parks and Recreation (OPRD)

Natural Resources Division, Ocean Shores Program

Land management

Regulation

State beaches, all intertidal areas, habitat management

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

Water Quality Division

Regulation

Data

Water quality

Oregon State Marine Board (OSMB) Regulation

Outreach

Boat licensing, closures for species protection, invasive species, clean marinas

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI)

Data Coastal erosion, tsunami information

Department of Agriculture (ODA)

Agricultural Commodity Commissions, Natural Resources Division, Food Safety Division

Economic development

Regulation

Crab, salmon, albacore, and trawl commissions, seafood safety testing

Department of Human Services (DHS)

Environmental Public Health Office

Data Beach water quality and harmful algae blooms monitoring and public outreach

Oregon State Police (OSP) Enforcement Enforcement for ODFW, OSMB

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB)

Funding

Information and technical assistance

May fund watershed councils addressing estuarine issues, sea level rise implications for restoring habitat

Water Resources Department (OWRD) Regulation Wave energy permitting

Advisory Bodies

The Governor, legislature, and state coastal and ocean agencies are informed by advisory bodies that

include both formal councils established in law and informal advisory groups convened by agencies. The

groups may be any combination of temporary or standing, and broadly or narrowly focused.

Significant examples of legislatively mandated coastal and ocean advisory bodies include the following:



Ocean Policy Advisory Committee: A standing committee established by state statute in

1991 to provide coordinated policy advice on an ongoing basis to the Governor, state

agencies, and others. Voting members appointed by the Governor represent ocean users

(fishing, marine transportation), local and tribal governments, conservation interests, and

the public; nonvoting members include the GNRO, state agencies, Oregon Sea Grant, a

federal liaison, and the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association (OCZMA). In recent

years Ocean Policy Advisory Council has responded to requests for recommendations

relating to marine reserves, wave energy, and the Territorial Sea Plan. A number of these

directives were contained in a 2008 Executive Order issued by Governor Kulongoski

(Executive Order 08-07).7

Seafood Commodity Commissions (albacore, crab, salmon, and trawl): Standing committees

operating under the umbrella of ODA with industry members appointed by the ODA

director, funded by a percentage of catch revenues, engaged in tracking and commenting on

legislation and regulations affecting their industry in addition to their central marketing

mission.8

Oregon Invasive Species Council: A standing committee of state agency, academic, and

nongovernmental members established to develop and implement an action plan to stop

the introduction and spread of invasive species.9

Marine Reserves Community Teams: Temporary committees the Oregon Legislature charged

ODFW to establish and support as part of state legislation to establish marine reserves in

state waters; the legislation was grounded in recommendations developed by OPAC in

November 2008.10

Nearshore Resources Task Force: A temporary committee charged with making

recommendations to the legislature for a long-term funding and coordination strategy to

7 More information about OPAC is available at http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OPAC/. For the Governor’s Executive Order see:

Kulongoski, Theodore R. 2008. Executive Order 08-07: Directing State Agencies to Protect Coastal Communities in Siting Marine Reserves and Wave Energy Projects. The order can be downloaded at

http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/docs/executive_orders/eo0807.pdf. Accessed June 10,2010. 8 This ODA website links to the websites of the four Seafood Commodity Commissions:

http://oregon.gov/ODA/ADMD/cc_list01.shtml - top. Accessed June 10,2010. 9 The OISC website is at http://www.oregon.gov/OISC/. Accessed June 7,2010.

10 The ODFW’s implementation of the marine reserves initiative is described at

http://www.oregonocean.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=9&Itemid=2. Accessed June 10,2010.

http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OPAC/

http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/docs/executive_orders/eo0807.pdf

http://oregon.gov/ODA/ADMD/cc_list01.shtml#top

http://www.oregon.gov/OISC/

http://www.oregonocean.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=9&Itemid=2



meet the state’s nearshore priorities.11

Examples of ongoing and recent ad hoc committees established by agency commissions include the

following:

Territorial Sea Plan Advisory Committee: Linked to OPAC through overlapping membership,

but with additional representation from different levels of government, industry, and

additional representatives of the conservation community, DLCD established this committee

in response to Governor Kulongoski’s 2008 Executive Order (referenced above). Starting

from recommendations developed by the OPAC’S Territorial Sea Plan Working Group, the

Committee worked in 2009 to develop Territorial Sea Plan amendments adopted late that

year by the Land Conservation and Development Commission to determine appropriate

sites for offshore renewable energy facilities.12

ODFW Ad Hoc Advisory Committees: ODFW staff on an ongoing basis convenes groups of

knowledgeable individuals to provide input through the following ad hoc advisory

committees: Sport Fish Committee, Commercial Dungeness Crab Committee, Pre-Council

Committee (preparation for Pacific Fishery Management Council Meetings – see section on

federal bodies). Meetings of these committees are not closed, but they are not publicly

noticed.

Nearshore Advisory Committee: Established by ODFW to advise on the implementation of

ODFW’s 2005 Oregon Nearshore Strategy, but inactive since 2007 due to lack of funding to

implement the strategy.

State legislation and agency directives to establish advisory bodies regularly identify types of

organizations (e.g., conservation, recreational fishing) to include, often also specifying for inclusion “a

coast-wide organization representing a majority of small ports and local governments” understood to be

synonymous with the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association (OCZMA).13

A relatively new entity playing an influential role in the emerging ocean issue of wave energy

11

Information about the NRTF is available at

http://www.oregonocean.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=29&Itemid=21. Accessed May

28, 2010. 12

OPAC's Territorial Sea Plan Working Group met Feb 2008 to May 2009 and issued a draft with recommendations in June 2009. These recommendations can be found at: http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OPAC/workinggroups.shtml#Territorial_Sea_Plan_Working_Group. Accessed June 15, 2010. In addition, further information on the Territorial Sea Plan Advisory Committee can be found at: http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/tspac.shtml. Accessed June 10, 2010. 13

This language is included, for example, in ORS § 196.438 establishing the Ocean Policy Advisory Council (see https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/196.438). House Bill 3106 establishing the NRTF explicitly identified OCZMA for membership. Accessed June 10, 2010.

http://www.oregonocean.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=29&Itemid=21

http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OPAC/workinggroups.shtml#Territorial_Sea_Plan_Working_Group

http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/tspac.shtml

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/196.438


development is the public-private Oregon Wave Energy Trust (OWET).14 Established in 2007 as an

initiative of the state’s Oregon Innovation Council (Oregon Inc), with members representing the fishing

industry, the conservation community, local government member, the wave energy industry, utilities,

and state government, OWET engages stakeholders and funds research to promote wave energy project

development in state waters. The Oregon Legislature allocated $4.2 million to OWET in 2007 and $3

million in 2009.15 OWET funding supported local ocean resource planning groups and a project to map

fishing grounds that is expected to inform decision-making about wave energy siting under the amended

Territorial Sea Plan.

Stakeholder Engagement

Many of the advisory bodies described above are intended to provide a mechanism for stakeholder

interests to be considered in policy-making and management. There are many more outreach and

education efforts, both formal and informal, carried out by the agencies listed in the “Management

Institutions” section above. Stakeholders and the public participate in the decision-making processes of

the commissions governing most management agencies; such meetings are publicly noticed, with public

comment received and documented. However, there is a strong agency tradition of vetting agency

budget and program proposals and keeping the public informed about significant issues by convening

ad hoc public meetings up and down the coast. For example, prior to presenting a proposed budget to

the Fish and Wildlife Commission for approval and forwarding to the Governor’s office and on to the

legislature, ODFW has a series of public meetings it advertises through press releases, radio and

newspaper ads, and via mailings to its licensee databases.

Other public entities engaging stakeholders and the public on ocean and coastal issues include Oregon

Sea Grant (discussed elsewhere) and the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association (OCZMA), a

nonprofit entity that is an inter-governmental organization of local coastal governments.16

Science Institutions

The principal Oregon science entities supporting coastal and ocean management include the following:

State agency scientists. Among state agencies, ODFW has a particularly robust complement

of fisheries scientific expertise, as does DEQ with respect to water quality science. ODSL

generally relies on scientific input from other agencies in reviewing its permitting decisions,

except that it has strong internal wetland science capabilities. OPRD has staff scientists to

14

Information about OWET available at its website http://www.oregonwave.org/. Accessed July 15, 2010. 15

Oregon State Legislature, Legislative Fiscal Office. 2009. LFO Analysis of 2009-11 Legislatively Adopted Budget – Economic and Community Development. p. 206. Available at http://www.leg.state.or.us/comm/lfo/2009_11_budget/ECONOMIC.pdf Accessed July 15, 2010. 16

Authorized under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 190; see http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/190.html. Accessed June 15, 2010.

http://www.oregonwave.org/

http://www.leg.state.or.us/comm/lfo/2009_11_budget/ECONOMIC.pdf

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/190.html



carry out its stewardship responsibilities in parks and intertidal areas. DOGAMI is another

agency that has internal science resources related to sea floor mapping and tsunami, sea

level rise, and other coastal hazard issues.

OPAC Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC). The legislature originally

mandated the establishment of STAC to support the science and technical information

needs of OPAC by acting as a broker to identify and engage the assistance of experts when

requested by OPAC. The legislature again named STAC as the provider of science support to

ODFW in its implementation of legislation creating marine reserves. STAC members are

Oregon academics and experts in oceanography, fisheries, ecology, marine biology, law, and

economics, from Oregon Sea Grant, Oregon State University, and the University of Oregon.17

Oregon Sea Grant. Oregon Sea Grant sponsors marine related socioeconomic research and

applied natural science research through its competitive grants program, and has a mandate

to disseminate research results through its Marine Extension and other education and

outreach programs.18

Academic scientists. A substantial concentration of Oregon’s academic marine science is

found at Oregon State University, encompassing a half dozen affiliated organizations which

run the spectrum from basic to applied science and targeting different types of

collaboration (e.g., user groups, West Coast marine academics, state-federal cooperation).19

Other important marine science academic centers in Oregon include the University of

Oregon (in particular its Oregon Institute of Marine Biology20 and coastal law library), and

Portland State University’s coastal modeling and invasive species teams.21

Federal program scientists. See the chart below under “Federal Institutions” for a summary

of science-related federal agency interactions with Oregon’s ocean and coastal institutions.

Consultation among the scientists of these different organizations occurs regularly, but typically

informally or on an ad hoc basis in response to a specific need or policy initiative. In general, agency

scientists operate on relatively short timelines compared to their academic colleagues, with a focus on

17

The STAC’s OPAC-related role is described here: http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OPAC/workinggroups.shtml - Scientific_and_Technical_Advisory_Committee. Accessed June 15, 2010. 18

Oregon Sea Grant’s programs are described here: http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/index.html. Accessed June 15, 2010. 19

A good overview of Oregon State University’s marine science components is described here: http://www.coas.oregonstate.edu/marineportal/index.html. Accessed June 15, 2010. 20

The Oregon Institute of Marine Biology’s website is http://www.uoregon.edu/~oimb/. Accessed June 15, 2010. 21

Portland State University websites related to these programs are http://www.cee.pdx.edu/research/environmental_waterresources.php (coastal modeling) and http://www.clr.pdx.edu/ (invasive species). Accessed June 15, 2010.

http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OPAC/workinggroups.shtml#Scientific_and_Technical_Advisory_Committee

http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OPAC/workinggroups.shtml#Scientific_and_Technical_Advisory_Committee

http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/index.html

http://www.coas.oregonstate.edu/marineportal/index.html

http://www.uoregon.edu/~oimb/

http://www.cee.pdx.edu/research/environmental_waterresources.php

http://www.clr.pdx.edu/


immediate management concerns. There is no ongoing process or entity to periodically assess and

reconcile these differences in time scales, specificity, and degree of management relevance, identify

common research priorities, and determine opportunities to pool and more effectively use resources. In

general, state agencies develop research priorities internally and without a formal process of external or

public consultation.

Funding Flows

A preliminary assessment conducted for the NRTF indicates that in 2009 the majority of funding for

ocean and coastal research and monitoring in the state, perhaps on the order of three-quarters of the

total, came from the federal government, either directly to state and academic scientists or in some

cases traveling through intermediary state entities for redistribution to other state agencies and

academic institutions. Of the quarter of funds remaining, state funding accounted for a bit less than 15

percent with the remainder coming from private and other sources. 22 Informants contacted in the

preparation of this report described funding for coastal and ocean management activities carried out by

DLCD as coming almost entirely from federal Coastal Zone Management Act Funds (with DLCD passing

funding through to several other state agencies, including ODFW’s Marine Resources Program), while

ODFW’s Marine Resources Program activities are funded in the main (65 percent in 2009) by user fees

and taxes (e.g., commercial fish landing tax, recreational license fees), with a significant proportion

coming from federal restoration and monitoring funds (28 percent in 2009) and a small amount from the

state general fund (7 percent in 2009). (Note that these “management funds” may in some cases

overlap with the funding for research and monitoring activities examined by the NRTF.) Most of ODFW’s

funding is earmarked for use in the sector generating the revenue. This situation offers the advantage

of ensuring a source of revenue for specific types of management activities, but also limits the agency’s

ability to shift resources in response to changing or emerging priorities. Time did not allow for

verification of funding flows for the remaining state coastal and ocean agencies for this report. We can

report that OPRD receives Oregon Lottery funding, though clarifying whether those funds support ocean

and coastal management and science will require further research; doing such research at least for that

agency and DSL, which also has substantial responsibilities in these areas, would be worthwhile.

Federal Institutions

Table 5 summarizes the interactions, including funding and science support, between federal agencies

and a given Oregon state coastal and ocean institution.

22

Reiff, Heather. Forthcoming 2010. Characterization Of Oregon’s Nearshore Research And Monitoring Enterprise. A Report Prepared for the Oregon Nearshore Research Task Force. (Contact the NRTF via http://www.oregonocean.info/ to obtain a copy.)

http://www.oregonocean.info/



In addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s process for licensing hydrokinetic energy

facilities in both state and federal waters involves a majority of these agencies in project review and

recommending license conditions. For federal waters beyond Oregon’s Territorial Sea, the U.S.

Department of Interior (USDOI) has articulated an approach that prioritizes coordination with state,

local, and tribal governments and other federal agencies in regards to renewable energy leasing

programs developed pursuant to the 2005 Energy Policy Act for the Outer Continental Shelf.23

Table 5: Overview of Interactions between Oregon State and Federal Agencies

State Agency Key Federal Interactions/Partners

Governor’s Natural Resources Office

Overall liaison to federal agencies in regards to all natural resources and environmental issues.

DLCD Coastal-Ocean Management Program

NOAA National Ocean Service – Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (policy and funding) and Coastal Services Center (technical assistance)

Minerals Management Service (future federal consistency for offshore projects)

Other federal agencies undertaking or permitting activities that affect Oregon’s coastal zone.

ODFW Marine Resources Program

Pacific Fishery Management Council (fisheries management plans, science)

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (regulatory and science)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (endangered species, refuges management)

DSL U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (dredge/fill regulation)

U.S. EPA (wetland restoration funding)

DEQ U.S. EPA (dredged material disposal siting, water quality)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (dredge/fill regulation)

OPRD U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (endangered species, refuges management)

DOGAMI NOAA (funding, technical support)

U.S. Geological Survey (funding, technical support)

OSMB U.S. Coast Guard (navigation)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (marina dredging)

U.S. EPA (clean marinas)

DHS Environmental Health Division

U.S. EPA (beach water quality)

Important Lessons from the Oregon Situational Analysis:

Existing advantageous aspects of Oregon’s institutional arrangements for carrying out its nearshore

priorities include:

Robust Policy and Institutional Framework: Oregon has in place strong laws, policies, and

23

USDOI’s offshore Renewable Energy Program and priorities are described at http://www.mms.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/index.htm. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 can be found at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/content-detail.html. Accessed June 15, 2010.

http://www.mms.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/index.htm

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/content-detail.html



agencies and a network of skilled professionals to carry out traditional coastal and ocean

management activities. It is one of few states in the US that has a Territorial Sea Plan.

Strong Science Expertise: Oregon agencies, federal marine agencies located in Oregon,

Oregon Sea Grant, Oregon State University, the University of Oregon’s Oregon Institute of

Marine Biology, and other institutions in the state are populated with accomplished social

and natural scientists and marine educators.

Culture of Cooperation: Oregon managers and scientists regularly cooperate through formal

and especially informal channels to support coastal and ocean science and decision-making;

the small size of this community facilitates this collaborative culture.

Culture of Stakeholder Engagement and Advice: From cooperative research between ODFW

and commercial and recreational fishermen, to holding public forums about significant

issues absent legal obligations to do so, to the convening of community teams for marine

reserve siting, the need for stakeholder participation in developing and implementing

policies and programs is a fundamental premise in Oregon.

New Political and Policy Dynamic Created by Emerging Ocean Uses: The economic and

renewable energy promise of wave energy development proposals, together with a

similarly-timed initiative to establish marine reserves in Oregon waters, have created the

conditions for the next new era of policy development for Oregon’s offshore.

New Community-based mechanisms Emerging: Oregon’s tradition of stakeholder

participation together with emerging ocean uses have resulted the formation of a number

of community-based groups such as the local-government appointed fishermen’s groups

and the ODFW-established marine reserve community teams. These diverse (and evolving)

local ocean resource planning committees provide a promising model to formalize and

extend mechanisms for stakeholder involvement in decision-making and to maximize local

participation in marine research.

The case studies in section III of this report are intended to help the NRTF build on this foundation in the

areas identified in the NRTF’s authorizing legislation House Bill 3106, and in NRTF’s charge to the

Consulting Team. The case studies will describe, analyze, and distill recommendations about

mechanisms Oregon may wish to adopt in regards to their ability to satisfy a range of objectives

identified as important to protecting and utilizing the state’s coastal and ocean resources to advance

Oregon’s nearshore priorities.



Section III – Case Studies

CASE STUDY 1: CALIFORNIA

General Overview:

The State of California has established two statewide marine institutions within the past decade to

coordinate policy and science between the existing state coastal and ocean resource agencies, science,

and general public. These are the California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) and the California Ocean

Science Trust (OST). Although recent in design and implementation, California presents an innovative

system, supported by strong legislative mandates, making this case a relevant example for Oregon to

draw upon.

The California Ocean Protection Council was established in 2004 by the California Ocean Protection Act

(COPA) “to coordinate governance and stewardship of the State’s Ocean, to identify priorities, bridge

existing gaps, and ensure effective and scientifically sound approaches to protecting and conserving the

important ocean resources.”24 Chapter 3 of COPA clearly outlines the structure of the institutional

arrangement, mandated objectives and activities, and requirements for ensuring transparency. The

overall mission of the OPC is to “ensure that California maintains healthy, resilient, and productive

ocean and coastal ecosystems for the benefit of current and future generations.”25 To achieve this

mission, the OPC facilitates collaboration among several state agencies to improve ocean and coastal

management. The OPC is also responsible for developing policies that increase collection and sharing of

ocean and coastal resource data. COPA also mandates OPC to make recommendations to the Governor

and state Legislature about changes to state and federal law that would improve management.

A Vision for Our Ocean and Coast: The Ocean Protection Council Five-Year Strategic Plan outlines priority

goals, objectives, and deliverables for OPC between 2006-2011. Under this Plan the OPC is to

coordinate and “build bridges” around six high-level themes:

governance;

research and monitoring;

ocean and coastal water quality;

physical processes and habitat structure;

ocean and coastal ecosystems; and

24

State of California. California Ocean Protection Act. Division 26.5 of the California Public Resources Code. Revision January 1, 2009. 25

The California Ocean Protection Council. A Vision for Our Ocean and Coast: Five Year Strategic Plan. 2006.



education and outreach.26

The OST was established as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) public benefit corporation by the California Ocean

Resources Stewardship Act of 2000 (CORSA). OST’s purpose is to “encourage coordinated, multi-agency,

multi-institution approaches to translating and applying ocean science to management and policy.”27

Although OST is an independent nonprofit organization, it is mandated to provide science services for

State of California agencies and the OPC. The OST works closely with state agencies and OPC to identify

science needs and coordinate expert science advice, and serve as a bridge between science and

management. OST seeks to “facilitate two-way connections between the world of science and that of

policy and management by establishing and supporting multi-partner information systems and

exchanges that yield tangible improvements in coastal and ocean management—The OST will serve as a

bridge among science, management, and policy organizations through activities such as its support of

the OPC and coordination of science and research among the OPC, state agencies, federal agencies,

academic institutions, and non-governmental organizations”.28 The OST Executive Director has been

officially designated as the science advisor to the OPC and is also responsible for coordinating and co-

chairing the Ocean Protection Council Science Advisory Team (OPC-SAT). Non-governmental

organizations (NGOs), local, regional, state, and federal government agency staff, private sector, and

researchers collaborate with both the OPC and OST.

Principal Institutions and Relationships in California:

Ocean Protection Council

The Ocean Protection Council is housed within the state government and more specifically within

California’s Ocean Resource Management Program of the California Resource Agency. The OPC consists

of:

Secretary of the Resources Agency;

Secretary for Environmental Protection;

Chair of the State Lands Commission;

one member of the state Senate and one member from the state Assembly as nonvoting, ex

officio members; and

two members of the public appointed by the governor.29

The OPC’s composition is one of its key strengths. Council members represent the highest level of

leadership within California’s coastal and ocean resource agencies and have the ability to deliver high-

level information directly to decision-makers. The OPC and staff have proven effective at accessing and

26

Ibid. 27

California Science Trust. Annual Report 2008-2009. 28

Ibid. 29

State of California. California Ocean Protection Act. Division 26.5 of the California Public Resources Code. Revision January 1, 2009.


leveraging public and private funds to finance ocean management within California. The OPC is

structured and mandated as a non-regulatory body which allows it to play the role of a non-threatening,

coordinating body among California coastal and ocean resource agencies, the state legislature, the

Governor’s office, and the general public.

The OPC and its individual members represent and interact with each of the state agencies responsible

for aspects of coastal and ocean management, ensuring transmission of data and information to inform

policy and decision-makers. The public members of the Council serve four-year terms and are

appointed based on their educational and professional experience in coastal and ocean ecosystems.

The OPC Chair is a voting member elected by fellow voting council members at the beginning of each

calendar year. The state Senate and state Assembly each appoint representatives as nonvoting, ex

officio members on the OPC. The OPC also has a steering committee comprised of government

department leadership who provide input to the OPC and OPC staff, although in practice this committee

has been relatively inactive.

The OPC has an Executive Director (who also carries the title of Assistant Secretary for Coastal Matters)

supporting the policy work of the organization and an OPC Secretary, designated as the Executive

Officer of a separate state agency, the California State Coastal Conservancy. The OPC Secretary carries

out fiscal and administrative functions for the OPC such as administering grants and expenditures

authorized by the council and arranging meetings and agendas.30 The state Legislature provides

appropriations to cover OPC operating costs through the California Ocean Protection Trust Fund (see

“Funding” for more information).

Ocean Science Trust

The OST and its staff are governed by a Board of Trustees charged with providing policy level oversight

and governance to the OST. The current board composition represents multiple stakeholders including:

California Natural Resources Agency;

California Environmental Protection Agency;

California Department of Finance;

University of California/California State Universities;

Ocean Protection Council;

ocean and coastal interest groups; and

general public.

As stated previously, the OST is responsible for coordinating the OPC-SAT. See “Science Advice” below

for greater detail on SAT.

30

Ibid.



Box 1: Important Context: the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative

In 1999 the California legislature enacted the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) directing the California

Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to evaluate the state’s existing marine protected areas (MPAs) and

propose a network of new MPAs along the coast to protect and conserve marine life and habitat.

Several issues delayed implementation of the law until 2004, when the state and a coalition of

foundations launched a public-private partnership, the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (MLPA

Initiative) to fund and implement the law. MPAs have been established in two of five regions, with

planning and regulatory development underway in two more regions, and the final region, San Francisco

Bay, to be addressed starting in late 2010. The MLPA Initiative has been a major focus of California’s

ocean and coastal institutions in recent years, and is referenced regularly in the analysis below.

Description and Analysis of Mechanisms of California:

This section provides key findings and best-practices identified from the Consulting Team’s research of

the California case study.

Types of Institutional Partners:

OPC coordinates extensively with numerous state, federal, academic, NGO, and funding partners.

Through the individual OPC members and their affiliations, the body interacts with the California Natural

Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the California State Lands

Commission. OPC closely partners with other state agencies including the California State Coastal

Conservancy and the Department of Fish and Game. See above for more information on the roles these

organizations play in partnership with OPC.

The OPC has established close relationships with federal resource agencies. In Appendix A of the OPC’s

Five-Year Strategic Plan the organization lays out a detailed list of actions, including proposed roles for

OPC and its potential partners. This document demonstrates the importance of partnership to OPC as it

works towards its goals. OPC has partnered with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) and United States Geological Society (USGS) since 2007 to conduct the California Seafloor

Mapping Project (CSMP). OPC has partnered with multiple federal agencies including Army Corp of

Engineers (ACE), United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), United States Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFW), NOAA, and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as part of the San

Francisco Bay Joint Venture. In addition, Federal agency staff from USGS currently sits on the OPC SAT.

The OPC built regional partnerships through its work with the West Coast Governors’ Agreement on

Ocean Health (WCGA). OPC staff has participated on the WCGA Action Teams and will play a leadership

role in the implementation of pilot projects related to the actions laid out in the Agreement.



The OPC works closely with science institutions to solicit science advice for decision-making. University

of California, California State Universities, Stanford University, and Monterey Bay Research Institute are

some institutes who have partnered with the OPC in this manner. OPC has also reached out to other

research institutions for issue specific support. For example, the Center for Ocean Solutions has

collaborated with the OPC to host workshops focusing on marine spatial planning.

Turning to the OST, its institutional relationships include OPC, California Sea Grant, government agencies

such as the California Department of Fish and Game and NOAA Coastal Service Center, and many

research and academic institutions such as the Center for Ocean Solutions (COS), Southern California

Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP). The OST reached out to scientists from several academic and

science institutions to recruit members for the OPC-SAT. In addition, it has funding relationships with

multiple sectors including industry and private foundations, discussed in more detail below.

Legislative Mandate:

Several legislative mandates guide the institutional arrangements described in this section.

California Ocean Resources Management Act of 1990 (CORMA): Established the California

Ocean resources Management Program. Housed within the California Resources Agency,

the program’s goal is to “ensure comprehensive and coordinated management,

conservation, and enhancement of the state’s ocean resources.”31

California Ocean Resources Stewardship Act of 2000 (CORSA): This bill authorizes the

Secretary of the Resource Agency to enter into an agreement with a nonprofit organization,

a 501(c)(3) (later to be called the OST) to seek and provide funding for ocean resource

science projects and to encourage coordinated, multiagency, multi-institution approaches to

ocean resource science.32

California Ocean Protection Act (COPA): Signed into law in 2004. This law lays out priorities

and activities for California’s ocean protection policy and established both the Ocean

Protection Council and the Ocean Protection Trust Fund.33

Resources Agency Sea Grant Advisory Panel (RASGAP): Under the provisions of Section 6230

of the Public Resources Code, RASGAP is charged with the responsibility to: 1) identify state

needs which might be met through Sea Grant research projects, including but not limited to

such fields as living marine and estuarine resources, aquaculture, ocean engineering, marine

minerals, public recreation, coastal physical processes, coastal and ocean resources planning

31

California Ocean Resources Management Act. 1990. Section 36000-36003. California Public Resources Code. 32

California Ocean Resources Stewardship Act. 2000. AB 2387. California Public Resources Code. 33

California Ocean Protection Act. 2004. Division 26.5 of the California Public Resources Code.


and management, and ocean data acquisition and dissemination; 2) establish priorities

concerning research needs; 3) periodically review progress of continuing research projects;

and 4) submit research needs and priorities to the Legislature each year.

Funding Sources and Security:

California’s multiple institutions and varied arrangements are able to receive funds from multiple

sources and sectors to support coastal and ocean resource management and science. The OPC primarily

receives funds from state sources while OST, a nonprofit, can receive funds from both public and private

sources. This multi-sectoral approach to funding ensures more funding stability for the institutions as

funding streams shift year to year.

The Ocean Protection Trust Fund, created under COPA, is the OPC’s primary funding source. Multiple

state revenue streams are deposited into the Ocean Protection Trust Fund to finance the OPC. Revenue

from voter-approved state bonds for natural resource protection is the main source of funding for the

OPC, however, informants did discuss limitations on how these funds could be used as well as

California’s economic crisis and limited bond sales since early 2009 that caused severe budget cuts.

The OPC also receives funding from a federal coastal impact assistance fund (established to mitigate

impacts to states from outer continental shelf oil and gas production), some funding from state tideland

oil-lease revenues, and a small amount from conservation license plate funds. A proposed increase in

the state vehicle license fees that, if passed, would create a State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust

Fund. This fund would allocate 15 percent of its revenue to ocean resource and protection agencies.

The OPC has also been successful in leveraging funding from private and federal sources. In addition to

covering its administrative costs, the OPC uses funding to award competitive grants and contract for

services to advance its mandated priorities, including a contract to OST to finance ongoing science

services to the state.

Funding for the OPC has been unstable during the financial crisis. For example, bond funds for OPC

projects was reduced. Furthermore, many departments and programs funded by the state general

funds have been cut. The OPC has had to prioritize and cut projects to adjust to the crisis. There has

been a reduction in granting and contracting to outside organizations. On the other hand, funding in

California for programs earmarked from funds outside the general funds or through fees has fared

better through the recession. For example, the State and Regional Water Boards have had minimal cuts

because of their fee and permit system.

As a 501(c) (3), the OST is able to receive funds from both public and private sources and has developed

relationships with industry and non-governmental funders that complement its state contract. The OST

Executive Director is responsible for developing and maintaining these relationships. OST has

established funding relationships with the following entities:



Chevron Corporation;

David and Lucile Packard Foundation;

Ocean Conservancy;

Resources Legacy Fund Foundation;

Sportsfishing Conservancy;

United Anglers; and

U.S. Mineral Management Services.

Like many nonprofits, funding can be unstable for the OST. As of June, 2010 funding for the OST has not

been secured past 2012. However, a combination of state, federal, and private funds have enabled both

OST and OPC to maintain core operations despite California’s ongoing budget crisis which has forced

cuts to their budgets and projects.

The Resources Legacy Fund Foundation (RLFF) bears special mention as a significant donor to the efforts

of OST and has funded efforts complementary to the goals and objectives of the OPC. RLFF is a 501(c)

(3) that administers funds from multiple donor sources, including the Campbell Foundation, David and

Lucile Packard Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and Marisla Foundation and has joined

into a public-private partnership to implement the MLPA Initiative (see Box 1 above). This is an

innovative public-private partnership to address the financial needs of long-term implementation of the

MLPA, a state law that required a network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in state waters be

established. To date, the state has not identified long-term funding for MLPA implementation including

science for monitoring. The ballot measure, mentioned above, is set to go to before voters in November

2010, if passed would increase vehicle license fees to support the management, enforcement, and

science for the network of MPAs. Currently RLFF and OPC are co-funding the OST’s Marine Protected

Area Monitoring Enterprise (ME) program.

While the preceding information focuses on funding sources and security of OPC and OST, these

institutions and several others are in turn sources of funding for marine science and management in

California. The text that follows highlights these organizations in their funding capacity, and a number

of other public and private entities that are significant players in the California ocean and coastal science

context:

California Ocean Science Trust: While the OST does not conduct original research it may

contract research, as a regrantor of funds, for specific purposes related to decision-making.

For example, the OST’s ME program contracts with researchers to conduct original research

for the baseline characterization of marine protected areas established in a given region.

California Ocean Protection Council: The Council funds approximately $1 million of research

and monitoring activities annually to support management of the state’s ocean and coastal


resources such as seafloor mapping, ocean observing, and a monitoring program for the

statewide MPA network. OPC also established a grant program in partnership with Sea

Grant (see below).

Marine Life Protection Act Initiative: Through joint Resource Agency and Resource Legacy

Fund Foundation funding a number of studies have been conducted to specifically inform

the MLPA stakeholder process.

California Sea Grant: Sea Grant coordinates the proposal and peer-review process and

administers the funding of a number of research grant processes including the OPC, and

makes its funding decisions under the guidance of the Resources Agency Sea Grant Advisory

Panel (RASGAP).34

California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program: Some of this

funding supports climate change research, related to coastal and ocean ecosystems.

Water Quality State and Regional Boards: Organizations like Southern California Coastal

Water Research Project (SCCWRP ) along with the San Francisco Estuary Institute provide

science support and are funded by regional and State Water Boards, polluters, and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.

Prioritized and Transparent Funding Process:

The OPC developed granting guidelines and priorities, in alignment with COPA, to ensure a clear and

transparent funding process. These guidelines and priorities are posted on the OPC website. Grant

proposals are submitted to the OPC, reviewed by OPC staff, then voted on during OPC meetings. All

OPC staff recommendations are posted online and voting occurs during public meetings, ensuring

maximum transparency. The OPC also solicits competitive Requests for Proposals (RFP). Although

information on all funding and projects is available through public records regulations, there is currently

no inventory of funded projects available online.

In addition to guiding Sea Grant funding decisions, the Resources Agency Sea Grant Advisory Panel

(RASGAP), discussed earlier and below, is a transparent process for disbursement of OPC funding for

science to Sea Grant. RASGAP works with multiple state agencies, Boards, and Commissions to identify

research needs for the state.

OST has, thus far, allocated funds through a competitive Request for Proposal process. RFPs have been

issued for synthesis projects such as invasive species vector risk assessment and the oil and gas

34

RASGAP is described at http://www.resources.ca.gov/ocean/rasgap.html. Accessed June 20, 2010.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/index.html

http://www.resources.ca.gov/ocean/rasgap.html



decommissioning study.

Stakeholder Advice:

Although the OPC does not currently have a formal body to incorporate stakeholder advice, two Council

Members are members of the public and all OPC meetings are open to the public and webcasted online

at multiple sites throughout the state to increase opportunities for public participation. The OPC also

provides opportunities for public comment on projects and documents. OPC is currently conducting a

third-party evaluation of the organization, and has publicized to stakeholders the opportunity to

complete an online survey, accessed via the OPC website, regarding OPC’s effectiveness. OPC has

convened ad-hoc, issue-specific committees to help implement its goals. For example, the California

Sustainable Seafood Initiative program has convened a public advisory panel to assist the OPC in the

implementation of the Sustainable Seafood Initiative Assembly Bill (AB 1217). The panel is comprised of

representatives from state and federal fishery management agencies, NGOs, the commercial fishing

industry, fish processors, fish retailers or traders, restaurateurs, public health and nutrition officials,

fishing port officials, and the scientific community. Similarly, in 2009, OPC convened a Dungeness Crab

Task Force representing fishing and processor interests to develop a set of recommendations for

fisheries management.

Community Engagement, Education, and Outreach:

As discussed above, the OPC creates opportunities for the general public to provide input during OPC

deliberations. The OPC distributes information to over 4,000 Californians via an online list-serve and

manages the “Thank You Ocean” Campaign. Thank You Ocean is a nonprofit partnership between the

State of California, NOAA, and the Ocean Communicators Alliance. The overall goal of the Campaign is

raise awareness of ocean ecosystem services among California’s general public. This is part of OPC’s

goal to promote ocean and coastal awareness and stewardship.

Scientific Research:

California has a number of institutions with good capacity to conduct natural science research for

decision-making, although their scope of activities has been constrained by the state budget crisis. The

research organizations include the following:

California Sea Grant Extension: 35 Sea Grant has 10 extension advisors serving the state to

conduct applied research and share and inform relevant decision-makers. Guiding Sea

Grant extension is the mission of improving environmental stewardship, long-term

economic development and responsible use of California’s marine resources. Priorities for

Sea Grant Extension are to: protect water quality; ensure safe and sustainable seafood;

control aquatic invasive species; recover endangered salmon; restore watersheds and

35

California Sea Grant Extension. http://www-csgc.ucsd.edu/EXTENSION/ExtensionIndx.html Accessed June 21, 2010.

http://www-csgc.ucsd.edu/EXTENSION/ExtensionIndx.html



protect marine habitats; understand socioeconomic factors affecting fishing and fishing

communities; develop ecosystem-based management; and create partnerships to address

critical needs in aquaculture, coastal community development and fisheries management,

among others.

University of California and University of California Marine Council: 36 The University of

California campuses have marine research and education capabilities that are unparalleled

in the nation. There are approximately 650 faculty and researchers conducting marine

research within the University system. The University plays an important role in the study of

California's ocean issues and problems, and the University of California Marine Council

(UCMC) was established to provide leadership and direction to the University to perform a

major role in the coordination of marine policy, research, education and public service, and

the exercise of responsible stewardship of the state's marine resources. The Council

members represent the various marine research, policy, and education programs at the

University. One of the products they have created is a searchable database of all faculty

researchers as well as descriptions of the marine research and education programs on each

UC campus. The directory can be searched by name, research area, or campus.

Other Research Institutions: There are many other institutions with individuals conducting

research in California such as California State University system’s Moss Landing Marine

Laboratory, Stanford’s Hopkins Marine Station, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute,

Naval Post-Graduate School, and the University of Southern California. In this group, there

are also a number of regional institutions conducting research for the state on a wide range

of topics. For example the SCCWRP, is a research institute focusing on the coastal

ecosystems of Southern California from the white water to the blue water. Established in

1969, SCCWRP’s goal is “to enhance the scientific understanding of linkages among human

activities, natural events, and the health of the Southern California coastal environment; to

communicate this understanding to decision-makers and other stakeholders; and to suggest

strategies for protecting the coastal environment for this and future generations.”

Scientists from many of these institutions serve in an advisory capacity to OPC and OST or implement

projects funded by the two organizations. There is currently strong natural science and engineering

capacity and limited coastal and ocean social science capacity. At the same time, there has been

investment by public and private funders to build capacity and resources for bridging and boundary

functions and institutions such as the OST.

36

University of California and University of California Marine Council. http://www.ucop.edu/research/ucmarine/. Accessed June 21, 2010.

http://www.ucop.edu/research/ucmarine/documents/ucmc_membership_062308.pdf

http://www.ucop.edu/research/ucmarine/



Science Advice:

In order to achieve the science-based decision-making goals outlined in the OPC strategic plan, the

California Ocean and Coastal Information, Research and Outreach Strategy, and legislative mandates,

the OPC established, in February 2008, the OPC Science Advisory Team (OPC-SAT) and created a part-

time OPC Science Advisor position to sit on the OPC staff management committee and also serve as the

Executive Director of the OST. The OPC-SAT is co-chaired by the OPC’s Science Advisor and Executive

Director of the OST. Members serve three years and are selected through a rigorous process

coordinated with the National Academy of Science to identify a group of unbiased experts to serve the

state who represent all relevant disciplines and regions of the state.

As discussed, there is a strong commitment by the state and OPC for increasing and improving science

advice and science-based decision-making. The state has developed a number of new institutions and

mechanisms to enable science-based decision-making. OPC grants funding to the OST for fee-for-service

work to act as the OPC’s Science Advisor, contract management and oversight of applied research and

synthesis, and to coordinate the OPC-SAT. Key activities to highlight include:

OPC Science Advisor: The OST Executive Director also acts as the OPC Science Advisor. This

enables the Science Advisor to remain neutral and unbiased because the Advisor is based in

an institution outside of a government agency. The Science Advisor provides input and

feedback specifically with a science voice to the senior OPC staff management committee on

OPC projects.

Spotlight on Science: Each OPC meeting has a designated agenda item committed to

science; the spotlight on science allows the Science Advisor to inform the Council through an

expert presentation, expert panel, or staff briefing on an issue relevant to the state for

policy and management and discuss existing or needed science.

OPC-SAT: Peer review of key reports and projects by the OPC-SAT and coordinated by the

OST is critical to improve state policy and management. For example, according to one

informant, expert input through an OST run peer review process, was helpful for the Marine

Life Management Act evaluation to improve fisheries management.

Specifically, OPC-SAT members may be called upon to:37

develop recommendations on scientific issues identified by the OPC;

respond to information requests from the OPC;

evaluate the technical merits of scientific and technical projects proposed to the OPC;

37

California Ocean Science Trust. http://www.calost.org/OPC_SAT_Accomplishments.html. Accessed June 21, 2010.

http://www.calost.org/OPC_SAT_Accomplishments.html


provide technical advice on OPC agenda items and reports;

participate in technical working groups and scientific forums to address critical management

problems;

assist in ranking and refining annual research priorities;

recommend outside experts as peer-reviewers; and,

identify critical emerging science issues that should be of concern to the OPC and the state.

Examples of projects, proposals, and reports for which the OPC-SAT has provided recommendations

include:

nominations for members of the Expert Advisory Committee for the Oil and Gas Platform

Decommissioning Study;

peer reviewers for the Marine Life Management Act Lessons Learned Study;

peer reviewers for the OPC report Developing Wave Energy in Coastal California: Potential

Socio-Economic and Environmental Effects; and,

peer reviewers for a Salmon Synthesis report.

Peer reviewers who evaluate OPC projects or reports do so anonymously; all reviewers’ comments are

synthesized into a document highlighting trended comments and themes. The synthesized comments

and originals are then shared with OPC staff. OPC staff then chooses how to share responses with the

institution who wrote the report and how to respond to the comments. For some projects, peer-review

comments are shared through the public comment process.

University of California Marine Council (UCMC) also plays a role in science advice. UCMC will provide

advice to local, regional, and State of California governments, and to governmental agencies pertaining

to California's ocean-related concerns. One of the Council's first actions, at the request of a state

legislator, was to appoint a select committee drawn from UC scientists to review the scientific

information associated with the proposal to decommission offshore oil and gas production facilities and

to prepare a comprehensive decommissioning report on the ecological impacts of platform removal in

order to inform future decision-making.

As discussed above Sea Grant Extension staff also play an advisory role.

There are many other science advisory groups established by the state agencies or processes on an as

need basis. For example, the MLPA Science Team has played a role in each region of the coast where

marine protected areas have been proposed, assisting with criteria and the evaluation of the proposed

alternative. The State Water Resources Control Board has a Clean Beaches Task Force comprised of

experts to review proposals for research and provide advice for the state and the State Water Board.

SCCWRP is a joint-powers public agency that since 1969 has conduct coastal environmental research to

http://www.calost.org/reports/OPC_Research_Priorities_for_2009.pdf

http://www.calost.org/reports/Oil_Gas_EAC_Selection_Announcement.pdf

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-500-2008-083/CEC-500-2008-083.PDF

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-500-2008-083/CEC-500-2008-083.PDF

http://www.ucop.edu/research/ucmc_decommissioning/index.html



inform its member government agencies.

Incorporation of Science into Decision-Making and Adaptive Management:

OPC and OST have influenced and are committed to the incorporation of science in management

decision-making of California’s ocean and coastal resource agencies by commissioning (OPC) and

carrying out (OST) the synthesis of management-relevant science products (discussed below under

“Scientific Synthesis for Policy Input”). OPC and OST are both new institutions and are developing new

mechanism to ensure the incorporation of science into decision-making and for adaptive management.

Furthermore, OPC is not a management agency, but rather a coordinating body that can influence and

provide recommendations for policy-makers and managers. Science can help OPC in their own internal

decision-making as well as inform and influence policy and update managers for adaptive management

application.

OPC has funded and coordinated science for decision-making and adaptive management such as

seafloor mapping of state waters for ocean management, ocean observing system to inform oil spill

response and other real-time management decisions. OST plays a direct role in incorporating science

into management decision-making with the incubation of the ME and developing the ability to deliver

monitoring data essential for performance evaluation and adaptive management of the new statewide

system of MPAs designated under the state’s Marine Life Protection Act.38

Scientific Synthesis for Policy Input:

OPC and OST both play significant roles in the synthesis of scientific information to inform policy and

management at the state level. OPC identifies information needed by the state to improve the scientific

basis of decision-making on specific topics (e.g. oil and gas platform decommissioning, fisheries

management, sea level rise) and also by setting research priorities through the following mechanisms:

California Ocean and Coastal Information, Research and Outreach Strategy (Adopted by the

OPC): 39 This report outlines five key state priority information and research needs. OPC co-

sponsored a conference with California Sea Grant College and Extension Program, UCMC,

OST, and the Resources Agency, bringing together over 60 participants representing

academia, NGOs, governments, and industry to help identify California’s high priority

information, research, and outreach needs. OPC staff captured the results in a draft

strategy, which was made available for public comment, reviewed at a public workshop,

revised, and adopted by the OPC in September 2005 as an overarching strategy for the OPC

to follow.

38

For information on OST’s MPA Monitoring Enterprise, see http://www.calost.org/monitoring_ent.html. Accessed June 21, 2010. 39

Ocean Resources Management Program California Resources Agency. 2005. California Ocean and Coastal Information, Research and Outreach Strategy. Adopted by the California Ocean Protection Council September 23, 2005. Sacramento, CA.

http://www.calost.org/monitoring_ent.html


OPC- SAT: The OPC directs the SAT annually to identify research priorities and emerging

issues for the state to consider in the science context. This list of research priorities and

emerging issues is shared with the OPC to help inform the allocation of its science funding.

OPC Oversight and Peer Review of Synthesis Reports: The OST’s role managing the

controversial Oil and Gas Platform Decommissioning Study and Analysis illustrates the

organization’s ability to ensure an unbiased, neutral product. OST developed a rigorous

transparent process with a technical review committee overseeing every stage of the

project. OPC and/or OST have commissioned other synthesis products and tools as needed.

When science and synthesis is requested by the OPC there is not always an RFP process, but

a staff recommendation is made. OST conducts the peer-review process for products such

as the Salmon Synthesis Report commissioned by OPC.

OPC Annual Research Priorities: OPC annually reviews and adopts research priorities for

funding. This process is informed by the OPC-SAT as well as RASGAP. Once OPC sets its

priorities Sea Grant issues requests for proposals to fund research consistent with the OPC’s

priorities. The research priorities for 2009 included climate change and ocean acidification,

harmful algal blooms, invasive species, water quality, and wave and tidal energy

development.

OST is becoming the entity OPC funds to provide science advice, oversee science peer-review, and

synthesis identified by the OPC. OST is about to launch its own process to identify gaps and prioritize

science needs and opportunities for science and data synthesis to inform decision-making for statewide

coastal and ocean management. The process is yet to be determined but will likely commence fall 2010.

There are many other prioritization processes underway on specific issues, such as emerging

contaminants, or climate change. Workshops are sponsored, coordinated, and held with many partners,

then a report is drafted, made available to the public for comment, and revised. This process has been

used for collaborative fisheries research, ocean observing, contaminants of emerging concern, and other

areas. Either or both OPC and OST have sponsored some these activities.

There are many other such “bridging and boundary” organizations at local and regional scales, such as

SCWRRP or the San Luis Obispo Science and Ecosystem Alliance (SLOSEA). In 2007, the Sea Grant

programs in Washington, Oregon, and California began collaborating on a first-of-its-kind effort to

assess the long-term marine research and information needs of the entire U.S. West Coast. This charts

of course for the tri-state priorities.

Data Management, Sharing, and Products:



There is currently no “one stop shop” for California and coastal and ocean data and information.

Reports commissioned or produced by the state are generally made publically available. Most agencies

have reports produced in the last few years on their websites. Peer reviewed papers are also available

through journals. Data management and sharing is more complex. There are few agencies with data

available for decision-makers, researchers, stakeholders, or the general public. The MLPA website does

have regional maps and synthesized data layers available to the public. According to one informant,

approximately $20 million dollars was spent on MLPA process-some allocated for data management and

dissemination. Fisheries data has regulatory restrictions limiting its availability to the public and,

subsequently, the Department of Fish and Game manages the access and synthesis of that data and

information. When possible, OPC also publishes spatial information and maps on Google Earth. Finally,

agency staff do not have access to web-based science journals. This according to informants is a major

hindrance for conducting their jobs on a daily basis.

Accessible Information:

In general, the OPC, OST, Resources Agency and Departments have websites that are accessible with

clear organizational charts, strategies, and legislative mandates available to the public. Grants,

evaluations, and processes are more challenging to identify.

California Mechanisms Summary Table:

The table below summarizes the information presented above for California’s mechanisms supporting

coastal and ocean science and management.



Table 6: Mechanism Overview Assessment for California Coastal and Ocean Institutional Arrangements

Criteria Assessment Key Findings & Best Practices

Legislative Mandate

Three strong mandates exist outlining the institutional arrangements and commitment to science-based

decision-making.

Funding Sources

and Security California has diverse funding.

Prioritized and

Transparent Funding

Process

OPC 5-year Strategic Plan and grant-making guidelines; OPC Science and Information Report and annual science

priorities; and, staff recommendations guide funding decisions.

Stakeholder Advice

OPC holds public meetings; OPC was legislatively mandated to facilitate DCTF, a new approach for seeking

stakeholder advice and input.

Community

Engagement,

Education, Outreach

Public meetings, list-serve, and website are all good tools for outreach.

Scientific Research

Depth and breadth of California institutions supports strong scientific research.

Science Advice

OPC-SAT comprised of 25 experts and role of Science Advisor as part of OPC management committee; OST

starting to run peer-review processes.

Incorporation of

Science into Decision-

making and Adaptive

Management

This is beginning to happen and there is a strong commitment by the OPC to institutional building. An example

is the real-time ocean observing system to inform oil spill response and other management decisions.

Scientific Synthesis for

Policy Input OPC and OST commissioning synthesis documents for decision-makers.

Data Management/

Sharing/Products Building the MPA ME. As available, information is shared.

Accessible Information Public Records Act requires sharing documents on public spending.




California Objective Assessment:

This section outlines six objective criteria and highlights the key information for the California case study.

Ability to Receive and Distribute Funds from Various Sources:

When looked at collectively, the OPC and OST have the ability to receive and distribute funds from

multiple sectors including state and federal government, NGOs, industry, and private foundations. The

OPC can access state funds from multiple sources, including bonds, license fees, and oil-lease fees. The

body has also been successful in leveraging funds for projects from federal sources through partnership

and collaboration. The OST, Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, and Sea Grant, as 501(c) (3)

organizations, are able to receive and distribute funds from various sources.

Neutrality and Trust:

OPC is a political body and in the past few years has been developing mechanisms to ensure its

reputation for neutrality through peer-review and solicitation of science advice. Review by the

independent SAT creates opportunities for neutral-party input to help drive the decision-making process

within the OPC. OPC also has an extensive network of partners, including the OST that plays the role of

a neutral and trusted science advisor. As a state affiliated body, the OPC is also subject to extensive

rules that prevent conflicts of interest.

Flexibility and Adaptability:

Overall, the institutional arrangement of the OPC allows it to be flexible and adaptable on how it

implements its programs and coordination. The body’s Strategic Plan was written to allow the OPC to

shift to address emerging issues. For example, OPC is currently addressing the emerging issues of

marine spatial planning and wave energy.

OPC’s partnership with the OST and OST’s 501(c) (3) status allow both organizations to be flexible and

nimble with respect to facilitating the development of management-relevant science, data, information,

and tools to support ocean and coastal decision-making.

Transparency:

OPC’s position within the state government requires that the organization operate in a transparent

manner. All information on projects is available via the website, listserv, or by request. Public records

laws require the OPC to provide any documents or funding information if requested by the general

public. OPC and its mandate require that all meetings are open to the public. As mentioned above, OPC

televises meetings in multiple locations around the state to increase opportunities for the public to

observe meetings. In addition, all recommendations by OPC on project proposals are made available to

the public. Overall, these actions support OPC’s transparent mandate, however some informants noted

that the public may not always be aware of its opportunity to provide input to the OPC. Informants also



acknowledged that further outreach efforts could increase public participation and the website could be

improved to make financial information and documents readily available.

Ability to Provide or Use Objective and Trusted Scientific Advice to Inform Decision-Makers:

OPC, through its partnership with the OST and the OPC-SAT, is developing strong mechanisms and

processes for integrating science advice to inform decision-makers. Strong involvement from science

experts increases communication between the science community and decision-makers. In addition,

close relationships with science institutions and resource agencies, like Sea Grant, the University of

California, the Center for Ocean Solutions, and NOAA, allows OPC to support original data collection,

provide synthesis and analysis that is then made available to policy-makers and state resource managers

to inform relevant policy and management decisions. Clear conflict of interest policies for OPC-SAT

members have been developed as scientists, as it is important to remember that scientists are a

stakeholder too.

The use and composition of the OPC-SAT is still being formulated. OPC-SAT members would like to play

a larger role in the science to policy and management space and that role is currently being developed.

In addition, informants stated that government agency scientists would also like to play more of an

advisory role for the state.

Administrative Costs:

Although there have been changes in the income and budget of the OPC, the administrative cost of

operating the body is approximately $1.4 million annually.40

The OST 2008-2009 Annual Report states that the administrative costs of running the organization were

approximately $335,000.41 OST is a boundary organization42 and a boundary organization requires time,

in-person meetings, and skilled staff that can communicate with both producers and users of

knowledge.

California Objective Assessment Summary Table:

The following table summarizes the information discussed in the Objective Assessment above.

40

Conversation with Confidential Informant. May 2010. 41

California Science Trust. Annual Report 2008-2009. 42

A boundary organization links producers and users of knowledge. They serve as a bridge between the two sides and ideally have the following characteristics: non-partisan, dual accountability, safe harbor, use-driven science, and co-production of science. Nation Research Council, Roundtable on Science and Technology for Sustainability 2006. Linking Knowledge with Action for Sustainable Development: The Role of Program Management – Summary of a Workshop. William C. Clark and Laura Holliday, rapporteurs. Washington: National Academic Press.



Table 7: Objective Assessment of California Coastal and Ocean Institutional Arrangements


Ability to Receive and Distribute Funds

from Various Sources 501(c) (3) status allows for increased flexibility.

Neutrality and Trust Peer-review process through OPC- Science Advisory

Team.

Flexibility and Adaptability

OPC is able to address emerging issues including

MSP and wave energy; OST is nimble and can

incubate new programs and projects.

Transparency

Public attendance is open at meetings. Not all

documents and information are readily available

online.

Objective and Trusted Science for

Decision-making

High participation and collaboration with Science

Advisory Team; Development of peer-review

process.

Administrative Costs

OPC- $1.4 million

OST- $335,000


Important Lessons from California:

A distillation of relevant characteristics and lessons learn follow below.

Science and Policy and Management: Delivery of new, highly relevant scientific information

into the policy arena through commissioned, targeted authoritative studies can be an

effective tool.

Boundary Organization: Developing an effective boundary institution requires skilled staff,

time, and resources to do well. There needs to be clear mandate and institutional

arrangement and commitments for the boundary organization to be truly effective.

Furthermore, there are potential challenges and costs when managing the expectations and

communications of science advisors. Finally, it is important to remember that scientists are

a stakeholder too and clear conflict of interest policies are essential to maintain neutrality.

Coordinating Body: A non-regulatory body, like OPC, allows for enhanced collaboration and

cooperation. This body can convene and facilitate the collaboration among public agencies

and key stakeholders.

Significant, Consistent, Long-term Funding: Funding for strategic projects and research has



advanced sustainable coastal and ocean policy and management. Funding amounts need to

be large enough for multiple years to implement programs and projects for the long-term.

This funding increases opportunities for effective leverage and distribution of funds.

Reliable long-term financing mechanisms from diverse sources are essential.

Transparency: Facilitating easy access to information online for the following types of items:

funding prioritization and decisions-making processes; funding sources; appointments;

budgets; process for grantee and contractor selection; and allocations supports a culture of

trust.

The Role of Strategic Planning and Evaluations: A public process can inform strategy

development. Situational analysis of key players/partners, needs, types of policy, potential

projects, outcomes and goals can aid in developing a clear strategy. External evaluations

have been an effective tool and will support an adaptive management strategy.

CASE STUDY 2: CHESAPEAKE BAY General Overview of the Chesapeake Bay:

There are dozens of institutions and partnerships that support or implement marine resource protection

and restoration within the Chesapeake Bay region.43 The level of collaboration between state and

federal jurisdictions operating within the Bay is considered a national model for regional resource

management. This case study will focus on a subset of organizations that highlight inter-governmental

and state-driven partnerships and programs and their interrelationships.

Primary among them is the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP or Bay Program), a federal-state partnership

focused on restoration of the Bay. The CBP has served as a prototype for other collective management

regimes and has hosted international delegations implementing other large-scale restoration programs

throughout the world. In order to provide a relevant context for the NRTF, we highlight how the

Commonwealth of Virginia and State of Maryland interact and participate in this program, the

institutional arrangements that facilitate these interactions, and complementary organizations and

programs established by Maryland and Virginia to further state-specific priorities.

The Chesapeake Bay Program was established as a result of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1987.

Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania; the District of Columbia; the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (representing the federal government); and the Chesapeake Bay Commission were all party to

43

A list of many governmental, non-governmental, and academic organizations can be found on the Chesapeake Bay Program website: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/partnerorganizations.aspx?menuitem=14916.

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/partnerorganizations.aspx?menuitem=14916



this initial agreement which laid out regional goals, objectives, and activities for the management of the

Chesapeake Bay.44 A primary goal of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1987 was to “support and

enhance the present comprehensive, cooperative, and coordinated approach toward management of

the Chesapeake Bay system.”45 The Chesapeake Bay Program aims to coordinate multiple players in the

region to reach this goal.

Today, a 2000 revision of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement guides the CBP’s actions. Chesapeake 2000

outlines goals and objectives around five main themes:

living resource protection and restoration;

vital habitat protection and restoration;

water quality protection and restoration;

sound land use; and

stewardship and community engagement.46

The Bay Program partners work collectively towards the overarching goal of restoring the health of the

ecosystems within the Chesapeake Bay using the goals and objectives noted above to guide that

process. There are currently over 50 partners within CBP representing interests from multiple sectors

including state government, federal government, academia, non-governmental organizations, marine

industry, and funder institutions.47 The Bay Program partners are actively involved in a multitude of

restoration activities in the region including research, management plans development, education and

outreach programs, physical restoration, and reduction of agricultural runoff. There has been progress

in addressing aspects of water quality and other impairments to the Bay, but daunting challenges

remain.48 Despite significant financial investment in the region, long-standing threats such as nutrient

pollution persist, while emerging threats from climate change are starting to be felt.

Most recently, President Obama issued an Executive Order to develop a new strategy for protecting and

restoring the Chesapeake Bay watershed.49 Federal agencies recognized and communicated to the

Obama Administration a need to shift the management strategy of the restoration and preservation of

the Chesapeake Bay and its associated watershed. In May 2009, President Obama released Executive

Order 13508 outlining a revised strategy for tackling restoration. The overarching goals of this Executive

Order are to:

44

Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1987. 1987. 45

Ibid. 46

Chesapeake Agreement of 2000. 2000. 47

See link for a full list of partners: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/partnerorganizations.aspx?menuitem=14916 Accessed June 16, 2010. 48

Chesapeake Bay Program Accomplishments. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/accomplishments.aspx?menuitem=14906 Accessed June 16, 2010. 49

Exec. Order No. 13508, 3 C.F.R. (2010). Print.

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/partnerorganizations.aspx?menuitem=14916

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/accomplishments.aspx?menuitem=14906



restore clean water;

recover habitat;

sustain fish and wildlife;

conserve land and increase public access;

expand citizen stewardship;

respond to climate change;

develop environmental markets; and

strengthen science.

These goals align closely with those of Chesapeake 2000; according to an informant, the main impetus

and effect of the executive order to date has been to clarify roles of the many federal agencies involved

in protection and restoration activities in Chesapeake Bay to increase effectiveness of those efforts and

allocate resources more efficiently. The executive order created a new Federal Leadership Committee

that, beginning in 2010, is charged with publishing an annual Chesapeake Bay Action Plan describing

how federal funding proposed in the President's budget will be used to protect and restore the

Chesapeake Bay during the upcoming fiscal year and, in consultation with the states and other

stakeholders, to issue an Annual Progress Report reviewing indicators of environmental conditions in

the Chesapeake Bay, assessing implementation of the Action Plan during the preceding fiscal year, and

recommending steps to improve progress in restoring and protecting the Chesapeake Bay. Because

these changes are new and not fully implemented, this case study will evaluate the Chesapeake Bay

institutional arrangements as governed by the Chesapeake 2000 agreement.

The alignment of the Commonwealth of Virginia and State of Maryland with the goals and objectives of

the CBP derives from their status as signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreements, which confers

considerable decision-making authority. One example of how management priorities overlap between

the Bay Program and Virginia and Maryland is found in the approach to managing fisheries in the Bay.

The fisheries Goal Implementation Team—comprised of representatives from state and federal fisheries

management agencies, NGOs, and regional fisheries commissions—develops single species Fisheries

Management Plans that describe ecosystem-based management directives across state lines. For

example, the 2004 Chesapeake Bay Oyster Management Plan provides a “general framework and

specific guidance” for managing and improving the Bay’s native oyster populations’ recovery.50 The plan

outlines a “strategic, coordinated, multi-partner management effort” designed to include state and

federal agencies, academia, NGOs, and the oyster industry. Using the direction and goals identified

within the management plan, Maryland and Virginia have independently developed restoration plans in

alignment with this management plan.

50

The Chesapeake Bay Program. Chesapeake Bay Oyster Management Plan. 2004.



In addition to the significant overlap and coordination that exists between Maryland and Virginia via the

CBP there is an array of state-affiliated institutions, some multi-stakeholder, some specific to individual

states, that complement and reinforce the work of the CBP while being responsive to constituencies and

needs of Maryland or Virginia. These include:

Multi-state legislative commission: The Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state legislative

assembly representing Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The majority (15 members)

are legislators, with the remaining six split between Governors’ representatives and public

representatives.

Innovative fundraising mechanisms: The Chesapeake Bay Trust(CBT) financed by Maryland

and other sources funding community-based projects in three states since 1985, the

Chesapeake & Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust Fund established by Maryland in 2007 targeting

recently-prioritized projects in Maryland, and the Virginia legislature’s Chesapeake Bay

Restoration Fund investing in environmental education and restoration in the state since

1992.

State-chartered marine science institute: The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), a

state-created institution mandated to perform science to inform decision-making.

These mechanisms are described in more detail in the following sub-section.

Principal Institutions and Relationships in Chesapeake Bay: The Chesapeake Bay Program

The Chesapeake Bay Program and its activities are managed by the Chesapeake Executive Council, made

up of the Governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the administrator of the U.S. EPA; the

Mayor of the District of Columbia; and the chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission (described below).

The Executive Council is responsible for setting policy directives for restoration and protection of the

Bay and living marine resources and ensuring accountability to the public for progress towards the

Chesapeake 2000 Plan. The Principals’ Staff Committee serves as a policy advisor to the Executive

Council and facilitates communication between the Council, the Management Board, and three advisory

committees (see below).

The Management Board is made up of senior managers from each of the main partner agencies and the

chairs from each of its related Subcommittees. The Management Board is responsible for executing the

policy decisions laid down by the Executive Council and implementing activities to achieve the goals and

objectives of the Chesapeake 2000. As part of this function, the Board develops and coordinates six

Subcommittees and sets an annual work plan and budget. Each Subcommittee, known as the Goal

Implementation Teams, work towards one of the six goals of the Chesapeake 2000:



protecting and restoring fisheries;

protecting and restoring aquatic habitats;

protecting and restoring water quality;

maintaining healthy watersheds;

fostering community stewardship; and

enhancing partnership, leadership, and management.

The Goal Implementation Teams are made up of topical experts from state and federal government,

academia, NGOs, foundations, and marine-related industry.

The Council, Management Board, Staff Committee, and Goal Implementation Teams interact, either

directly or via other bodies, with three advisory committees—the Citizens Advisory Committee, Local

Government Advisory Committee, and the Science and Technical Advisory Committee. The chairs of

each Advisory Committee sit on the Management Board to increase opportunities for input.

At the federal level, over 40 departments and agencies are coordinating on Chesapeake Bay efforts

through the CBP. Some of the agencies and departments most heavily engaged include the following:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers;

U.S. Geological Survey;

National Park Service;

U.S. Forest Service;

U.S. Coast Guard; and

U.S. Department of Education.

Maryland and Virginia are both actively involved with the leadership and implementation of the

Chesapeake Bay Program. Both states’ Governors sit on the Executive Council and participate, at times

through the Principals’ Staff Committee, in developing policies and signing agreements and

amendments. Maryland state agencies engaged with the CBP include:

Department of Natural Resources;

Department of Agriculture;

Department of the Environment;

Department of Education;

Maryland Cooperative Extension Services;



Maryland Environmental Services;

Maryland Geological Services; and

Department of Planning.

Commonwealth of Virginia agencies participating in the CBP include:

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services;

Department of Conservation and Recreation;

Department of Education;

Department of Environmental Quality;

Department of Forestry;

Department of Fame and Inland Fisheries;

Secretary of Natural Resources;

Virginia Cooperative Extension Service;

Virginia Marine Resources Commission; and

Virginia Naturally.

The Chesapeake Bay Commission

The Chesapeake Bay Commission is a tri-state legislative assembly representing Maryland, Virginia, and

Pennsylvania created in 1980. The Commission is made up of twenty-one members representing the

three states. Five legislators from each state currently sit on the Commission, as well as cabinet

secretaries representing the three states’ natural resource agencies and one citizen representative from

each state. The Commission coordinates policy across state lines with respect to the Chesapeake Bay

Program. The Commission acts as an advisory panel focusing on how to move forward the regional

goals of the CBP and the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Informants report that Commission members are

in a position to communicate the needs and priorities of the Chesapeake Bay restoration to fellow

legislators and promote alignment between state policies and the Chesapeake Bay Program. The

Chesapeake Bay Commission’s Cost Report: The Cost of a Clean Bay has been instrumental at putting a

“price tag” on the restoration of the Bay. The Commission also works to leverage federal funding for

Chesapeake Bay restoration projects. Chairmanship of the Commission rotates between the three

states, and each state contributes a staff member to administer the Commission.

Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust Fund

The State of Maryland’s Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust Fund was legislatively mandated in

2007 to “provide funding for various purposes aimed primarily at restoring and preserving and the

Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays… and meeting the related commitments and goals of the



Chesapeake 2000 Agreement.”51 As a recent program (2007), the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays

Trust Fund is still developing and finalizing its institutional arrangements. Currently, the Trust Fund sits

within Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) with oversight from the Office of the

Governor. The Trust Fund was established help finance actions to address priorities highlighted by

Maryland’s BayStat program, an innovative priority setting and accountability mechanism.52 The BayStat

program uses geospatial tools to identify priority restoration sites for Trust Fund monies to be directed.

The Trust Fund prioritizes spending on nonpoint source pollution control projects aligned with the 2011

Milestones to Reduce Nitrogen and Phosphorus study conducted by the Chesapeake Bay Program.

The Trust Fund is financed through an excise tax on motor vehicles and gasoline. The legislative

mandate establishing the Trust Fund specifies that all funds must go to projects conducted by state,

county, and bi-county agencies.53 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the administrator of the

Trust Fund, uses an RFP approach to target funding to projects within the geographic and topical priority

areas identified by BayStat.

Chesapeake Bay Trust

The Chesapeake Bay Trust (CBT) was formed in Maryland in 1985 as an independent 501(c) (3). The

Trust was intended as a mechanism for increasing funding flexibility compared to the state’s traditional

procurement processes. The CBT is primarily funded by income from Maryland’s specialty license plate

program and through a voluntary giving option listed on state income tax forms. Private sources, such

as foundations and industry, may also contribute money to the CBT.

The Trust is governed by an Executive Director and a 19-member Board of Trustees representing state

agencies, foundations, science, and business. The Board is responsible for setting policies relating to

grant-making, finances, investment, management, and governance. Although the organization is not a

unit of state government, the Maryland Governor appoints fourteen members of the Board. CBT’s

board also includes the following ex-officio members: two representatives from the State General

Assembly, one representative from MDNR, one representative from the Maryland Department of

Environment, and one representative from the Maryland Department of Agriculture.

The Bay Trust awards approximately $ 4 million annually to NGOs and schools within ten grant areas

including capacity building, outreach and community awareness, and fisheries. The independent nature

of this organization allows funding of projects across the entire Chesapeake Bay region. Over 400

projects have been funded in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.

51

Department of Legislative Services. §HB 23. Chesapeake Bay 2010 Trust Fund Summary. November 10, 2007. 52

The Chesapeake and Atlantic Bays Trust Fund. http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/ccp/funding/trust_fund.asp Accessed June 18, 2010. 53

Department of Legislative Services. §HB 23. Chesapeake Bay 2010 Trust Fund Summary. November 10, 2007.

http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/ccp/funding/trust_fund.asp


The Virginia Institute of Marine Science

The Virginia Institute of Marine Science, a legislatively created body, is housed under the graduate

School of Marine Science at the College of William and Mary. Code of Virginia. § 28.2-1100 mandates

VIMS staff and students to conduct science to help inform decision-making at the state level. The

Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) is the primary recipient of VIMS scientific data and is the

contact between the Institute and other government agencies. Natural resource agencies, such as the

Department of Conservation and Recreation or Department of Environmental Quality, can request

information to inform decisions via the VMRC. On the other hand, VIMS may also present data on

emerging issues that the Institute deems relevant to decision-making.

VIMS receives the majority of its funding from federal sources, including NOAA, National Science

Foundation, Department of Interior, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In 2009, approximately

11 percent of VIMS’s grants and contracts funding came from the Commonwealth of Virginia. As an

academic institution endowed with a trust fund, private funds may be gifted to projects conducted at

VIMS. The combination of public and private funds and government-driven priorities allows VIMS to be

a more neutral institution.

Description and Analysis of Mechanisms in Chesapeake Bay:

In this section, we highlight selected findings and best practices from our data collection. To help

maintain relevance for the Oregon NRTF, we present findings on the Chesapeake Bay Program and how

the Commonwealth of Virginia and State of Maryland interact and relate to the efforts of the multi-

state, multi-sector effort. Innovative state-driven mechanisms are shared to communicate potential

models for the NRTF. There is a complex network of actors working within the Chesapeake Bay system

and this section provides an overview of some of the major players, institutions, and partnerships.


As evident in the preceding description of institutional arrangements, the Chesapeake Bay is notable for

the number and diversity of partners in its many institutions. Multiple organizational sectors are

interacting and partnering within the Chesapeake Bay context. As mentioned previously, the

Chesapeake Bay Program has a network of over 50 partners representing local, state, and federal

government, academic institutions, NGOs, and funding partners. The state resource agencies from

Maryland and Virginia both play a considerable role in the CPB. State legislators interact with the CBP

primarily through the Chesapeake Bay Commission. As the representative of the federal government in

the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the United State Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is central

to CBP’s implementation, with NOAA the next-most significant federal participant. An extensive

network of federal departments and agencies collaborate and coordinate with the CBP. See above for

detailed list.

Both the State of Maryland and Commonwealth of Virginia interact among multiple local, state, and



federal governments and private institutions. The states’ involvement in the CBP connects them to

federal agency partners implementing projects within the Chesapeake Bay. Legislators from both states

also participate in the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a regional legislative entity. The Commonwealth of

Virginia has a unique relationship with science institutions, primarily the Virginia Institute of Marine

Sciences. In addition, the Virginia Marine Resource Commission, which is described in detail below, acts

as a liaison between science and the Virginia commonwealth resource agencies to identify science needs

and priorities for decision-making. Maryland’s innovative fundraising mechanisms have created

relationships across Maryland state agencies and regional NGOs in Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.


Institutional arrangements in the Chesapeake Bay are supported by a very strong framework of

agreements, laws, and executive orders (at both the federal and state levels) providing a strong basis for

action to address the Bay’s management challenges. A selection of the most important agreements and

laws includes the following:

Chesapeake Bay Agreement: Originally drafted in 1983, formalized in 1987, and most

recently revised in 2000, the Chesapeake Bay Agreement outlines priorities and goals for the

restoration and preservation for the Chesapeake Bay. The Agreement is signed by Virginia,

Maryland, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the U.S. EPA (for the United States of

America), and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The document commits all parties to

mutual goals. The Chesapeake Bay Agreement established the Chesapeake Bay Program.

Executive Order 13508: This Presidential Executive Order was issued in 2009 to redefine a

federal strategy for the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay.

Chesapeake Bay 2010 Trust Fund: This State Bill established the Chesapeake and Atlantic

Coastal Bays Trust Fund.

Code of Virginia. § 28.2-1100: Chapter 11 of the Code of Virginia mandates the creation and

roles of the Virginia Marine Science Institute. According to this legislation, the Institute is

required to conduct research to inform decision-making within Virginia.


The Chesapeake Bay Program, Maryland, and Virginia receive varying degrees of federal, state, and

private funding to support programs, projects, and activities related to the restoration of the

Chesapeake Bay.

The Chesapeake Bay Program is allocated annual funding from the U.S. EPA (approximately $20-35

million). According to Chesapeake Bay Program documents, 45 percent of these funds are re-granted to


the member states through implementation grants, 15 percent of funds are directed towards

monitoring programs, 20 percent funds grants, contracts, and agreements between agencies for special

projects, 5 percent supports the computer modeling, and 15 percent of the Chesapeake Bay Program

budget is spent on personnel and overhead (see Figure 1).54 In addition to the routine funding provided

by the U.S. EPA, special project grant funding exists such as the B-WET grants, administered by NOAA,

and the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants.55

Figure 1: Chesapeake Bay Program Budget Disbursement

Each year, Virginia and Maryland apply to NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

(OCRM) for federal grants. OCRM provides states with four types of funding through the directive of the

Coastal Zone Management Act.56 These grants include:

Administrative Grants: 1:1 matching funds for states to administer coastal zone

management programs.

Coastal Resource Improvement Program: A portion of the Administrative Grant can be

54

Chesapeake Bay Program A Watershed Partnership."Funding and Financing." Chesapeake Bay Program A Watershed Partnership. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/fundingandfinancing.aspx?menuitem=14907. Accessed June 15, 2010. 55

Ibid. 56

NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/funding/welcome.html Accessed June 20, 2010.

45%

15%

20%

5%

15%

Chesapeake Bay Program Budget Disbursement

Regranting to Member States

Monitoring

Interagency grants/ contracts/agreements

Computer Modeling

Personnel

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/fundingandfinancing.aspx?menuitem=14907

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/funding/welcome.html



spent on small-scale construction or land acquisition programs to enhance public access,

redevelop urban waterfronts, or preserve and restore coastal resources.

Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants: Non-matched funds to enhance state CZM programs.

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: 1:1 matching funds to help states implement

nonpoint pollution programs.

In 2008, Maryland’s House of Representatives passed MD-HB 23, which created the Chesapeake and

Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust. The trust fund supports activities that meet the goals of the Chesapeake

2000 agreement, but does so through reliance on an innovative new accountability and prioritization

mechanism called “BayStat,” discussed below. The bill outlines funding allocations and use of BayStat

expenditure and work plan reporting.

In addition to the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust, the Chesapeake Bay Trust (CBT) provides

broad-ranging funding for projects that apply to their core strategic objectives: education, community

engagement, and restoration.57 CBT grant programs include capacity building for watershed

organizations and Riverkeepers and K-12 environmental education support. One of the core

mechanisms for securing Trust funding is the “Save the Bay” license plate program. In 2009,

commemorative license plate purchases ($20 per plate, of which $10 allocated to the Trust) raised

$545,763 and plate renewal fees raised $1,629,340 for the year ending June 30, 2009.58 Virginia has a

similar license program, which is affiliated with the state government; however, the revenue collected is

significantly less than the Maryland program.

Virginia’s coastal programs and management programs receive funding primarily though federal grants

and state allocations. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science has annual allocations of funding from the

state, and bolsters its operating budget through research grants and the VIMS Foundation. During

Fiscal-Year 2009, NOAA provided 38 percent of VIMS’s $19.3 million in grants and contracts funding.59

The total revenue for the program, which is comprised of allocations from the Commonwealth of

Virginia General Fund, grants and contracts, tuition, and private donors, was $43 million and from the

VIMS Foundation $634,000.60,61

57

Chesapeake Bay Trust. “’09 Year in Review: Impacting the Bay and Beyond.” http://www.cbtrust.org/atf/cf/%7BEB2A714E-8219-45E8-8C3D-50EBE1847CB8%7D/AnnualReport_2009_FINAL_Website.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2010. 58

Anderson, Davis & Associates. "Chesapeake Bay Trust Financial Report.” June 2009. http://www.cbtrust.org/atf/cf/%7BEB2A714E-8219-45E88C3D50EBE1847CB8%7D/AnnualReport_AuditReport_2009_Final.pdf. Accessed June 16, 2010. 59

VIMS. “2009 Annual Report.” The Virginia Institute of Marine Science. January 2010. http://www.vims.edu/about/_docs/annual_report_09.pdf Accessed June 16, 2010. 60

Ibid. 61

The annual report notes that the revenue figure excludes the VIMS Foundation.

http://www.cbtrust.org/atf/cf/%7BEB2A714E-8219-45E8-8C3D-50EBE1847CB8%7D/AnnualReport_2009_FINAL_Website.pdf


http://www.cbtrust.org/atf/cf/%7BEB2A714E-8219-45E88C3D50EBE1847CB8%7D/AnnualReport_AuditReport_2009_Final.pdf

http://www.vims.edu/about/_docs/annual_report_09.pdf



In addition, Virginia also directs user fees from commercial and recreational saltwater fishing licenses to

finance the operation of the VMRC. The VMRC sells licenses through independent agents.


The institutions described in this section have developed multiple mechanisms for prioritizing funding

and ensuring that all funding allocations are made transparently. Below we provide some highlights as

to how these mechanisms operate.

The Chesapeake Bay Program underwent a review by the United States Government Accountability

Office (GAO) in 2005. The assessment confirmed the CBP’s commitment to ensuring transparent

funding and implementation. The final GAO report provided key findings and recommendations to

improve operations and funding processes.

Maryland’s BayStat62 program is an example of a mechanism used to clearly identify geographic and

thematic priorities in a highly transparent manner, with all information collected by BayStat available

online. The BayStat program has been a model to other institutions operating in the area, including the

Chesapeake Bay Program. In June 2010, the U.S. EPA officially launched ChesapeakeStat. 63 Like

BayStat, this online accountability tool allows the general public to monitor the performance and

funding of the Chesapeake Bay Program. The tool uses “a systematic process … analyzing information

and data to continually assess progress towards goals and adapt strategies and tactics when needed”

and is “a public website that promotes improved accountability, fosters coordination, and promotes

transparency by sharing performance information on goals, indicators, strategies, and funding.”64

Informants stated that the tool is relatively new and has potential to act as a program “watchdog.” Both

BayStat and ChesapeakeStat are significant new accountability and management tools that appear to

have great potential for improving reporting and performance of Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts.

Stakeholder Advice:

The Chesapeake Bay Program solicits stakeholder advice through its Citizens Advisory Committee. The

Committee represents agriculture, industry, environmental NGOs, and civic groups. The Citizens

Advisory Committee provides stakeholder advice to the Executive Council, Management Board, and all

Goal Implementation Teams on an as-needed basis.65 Members communicate with their constituencies

to share information on the Chesapeake 2000, the CBP, and programs to restore the Bay. The

Committee shares advice on policy matters with the leadership of the CBP. The Alliance for the

Chesapeake Bay, a regional nonprofit organization, administers the Citizens Advisory Council.

62

Maryland BayStat. http://www.baystat.maryland.gov/transcript.html. Accessed June 20, 2010 63

ChesapeakeStat. http://stat.chesapeakebay.net/?q=node/2. Accessed June 20, 2010. 64

Ibid. 65

Chesapeake Bay Program Citizens Advisory Committees. http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/subcommittee/cac/CAC_Bylaws.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2010.

http://www.baystat.maryland.gov/transcript.html

http://stat.chesapeakebay.net/?q=node/2

http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/subcommittee/cac/CAC_Bylaws.pdf


One mechanism by which Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources solicits stakeholder advice is

through the Coastal and Watershed Resources Advisory Committee (CWRAC). The CWRAC is comprised

of 45 representatives of local government, NGOs, industry, state and federal agencies, academia, and

the general public. The Chesapeake and Coastal Watershed Service of Maryland’s Department of

Natural Resources appoint CWRAC members. Members convey the views of their constituents on all

policies and issues before the Committee.

Virginia has convened Advisory Committees to support decision-making by the Virginia Marine Resource

Commission. Stakeholders populate nine advisory committees each focused around fisheries and

habitat management themes. For example, the Finfish Management Advisory Committee advises the

Commission on the needs and utilization of recreational and commercial finfish fisheries.

Representatives from industry, NGOs, funders, and community organizations comprise the committees.


The dozens of Chesapeake Bay institutions at all levels of government, nongovernmental groups, and

academic organizations have collectively made substantial investments in community engagement,

education, and outreach to advance the goal of Chesapeake Bay health. Notable education and

outreach mechanisms within the region include the Network for Education of Municipal Officials

(NEMO) Program, which provides educational programs, technical help, and financial assistance for

sound planning and watershed protection66 and the VIMS training programs for example, the Tidal

Wetlands Workshops for members of citizen Wetlands Boards and its Coastal Training Program that

promotes science-based decision-making.67 More typical programs of NGOs and government agencies

include activities targeting youth, environmental education, community participation in local restoration

efforts such as tree planting,68 ”things you can do” education efforts to encourage individuals to change

behaviors, and more.

Scientific Research:69

Within the Chesapeake Bay, long-term monitoring is an important tool for management. Since 1955,

the Virginia Institute of Marine Science has conducted long-term monitoring of the blue crab and other

key fisheries.70 The robust data acquired through long-term trawl monitoring informs decisions

66

"NEMO Fact Sheet 021408". Chesapeake NEMO. http://www.chesapeakenemo.net/pdf/NEMOFactSheet021408.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2010. 67

VIMS. “Public Programs.” http://www.vims.edu/public/index.php. Accessed June 16, 2010. 68

Chesapeake Bay Trust. “’09 Year in Review: Impacting the Bay and Beyond.” Chesapeake Bay Trust. http://www.cbtrust.org/atf/cf/%7BEB2A714E-8219-45E8-8C3D-50EBE1847CB8%7D/AnnualReport_2009_FINAL_Website.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2010. 69

A list of Chesapeake Bay-related research entities can be found at the Maryland Sea Grant website: http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/programs/gateway/links/#scientific 70

VIMS Blue Crab Monitoring Program. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/crab/crabindex.html. Accessed June 14, 2010.

http://www.chesapeakenemo.net/pdf/NEMOFactSheet021408.pdf

http://www.vims.edu/public/index.php


http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/crab/crabindex.html


regarding catch limits and management. In addition to long-term monitoring, VIMS sets annual science

priorities that determine research decisions.

A primary science mechanism for the Chesapeake Bay region is the Chesapeake Research Consortium,

which administers the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee and

supports integration of science into policy and decision-making. The consortium, a nonprofit, includes

six member institutions: the Johns Hopkins University, the Smithsonian Institution, University of

Maryland, VIMS, Old Dominion University, and Pennsylvania State University.71

Water quality monitoring is conducted by multiple state and federal agencies, science institutions, and

citizen science groups across the entire Chesapeake Bay system. A standardized methodology for data

collection ensures consistency. For example, since 2006, the Chesapeake EcoCheck (a partnership

between the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and NOAA) has developed a

standardized method and collects data on six indicators to inform the Chesapeake Bay Report Card

discussed below.72

Science Advice:

The Chesapeake Bay Program’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC), provides science

advice to the Management Board and annually to the Executive Council. The STAC has a sixteen-year

history of providing “scientific and technical advice in various ways, including 1) technical reports and

papers, 2) discussion groups, 3) assistance in organizing merit reviews of CBP’s programs and projects, 4)

technical conferences and workshops, and 5) service by STAC members on CBP subcommittees and

workgroups.”73 According to informants, the STAC is quite nimble and able to respond to CBP

subcommittee and working group requests for scientific and technical input.74 Another feature of the

STAC is ability “to bring the most recent scientific information to the Bay Program and its partners.”75

Informants report that much of the science advice used by the States of Maryland and Virginia to inform

each state’s decision-making derives from Chesapeake Bay Program science development that occurs

with the participation of federal, state, and academic scientists. However, each state also has science

institutions with an explicit mandate to advise state coastal and ocean resource decision-making.

The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science has a mandate from the State of Maryland

to “conduct a comprehensive program to develop and apply predictive ecology for Maryland to the

71

Further details about the Chesapeake Research Consortium can be found at http://www.chesapeake.org. Accessed July 16, 2010. 72

Further details about the Chesapeake EcoCheck organization and the Chesapeake Bay Report Card reports can be found at http://www.eco-check.org/reportcard/chesapeake/2009/. Accessed June 16, 2010.

73Science and Technical Advisory Committee. http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/stacinfo. Accessed June 20, 2010.

74 Ibid.

75 Ibid.

http://www.chesapeake.org/

http://www.eco-check.org/reportcard/chesapeake/2009/

http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/stacinfo.


improvement and preservation of the physical environment.”76 Activities include providing science to

support the state’s BayStat program and advising the Maryland Department of Natural Resources with

independent analyses of data such as fishery population surveys and water quality sampling in the Bay.

Maryland has also established specialized advisory mechanisms, such as its Oyster Advisory Commission

(who provided peer review to the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Oyster Restoration

in the Chesapeake Bay),77 to inform its decision-making about certain ocean and coastal resources. Sea

Grant Programs in both states are also a source of science advice.78

Virginia’s Institute of Marine Science also provides a mechanism for ensuring the use of peer-reviewed

science advice in Chesapeake Bay. In 1962, by an act of Virginia’s General Assembly the Institute was

established as an independent institution with governmental advisory roles. Although the Institute

affiliated with the College of William and Mary, the program continues to provide scientific advice to the

Virginia Marine Resources Commission. The program is required to:

conduct studies and investigations of the seafood and commercial fishing and sport fishing

industries.

consider ways to conserve, develop, and replenish fisheries resources and advise the Marine

Resources Commission and other agencies and private groups on these matters.

conduct studies of problems pertaining to the other segments of the maritime economy.

conduct studies of marine pollution in cooperation with the State Water Control Board and

the Department of Health and make the data and their recommendations available to the

appropriate agencies.

conduct hydrographic and biological studies of the Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries, and all

the tidal waters of the Commonwealth and the contiguous waters of the Atlantic Ocean.

engage in research in the marine sciences.

conduct such special studies and investigations concerning these subjects as requested by

the Governor.

engage in research and provide training, technical assistance and advice to the Board of

Conservation and Recreation on erosion along tidal shoreline, the Soil and Water

Conservation Board on matters relating to tidal shoreline erosion, and to other agencies

upon request.79

Because VIMS receives funding independently of the commonwealth government, the integrity and

76

Annotated Code of Maryland, Natural Resources Article, Sec. 3-403. 77

Information about the MD Oyster Advisory Commission is available at http://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/oysters/index.html

and http://mlis.state.md.us/2007RS/bills/hb/hb0133e.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2010. 78

The websites for each state’s Sea Grant program are at http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/ (Maryland) and

http://www2.vims.edu/seagrant/ (Virginia). Accessed July 21, 2010. 79

Code of Virginia. § 28.2-1100. Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

http://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/oysters/index.html

http://mlis.state.md.us/2007RS/bills/hb/hb0133e.pdf

http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/

http://www2.vims.edu/seagrant/


neutrality of collected data remain intact. Informants also stated that the institute is nimble and

responds to emerging issues using external funding. When the commonwealth requires additional

information, it also relies on experts and consultants.

Incorporation of Science in Management Decision-Making and Adaptive Management:

Chesapeake Bay Program partners developed an adaptive management strategy that incorporates

science into the decision-making process in response to a 2005 U.S. Government Accountability Office

(GAO) audit report that outlined a series of recommendations to improve the program’s success

including the use of an adaptive management strategic plan. The program adopted Kaplan and Norton’s

(2008) “Five-stage Model of Adaptive Management.” In addition, the Bay Program Adaptive

Management Task Force developed “13 key indicators for measuring the health of the bay and

categorized these indicators into three indices of bay health” as well as “20 key indicators for measuring

the progress of restoration efforts and categorized these indicators into five indices of restoration

efforts.”80 In a 2008 follow-up report, GAO noted that the use of bay health and restoration indices and

indicators would improve the Chesapeake Bay Program’s ability to monitor the effects of restoration

efforts within the bay and respond to new threats.81

Maryland has adapted a comprehensive land-based mapping assessment to the marine environment.

The Coastal Atlas program focuses on identifying and connecting “hubs” (un-fragmented ecologically

healthy areas) via corridors.82 The Blue Infrastructure project within the program involves extensive

inventories, assessments, and mapping.83 An informant stated that the tool has already supported

additional legislation regarding coastal stabilization. According to a presentation by Maryland coastal

management staff, managers supported the integration of land-based and ocean assessment tools.84

Applications of the Ocean Coastal Atlas include prioritizing sites for renewable energy and coastal

planning specific data.85

In addition, integration of science research into policy decision-making led to the coordinated efforts of

the State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission to limit

80

U.S. General Accounting Office. Chesapeake Bay Program: Recent Actions Are Positive Steps toward more Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort, GAO-08-1033T. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, 2008. 81

Ibid. 82

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. “Green Infrastructure.” 2006. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/greenways/gi/gi.html. Accessed June 16, 2010. 83

Cortina, Chris, and Catherine McCall. “Restoration and Protection Targeting Tools: Business Not As Usual.” Maryland Chesapeake & Coastal Program. December 2008. 84

Ibid. 85

Ocean Coastal Atlas. http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/ccp/coastalatlas/ocean.asp. Accessed June 15, 2010.

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/greenways/gi/gi.html

http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/ccp/coastalatlas/ocean.asp



harvest pressure on female blue crabs.86 In response to the harvest limits, the 2009-2010 winter dredge

survey showed promising increases in the current population of blue crabs.87


The Chesapeake Bay Program Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee conducts science reviews on

measures to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay. For example, in 2008, STAC drafted Climate

Change and the Chesapeake Bay: State-of-the Science Review and Recommendations. The report

reviewed over 300 peer-reviewed sources to synthesize information on the potential effects of climate

change on the Chesapeake Bay system.

The University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science (UMCES) has partnered with the state of

Maryland, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, and the Chesapeake Bay Program to develop the habitat

health Chesapeake Bay Report Card.88 EcoCheck (a UMCES and NOAA partnership) integrates and

synthesizes data on six indicators to measure the overall health of the entire Chesapeake Bay system.

Indicators are grouped by water quality and biotic indices.


All three Chesapeake Bay institutions examined in this case study (CBP and the State of Maryland and

Commonwealth of Virginia) support a combination of web-based data sharing, geospatial information

systems (GIS), monitoring programs, and publications. While many regions support centralized data

management systems, informants supported maintaining decentralized databases with a unified sharing

interface, in the form of a user-friendly website. Informants supported this strategy because data

maintenance and ownership remains with data developers. GIS tools include Virginia’s Ocean Atlas,

Chesapeake Bay Program’s Data Hub89, and Maryland’s Coastal Bays Program.90 Each tool strives to

provide up-to-date information in a useful way through GIS.

As mentioned in the funding section, Maryland’s BayStat and the Chesapeake Bay Program’s

ChesapeakeStat are unique accountability tools, which focus on transparent funding acquisition and use

reporting as well as reporting project success and on the ground restoration efforts.

These data and many more are compiled at Chesapeake Information Management System (CIMS). CIMS

is an “organized, distributed library of information and software tools designed to increase basin-wide

86

Blue Crab Management. http://www.mrc.virginia.gov/Notices/VMRC_2010_Crab_Dredge_Survey_Results.pdf. Accessed June 16, 2010 87

Ibid. 88

Chesapeake Bay Report Card 2009. http://www.eco-check.org/reportcard/chesapeake/2009/ Accessed June 16, 2010. 89

Chesapeake Bay Program Data Hub. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/dataandtools.aspx. Accessed June 20, 2010. 90

Maryland Coastal Bays Program. http://www.mdcoastalbays.org. Accessed June 20, 2010.

https://tchoffmann.msoutlookonline.net/NRTF/Report%20Outline%20and%20Draft/.%20http:/www.mrc.virginia.gov/Notices/VMRC_2010_Crab_Dredge_Survey_Results.pdf

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/dataandtools.aspx.

http://www.mdcoastalbays.org/



public access to Chesapeake Bay information.”91


All of the institutions described in this case study maintain websites with extensive access to program,

funding, technical, and scientific information. These platforms are described above.

Chesapeake Bay Mechanisms Summary Table:

The table below summarizes the mechanism assessment and key findings or best practices that exist

within the Chesapeake Bay Region and the institutional arrangements in Virginia and Maryland that

related to the Chesapeake Bay Program. Key findings for the Chesapeake Bay Region include strong

management agreements and rapid willingness to respond to the 2005 findings from the U.S.GAO, for

example, developing a strategic framework.92 Virginia’s science advice mechanism is of particular

interest because it relies on the independent legislatively mandated VIMS to conduct and recommend

actions based on science. In Maryland, the BayStat accountability and prioritization tool, the Blue

Infrastructure Nearshore Assessment and Coastal Atlas projects, as well as the legislatively formed

Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust are unique approaches for making management decisions

and funding goal-based projects.

91

Chesapeake Information Management System. http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/cims/index.htm. Accessed June 20, 2010. 92

U.S. General Accounting Office. Chesapeake Bay Program: Recent Actions Are Positive Steps toward more Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort, GAO-08-1033T. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, 2008.

http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/cims/index.htm



Table 8: Mechanism Overview Assessment for Chesapeake Bay Coastal and Ocean Institutional Arrangements


Criteria Assessment

Chesapeake

Bay

Assessment

Maryland

Assessment

Virginia

Key Findings & Best Practices

Types of Institutional

Partners

In addition to the state and federal signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreements, the

Chesapeake Bay Program engages a wide array of academics, industry, and non-governmental

organizations.

Legislative Mandate

Long-standing Chesapeake Bay Agreements recently supplemented by Executive Order: 13508 to

clarify the relationships and responsibilities for Bay restoration efforts by federal agencies.

Funding Sources

and Security

Each entity uses federal and state funds to support programs.

MD: In 2008, Maryland’s Legislative Department, through HB23, created the Chesapeake and

Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust. The Chesapeake Bay Trust collects monies from multiple sources,

public and private.

VA: Commercial and recreational fishing licenses are directed to the VMRC.

Prioritized and

Transparent Funding

Process

CB: ChesapeakeStat communicates information on funding sources and allocations.

MD: Established milestones, use RFPs, and BayStat program greatly upgraded these aspects.

VA: Funding activities based on science priorities. Priorities assessed annually. Use RFP process.

Stakeholder Advice

All three entities have advisory committees, other mechanisms to engage stakeholders.

Community

Engagement,

Education, Outreach

CB: Have goal and objective related to outreach and education and increasing stewardship.

CB/MD/VA: Chesapeake NEMO partners with MD/VA state agencies and CBP to conduct

educational programs, and technical and financial assistance to regional community based

organizations.

Scientific Research

VA: Legislatively mandated VIMS conducts routine monitoring including the annual.

Region has had strong scientific resources and capacity for decades.

Science Advice

VA: Independent Legislatively mandated VIMS is unique to VA.




Criteria Assessment

Chesapeake

Bay

Assessment

Maryland

Assessment

Virginia


Incorporation Science in

Decision-making and

Adaptive Management

MD: -Coastal Atlas and Blue Infrastructure Initiative has led to policy changes for coastal

stabilization.


Policy Input

CB: STAC develops reports to inform Executive Council of CBP using existing data sources.

VA: VMRC can draw upon science experts to provide information relevant to decision-making.

MD: University of Maryland synthesizes water quality information to develop the Chesapeake Bay

Report Card.

Data Management/

Sharing/Products VA: Bring in experts to discuss in-depth information on key issues.

CB / MD: ChesapeakeStat and BayStat are excellent portals for data and information access.


CB: Five stage adaptive management framework easily accessible on website.



Chesapeake Bay Objective Assessment:

Ability to Receive and Distribute Funds:

Our analysis demonstrates that the multiple institutions found within the Chesapeake Bay region and

Virginia and Maryland are highly capable when it comes to the ability to receive and distribute funds

within the institutions of the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Program coordinates multiple

sectors and jurisdictions to aid in funding restoration and management programs within the region. An

annual appropriation of $20-35 million from Congress is allocated to the CBP subsequently redistributed

to the Chesapeake Bay state agencies for restoration projects and monitoring programs in alignment

with CBPs goals. The CBP also may receive special grants acquired in collaboration with the U.S. EPA.

These special grants allow the CBP to be more nimble and flexible in their granting. Both Virginia and

Maryland allocate money towards the goals of the CBP.

Maryland’s notable mechanisms for distributing funds to projects include the Chesapeake and Atlantic

Coastal Bays Trust Fund and the Chesapeake Bay Trust. Similarly, Virginia has distributed funds

collected from specialty license funds to restoration projects through the Chesapeake Bay Restoration

Fund.


All three institutions described in this section—the Chesapeake Bay Program and the State of Maryland

and Commonwealth of Virginia—utilize the Chesapeake 2000 agreement to help direct their activities in

the Bay. These states and organization have committed themselves to align their projects towards the

goals outlined in the agreement.

The Chesapeake Bay Program relies on input from three advisory committees representing local

communities, local government, and science. These advisory councils and their individual members are

actively involved in providing advice to the Executive Council, Management Board, and six Goal

Implementation Teams. The advisory committees are described in greater detail above.


Informants had mixed opinions on the level of flexibility of the institutions in the Chesapeake. Overall,

lack of funding and staffing capacity most limited these institutions ability to act adaptively and nimbly.

The partners of the CBP have identified that flexibility and adaptability should be a priority when

conducting resource management. The CBP reviewed multiple adaptive management models and

determined that the program had aspects of adaptive management integrated into their management

however, there was not a cohesive strategy to act as a guide. CBP took aspects of a model developed by


Kaplan and Norton (2008)93 and adapted it to fit its own purpose.

Within Virginia, VIMS provides a vehicle for the state to act nimbly and explore emerging issues facing

the region. VIMS and the Virginia natural resource agencies are able to work collaboratively to identify

information needs for decision-making.

Virginia and Maryland annually apply to for funding through the Coastal Zone Management Act. Within

their proposals, the states are able to apply for CZMA Section 309 “enhancement grants” funding which

can be used to address any emerging issues.

Transparency:

There is high transparency for the states and organizations described in this section. Currently, there

are multiple web-based tools available for the general public to review progress and funding details.

BayStat and ChesapeakeStat provide extensive data on the performance to-date of, respectively,

Maryland and the CBP towards achieving their goals. Visitors to the site can view tables and charts

visually displaying the percent of the goal achieved, level of funds being directed to achieving those

goals, and relevant indicators demonstrating progress. In addition, the general public can review the

investment by federal, state, and non-governmental organizations towards achieving the goals of the

Bay Program.

In collaboration with multiple state and federal agencies and academic institutions, Maryland also

produces an annual report card on the health of the Bay using multiple evaluation indicators.

Informants from Virginia frequently spoke of transparency within state institutions. Public involvement

in decision-making is done through public meetings and public record. Informants also spoke of the

need for increased transparency when receiving federal allocations. Reporting requirements from

agencies like NOAA obligate state agencies to report on progress.

Objective and Trusted Scientific Advice to Inform Decision-Makers:

Solicitation of science advice occurs frequently within the CBP, Virginia, and Maryland. At the core of

science-based decision-making within the region is the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee

(STAC) of the CBP. This committee integrates science information to be shared with the CBP, the

Chesapeake Bay Commission, and other decision-makers.

93

Kaplan and Morton, 2008. Mastering the Management System. Harvard Business Review. Pp 63-77.




As noted above, the ChesapeakeStat tool ensures funding information is not only transparent, but

allows the public to explore the administrative costs associated with regional programs. In 2009 for

example, the entire region utilized $29,832,757 for enhancing partnering leadership and management.94

In 2009, Maryland and Virginia allocated $2,823,527 and $ 19,471,323 respectively for enhancing

partnering leadership and management. The Chesapeake Bay program’s annual report show that

administrative costs range between 15-20percent of their total program costs.

Informants listed lack of funding to afford staff as one concern. In addition, one informant supported

creating a flexible and adaptable program framework allowing management programs to adapt staff and

capacity according to program needs. In adopting a flexible program framework could limit

institutionalization of obsolete staff positions.

Chesapeake Bay Objective Assessment Summary Table the:

The table below summarizes the assessment score and key findings or best practices that exist within

the Chesapeake Bay Region. The ChesapeakeStat program is particularly strong transparency

mechanism. Maryland’s ocean atlas facilitates science-based decision-making and Virginia’s

independent science advisor, VIMS, provides trustworthy and neutral science because the institute is

independent from the overarching management program.

94

Chesapeake Bay Program Funding. http://stat.chesapeakebay.net/?q=node/3&goal=Enhance Partnering Leadership %26 Management&topic=. Accessed June 20, 2010.

http://stat.chesapeakebay.net/?q=node/3&goal=Enhance%20Partnering%20Leadership%20%26%20Management&topic=

http://stat.chesapeakebay.net/?q=node/3&goal=Enhance%20Partnering%20Leadership%20%26%20Management&topic=



Table 9: Objective Assessment of Chesapeake Bay Institutions Coastal and Ocean Institutional Arrangements

Criteria Assessment

Chesapeake Bay

Assessment

Maryland

Assessment

Virginia


Ability to Receive

and Distribute Funds

from Various

Sources

CB: Annual appropriations from congress are allocated to the CBP, which

is able to distribute it to aligned projects.

All: Chesapeake Bay Trust [501 (c) (3) receives funds from state, federal, and private sources for projects across the Bay region. MD: Set up new Chesapeake and Atlantic Bays Trust to be able to target

funds to scientifically prioritized nutrient reduction projects.


CB: CBP has extensive partnership with over 50 partners across multiple

sectors. Include local governments, scientists, and communities in

decision-making process.

MD: BayStat program implemented to improve accountability, influenced

CBP to set up ChesapeakeStat.

VA: Decisions rely on identified strategic focal areas.

Flexibility and

Adaptability

CPB: The CBP was designed to be nimble and has broad goals to allow for

flexibility in approach.

VA: VIMS is able to focus on emerging issues because funding sources are

diverse.

Transparency

All: ChesapeakeStat was launched in June 2010 to display data on

funding and performance. Public meetings and disclosure of budgets

exist. BayStat program implemented to improve transparency for MD CB

activities.

CB: CBP has established a Citizens Advisory Council.

Objective and

Trusted Science for

Decision-making

VA: Use of the independently funded VIMS promotes neutral and

trustworthy science.

CB: Improved reporting system after previous modeling data were show

to incorrectly report water quality improvements.

Administrative Costs Approximately 15-20 percent of Chesapeake Bay Program budget allocated for administrative costs.



Important Lessons from the Chesapeake Bay: Key lessons shared with the Consulting Team include:

Legislative Mandate: Strong support existed for an independent legislatively mandated body

to support research and recommend science-based management priorities in the face of

massive environmental degradation with widespread economic impacts.

Strategic Planning: Clearly articulated collective goals and objectives can guide multiple

agencies across jurisdictional boundaries.

Science Informing Strategic Planning: Utilize best-available data sources, including original

data and model projections, to inform strategic planning.

Tools for Increasing Transparency: Financial and decision-making transparency has been

improved through use of accurate reporting tools such as BayStat/ChesapeakeStat tools.

Data Management: Decentralized data management systems are more efficient and

preferable to one centralized database because each data owner can manage and update

their own information.

Funding Mechanisms: Nonprofit, independent funding mechanism aligned with state goals

can increase flexibility and opportunities for accessing multiple funding sources (e.g.,

Chesapeake and Coastal Bays Trust, Chesapeake Bay Trust).

Federal Partnerships: Increased funds may be accessed for marine resource management

needs through close partnership with federal agencies.

Involving the Community: Having advisory councils representing local communities, local

governments, and science experts can increases transparency, such as the CBP’s Citizen

Advisory Councils and the VMRC’s Advisory Committees.

CASE STUDY 3: GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK (AUSTRALIA/QUEENSLAND) This section reviews the institutional arrangements of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Authority (GBRMPA or the Authority). This institution, which has been in place for over thirty years,

serves as an international model for coastal and ocean area-based management. The Great Barrier

Marine Park Act 1975 created GBRMPA and provides a strong mandate for collaboration across state

and Commonwealth jurisdictions, engagement of local stakeholders in decision-making, integration, and


promotion of science, and inclusion of traditional users. To increase relevance to NRTF and its

exploration of institutional arrangements, we focus on the context of the Authority and its key

institutional partners.

General Overview of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park:

The Great Barrier Reef is one of the most complex, rich, and diverse ecosystems in the world. The Great

Barrier Reef Marine Park stretches more than 1400 miles along the north-east coast of Australia. The

main objective of the Great Barrier Marine Park Act 1975 is to provide “long-term protection and

conservation of the environment, biodiversity, and heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef Region.”95

Object 3.b of the Act established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, a statutory authority

responsible for management of the Marine Park. GBRMPA is charged with maintaining “the long-term

protection, ecologically sustainable use, understanding, and enjoyment of the Great Barrier Reef for all

Australians and the international community, through the care and development of the Marine Park.”96

GBRMPA governs the Park based on a framework set out by the legislative requirements of the Great

Barrier Marine Park Act 1975, the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, the Public

Services Act 1999, the Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement (between the governments of

the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland), and various Memoranda of Understanding. GBRMPA

develops policy and regulates the various activities within the Park that include tourism, fishing,

recreation, shipping, aquaculture, and dredging.97 GBRMPA established three high-level objectives to

guide the strategies and progress of the organization:

1) address key risks affecting the outlook for the Great Barrier Reef;

2) ensure that management delivers ecologically sustainable use of the Great Barrier Reef; and

3) maintain a high performing, effective and efficient organization.98

Mandated by law, GBRMPA is the “principal advisor” to the Australian Government and resource

managers on the management and conservation of the Great Barrier Reef. Specific activities it is

authorized to carry out include:

develop and implement zoning and management plans;

conduct environmental impact assessments and review and issue use permits;

conduct and facilitate research, monitoring, and interpretation of data; and

provide information, educational services, and marine environmental management advice.99

95

Commonwealth of Australia. Great Barrier Marine Park Act 1975. 96

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Corporate Plan 2010-2014. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2009. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/44844/GBRMPA_CorpPlan_2010-14.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2010. 97

Ibid. 98

Ibid.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/44844/GBRMPA_CorpPlan_2010-14.pdf



The Public Services Act 1999100 requires GBRMPA to lay out a strategy to provide services and assistance

to the general public and stakeholder groups. The high-level services associated with this legislation

include:

assessment and issuance of permits to undertake commercial activities in the Marine Park;

advice and assistance, both nationally and internationally, on marine environmental

management;

provision of information and educational resources related to the Reef; and

operation of the Reef HQ Aquarium, the education center for the Great Barrier Reef Marine

Park.101

Great Barrier Reef region co-management (Commonwealth and State) began in 1979 with a formal

agreement.102 In 2009, another inter-governmental agreement affirmed Queensland’s role in joint-

management (referred to as the Joint Field Management Program) of the Great Barrier Reef Marine

Park. The Australian Prime Minister and the Queensland Premier (governor) signed the Great Barrier

Reef Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) in 2009. The agreement outlines roles, a jurisdictional

framework, and objectives and principles for collaboration relating to the management and

conservation of the Great Barrier Reef. The agreement commits both governments to:

prohibit oil and mineral exploration and recovery;

maintain complementary management frameworks, such as zoning plans and

environmental assessment and permit requirements;

continue a Commonwealth/Queensland Ministerial Council to facilitate implementation and

achievement of the objectives of this agreement;

continue a joint program of field management, with 50:50 cost-sharing;

continue joint action to halt and reverse the decline in quality of water entering the Great

Barrier Reef;

continue joint action to maximize the resilience of the Great Barrier Reef to climate change;

99

Ibid. 100

Commonwealth of Australia. Public Services Act 1999. No. 147 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/psa1999152. Accessed June 20, 2010. 101


Olsson, P., C. Folke, and T.P. Hughes. 2008. “Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105:9489–9494

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/psa1999152



address significant threats to the health and biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef

ecosystem, including pollution from the land and sea, the impacts of climate change,

ecologically unsustainable fishing activities, and other resource extraction activities;

periodically review the condition of the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem and any need for

further action;

ensure that indigenous traditional cultural practices continue to be recognized in the

conservation and management of the Great Barrier Reef.103

Principal Institutions and Relationships in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park:

Multiple entities are responsible for policy and management of the Great Barrier Reef; however, there is

extensive collaboration across these groups. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, which acts

as the administrator of the Marine Park, is part of the federal Department of the Environment, Water,

Heritage, and the Arts. The Authority has a Board comprised of four part-time members selected by the

Australian Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage, and the Arts and a full-time Chairman of the

Board, who also serves as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO).104 In addition to a governing Board

overseeing the organization, there is also the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council. The Ministerial

Council is a government mandated council separate of GBRMPA that is comprised of four Ministers two

from the Commonwealth and two from Queensland’s government. The Council interacts closely with

the GBRMPA to coordinate high-level policy for the Great Barrier Reef. The Council’s role is strategic in

that it facilitates and oversees the implementation and achievement of the objectives of the Great

Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement. The GBRMPA Board, as is required by the Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park Act 1975, advises the Ministerial Council.105

Reporting to the GBRMPA Board and Chairman/CEO are two executive directors who manage the

Authority’s five key programs: Climate Change; Conservation, Heritage and Indigenous Partnerships;

Tourism and Recreation; Fisheries; and Water Quality and Coastal Development. The executive

directors also manage staff to implement the Authority’s main activities—communication and

education; science, technology, and information; program delivery; community partnerships; corporate

services; day-to-day management; and coordinating the Outlook Report Task Force.

GBRMPA has been very successful in integrating external experts and stakeholders into the

organizational structure. Currently, four Reef Advisory Committees (RACs) exist to advise four out of the

103

The Commonwealth of Australia and The State of Queensland. “Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement.” June 2009. http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/gbr/publications/pubs/gbr-agreement-2009.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2010. 104

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Commonwealth Government Agencies.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. June 15, 2010. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/management/who_participates/commonwealth_government_agencies 105

Commonwealth of Australia. Great Barrier Marine Park Act 1975.

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/gbr/publications/pubs/gbr-agreement-2009.pdf


five main programs of the Authority.106 The Authority Board appoints and receives reports from the RAC

members. Members are experts in fields related to each of the program areas. Also providing

stakeholder advice are the Local Marine Advisory Committees (LMACs), representing eleven Queensland

coastal communities. These committees advise on local level management issues. More details about

the RACs and LMACs are listed below under “Stakeholder Advice” and “Science Advice.”

Multiple Commonwealth level agencies coordinate with GBRMPA to manage the Marine Park. GBRMPA,

a division of the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage, and the Arts provides annual reporting to

the Minister of the Environment, Heritage, and Arts. Other Commonwealth agencies collaborating

closely with GBRMPA include:

Australia Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA): Responsible for managing shipping activities

within the Marine Park.

Native Title Representative Bodies (NTRBs): Work with the Authority to develop and

maintain ongoing partnerships and planning with indigenous groups.

Australia Customs Service: Coastwatch conducts patrols on behalf of government agencies.

As outlined in the Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), Queensland is involved in the

management of the Great Barrier Marine Park. Through multiple agreements and MOUs, Queensland

and Australia have clearly delineated management jurisdictions and responsibilities. The Authority

coordinates most closely with two Queensland agencies; Queensland Park and Wildlife Service (QPWS)

and Queensland Fisheries Management Authority (QFMA).

The Authority charges the QPWS with the day-to-day management of the Park. Both agencies equally

divide the cost of management between them. QPWS is also responsible for surveillance, monitoring

and enforcement, resource management, and issuing permits for commercial collecting, education

programs, and moorings. QFMA, working closely with GBRMPA, manages fishing activities located

within the Marine Park. Both agencies work collectively to develop management plans and conduct

joint research projects, integrated natural resource management, stock assessments, and planning.

QFMA also enforces illegal fishing regulations. GBRMPA also coordinates with the:

Queensland Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries (QDPI&F): Enforcement of special

Dugong Protection Areas (DPAs).

Queensland Department of Transport (QDoT): Oil spill response agency.

Queensland Department of Natural Resources (QDNR): Information exchange on land-based

activities.

106

The Climate Change program does not currently have a Reef Advisory Council.


GBRMPA also has a close relationship with several government-affiliated and academic research

institutions that provide information to inform decision-making. The IGA supports coordinated

monitoring efforts under the Joint Field Management Program through a number of institutions.

Description and Analysis of Mechanisms:

In this section, we highlight key findings and best practices from the Great Barrier Reef Region. The

Great Barrier Reef region’s management strategy is a long-standing example of best practices for

community supported, science-based ocean and coastal management. Below, we examine the Great

Barrier Reef Management in the context of the Queensland and Commonwealths’ joint approach to

addressing each of the twelve mechanism criteria.

Types of Institutional Partners: Institutional partners include government agencies (commonwealth and state), research collaborations

(educational institutions and industry partners), and community members. As stated above, the QPWS

and the QFMA are particularly important to the management of the Park and the IGA directs the

responsibilities between the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth.

Research Centres and Education Institutions (please note that each of the following will be described in

more detail under the science sections of the assessment):

Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility (MTSRF): managed by the Reef and

Rainforest Research Centre: Focuses on research and solutions for the Great Barrier Reef

and its catchments, tropical rainforests including the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, and

Torres Strait;107

Australia Institute of Marine Science (AIMS): Focuses on tropical marine research and long-

term monitoring generally, a satellite at James Cook University (AIMS@JCU) focuses on

three themes: tropical aquaculture, stress in tropical marine systems, coastal processes, and

modeling. Statutory authority established AIMS under the Australian Institute of Marine

Science Act 1972. The purpose of the institute is to ensure that Australia is meeting the

challenges facing marine ecosystems and stakeholder needs.108

James Cook University(JCU): Participates as a member of AIMS@JCU, MTSRF, the Australian

Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (ARC Coral Reef), and the

Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization (CSIRO);

107

Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility (MTSRF). http://www.rrrc.org.au/mtsrf/index.html. Accessed June 20, 2010. 108

Australia Institute of Marine Science. “08-09 Annual Report.” Townsville: Australia Institute of Marine Science, 2009. . http://www.aims.gov.au/source/publications/pdf/ar20082009.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2010.

http://www.rrrc.org.au/mtsrf/index.html

http://www.aims.gov.au/source/publications/pdf/ar20082009.pdf


Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (ARC Coral Reef):

Partners with educational institutions, GBRMPA, Commonwealth and State government,

international institutions and companies, foundations, and NGOs ; and

Centre for Marine Studies, at the University of Queensland (CMS): Addresses a wide range

of marine science concerns109 including marine biology and biodiscovery,110 coastal plant

communities, aquaculture, and aquatic animal health.

Key Australian Commonwealth and State Departments:

Please see the discussion above under “Principal Institutions and Relationships”

Community Partnerships:

In addition to the Reef Advisory Councils’ and Local Marine Advisory Committees’ participation in

planning and management described earlier, there is an Indigenous Partnerships Liaison Unit111 at the

GBRMPA. The Unit was established in 1995 to provide timely and accurate advice to the GBRMPA and

to stakeholders on indigenous issues and cooperative management arrangements in the Great Barrier

Reef Marine Park.

GRBMPA also partners with industry. For example, the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators

(AMPTO) is a nonprofit trade association and the key industry body for marine tourism within the Park.

AMPTO works closely with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to continually monitor and

improve management of the reef.

Legislative Mandate: As mentioned above the two most important pieces of legislation governing the Great Barrier Reef

region are the Great Barrier Marine Park Act 1975, as amended, as well as the Great Barrier Reef

Intergovernmental Agreement in 2009. The Act established the GBR Marine Park and GBRMPA. In

addition, the IGA outlines the management relationship between the Commonwealth and the

Queensland governments.

109

Centre for Marine Studies, at University of Queensland “is mandated to assist in the integration, collaboration, and development of research and educational programs related to, or involving, marine science.” More information can be found at the program’s website: http://www.marine.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=52423. Accessed June 20, 2010. 110

Biodiscovery is another term for bioprospecting. Biodiscovery activities are regulated under the Biodiscovery Act 2004. 111

Indigenous Partnerships Liaison Unit http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/conservation/indigenous_partnerships Accessed June 20, 2010.

http://www.marine.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=52423

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/conservation/indigenous_partnerships



Funding Sources and Security:112 Commonwealth and State Funding:

The Australian and Queensland Governments together spend approximately $US 100 million annually on

research and management activities in the Great Barrier Reef.113 The institutions responsible for day-to-

day management of the Great Barrier Reef split funding responsibilities evenly. The overall cost of

managing GBRMPA for 2008-2009 was $US 39 million.114 Forty-seven percent ($US 25 million) of the

total income is sourced from Commonwealth appropriations within the Annual Budget of the

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage, and the Arts. GBRMPA also received special

appropriations from the Commonwealth, which together with the revenue obtained from a user fee

program, called the Environmental Management Charge, accounted for 17 percent of the overall annual

income of the program. Queensland allocated $US 14 million, a portion of which represented the 50:50

match with the Commonwealth for day-to-day management costs as mandated in the Great Barrier Reef

Intergovernmental Agreement. Revenue from the GBRMPA-managed aquarium, Reef HQ, contributed

eight percent to the annual revenue for FY 2008-2009. See Figure 2 below for a depiction of how

revenue in FY 2008-2009 was spent.

Figure 2: Annual Revenue for Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

112

All amounts listed are in Australian Dollars unless otherwise stated. 113

Based on text from http://svc65.wic904d.server-web.com/Whoweare/Wherewefit.aspx as of July 23. 2010. 114

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Annual Report 2008-2009. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2009. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/41778/AR2008-2009.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2010.

32%

36%

15%

11%

6%

GBRMPA: FY 2008-2009 Revenue

Special Appropriations/ EMC

Queensland Government

Related Entitiy

Reef HQ

Other

http://svc65.wic904d.server-web.com/Whoweare/Wherewefit.aspx

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/41778/AR2008-2009.pdf



Research and Monitoring Funding:

Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies115 (ARC Coral Reef): a collective

of researchers and institutions that also acts as a research funding source. ARC Coral Reef was seed

funded in 2005 with federal funds under the Australian Research Council. Its 2009 budget was

approximately $US 7 million. ARC Coral Reef takes a leading role in multi-national research programs. It

is the largest single institutional contributor to the Global Coral Reef Targeted Research Program,

funded by the World Bank, and is an institutional member of the Resilience Alliance. ARC Coral Reef has

strong links to the Census of Marine Life project, and to coral reef management agencies worldwide in

addition to its close relationship with GBRMPA.

Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs): Two reef-focused CRCs were an important source of funding for

reef research and laid the groundwork for long-term successor entities. Background on Australia’s CRC

program is needed to understand this unique program among the case studies chosen. CRCs are

limited-duration entities that exist to provide “funding to build critical mass in research ventures

between end-users and researchers which tackle clearly-articulated, major challenges for the end-

users.”116 A CRC is a “collaboration of partnerships between publicly funded researchers and end users”

and can be an “incorporated or unincorporated organization.”117 In addition, “CRCs must comprise at

least one Australian end-user (either from the private, public, or community sector) and one Australian

higher education institution (or research institute affiliated with a university).”118 At this time, there are

48 CRCs operating under six broad categories: Manufacturing Technology, Information and

Communication Technology, Mining and Energy, Agriculture and Rural-based Manufacturing,

Environment, and Medical Science and Technology.119

From 1993-1999 the CRC for Ecologically Sustainable Development of the Great Barrier Reef focused on

sustainable multi-use of the Great Barrier Reef Region and had the following core participants: James

Cook University, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Queensland Department of Primary Industries

and Fisheries, Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators, Ltd., and the Great Barrier Reef Marine

115

ARC Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies website: http://www.coralcoe.org.au/. Accessed June 20, 2010. 116

Innovation Industry, Science and Research: Cooperative Research Centres. “Welcome to the CRC Program.” Innovation Industry, Science and Research: Cooperative Research Centres. https://www.crc.gov.au/Information/default.aspx. Accessed June 20, 2010. 117

Innovation Industry, Science and Research: Cooperative Research Centres. “The Program.” Innovation Industry, Science and Research: Cooperative Research Centres. https://www.crc.gov.au/Information/ShowInformation.aspx?Doc=about_programme&key=bulletin-board-programme&Heading=The Program. Accessed June 20, 2010. 118

Ibid. 119

Ibid.

http://www.coralcoe.org.au/

https://www.crc.gov.au/Information/default.aspx

https://www.crc.gov.au/Information/ShowInformation.aspx?Doc=about_programme&key=bulletin-board-programme&Heading=The%20Program.%20

https://www.crc.gov.au/Information/ShowInformation.aspx?Doc=about_programme&key=bulletin-board-programme&Heading=The%20Program.%20

71 | P a g e

Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF


Park Authority.120 From 1999-2006, a successor CRC for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area

(later named the CRC Reef Research Center, Ltd.) continued the work from the previous reef based CRC

and counted as core participants the five institutions named above, and in addition the following:

Australian Fisheries Management Authority;

Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization;

Great Barrier Reef Research Foundation;

National Oceans Office;

Queensland Commercial Fisherman’s State Council;

Queensland Seafood Industry Association, Inc.;

Sunfish Queensland; and

Torres Strait Regional Authority.121

Both CRC programs resided at James Cook University in Townsville, Queensland. After the second round

of funding ended, the CRC Reef Research Center, Ltd. merged with the Rainforest CRC to form the

Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility, discussed further below (see Box 2 on CRC Coral Reef).

The Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility (MTSRF): Founded in 2006 as the successor to the

CRCs described above, is the recipient of considerable funding from the Commonwealth to support

research conducted in the Marine Park. The Australian Government invested $US 35 million in MTSRF

for a four year period.122 In 2010 the MTSRF obtained a renewed commitment from the Commonwealth

of approximately $US 17 million per year towards environmental research to “understand, manage, and

conserve Australia’s unique biodiversity and ecosystems through the generation of world-class research

and its delivery to Australia environmental decision-makers and other stakeholders.”123

The Great Barrier Reef Foundation: Supports research projects which might be missing from current

programs in areas in which government and other investors either cannot or will not invest. As a

nonprofit charity, it focuses on raising funds from industry and individual donors.

Queensland State government: support for research is channeled through the state’s Department of

Environment and Resource Management and Queensland Fisheries Management Authority.

120

Innovation Industry, Science and Research: Cooperative Research Centres. “Environment Sector History.” Innovation Industry, Science and Research: Cooperative Research Centres. https://www.crc.gov.au/HTMLDocuments/Documents/PDF/Environ_Sector_HIST_color.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2010. 121

Ibid. 122

Innovation Industry, Science and Research: Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility. “Home Page.” Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility. http://www.environment.gov.au/about/programs/cerf/marine-tropical.html. Accessed June 20, 2010. 123

Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities. “Home Page.” Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities. http://www.environment.gov.au/about/programs/cerf/index.html. Accessed June 20, 2010.

https://www.crc.gov.au/HTMLDocuments/Documents/PDF/Environ_Sector_HIST_color.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/about/programs/cerf/marine-tropical.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/about/programs/cerf/index.html



Typically, these five funders support research and monitoring conducted by the Australia Institute of

Marine Science and James Cook University and some of the Queensland government agencies.

Prioritized and Transparent Funding Process: To ensure that funding decisions are transparent and prioritized, GBRMPA uses five-yearly Scientific

Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park reports to prioritize

projects and resources for research as well as the Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report issued on the same

schedule. More details about the science needs report are found below in the discussion of

“Incorporation of Science in Decision-Making and Adaptive Management.” In accordance with the

Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Intergovernmental Agreement, annually the

joint Commonwealth/Queensland Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council reports to the Prime Minister

and the Premier of Queensland. Third-party audits further ensure accurate reporting and management.

Stakeholder Advice: GBRMPA incorporates stakeholder concerns at all management levels through its Board and

committees. The GBRMPA Board includes two stakeholder members who represent indigenous and

tourism interests respectively.

Advisory committees inform and engage stakeholders in the process of developing policy and managing

the Great Barrier Reef. GBRMPA’s two principal types of advisory committees are the Reef Advisory

Committees (RACs) and the Local Marine Advisory Committees (LMACs). Both the RAC and LMAC have

staff support from GBRMPA to organize, participate, and coordinate committee meetings, activities, and

input.

RACs are “competency-based committees comprising a cross-section of stakeholder interests with

expertise and experience in relevant areas.”124 One informant stated that “this is to ensure that policy

development and strategic direction are developed in consultation with stakeholders.” RAC members

are appointed for their individual expertise or as a representative of a particular group, sector, or

government agency. All RAC members are expected to adopt a broad perspective on GBRMPA issues.

LMACs operate in regional centers along the coast of Queensland and address localized marine and

coastal issues affecting Marine Park stakeholders. The LMACs are a forum to both inform the public and

124

Ibid. and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Organizational Chart-Advisory Group Structure.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/22059/ce1307_advisory_structure_07.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2010.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/22059/ce1307_advisory_structure_07.pdf



support user group and local community communication. LMACs committee membership strives to

balance local interests, is voluntary, and requires a three-year commitment.125

GBRMPA’s Indigenous Partnerships Liaison Unit focuses on four key programs126:

sustainable traditional use of marine resources;

cultural and heritage values and cooperative arrangements for sea country management;

sea country research and education; and

indigenous participation in tourism and its management.

In addition to working with all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Traditional Owner groups along the

Great Barrier Reef, the Unit also consults with other government authorities through regular

presentations and information sessions to the tourism industry, the fishing industry, and conservation

groups in order to build a greater understanding of Traditional Owner issues within Marine Park

management.

Community Engagement, Education, and Outreach: GBRMPA invests in education and communications. GBRMPA’s communications officer developed a

“reef under pressure” campaign during the most recent rezoning process to communicate the threats to

the reef and needs for protection to ensure health of the system.127 An important community education

and stewardship program is the Reef Guardian program.128 Reef Guardian began with Reef Guardian

Schools (RGS). More than 150 schools have pledged their involvement in the RGS. RGS is an “action-

based school participation program” that involves “students, teachers, and the community in

environmental initiatives."129 The RGS curricula uses internal and external student participation in reef

protection activities including “energy audits, creating worm farms, compositing, growing their own fruit

and vegetables, and taking part in local clean ups.”130 In return, participating schools are recognized as

environmental leaders.

The RGS program’s success led to two new programs: Sea Country Guardians (SCG) and Reef Guardian

Councils (RGC). The SCG expands the RGS program and focuses on working with indigenous

125

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Local marine Advisory Committees.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/management/who_participates/lmac. Accessed June 20, 2010. 126

Indigenous Partnership Liaison Unit. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/conservation/indigenous_partnerships. Accessed June 20, 2010. 127

Olsson, P., C. Folk, and T.P. Hughes. 2008. “Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105:9489–9494. 128


Ibid. 130

Ibid.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/conservation/indigenous_partnerships/cultural_and_heritage_values_for_sea_country_management

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/conservation/indigenous_partnerships/sea_country_research_and_education

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/tourism/management/indigenous_participation_in_tourism

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/management/who_participates/lmac

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/conservation/indigenous_partnerships




communities and youth to foster stewardship through creative activities.131 Implementation of the SCG

is ongoing. The RGC aims to “raise awareness and encourage best management practice in local

government activities, while recognizing that effective protection and management of the Great Barrier

Reef requires partnerships at all levels of government, industry, and the community.”132 Because poor

water quality is a key threat to the health of the GBR, the RGC program works as a cooperative effort to

address pollution concerns and management. In order to address these concerns, each RGC creates

action plans to address the issues of water management, waste management, land management, and

community engagement.

In addition to the Reef Guardian programs, the GBRMP uses newsletters, fact sheets, and the Eye on the

Reef Monitoring Program to support community education and engagement. Eye on the Reef seeks to

deliver science information to the tourism industry, improve understating about the reef in general, and

monitor popular tourism destinations for reef health changes.133 In addition, the joint field management

program also uses interpretation projects to educate the public and promote stewardship throughout

the reef region.

GBRMPA is also responsible for the management of the Reef HQ Aquarium in Townsville, Queensland.

The Aquarium provides an opportunity for the general public and visitors to the region to learn about

the Great Barrier Reef and the threats facing the system.

Scientific Research: Australia has breadth and depth in marine research. They are a worldwide leader in coral reef and

fisheries science and management. As listed above there are a number of researcher and monitoring

providers, including some state agencies.

Australia Institute of Marine Science “surveys and documents marine life from microbes to whole-of-

ecosystems, and the processes that sustain them; monitors changes and identifies trends in the marine

environment; and develops molecular tools and ocean technologies.” AIMS employs approximately 200

people (support staff and researchers). A major project relevant to the GBR region is the GBRMPA Long

Term Monitoring Program (LTMP), which surveys the health of 47 reefs in the Great Barrier Reef

(ongoing since 1993).134

131

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Sea Country Guardians.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/education/sea_country_guardians. Accessed June 20, 2010. 132

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Reef Guardian Councils Programme.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/water_quality/reef_guardian_councils. Accessed June 20, 2010. 133

Eye on the Reef. “Program Information.” Eye on the Reef. http://www.eyeonthereef.com.au/program-info/index.cfm. Accessed June 20, 2010. 134

Australia Institute of Marine Science. “Reef Monitoring.” Australia Institute of Marine Science. http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/monitoring/reef/reef-monitoring.html. Accessed June 20, 2010.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/doing_your_bit

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/education/sea_country_guardians

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/water_quality/reef_guardian_councils

http://www.eyeonthereef.com.au/program-info/index.cfm

http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/monitoring/reef/reef-monitoring.html


Australia Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (ARC Coral Reef) contributes in a

variety of ways to the research and advice GBRMPA uses including research focused on policy

development, institutions, and governance of coral reefs.135 Like AIMS, ARC Coral Reef is located at

James Cook University and is linked to the university’s program. The ARC Coral Reef Studies 2009

Annual Report states the following programmatic targets:

research;

research training and professional education;

end-user and community linkages;

national and international linkages;

management and governance; and

commercial activities.

ARC Coral Reef’s Science Management Committee (SMC)136 plans for the Centre's scientific research

program.137 SMC reviews and expands the objectives and operations for the research programs,

develops collaborations, recruits postdoctoral fellows, plans professional development programs, and

looks at ARC’s communication strategy and process to engage end-users.138 Examples of research

conducted in 2009 included findings from monitoring long-term influence of ocean acidification on reefs

and a review and synthesis of information about biological connectivity among reefs in marine reserves.

James Cook University (JCU) and the Centre for Marine Studies at the University of Queensland (CMS)

contribute a wide variety of data to the management of the GBRMPA and collaborate with all the other

marine science organizations identified in this case study.

The Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility carries out theme-based research in five areas:

status of ecosystems, risks and threats to ecosystems, halting and reversing the decline of water quality,

sustainable use and management of natural resources, and enhancing delivery of relevant synthesized

scientific information to targeted end users.139

135

ARC Centre of Excellence Coral Reef Studies. “Research.” ARC Centre of Excellence Coral Reef Studies. http://www.coralcoe.org.au/research.html. Accessed June 20, 2010. 136

Members include Professor Yossi Loya (chair), the leaders of ARC Coral Reef’s eight Research Programs, and the Director of the Knowledge Management Group from GBRMPA. 137

ARC Coral Reef Studies 2008-2009 Annual Report. http://www.coralcoe.org.au/annualreport09.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2010. 138

Ibid. 139

Reef and Rainforest Research Centre. “Structure of the MTSRF Research Programme.” Reef and Rainforest Research Centre. . http://www.rrrc.org.au/mtsrf/programme_structure.html. Accessed June 17, 2010.

http://www.coralcoe.org.au/research.html

http://www.coralcoe.org.au/annualreport09.pdf

http://www.rrrc.org.au/mtsrf/programme_structure.html



Box 2: Cooperative Research Centres and Collaborative Approach

The Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Programme is an initiative of the Australian government designed to

bring together researchers and research-users. CRCs are established through a competitive selection process that

focuses on whether the proposed center will benefit Australia’s economy or environment. The program also

emphasizes the training of graduate students who will then pursue careers in industry. CRC Reef Research Centre

(CRC Reef) was established in 1993 to provide research solutions designed to mitigate threats to the world’s coral

reefs, with a particular focus on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. After the second round of funding

expired in 2006, the center merged with the Rainforest CRC to form the Marine and Tropical Sciences Research

Facility, located at James Cook University in Cairns and Townsville.

CRC Reef’s work was structured to ensure that research products were useful to industry partners. CRC Reef’s

strategic direction, although not the specific research agenda, was determined by the board of directors, which

was composed of representatives from partner organizations who had contributed matching funds. Participants

included representatives from industry as well as academic and public institutions. A Scientific Advisory

Committee was also established to provide the board with technical advice.

The CRC Reef’s research focused on six different areas:

Conserving World Heritage Values

Sustainable Industries

Maintaining Ecosystem Quality

Healthy Country Health Reef

Reef Futures

Torres Strait

Each of these research programs was divided into projects, which were then divided further into research tasks.

Each program, project, and task was led by a scientist from one of the participating institutions. Each task was

also assigned a “task associate,” an industry or management partner who assisted in developing research

objectives, maintaining research focus, and communicating research results and recommendations to industry and

management agencies. To ensure effective collaboration, funds were released to researchers only after the task

associate signed off on the research and progress reports.

CRC Reef provided an effective mechanism to generate monitoring data that was collected consistently over the

center’s entire lifespan. The Australian Institute for Marine Science, a CRC partner, hosted a centralized data

center for research findings, making it easy to study long-term trends. To ensure that CRC-funded research was

readily available to users, CRC Reef retained ownership of all intellectual property that was produced; however,

researchers were actively encouraged to publish their findings. In addition, one of the outcomes for most projects

was the production of a technical report that summarized research findings at a level appropriate for industry and

management partners.


Science Advice:

140

See www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/finalsynthesis/Making-a-difference_72dpi.pdf; Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan 2003, available at www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/10591/Zoning_Plan.pdf. 141

Innovation Industry, Science and Research: Cooperative Research Centres. “Who.” Innovation Industry, Science and Research: Cooperative Research Centres. http://www.reef.crc.org.au/about/who.html. Accessed June 21, 2010.

Policy and management outcomes resulting from CRC’s efforts are documented in a recent report entitled World

Heritage Research: Making a Difference CRC Reef: Research, Education and Capacity Building 1999-2006.140

The

CRC is a model for integrated end-user driven research. Dozens of policy and management changes and solutions

result from each CRC focused research area. Taking one line of research as an example, the CRC Reef contributed

to better understanding of the threatened dugong, including its life history, population estimates, and special

habitat requirements. In turn, this knowledge led to a number of policy and management changes by both the

Commonwealth and Queensland governments including:

Declaration of Dugong Protection Areas in both Commonwealth and State waters, which include the

removal of net fishing from some significant dugong habitat.

Inclusion of key dugong habitat in 'no-take' and limited fishing zones of the Great Barrier Reef Marine

Park Zoning Plan 2003.

Introduction of voluntary vessel lanes and/or speed restrictions to protect dugongs from vessel strikes in

prime dugong habitat (e.g., Hinchinbrook Island).

Development of mutually acceptable legal agreements with traditional owners for the management of

traditional hunting in local areas.

Replacement of shark nets with drumlines at most locations where bather safety is an issue.

A review of the use of herbicide, which has been detected in both dugong tissues and the sediments

associated with seagrass beds.

Organization of a collaborative marine wildlife carcass salvage program.

Provision of evidence to the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council about indigenous harvest

of dugongs in the northern GBR and Torres Strait, that led to the establishment of the national

partnership approach to the harvest of marine turtles and dugongs in Australia in 2005.

The CRC Reef Board used a Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), who provided technical and scientific advice via

“the CEO and Task Review Committee on the research and technology transfer aspects of CRC Reef’s

programs.”141

Core Participants: Each participant contributed funds annually to the federal match requirement

Industry: Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators Limited; Queensland Seafood Industry

Association; SUNFISH Queensland Inc.

University: James Cook University.

Commonwealth: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; Australian Institute of Marine Science.

State: Queensland Department of Primary Industries.

Other: Great Barrier Reef Research Foundation.

(excerpt from TCHA 2007 White Paper Integrating Science into Coastal and Ocean Policy and Management:

Barriers and Solutions)

http://www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/finalsynthesis/Making-a-difference_72dpi.pdf

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/10591/Zoning_Plan.pdf

http://www.reef.crc.org.au/about/who.html.



Both GBRMPA and the joint Commonwealth/Queensland Field Management Program obtain science advice from Reef Advisory Committees and the multitude of science partners described above: the Marine and Tropical Science Research Facility, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the ARC Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, the University of Queensland Centre for Marine Studies, and others. The GBRMPA Science Coordination Group is responsible for linking research and information about the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to the policy and management decision-making processes. Incorporation of Science in Decision-Making and Adaptive Management: Thirty years after the establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the Commonwealth

appointed a panel to review the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 and to recommend actions to

set out a clear direction for future management of the park and “continued protection for marine life

and biodiversity, as well as for ongoing sustainable economic and recreational activity and engagement

with business and local communities.”142 A key recommendation from the report called for “a regular

and reliable means of assessing performance in the long-term protection of the Marine Park in an

accountable and transparent manner” and led to the publication of the first Great Barrier Reef Outlook

Report 2009 (or Outlook Report). The outlook report must be updated every five years. The Outlook

Report assesses the current state of the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem's environmental, social, and

economic values, examines the pressures and current responses, and finally considers the likely outlook

for the park. The Outlook Report, which was independently peer-reviewed, does not make

recommendations, deferring to the Commonwealth and Queensland government to identify and

implement solutions. Informants described the Outlook Report as a pivotal synthesis tool for setting and

communicating management priorities for the park.

The Outlook Report also reshaped another important document, Marine Park’s Scientific Information

Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Previously published in 2001 and

2005, the 2009 version was restructured to align with five-year overarching research questions (see Box

3) informed by the findings of the Outlook Report.143 The overarching questions consider the key risks to

the reef ecosystem, management options for reducing risks, and the knowledge needed to implement

those options.144

Box 3: Excerpt from Scientific Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 2009

142

Department of the Environment and Heritage. 2006. “Forward.” Review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 - Review Panel Report. http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/gbr/publications/gbr-marine-park-act.html. Accessed June 21, 2010. 143

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Science Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 2009-2014.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2009. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/42377/GBRMPA_Scientific_Information_Needs.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2010. 144

Ibid.

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/gbr/publications/gbr-marine-park-act.html

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/42377/GBRMPA_Scientific_Information_Needs.pdf


How can we best understand and manage the cumulative impacts of multiple pressures on the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem and the goods and services it provides?

What are the effects of existing management strategies on the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem?

What adaptation strategies, including improvements to current management and completely novel strategies, could be used to improve the Great Barrier Reef's resilience (particularly in the face of climate change)?

How can catchment and nearshore management strategies (planning and decision-making across all uses) in the Reef catchment be improved to better protect coastal ecosystems adjacent and connected to the Reef and to improve water quality, ecosystem health and ecosystem resilience of the Great Barrier Reef?

The Scientific Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 2009 report

acknowledges that answering the four question areas necessitates using multiple approaches including

monitoring, synthesis of existing research, and “effective and long-term institutional arrangements for

data collection and management to ensure research results are put to best use and duplication of effort

is avoided.”145 In addition, the document outlines four steps for determining if research is likely to be

useful to managers: 1) determining if the issue addresses a management concern; 2) asking whether

existing research explains the issue; 3) assessing the feasibility of researching the question in terms of

time and resource limitations; and 4) considering whether answering the research questions helps the

organization meet its objectives.146 This document is first prepared internally and then peer-reviewed

by leading experts.

In addition to the guidelines above, the GBRMPA Science Coordination Group is responsible for linking

research and information about the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to the policy and management

decision-making processes. This ensures that the GBRMPA bases management decisions on the best

available scientific information.147

One observation from an informant in comparing the current institutional arrangements for effective

stakeholder input to earlier arrangements suggested that industry representation was more effective

when the CRC Coral Reef program was in place in the early 2000s, citing it as very successful in

integrating industry, research, and management needs. For example, an informant suggested that

industry stakeholders could conduct routine monitoring that, in conjunction with scientifically rigorous

yearly or biannual monitoring, would show temporal changes and help identify emerging issues.

145

Ibid. 146

Ibid. 147

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Science and information: Using the best available scientific information to manage the Marine Park.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/science_management. Accessed June 21, 2010.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/science_management



The Great Barrier Reef Foundation has close relations with the science community. As outlined in the

Foundation’s mission and strategy, they established an advisory committee (comprised of leading

researchers and managers) and topic-specific working groups to build out the foundation’s research

frameworks. They commission research conducted by experts , and ensure results are used by decision-

makers through the advisory and working group structure.

Data Management, Sharing, and Products: GBRMPA shares information and the latest knowledge via an array of products (newsletters, information

sheets, publications, etc.)148 and makes available the following key documents on its website: the Great

Barrier Reef marine Park Act 1975, Outlook Report, Corporate Plan, Portfolio Budget Statement, Annual

Report, Annual Operating Plan, and Individual Performance Plans.

Informants expressed the view that good information is imperative to inform management decisions. A

significant portion of GBRMPA’s management efforts relies on monitoring and evaluation of data to

assess the health of the region (for example the AIMS GBRMPA Long Term Monitoring Program). The

Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009 based findings on existing publications and data supporting the

status of the region as well as extensive peer-review, including an independent review by four reviewers

appointed by the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage, and the Arts. The Outlook Report

summarized the past and present triple bottom line (environmental, economic, and social values) of the

Great Barrier Reef.

Research institutions that collaborate with the GBRMPA include published products on their respective

websites and are relatively easy to access. For example, under “Publications,” AIMS lists available

electronic publications, corporate publications, research publications, newsletters, and a library

catalogue. Like AIMS, the State of Queensland’s DERM has all of its annual reports, annual compliance

plans, codes of conduct, statement of affairs, strategic plans, etc. available for review on its website

under “Corporate Documents.”149 In addition, the Australian Freedom of Information Act 1982

promotes access to information.150

In addition to relying on research co-operations and institutes (such as AIMS and MSTRF), the GBRMPA

is responsible for creating the official zoning maps for the GBR Marine Park. These maps are available

via the web.151 GBRMPA also released data to Google Maps and downloadable files for Google Earth in

2008 as part of the International Year of the Reef.

148

Ibid. 149

Department of Environmental and Resource Management. “Corporate Documents.” Department of Environment and Resource Management. http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/about/corporatedocs/index.html. Accessed June 21, 2010. 150

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. "Freedom of Information". Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/about_us/freedom_of_information. Accessed June 21, 2010. 151

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Zoning Maps.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/management/zoning/zoning_maps.html. Accessed June 21, 2010.

http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/about/corporatedocs/index.html

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/about_us/freedom_of_information

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/management/zoning/zoning_maps.html


Accessible Information: Because the institutional arrangements have been ongoing since 1975, a vast amount of information is

available via web-based resources. GBRMPA posts all guidance documents, research priorities, annual

reports, budget information, outreach material, etc on their website. In addition, each research

institution discussed above provides published papers.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Mechanisms Summary Table: The table below summarizes the mechanism assessment and key findings or best practices that exist

within the Great Barrier Reef Region. Key findings for the Great Barrier Reef Region include routinely

prioritizing research needs based on management gaps,152 improving management evaluation through

the Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009, and integration of a strong set of stakeholder and science

institutions to support effective management of the Great Barrier Reef.

152

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Science Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 2009-2014.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2009. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/42377/GBRMPA_Scientific_Information_Needs.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2010.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/42377/GBRMPA_Scientific_Information_Needs.pdf



Table 10: Mechanism Overview Assessment for the Great Barrier Reef Region Coastal and Ocean Institutional Arrangements




Partners Management of the marine park involves all levels of government, non-governmental organizations, industry, and academia.

Legislative Mandate

Great Barrier Marine Park Act 1975 and later version, as well as the Intergovernmental Agreement support a strong system of marine and resource protection and management.

Funding Sources

and Security An unusually strong financial commitment from the national government to science generally and the Marine Park specifically is complemented by supplemental funding from private sources.

Prioritized and

Transparent Funding

Process

Outlook Report 2009 publicly and prominently sets priorities to guide funding. Annual reporting and auditing ensures that business plans and funded research align. Use of RFP and competitive process to ensure transparent funding process.

Stakeholder Advice

Use of committees, particularly RACs with a cross-section of stakeholder interests and LMACs representing coastal communities, provide opportunities for incorporating stakeholder advice.

Community

Engagement,

Education, Outreach

LMACs, communications materials, messaging campaigns, Reef Guardian program developing environmental stewards in schools and government all contribute to strengths in this area.

Scientific Research

GBRMPA is a focal point for world class Australian and international researchers.

Science Advice

The Science Coordination Group links Great Barrier Reef research and information to decision-makers. GBRMPA works closely with research providers including, five principal research entities.

Incorporation of

Science into Decision-

making and Adaptive

Management

Continual review and monitoring supports adaptive management strategies within the Park. Outlook Report 2009 is seen as a milestone in identifying priorities and gaps in science, primarily by refocusing the document Scientific Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.


Policy Input

The Outlook Report 2009 and Science Coordination Group ensure science is synthesized for policy input.

Data Management/

Sharing/ Products Newsletters, zoning maps, and publications are widely accessible and freely shared.


Web-based resources are widely available on all aspects of programs, processes, and operations.



Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Objective Assessment:

Ability to Receive and Distribute Funds from Various Sources: The majority of funds used to implement the programs and activities of the Authority are allocated from

state and government sources. The Commonwealth makes an annual allocation to the Authority to

cover the majority of its costs. Special annual appropriations from the Department of the Environment,

Water, Heritage, and the Arts allow GBRMPA to access funds for emerging issues. Partnerships with

other Commonwealth and Queensland government agencies also help to supplement some of the cost

for management, such as surveillance and enforcement.

GBRMPA has also set up two alternate revenue sources that help to supplement the organization’s

income. In 2007, GBRMPA set up a user fee program to increase revenues. An Environmental

Management Charge is assessed to most commercial permit holders operating within the Marine Park.

Operators required to participate in this program include tourist operators—diving tours or hotels— and

non-tourist commercial charters—research or filming. As directed through the program, visitors to the

Park are required to pay the permit holder $5.00AUD for the charge; permit holders in turn transfer the

collected funds to the Authority. All funds received are applied directly to the management costs of the

Park, including education, research, patrolling, and policy development.

Revenue from Reef HQ Aquarium admissions, membership, and retail sales all contribute to the overall

cost of managing the Marine Park.

The Great Barrier Reef Foundation, as an Australian nonprofit, is also able to receive donor funds from a

wide range of organizations tax-free. They are trying to grow their donor base among industry and the

general public.

Neutrality and Trust: An important purpose of the Outlook Report 2009 is to ensure that GBRMPA remains neutral and

trustworthy.153 To this end, the report is “tabled in *i.e., reviewed by+ Parliament to ensure full public

accountability.”154 The Outlook Report’s findings were based on existing publications and data

supporting the status of the region. The Report underwent extensive review and oversight beginning in

2007 when the Outlook Report Taskforce was established within the GBRMPA and ending with four

peer-reviewers selected by the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage, and the Arts.

153

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009.” Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, July 2009. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/41778/AR2008-2009.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2010. 154

Ibid.



In addition to the Outlook Report, informants stated that peer-review is extensively used and programs

are accountable to Parliament and the public. Annually, the GBRMPA undergoes audits from the

GBRMPA Authority Audit Committee and the Australian National Audit Office.

Effective stakeholder engagement mechanisms also help ensure neutrality and trust. Committees exist

at all community and government levels to ensure that stakeholders have input and receive information

on GBRMPA activities.

Flexibility and Adaptability: The GBRMPA supports adaptive management strategies. The GBRMPA uses plans and reports to

identify key management adaptation needs. To this end, the 2006 Review of the Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park Act 1975, recommended and endorsed an Outlook Report. The report, published on a

“five-yearly basis,” is “a key input for any future changes to zoning plans and consideration of broader

issues by governments.” Although the GBR Outlook Report process is new, it is a comprehensive

assessment of the current state of the GBR Marine Park ecosystem and informants stated it would be a

useful tool for future management and identification of trends.155

Additional reporting and planning that support adaptive management strategies include:

Corporate Plan (every four years)

Annual Operating Plan

Scientific Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park156

Although the GBRMPA supports adaptive management, it is important to note that the program

recognizes the need to allow time for changes to be implemented. For instance, after new zoning rules

are enacted, a minimum seven-year “lock-down” exists.157 The “lock-down” allows businesses,

communities, and biological systems to stabilize and respond to zoning changes.

Transparency:

155


Ibid. 157

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Amendments to the Great Barrier Reef marine park act 1975.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/about_us/review. Accessed June 21, 2010.


http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/about_us/review



Similar to the observations above under “Neutrality and Trust,” the GBRMPA openly shares reports,

planning documents, and publication via the web and through newsletters.158 The Outlook Report

process exemplifies transparent reporting and peer-review. The report uses eight assessment criteria

outlined and required by the Great Barrier Marine Park Act 1975.159 GBRMPA makes grading statements

based on the required assessment criteria.

In addition, annually the joint Commonwealth-Queensland Ministerial Council reports to the Prime

Minister and the Premier of Queensland. Every five years the Ministerial Council provides a

“substantive assessment on the implantation of the Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement.160

The IGA Joint Field Management Program’s Strategy Group develops annual business plans documenting

funding decisions.

Finally, the IGA and GBRMPA ensure accurate reporting and management of the programs with external

third-party audits.

The research institutions publish an annual report and show accountability metrics related to research,

training, partnerships, funding, and publications. The Great Barrier Reef Foundation also has well

documented reports available to the public. These groups also have committees and key stakeholders

participating actively in governance.

Objective and Trusted Scientific Advice to Inform Decision-Makers: The Scientific Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 2009-2014

outlines important data needs for making management decisions. To further this end, the GBRMPA

Science Coordination Group is responsible for connecting good research and information about the

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to the policy and management decision-making processes. The use of a

dedicated science group ensures management decisions are based on the best available scientific

information.161

As noted in the Science Advice section above, the unique Cooperative Research Centers (CRC) and the

Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility (MTSRF) connect end-users and researches in

158


Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009.” Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, July 2009. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/41778/AR2008-2009.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2010. 160

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Service Charter.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/about_us/service_charter. Accessed June 21, 2010. 161

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Science and information: Using the best available scientific information to manage the Marine Park.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/science_management. Accessed June 21, 2010.



http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/about_us/service_charter




cooperative agreements to foster primary research.162 In MTSRF alone, 38 end-user organizations in

partnership with 15 research providers work together to develop management-relevant and timely

research.163 Research produced within the CRC, MTSRF, and other research cooperatives is rigorously

peer-reviewed thereby fostering objectivity and trustworthiness of the research products.

Administrative Costs: In the GBRMPA and the Department of Environment and Resource Management annual reports,

administrative costs are included under the overall operational costs of the programs. The operational

costs for GBRMPA fall into four categories: Field Management, Suppliers, Employees, and Other. The

2008-2009 GBRMPA Annual Report stated that the operating expense of managing the Marine Park in

2008-09 was $US 40 million.164 Based on the information available we cannot determine the

administrative costs of operating. Figure 3 below shows expenses by category for 2008-2009 operating

expenses. 165

Figure 3: GBRMPA Expenses for 2008-2008

162

Reef and Rainforest Research Centre. “Welcome.” Reef and Rainforest Research Centre. http://www.rrrc.org.au/. Accessed June 21, 2010. 163

Reef and Rainforest Research Centre. “About.” Reef and Rainforest Research Centre. http://www.rrrc.org.au/about/index.html. Accessed June 21, 2010. 164

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Annual Report 2008-2009.” Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2009 http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/41778/AR2008-2009.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2010 165

Ibid.

27%

28%

42%

3%

Expenses by Category in 2008-2009

Field Management

Suppliers

Employees

Other

http://www.rrrc.org.au/

http://www.rrrc.org.au/about/index.html




Like GBRMPA and DERM, the ARC annual Statement of Operating Income and Expenditure for FY2009

financial statement did not separate administrative costs. The table below depicts the 2009 ARC

Expenditures.

Table 11: 2009 ARC Statement of Operating Expenditure

Expenditure 2009 Cost ($AUS)

Salaries $3,829,430

Equipment $526,204

Travel $1,236,948

Research maintenance and consumables $1,087,630

Scholarships $153,077

Public outreach and administration $171,776

Total Expenditure $7,005,065

The Great Barrier Reef Foundation annual budget for 2009 was $US 3 million, projects costs accounted

for 74.3 percent of the budget and the prior year it was 71 percent.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Objective Assessment Summary Table: The table below summarizes the assessment and key findings or best practices that exist within the

Great Barrier Reef Region. For example, the Outlook Report, a response to recommendations in the

2007 review, enforces a strong transparency mechanism.



Table 12: Objective Assessment of Great Barrier Reef Region Coastal and Ocean Institutional Arrangements


Ability to Receive and Distribute

Funds from Various Sources

Institutions are in place to tap revenues from all levels of

government and user fees, and through partner organizations,

private foundations. Use nonprofits such as ARC and the Great

Barrier Reef Foundation.


Program evaluations, use of peer-review processes, public disclosure,

and involvement of stakeholders support the Authority’s endeavors

to remain neutral and trustworthy.


Setting science priorities every five years ensures that funding

supports relevant research for management needs.

Transparency

Information about GBRMPA priorities, management, and finances

are readily available. The Outlook Report process utilized a strong

peer-review and oversight system ensuring transparency.

Objective and Trusted Science

for Decision-making

Reliance on peer-review, former CRC program, current MTSRF, and

other research institutional partnerships support continued use of

exemplary research findings.

Administrative Costs The IGA distributes the burden of managing the park between the Commonwealth and

Queensland.


Important Lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park:

GBRMPA uses a variety of mechanisms to manage the Great Barrier Reef. Key lessons reflecting these

mechanisms and shared with the Consulting Team include:

Partnerships: The large number of partnerships – among levels of government, and among

governments, stakeholders, and science – backed by substantial financial investments and

guided by strong mandates form an effective set of institutional arrangements for

addressing the protection and restoration of this globally significant marine ecosystem.

Invest in Community Partnership, Education, and Outreach: Good communication products

and programs, such as the Reef Guardian Program, develop environmental stewards across

Queensland.

Strategic Guiding Documents: The robust Outlook Report guides the science prioritization

process and development of the Scientific Information Needs for the Management of the

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which ensures that research obtained, is relevant to the



management of the GBRMPA.

Secure Funding: Many institutions have secured funds for multiple years ensuring their

ability to conduct work and develop effective programs and partnerships.

Adaptive Management: Setting realistic time frames to see changes and implement new

management measures. For example, use of “lock-down” period after zoning changes

allows businesses, communities, and the ecosystem time to respond and adjust to new

zoning.

Boundary Organization: The CRC Coral Reef Model was seen as an effective structure for

securing funding from the private sector and ensuring relevant and timely user-driven

science.

CASE STUDY 4: GULF OF MAINE General Overview of the Gulf of Maine:

The Gulf of Maine (GOM) has a number of regional marine institutional arrangements focused to

different degrees on management, science, and stakeholder engagement issues. One of the most long-

standing arrangements is the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment (GOMC), which was

established as a regional forum in 1989. GOMC is a joint effort by the governors and premiers of the

U.S. states and Canadian provinces that border the Gulf of Maine—Maine, New Hampshire,

Massachusetts, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Although policy-makers from state, provincial, and

federal governments are included in its operational components, GOMC does not have the power to set

and implement policy, but rather seeks to provide a vehicle for information exchange and long-term

planning for the Gulf of Maine.166

In recent years, other marine-focused regional entities have emerged, including the Northeast Regional

Ocean Council167 (NROC, established 2005) and the Northeastern Regional Association of Coastal Ocean

Observing Systems (NERACOOS, established 2008). These joined existing regional entities like the Gulf

of Maine Research Institute,168 the Research Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine

166

"Mission and Principles". Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. www.gulfofmaine.org/council/mission.php. Accessed June 10, 2010 167

A website for NROC, which includes Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, but does not have Canadian representation, is at http://collaborate.csc.noaa.gov/nroc/default.aspx. 168

The Gulf of Maine Research Institute website is http://www.gmri.org/.

https://tchoffmann.msoutlookonline.net/NRTF/Report%20Outline%20and%20Draft/www.gulfofmaine.org/council/mission.php

http://collaborate.csc.noaa.gov/nroc/default.aspx

http://www.gmri.org/



(RARGOM),169 and the National Sea Grant College-funded Gulf of Maine Regional Ocean Science

Initiative.170

The Consultant Team chose to focus on the GOMC for this case study because the GOMC’s longevity

allows for the identification of more robust lessons, it is largely a state-driven (and Canadian province-

driven) initiative, and its mission encompasses management, science, and outreach goals. This

combination of features made it a compelling choice for informing Oregon’s situation.

As a transboundary institution, the GOMC facilitates collaboration across political and bureaucratic

bodies within the Gulf of Maine Region. While the GOMC does not have statutory authority, its mission

is strongly aligned with state, provincial, and federal legislative priorities. GOMC supports science-based

decision-making by creating synthesis products, data products, and some research. For example, the

State of the Gulf of Maine report and Marine Habitat Primer synthesize science for use in decision-

making. The Regional Habitat Monitoring Data System (RHMDS), the Gulf of Maine Mapping Initiative

(GOMMI), and Gulfwatch Monitoring Program are all examples of projects launched by the Council to

provide data products or facilitate data collection across the five states and provinces.171 The

government agency representation ensures that this information informs policy decisions.

The GOMC revises its goals and objectives every five years, thereby ensuring its programs and grant

funded projects are relevant and adapt to emerging concerns. An action plan directs the goals, desired

short-term and long-term outcomes, and activities of the organization.172 Stakeholders provide

significant input for the action plan. At its June 2010 Council meeting, GOMC initiated the next Action

Plan update process, which will culminate in late 2011.

Principal Institutions and Relationships in the Gulf of Maine:

The GOMC is a model of cross-jurisdictional coordination; Council member agencies represent multiple

levels of government. GOMC’s five state and provincial members are the following:

Maine: Maine State Planning Office and the Department of Marine Resources;

Massachusetts: Office of Coastal Zone Management;

New Brunswick: Department of Environment and Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and

Aquaculture;

New Hampshire: Department of Environmental Services; and

169

The RARGOM website is http://www.rargom.org/ 170

The website of the Gulf of Maine Regional Ocean Science Initiative is at http://seagrant.mit.edu/rosi/index.html. 171

Information on these programs and the Gulf of Maine Council generally is available at http://www.gulfofmaine.org/. 172

Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. 2007-2010 Gulf of Maine Council Action Plan. http://www.gulfofmaine.org/actionplan/GOMC%20Action%20Plan%202007-2012.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2010

http://www.rargom.org/

http://seagrant.mit.edu/rosi/index.html

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/actionplan/GOMC%20Action%20Plan%202007-2012.pdf


Nova Scotia: Department of Environment and Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture.173

GOMC’s U.S. and Canadian federal members include the following agencies:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—New England Regional Office;

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—New England District and Waterways Experiment Station;

U.S. Department of the Interior—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and

National Park Service;

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—National Marine Fisheries Service and

Coastal Services Center);

Environment Canada—Atlantic Region Environmental Conservation Branch; and

Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans.174

The Council is comprised of Twenty-four Councilors, appointed for renewable two-year terms by the

state Governors and province Premiers. They are leaders of state, provincial, and federal agencies, non-

government organizations, and the private sector. GOMC recently modified its terms of reference to

add two senior science councilors to the Council to better inform Council discussions. The Council

operates by consensus. A Working Group that includes one representative from each state, provincial,

and federal member government carries out the Council directives. The Working Group oversees work

plans and budgets, conducts planning, prepares policy proposals for Council consideration, and oversees

the work of five topical Committees.175 The five Committees focus on habitat, contaminants, maritime

activities, crosscutting themes, and services. The Canadian and U.S. co-chairs from each of the five

Committees also serve on the Working Group to promote stronger linkage between implementation and

oversight.

The overall management of GOMC rotates on an annual basis, according to a predetermined schedule,

among the five state/provincial jurisdictions that take turns serving as the GOMC “Secretariat.” The

Secretariat is in charge of convening meetings and maintaining the day-to-day administration of the

Council with the support of a contracted Council Coordinator. A salient organizational feature of GOMC

is that it has no employees; all the work of the council is carried out by contractors, and by

state/provincial or federal agency staff who are “loaned” to work on Council projects.

Similarly, a contracted Executive Director and Finance Assistant operate a subsidiary entity, the US

173

"The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment Reference Handbook". The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/internal/rh/gomcorgchart.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2010 174

Further information on GOMC member agencies can be found at: http://www.gulfofmaine.org/knowledgebase/gomc_member_links.php. 175

"The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment Reference Handbook". The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/internal/rh/gomcorgchart.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2010.

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/internal/rh/gomcorgchart.pdf

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/internal/rh/gomcorgchart.pdf



501(c)(3) U.S. Gulf of Maine Association (“the Association”).176 Through this mechanism, the GOMC is

able to receive and expend funds from federal, state, and private sources; that funding goes primarily to

hire contractors. The major advantage of the GOMC’s contractor-based arrangement is the flexibility to

ramp activities up or down consistent with fluctuations in funding. The Association’s Board of Directors

are all the non-federal Council members; unlike a typical nonprofit board, the Association’s Board of

Directors does not do any fundraising.

GOMC collects dues from its members to cover core services, defined as a contract fundraiser who seeks

project grants, communication costs (e.g., website), and part of the costs of the Council’s and

Association’s contract administrative positions (Council Coordinator, Association Executive Director, and

Association Finance Assistant). The Association annual budget, which does not count “in-kind” services

contributed by members, has been as high as $1.5 million, but in recent years has ranged between

$600,000 and $800,000.

The informants interviewed for this case study emphasized coordination and communication among

participants as a central value and benefit of GOMC. Contributing elements include regular use of

information technology (e.g., communication via listservs) and interlocking institutional mechanisms

(e.g., the chair and co-chair of each topic-based Committee serve on the Working Group). Less tangibly,

but emphasized by informants as important, is that leaders model strong communication behaviors.

Councilors meet only twice yearly, but value the opportunities to build relationships and awareness of

relevant activities around the Gulf. Informants reported increasing communication between meetings

as reductions in financial resources pressure agencies to find economies of scale by pooling resources.

Informants cited the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment/NOAA Habitat Restoration

Grants Program as a prime example of resource pooling, channeled via a competitive grant process, to

address Gulf-wide priorities. Communication and collaboration occurs regularly among the Working

Group, and particularly among participants in the five topical committees, as they meet more

frequently.

A new and significant effort underway, which GOMC is a principal facilitator, is the New England-

Canadian Maritime Collaboration and Planning Initiative. Regional marine research, management,

policy, and conservation organizations that gathered at a fall 2009 RARGOM conference conceived of

the idea of collectively examining their already-prioritized projects, as reflected in each organization’s

strategic plans and reports, to identify shared priorities for projects in four categories: ocean

observations, coastal hazards, ocean energy planning and management, and ocean and coastal

ecosystem health. Over the course of four meetings in the first half of 2010, one for each of the four

topics, a wide array of stakeholders came to agreements on lists of projects that were most important to

176

A counterpart Canadian Association of Delegates to the Gulf of Maine Council exists to collect funding in Canada, but all funds supporting GOMC work are ultimately channeled via the U.S. 501(c)(3) Association.



most institutions. In fall 2010, the participating organizations will meet as a group to identify lead

organizations to implement the agreed-upon projects, in effect pooling resources and divvying up

financial responsibilities for carrying out mutually advantageous projects.177

Description and Analysis of Mechanisms of the Gulf of Maine:

For the reasons noted earlier, in the following section we highlight key findings and best practices from

GOMC as the overarching institution within the Gulf of Maine region The GOMC exemplifies the use of

multi-jurisdictional agreements to support science-based decision-making and management within a

region. Below, we examine the GOMC’s approach to addressing each of the mechanism criteria.


The Gulf of Maine has numerous regional entities with different scopes and emphases. Participants in

and projects of the GOMC may also variously be engaged with the Northeast Regional Ocean Council

(NROC), the Northeastern Regional Association of Coastal Ocean Observing Systems (NERACOOS), the

Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI), the Research Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine

(RARGOM), and others. Within the GOMC itself, state, provincial, and federal (U.S. and Canadian)

government representatives occupy a majority of Councilor positions, yet the GOMC’s many

implementing committees and subcommittees that apply the goals of the GOMC Action Plan include

representation from a broad array of institution types.


The GOMC was established in December 1989 by an “agreement on the conservation of the marine

environment of the Gulf of Maine” signed by the governors and premiers of Massachusetts, New

Hampshire, Maine, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Though not legally binding, it has enabled

sustained and continually growing collaboration and product development for two decade.


When GOMC was founded, it received large, multi-million dollar, multi-year federal Congressional

earmarks. Funds were first channeled via the U.S. EPA and more recently NOAA. Federal dollars

continue to be an important funding source for projects, and the member states and provinces pay

modest dues to help defray core administrative expenses. A June 2010 document summarizing the

budget needs and status of its range of programs described shortfalls for many activities.178 These

funding challenges appear to be a recurring problem, recently exacerbated by the effects of the current

global recession and its effect on state and federal budgets. An informant confirmed the recurring

177

Summary document from New England-Canadian Maritime Collaboration and Planning Initiative provided by David Keeley, GOMC Development and Policy Coordinator. 178

Among meeting documents for the Council’s June 2010 meeting see this “TAPAS Workplans” document: http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/internal/docs/TAPAS.6.2010.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2010

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/internal/docs/TAPAS.6.2010.pdf



nature of these deficits , but also indicated that GOMC has consistently been able to make up for

deficits with fundraising during the year and by scaling projects to meet available budgets. In recent

times some member agencies have helped GOMC’s projects be more competitive in winning grants by

assisting in pre-proposal phases to meet funders’ interest in “shovel ready” projects.


Aside from its administrative contracts, GOMC’s cash resources are spent primarily on contractors

carrying out projects to advance the organization’s Action Plan, which reflects priorities approved by the

Council. Informants reported that all project contracts are deliverable-based (i.e., no open-ended hourly

contracts), selected through a competitive request for proposal process and posted on the GOMC

website.179 GOMC’s recent State of the Gulf of Maine180 report along with the Habitat Conservation and

Restoration Plan will inform the upcoming 5-year Action Plan (2013-2018). Action Plan updates and

initiatives like the State of the Gulf of Maine report reflect a consistent approach to transparent and

prioritized funding.

In addition, the GOMC developed a Tracking Action Plan Activities System (TAPAS), which increases the

GOMC’s transparency within the organization. Informants stated that TAPAS is an online reporting

program that the Council, Working Group, and Committees can post updates on initiative status and the

Association Executive Director can update budget information, including funding secured and expenses

and income.

Stakeholder Advice:

The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment Action Plan 2007-2012 identifies eight stakeholder

groups the GOMC should target for direct outreach and engagement. The eight stakeholder groups

include: premiers and governors; coastal lawmakers; coastal decision-makers; coastal managers;

academics; Gulf residents and visitors; marine-dependent industries; and the science community.181,182

Most of these groups are well-represented on the Council, Working Group, and implementing

Committees. On key or controversial issues, the Committees may create subcommittees to explore and

obtain stakeholder knowledge and advice. (See below regarding community engagement).

179

Historically GOMC also had an Action Plan Grants program awarding funds to organizations in the region carrying out projects to advance the plan; GOMC suspend the program in 2008 due to lack of funding. 180

Walmsley, Jay. 2009. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment Reporting: Scoping Document (Final Report). Fisheries and Oceans Canada-Ocean and Coastal Management Division. http://www.gulfofmaine.org/state-of-the-gulf/docs/gulf-of-maine-state-of-the-environment-reporting-scoping-document.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2010 181

Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment (GOMC). 2007. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment Action Plan 2007-2012. http://www.gulfofmaine.org. Accessed June 10, 2010 182

Walmsley, Jay. 2009. "Gulf of Maine Council State of the Environment Reporting: Scoping Document (Final Report)". Fisheries and Oceans Canada-Ocean and Coastal Management Division. Available at http://www.gulfofmaine.org/state-of-the-gulf/docs/gulf-of-maine-state-of-the-environment-reporting-scoping-document.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2010

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/state-of-the-gulf/docs/gulf-of-maine-state-of-the-environment-reporting-scoping-document.pdf

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/state-of-the-gulf/docs/gulf-of-maine-state-of-the-environment-reporting-scoping-document.pdf

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/

https://tchoffmann.msoutlookonline.net/NRTF/Report%20Outline%20and%20Draft/at%20http:/www.gulfofmaine.org/state-of-the-gulf/docs/gulf-of-maine-state-of-the-environment-reporting-scoping-document.pdf

https://tchoffmann.msoutlookonline.net/NRTF/Report%20Outline%20and%20Draft/at%20http:/www.gulfofmaine.org/state-of-the-gulf/docs/gulf-of-maine-state-of-the-environment-reporting-scoping-document.pdf




While informants noted that GOMC committees are open and welcoming to interested members of the

public, they acknowledged that GOMC’s “Gulf of Maine Times” newsletter circulated to 10,000

subscribers is the only significant tool targeting the general Gulf of Maine community. There is a desire

to conduct other community outreach, but this is constrained by a lack of funding and staff capacity.

Informants identified initiatives like the State of the Gulf of Maine environmental reporting as helpful for

general outreach. However, it is clear that in its allocation of resources, GOMC sees its primary

audience as coastal and ocean decision-makers. The scoping document that laid the groundwork for the

State of the Gulf of Maine report acknowledged this explicitly when it noted, “despite the primary target

audience being decision-makers, the public should also be able to make use of the Gulf of Maine [state

of the environment report+.”183


While most of GOMC’s efforts focus on other endeavors, the organization does have two ongoing

research initiatives: the Gulf of Maine Mapping Initiative (GOMMI) and Gulfwatch Contaminants

Monitoring Program (Gulfwatch). GOMMI is a U.S.-Canadian partnership of government and non-

government organizations that conducts geological and biological surveys, collects seafloor imagery, and

analyzes data. GOMMI was conceived at a mapping workshop in 2001. Currently GOMMI continues to

map regions of the Gulf of Maine not already mapped by multi-beam sonar. Gulfwatch focuses on

chemical contaminants monitoring. Gulfwatch tests blue mussels to assess the types and

concentrations of contaminants in GOM waters and is related to NOAA’s Mussel Watch program.

GOMC provides support for Gulfwatch and GOMC’s Contaminants Monitoring Committee and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency provides guidance to Gulfwatch. In addition to these two initiatives,

subcommittees such as the Habitat Monitoring Subcommittee focus on planning research, as well as

prioritizing monitoring in the Gulf Region. Fostering trustworthy primary research and monitoring is a

strength of the GOMC.

Science Advice:

The GOMC terms of reference institutionalize the incorporation of experts and agency science and

environmental advice. The Working Group and the theme-based Committees (Habitat, Contaminants,

Maritime Activities, Crosscutting Committees, and Services) facilitate the use of appropriate science and

identify science needs. The Working Group compiles committee recommendations and prepares policy

options for the GOMC’s consideration.184 One example of a themed committee is the Gulfwatch

Contaminants Monitoring Committee that assesses human and environmental health issues and

implements contaminant monitoring (including the Gulfwatch monitoring program).185

183

Walmsley, op. cit., p. 4. 184

GOMC Working Group. http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/committees/working_group.php. Accessed June 20, 2010. 185

Gulfwatch Contaminants Monitoring Committee. http://www.gulfofmaine.org/gulfwatch/. Accessed June 20, 2010.

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/committees/working_group.php

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/gulfwatch/



Incorporation of Science in Decision-Making and Adaptive Management:

While the GOMC does not have direct management responsibilities, it does support a wide variety of

science synthesis for managers and policy decision-makers, described below.


The State of the Gulf of Maine report, The Gulf of Maine Habitat Restoration and Conservation Initiative

(a public-private effort), and GOMMI demonstrate the GOMC’s focus on providing synthesis products for

science-based management. The Gulf of Maine Habitat Restoration and Conservation Initiative is a

public-private effort that strives to coordinate and unify the GOM approach to restoration and

conservation. 186 Likewise, GOMC established the Ecosystem Indicators Partnership (ESIP) program in

2006 because there was an identified need to understand ecosystem status and trends.187 To identify

regionally specific needs, ESIP’s approach includes convening regional practitioners in the following

fields: coastal development, contaminants and pathogens, eutrophication, aquatic habitat, fisheries and

aquaculture, and climate change. 188 ESIP’s indicators and past work fed heavily into the 2010 State of

the Gulf of Maine report that is GOMC’s effort to produce a Gulf-wide synthesis of pressures on the

environment, biophysical and socio-economic status and trends, and responses to identified issues.189

The State of the Gulf of Maine report is a “living document” that can change as the state of knowledge

and new needs are identified.

Prioritization and action plans support management-focused research and monitoring. Reliance on

theme based committees, science advisors, and peer-review suggests that fact-based decision-making is

a core value for the organization. Through the committees, science input exists at all council and

committee levels therefore ensuring close linkages between relevant science and policy decisions. The

State of the Gulf of Maine report and the GOMC action plans also support the uses of science in

decision-making and continual adaptation to new information.


The GOMC ranks highly with respect to data management systems use. Some of the data management

systems available include the Gulf of Maine Area Census of Marine Life (GoMA) and GOMC’s programs

GOMMI and Gulfwatch.

Informants reported that vast amounts of data are maintained in distinct and incompatible systems

186

Ibid. 187

EcoSystem Indicator Partnership (ESIP), "EcoSystem Indicator Partnership Fact Sheet."http://www.gulfofmaine.org/esip/docs/ESIPFactSheetversionJan2010.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2010 188

Ibid. 189

Details regarding ESIP’s contributions to the 2010 State of the Gulf of Maine report are found in the Gulf of Maine State of the Environment Report Scoping Document. http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/internal/docs/gom.ser.3.17.09.pdf. The State of the Gulf of Maine report itself is available at http://www.gulfofmaine.org/state-of-the-gulf/.

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/esip/docs/ESIPFactSheetversionJan2010.pdf

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/internal/docs/gom.ser.3.17.09.pdf

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/state-of-the-gulf/



within sub-regional programs and organizations. Although the majority of data is not standardized and

compatible for regional analysis and/or use, informants stated there is a limited need to use program

specific data at a Gulf-wide scale. The 2009 State of the Environment Scoping Document, which laid the

groundwork for the subsequent 2010 State of the Gulf of Maine report, stated that reporting data from

disparate formats in a cohesive manner would be more useful to GOM regional analysis than

establishing a unified GOM-wide reporting format,190 and that reporting approach was taken in

producing the State of the Gulf of Maine report.


GOMC provides comprehensive access to the organization’s products (action plans, publications,

mapping tools, monitoring/reporting tools) and information about its deliberations and operations via

its website.

Gulf of Maine Mechanisms Summary Table:

The table below summarizes the mechanism assessment and key findings or best practices that exist

within the GOMC. Some key findings are that GOMC prioritizes its activities via a regularly-updated

action plan, has a structure that ensures alignment with state, provincial, and federal priorities,

facilitates the pooling of financial and in-kind resources to advance Gulf-wide goals, has a strong culture

and structure for communication, and is continuously working to upgrade the scientific basis of its

decision-making.

190

Ibid.


Table 13: Mechanism Overview Assessment for Gulf of Maine Coastal and Ocean Institutional Arrangements


Criteria Assessment Key Findings & Best Practices Types of Institutional Partners

Large Council and multiple implementation Committees with members from all levels of government also include representatives from academia, foundations, industry, and NGOs.

Legislative Mandate

Nonbinding agreement between Governments does not have regulatory authority, however a long track record of productive work over two decades exists.


Relatively modest cash budget and current financial squeeze due to general economic stress, but consistent and substantial in-kind contribution of staff and related support to carry out GOMC priorities exists. Budgetary shortfalls regularly met through 501 (c)(3) fundraising.


Action Plans outline goals and activities, which direct the GOMC’s 5-year pursuits. Public funding and priority setting ensures accountability and oversight. Internal TAPAs program increases transparency across GOMC programs.

Stakeholder Advice

Use of comment period and public meetings (willingness to participate up to public/stakeholders) Stakeholder involvement through committee and subcommittee structures and participation of co-chairs on Working Group. Convene Stakeholder/Industry specific subcommittees as needed.

Community Engagement, Education, Outreach

“Gulf of Maine Times” newsletter is the principal outreach tool, lack of funding limits other community outreach, organizational priority is resource managers, and policy-makers.

Scientific Research Some research funded by GOMC includes GOMMI and Gulfwatch programs, which collect and analyze data.

Science Advice

Use of published data is common; scientists participate at all levels and provide input.

Incorporation Science in Decision-making and Adaptive Management

Although GOMC is not a management entity, it specializes in providing synthesis products used by regional decision-makers and managers.


Primary focal point for GOMC activities. Significant products include the State of the Gulf of Maine report and Ecosystem Indicator Partnership that provides region-wide benefits to managers and policy-makers. Committee process for evaluating issues is informal, via discussion and expert participation.

Data Management/ Sharing/ Products

Publications are made available via website.


Extensive information about all aspects of GOMC available on its website.



Gulf of Maine Objective Assessment:

The following section addresses objectives identified as NRTF priorities and highlights key findings for

the Gulf of Maine.

Ability to Receive and Distribute Funds from Various Sources:

The U.S. Gulf of Maine Association 501(c)(3) and the Canadian Gulf of Maine Association were created

to accept and distribute GOMC funding from any source, governmental or private. This flexibility also

extends to the GOMC’s commitment since its inception to operate free of a physical office or

employees, relying upon contractors to provide all administrative services and conduct all projects not

carried out by its member organizations.


The GOMC uses peer-review and published science to set priorities and develop synthesis products to

support managers and decision-makers. While the GOMC integrates science experts and community

and industry knowledge through the committee process, the results of these deliberations are not

subject to a formal review process. An informant mentioned that with its issuance of the recent State of

the Gulf of Maine report GOMC was crossing a threshold from offering its ESIP as a neutral data

warehouse, to becoming an interpreter of what the data says about the Gulf’s marine resources,

possibly affecting perceptions of GOMC as a relatively neutral party.


Respondents stated that the council is relatively nimble and can address emerging needs and changed

priorities. This ability stems in large degree from strong knowledge sharing and communication

facilitated by the GOMC’s interlocking Council, Working Group, Committee, and ad hoc subcommittee

structures. In addition, the use of contractors for all projects supports a flexible and dynamic

framework.

Transparency:

Research showed that the GOMC is relatively transparent because of the high level of communication

between members and open public meetings. Committees, Working Group, and Council meetings are

all open to the public, documents are posted on the GOMC website, and tools such as the TAPAS

tracking program ensure that status of initiatives are transparent. In addition, the GOMC has the Project

Evaluation Team who provides oversight by collecting “information to measure outcomes and

successes” of the program.191

191

GOMC website http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/committees/project_evaluation.php. Accessed June 14, 2010.

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/committees/project_evaluation.php



Objective and Trusted Scientific Advice to Inform Decision-Makers:

To ensure that the decisions and recommendations made by the GOMC are scientifically supported, the

GOMC uses peer-reviewed literature and committee evaluation to guide its synthesis product

development. In addition, the GOMC is comprised of many partner agencies responsible for coastal

management and science representatives who are knowledgeable about management concerns and

needs at the local and regional scales. The multidisciplinary structure promotes linkages between

science, policy, and management.


The GOMC employs two mechanisms to control costs. As mentioned above, secretariat duties rotate

annually thereby reducing administrative burdens to any one member, and reducing the need for cash

to pay contractors. The GOMC’s reliance on contractors as administrators and project leads allows

GOMC to more easily adjust its programming to available funding and generally avoid the overhead

expenses associated with maintaining employees or a physical office. At the same time, informants note

the rotating nature of the Secretariat and Working Group Chair system and limited contract staff

support means that flexibility comes at some expense to institutional memory that may affect the

organization’s efficiency.

GOMC collects dues192 from its members to cover core services, communication costs (e.g., website),

and part of the costs of the Council’s and Association’s contract administrative positions (Council

Coordinator, Association Executive Director, and Association Finance Assistant). An indirect cost

allocation in all project budgets covers remaining administrative costs. The cost allocation figure is set

annually after the Association’s annual independent financial audit; the allocation is equal to program

costs divided by the costs of the administrative positions, and has run between 13 and 23 percent. The

Association maintains a reserve account funded by an accumulation of dues or indirect allocations that

carry over in surplus years, or cover overages in deficit years. The Association’s annual budget, which

does not count “in-kind” services contributed by members, has been as high as $1.5 million, but in

recent years has hovered between $600,000 to $800,000.

Gulf of Maine Objective Assessment Summary Table: The table below summarizes the assessment and key findings that exist within the GOMC. GOMC is

striving for improvement in many areas and is evolving to meet new challenges. Particularly strong

characteristics of the GOMC include the ongoing use of strategic planning, the desire to work among

programs to apply for grants to fund and complete projects (e.g., the New England-Canadian Maritime

Collaboration and Planning Initiative), and the use of contractors to reduce administrative costs.

192

Informant stated that States and Provinces pay $15,000 per year in membership dues.



Table 14: Objective Assessment of Gulf of Maine Coastal and Ocean Institutional Arrangements


Ability to Receive and Distribute Funds from Various Sources

Use of 501(c)(3) permits receipt of funds from all sources.


Use of peer-reviewed/published reports, use of science advisors, committees, and TAPAS reports support GOMC’s efforts to be neutral and trustworthy. Committee assessments and recommendations based on deliberations are not subject to peer-review.


GOMC structure promotes knowledge sharing and communication promotes flexibility to address emerging issues. Contract staff allow for responsiveness to new funding opportunities.

Transparency

Activities, plans, project information are well documented and available via the GOMC website. TAPAS project status tracking tool promotes accountability.


GOMC is not a resource manager, but does provide useful, objective, and trusted synthesis tools and reports to support decision-making by the region’s managers and policy-makers.

Administrative Costs The rotating nature of the Secretariat and Working Group Chair system and limited contract staff support means very low administrative costs.

= Low = Medium = High Important Lessons from the Gulf of Maine:

Key lessons learned shared with the Consulting Team include:

Alignment of Interests: Overlapping membership among decision-makers and implementers increases alignment. In addition, initiatives such as the nascent New England-Canadian Collaboration and Planning Initiative help programs secure regionally important projects and funding.

Transparent Reporting Mechanism: TAPAS reporting mechanism increases transparency and funding accountability within GOMC.

Strategic Plans: Regularly revised guiding documents, like a strategic plan, with goals and objectives guarantee projects are relevant to and decisions are based on achieving goals and objectives.

Science Synthesis Documents: Production of region-wide synthesis documents such as the State of the Gulf of Maine report ensures that managers and policy makers have trustworthy information to make management and policy decisions.



Strong Communication Practices: The organization’s use of information technology (e.g., communication via listservs), its interlocking institutional mechanisms (e.g., the chair and co-chair of each topic-based Committee serve on the Working Group), and modeling by Councilors of strong communication behaviors are essential to the organization’s accomplishments.

Section IV – Observations and Recommendations

The following section provides a trend analysis for both the Mechanism Assessment and the Objective

Assessment for all case studies reviewed. For each mechanism or objective we identify common

approaches among case study institutions, as well as common concerns or issues. Following each

category analysis, text boxes highlight relevant recommendations for Oregon Nearshore Research Task

Force to consider.

Mechanism Assessment:


All the institutions described in this report interact with multiple partners and stakeholders to address

coastal and ocean policy and management concerns and integrate science-based decision-making

successfully. Partners typically include state and federal resource agencies, academic institutions,

funders, non-governmental organizations, and stakeholder groups. For example, the Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) maintains formal partnerships between multiple agencies of state and

national governments, five science institutions, four multi-stakeholder Resource Advisory Committees

(RAC), and a dozen voluntary community-based committees called Local Marine Advisory Committees

(LMAC). Informants stated that having select, overlapping committee members can help ensure

continuity and alignment of priorities across institutions. However, there need to be clear policies

around conflict of interest.

Recommendation 1: Create institutional partnerships with key coastal and ocean-

related constituencies to ensure buy-in and support. This includes research and

academic institutions; local, state, and federal agencies; stakeholders in the community

and key industries; and nonprofits.


All case studies have formal agreements or legislation supporting their activities. Because all of the

cases are marine focused and therefore cross-jurisdictional in nature, the issue of clearly defining roles

and responsibilities especially stood out. For example, the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983 (updated

in 1987 and again in 2000) established a formal partnership between the federal government, multiple



state governments, and a tri-state legislative assembly. In 2009, the problem of unclear responsibilities

and lack of coordination among federal agencies prompted President Obama to issue an executive order

clarifying roles and establishing a new coordinating entity among federal agencies engaged in the

Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). Legislative mandates or formal agreements are also essential for

defining who gets to sit at the table. The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment’s (GOMC)

agreement among the governors of three New England states and two Canadian provinces, as amended,

stipulates the participation, on an interlocking set of governing and implementation mechanisms, of

state and federal resource agencies, scientists, non-governmental organizations, industry, and the

public. This broad representation is seen as essential to the knowledge sharing and strong

communication that synthesizes management-relevant science for use throughout the region.

A challenge noted by some informants was loosely defined institutional roles and overlapping

jurisdictions (such as federal and state). Informants cautioned that clearly defining roles and

responsibilities was an important part of establishing and maintaining successful institutional

arrangements.

Recommendation 2: Have legislative mandates in place outlining clear and distinct roles

and responsibilities for participants, and include representation from all entities that are

key to the science-policy-and-management process.


All of the case study intuitional relationships rely heavily on government funding to support operations

and programs. For example, NOAA or U.S. EPA funding plays an important role in supporting coastal and

ocean management programs and institutions in the Gulf of Maine, Chesapeake Bay, and California.

The majority of institutional arrangements worked with nonprofit partners to increase funding security

by making it possible to obtain non-governmental funding in addition to governmental support. For

example, GOMC’s U.S. Gulf of Maine Association is a nonprofit that receives and distributes funding

from multiple sources on the GOMC’s behalf. Another example for funding end-user focused science

and technology are the Australian Cooperative Research Centres (CRC), which rely on industry and

government funding to support programs. GBRMPA also has been able to raise revenues by profitably

operating an aquarium and by imposing a user fee, generally paid by tourists. The Virginia Institute of

Marine Science (VIMS) receives a portion of its funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia, but derives

the majority of its income from federal and private research grants and contracts. Maryland has a “Bay

Plate” vehicle license plate program that generates revenues.



Several informants stated that reliance solely on earmarked funds lacked security and as one informant

quoted, “you live by earmarks, then you die by earmarks.” These informants strongly supported

diversifying revenues.

Recommendation 3: Secure funds from diverse sources and when possible develop and

secure fee-based revenue sources. Stakeholders at the table who want and will use

information may be willing to become funding partners.


All institutional arrangements prioritize funding by guiding funding choices with strategic planning

documents. For example, GOMC bases decisions on 5-year Action Plans, GBRMPA produces a 5-yearly

Outlook Report, OPC adopts a five-year Strategic Plan, and the CBP has repeatedly updated its

management plans. These documents inform the selection of science priorities. VIMS bases decisions

on annual science priority assessments, the California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) has a guiding

science strategic plan and annually reassesses its funding priorities, and GBRMPA updates every five

years Scientific Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park each of

these documents align to management needs and goals of the institutional arrangements. Another tool

for ensuring that funding decisions align with priorities is the use of reporting mechanisms. Examples of

funding reporting systems used include the Chesapeake BayStat program, GOMC’s Tracking Action Plan

Activities System (TAPAS) project status tracking system, and Australia’s annual governmental audits.

Informants stated that it was important to be transparent about where funding comes from, where it is

directed, and how those decisions were made. In addition, several informants stated that the public and

funders are often concerned with accounting processes and a third party review is recommended.

Recommendation 4: Develop a strategic plan or guiding document that outlines

priorities and that ideally directs development of a consistent science plan. This will

provide clear guidance on how funds will be allocated.

Recommendation 5: Develop clear communication materials and mechanisms to share

information with the general public about audited financials, sources of revenue, the

decision-making process, fund allocations, and progress toward goals.

Stakeholder Advice: 193

All regions use public comment opportunities, requests for advice, and formal stakeholder committees

to engage stakeholders in the decision-making process. Australia’s RACs and LMACs are key participants

in the management of the GBRMPA. In the GOMC, the tourism sub-committee comprises stakeholders

193

A list of case study committees and board composition information and webpage links may be found in Appendix D.



from tourism operations and state government. In addition, several institutional arrangements use ad

hoc committees for peer-review and advice on key or controversial decisions, such as the oil and gas

decommissioning project in California.

Informants from several regions noted that public comment periods are insufficient at maintaining

public interest and involvement in the decision-making process. Informants favored the use of

committees to engage stakeholders. Stakeholder consultation was seen as essential to securing and

maintaining public support for management of coastal and ocean resources.

Recommendation 6: A formal mechanism or committee structure for representing all

stakeholder groups to provide input and advice is essential to secure and maintain

support for coastal and ocean management.


All entities point to their workshops and public meetings as opportunities for the public to participate

and become informed about the organization’s activities. Across the case studies, institutions use

primary and secondary school programs to educate and build youth environmental stewardship. In the

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the Reef Guardian Schools Program (RGS) has been particularly

successful in not only empowering the student population, but also improving community support and

knowledge.

In addition, all institutions use online listservs to inform partners and the public about issues affecting

them, as well as to obtain feedback on programs, projects, activities, and publications. An informant

mentioned in particular the importance of reaching out to the community throughout planning

processes, such as mapping initiatives.

A common concern that was echoed throughout the case studies was the lack of staffing and financial

capacity to support strong public education and outreach programs.

Recommendation 7: Invest in electronic and web-based communication tools and

public engagement activities and embed funds for all programs to participate in such

activities. This will also help ensure transparency.


Institutions examined in the case studies varied in the degree to which science research mechanisms

were a significant feature. The GOMC and the California Ocean Science Trust (OST) and OPC carry out

little to no direct research, but coordinate intensively with scientists and research institutions and are

heavily involved in a number of science-related activities (see below). The CBP and the Commonwealth

of Virginia and State of Maryland all employ scientists who carry out research activities to support their


organizations’ missions to varying degrees. For example, VIMS, by mandate, provides research to

decision-makers and is responsible for monitoring key commercial fisheries. VIMS often conducts

research on contentious issues, such as the use of non-native oysters in the bay, which ensures science

remains independent of policy and management decisions. GBRMPA has an explicit mandate to

conduct and facilitate research, monitoring, and interpretation of data; however, since it is primarily a

management agency, most research is carried out by a group of five research institutions that are

independent, but closely partnered with GBRMPA.

One key concern noted by informants was long-term monitoring longevity. Several informants

mentioned that academics’ interest in long–term monitoring often wanes, but could be resolved by

reducing monitoring effort performed by academic institutions and increasing industry partners’

contributions to routine monitoring. Combining routine industry partner monitoring and periodic

“quality control” monitoring by academic researchers was found in the Great Barrier Marine Park to

provide quality data for monitoring large-scale temporal changes and trends.

Recommendation 8: Establish a formal role for quality science institutions to support

ocean and coastal management goals that links scientists with managers and

stakeholders to inform their understanding and research priorities while ensuring that

science is independent and safeguarded through peer-review.

Recommendation 9: Consider collaborative research programs that, if designed well,

can be an effective and cost- efficient way to produce long-term monitoring data.

Science Advice:

All institutional arrangements relied heavily on peer-reviewed literature and projects and the use of

science advisors, experts in the fields of study, and panels. OST and the OPC’s Science Advisory Team

(OPC-SAT) play the role of neutral providers of science advice and peer-review to OPC projects. Grant

funded projects also often receive oversight from peer-review and comment; such as GOMC’s

committees or GBRMPA’s Science Coordination Group (SCG). Again, engaging scientists in the

management and policy decision process was common across the case studies and supports decision-

making that incorporates accurate recent data.

One key concern noted during interviews was the delay between research completion and publication.

Researchers are often reluctant to release data until reports have been publicized and peer-reviewed.

Although this process ensures science is accurate, informants stated that it can lead to long delays in

reporting and incorporation (e.g., decision-makers may not always benefit from using the most up-to-

date information)



Recommendation 10: Develop a formal structure or body of science experts for advice

that is also nimble enough to address specific issues. Clearly outline the role(s) of this

body and how the advice and peer-review will be utilized. This structure will need a

robust conflict of interest policy and transparency in publishing peer-review comments.

Incorporation of Science in Decision-Making and Adaptive Management:

All case studies have mechanisms in place for incorporating science into decision-making and adaptive

management. Common amongst all of the cases is an institution such as the Virginia Marine Resource

Commission (VMRC), GBRMPA, OPC, or GOMC, that requests and wants science to inform their

decisions. All of the case studies have strong science partners coordinating and producing science that

feeds back to the decision-makers. Each case study uses a slightly different model to ensure the

incorporation of science for decision-making and adaptive management. In Virginia, VIMS’ is mandated

to research commercial and recreational fisheries, for example providing long-term monitoring of blue

crab population cycles to inform catch-limits and other blue crab fishery management decisions. In

California, the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) legally requires adaptive management of the network

of MPAs informed by monitoring and evaluation. OST is incubating the Marine Protected Area MPA

Monitoring Enterprise (ME), funded by OPC, to provide decision-makers with data needed to manage

this network. In the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, multiple binding agreements (e.g., the amended

Great Barrier Marine Park Act 1975 and the Commonwealth-Queensland state Intergovernmental

Agreement (IGA) outline science requirements for management. Strong institutional arrangements for

management tend to mix monitoring results with targeted research regularly. In addition, there is also a

need for issue-specific science and synthesis to address new policy decisions or emerging issues.

Recommendation 11: Consider establishing a boundary organization or unit (such as

OST, see definitions page 37) to play a key role in bridging the producers and users of

knowledge and help facilitate science, the production of useful research, advice,

incorporation of science into decision-making, and synthesis. Boundary institutions can

ensure that science produced is relevant, timely, and useful for decision-makers and

stakeholders.

Recommendation 12: Ensure the use of science in decision-making by establishing a

legal mandate to use science for adaptive management.


Many institutional arrangements use strategic planning, prioritization, and gap analysis to address

science needs and guide synthesis products. All regions use monitoring, expert knowledge, and

workshops to guide the prioritization and synthesis process. GOMC relies on committee members to

assess research gaps and recommend program pursuits. GBRMPA’s Outlook Report 2009 informed the

structure and priorities of the Scientific Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park 2009 document. The State of the Gulf of Maine and Bay Barometer: A Health and

Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed report are two key recent synthesis



Integrating Science: Essential Ingredients

A study performed by TCH&A in 2007 found that the

elements for successfully integrating science into coastal

ocean policy and management include:

Communication of research and the

implications for policy to decision-makers;

Consistent timeframes and temporal continuity;

A strengthening of coastal and ocean social

science research;

Strong communications and connections

between producers of knowledge, users of

knowledge, and stakeholders;

Promotion of cross-disciplinary literacy;

Collaborative science-to-policy and

management processes;

User-friendly data management and access;

Transparency between science and funders;

Incorporating variability into the regulatory

framework.

documents that have distilled vast amounts of publications and data to inform managers and policy-

makers. As noted above, clearly distilling research and information into usable documents is imperative

for policy and decision-making.

Several informants supported providing “good science” to decision-makers because they had seen poor

policy developed due to inaccurate and biased science. For example, the U.S. Government

Accountability Office (GAO) report highlighted the CBP’sneed to explain modeling versus monitoring

data results and that relying too heavily on modeling data was insufficient for management.

Recommendation 13: Regularly assess and redefine science priorities in collaboration

with scientists and end-users (end-users include all users of data, such decision-makers

at all levels and scales, and stakeholders representing all sectors).

Recommendation 14: Robust synthesis documents can be effective tools to support

management decision-making. Synthesis documents show where key concerns and

issues exist and should incorporate neutral and unbiased information to be relevant to

decision-makers.

Data Management, Sharing, Products, and Accessible Information:

Internet resources and database tools comprise most data management programs and products. The

GOMC’s Ecosystem Indicators Partnership (ESIP) and Maryland’s BayStat are two database methods for

pooling and sharing data across programs. Many institutions produce Geospatial Information Systems

(GIS) based maps and reports to share data in a useful manner. Two examples of data products include

Gulf of Maine Mapping Initiative’s (GOMMI) map products and the Chesapeake Bay Report Card.

One issue echoed by several informants

involved centralized data management

systems. Concerns over centralized data

management systems included lack of

ownership over data, failure to easily or

regularly update or change inaccurate

information (some entities’ updates occur on

a yearly scale), and inability to integrate

disparate data. Several informants supported

using a user-friendly front-end program that

requests information from decentralized

databases. In addition, informants stated that

centralized systems are not necessary for

much of the data collected. On the other

hand, some informants touted standardized


data collection methods and supported methods to streamline or standardized data for overall

monitoring and trend analysis.

Internet-based resources facilitate access to wide variety of information. Data include publications,

annual reports, newsletters, outreach materials, regulations, databases, and tools.

Numerous informants mentioned the widespread availability of data and information in conjunction

with limited time to read and internalize new information, making scientifically-sound yet user-friendly

documents such as the GBRMPA Outlook Report 2009 and program annual reports especially welcome.

Informants noted the Outlook Report 2009 as a superior milestone document with much potential for

improving management of the park.

While the internet can be a boon for accessibility of information and transparency and a cost-effective

way to reduce printing costs and increase dissemination, the Consulting Team found a wide disparity in

the quality of website design. Poorly designed websites undermine all of these potential advantages.

Recommendation 15: Develop a centralized portal or website where all reports,

documents, meeting minutes will be stored. Furthermore, develop an information

management system that is highly accessible to a wide range of users.

Recommendation 16: Invest in good website design to maximize the accessibility,

communication, and transparency benefits of providing internet access to an

organization’s information.

Objective Assessment:

Ability to Receive and Distribute Funds:

All institutional arrangements used federal, state, and private funds to support activities. For example,

in California, the OPC accesses state funds from multiple sources, including bonds, license fees, and oil-

lease fees. The OPC has set up a trust to channel these sources to the OPC’s projects. Another common

mechanism most institutional arrangements have adopted is nonprofit entities. These entities ensure

that programs and organizations can receive funding from numerous sources (private donations,

membership dues, grants, etc.). In addition to providing access to private dollars, having nonprofits

receive and distribute funding protects the overarching institution from conflicts of interest, and ensures

donor trust. In California, OST, OPC‘s nonprofit science partner, can leverage private dollars to match

OPC funds. In GOMC, the U.S. and Canada Gulf of Maine Associations act as funding pass-through

organizations that receive and distribute funding for projects. In Chesapeake Bay, Maryland’s

Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust was structured to focus funding on the highest priority,

data-supported improvement projects.


Many of place-based case studies use nonprofits to regrant a portion of their funds to support projects

and proposals in their region. Often times the nonprofit is more nimble and can respond to emerging

issues. The GOMC supports several large programs including GOMMI, ESIP, and “Gulf of Maine Times.”

In the Chesapeake Bay region, the Chesapeake Bay Trust (CBT) awards grants to an array of community-

based bay protection and restoration projects.

Informants stated it was important to establish transparent processes, strong conflict of interest

policies, manage risk, and outline clear guidelines for fund distribution and/or procurement.

Recommendation 17: Develop a nonprofit status organization to distribute and receive

funds with strong governance, transparent processes, and clear policies on fund

distribution and conflicts of interest.


All institutional arrangements utilize published information to support decisions as well as peer-review

through committees or councils. In the GBRMPA and the GOMC, recent state of the environment

reports (Outlook Report and State of the Gulf of Maine) relied heavily on published information to

support findings. The Outlook Report used extensive committee and public review, in addition to a four-

person final peer-review process. Also, yearly GBRMPA reports results from its financial audits and

programs to the Ministerial Council, State, and Commonwealth leaders ensures neutral and trustworthy

decisions are made.

With regard to neutrality and trust, improving dissemination of information and communication

between members and stakeholders are keys to success. In Australia, GBRMPA hired a communication

expert to increase stakeholder awareness for the Great Barrier Reef’s poor health and improve

participation during the rezoning process. Without stakeholder participation, the program would not

accurately incorporate the needs of stakeholders at all levels. Informants stated that high distrust of the

government can exist when a program has a long-standing history of disregarding stakeholder input.

Ensuring stakeholder input and participation throughout planning processes reduces public mistrust.

The Consulting Team is not identifying separate recommendations here because several

recommendations made above help to address this issue, including in particular recommendations

relating to stakeholder advice (see Recommendation 5).

Flexibility:

Most institutional arrangements use adaptive management strategies to reassess program status and

evolve to meet emerging concerns. OST and VIMS are particularly flexible with regard to emerging

issues and research. VIMS evaluates science needs annually, which improves their ability to adapt to

changing needs. In addition, OST can incubate new programs and projects in short timescales. Many

larger institutional arrangements such as GOMC and GBRMA use five year plans to set new priorities.



Although all regions noted the need for flexibility, many stated that larger institutions tend to lack

flexibility. This finding may support the creation of new, specialized institutions that can be more

responsive to specific environmental priorities. For example, Maryland’s Chesapeake and Atlantic

Coastal Bays Trust Fund, focuses funding on non-point source pollution control projects that meet the

State’s Tributary Strategies and 2-Year Milestones.194 Ensuring flexibility in staffing is a principle reason

GOMC operates via contractors rather than employees.

It is important to note that adaptive management must be allowed adequate time for implementation

and subsequent assessment of changes. For instance, in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park a seven-

year stay on zoning revisions exists to allow business owners, stakeholders, and the ecosystem time to

adapt to changes and assess their effects.

Recommendation 18: Regularly revisiting and revising guiding strategic documents is

important to confirm the validity of an organization’s focus and promote responsiveness

to emerging issues.

Transparency:

Transparent decision-making exists in various ways across the case study regions. Reporting out to

public and stakeholders commonly occurs. Examples of mechanisms ensuring transparency include

routine newsletters, online reporting methods (annual reports), and workshops/conferences. While

public comment opportunities, posting information to websites, and public meetings are seen as

providing a required minimum for transparency, many informants stated that these approaches are not

sufficient to make institutional arrangements thoroughly transparent. Complementary mechanisms

observed in case studies included formal stakeholder-specific committees as well as committees that

integrated stakeholders, scientists, and managers. GOMC’s topic-based committees include all three

constituencies, and overlapping membership with the working group and councilors facilitates

communication that aids in transparency. In addition, informants said it was important also to

communicate progress towards programmatic goals. The CBP uses the Bay Barometer: A Health and

Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed, and other publications to foster

programmatic transparency. In the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, use of community-based advisory

committees improves reporting and transparency of the GBRMPA’s actions. Finally, publishing results

and responses in peer-review processes is another mechanism to achieve transparency and boost

confidence in the science used for decision-making.

194

More information on the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust fund can be found at: http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/ccp/funding/trust_fund.asp and information regarding the Senate bill which enacted the Fund can be found at: http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/ccp/funding/pdfs/sb213.pdf. Accessed as of July 21, 2010.


http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/ccp/funding/pdfs/sb213.pdf.%20Accessed%20as%20of%20July%2021


Informants reported that locating relevant information within the vast amounts available is difficult and

a weakness of many institutional arrangements. Without distilling information in a useful way to public,

partners, and stakeholders, institutional transparency suffers.

There are no new recommendations cited here because recommendations above about stakeholder

involvement (Recommendation 6), using peer-review processes for science (Recommendation 8, 10),

ensuring that reports are user-friendly distillations of policy and science (Recommendations 7, 13, 14),

and that they be accessible via well-designed websites (Recommendations 15, 16) apply in relation to

transparency as well.

Objective and Trusted Science for Decision-Making:

Common among all case studies was the use of scientific peer-review, research institution-led data

collection, and science advisors. Although the GOMC is not a decision-maker, the program produces

synthesis documents and includes science experts to guarantee management decisions are supported

by trustworthy science. Like GOMC, the GBRMPA’s Science Coordination Group and OST coordinate

peer-review processes of science products and at times peer-review groups may review products from

the beginning to end of the science production cycle – reviewing questions, methods, analysis, result,

and draft report. These organizations also ensure alignment between accurate science and

management needs.

Both Virginia and California have mechanisms to identify and reduce conflicts of interest and ensure

production of unbiased research and science synthesis products. For example, OST requires peer-

reviewers to sign conflict of interest statements and will not use a reviewer if there is a clear conflict of

interest. Furthermore, OST identifies peer-reviewers solely from recommendations by the OPC-SAT, and

not the producer of the science product to further ensure a robust review. In Virginia, VIMS’ funding

allocations are not linked to the to the government agencies that receive their data and analyses

thereby ensuring VIMS’ ability to remain objective and neutral. VIMS makes clear that it is not making

the policy decision but rather focusing on the production and delivery of robust and objective science.

This disconnection between the end-user and producer is another mechanism to help ensure objectivity.

In the case of the OST, for some projects funds from end-users are given to OST as a third party neutral

to “hire” the producer of science and ensure a process that is neutral, unbiased, and objective. OST at

times will also use Sea Grant California to run its Request for Proposal (RFP) process, because of its

robust application peer-review process, this was the case for collection of the Monitoring Enterprise’s

baseline monitoring data.

One concern noted by informants included science communication. Problematic instances included

situations where science was conveyed in an inaccessible manner and therefore was not incorporated

into decisions. In other instances, managers often needed distilled science information—too much

information in inaccessible or technically rich formats led to limited inclusion in decisions.



Recommendation 19: To ensure neutrality of science develop mechanisms and firewall,

such as a “third party” system to ensure stakeholders and decision-makers are not

directly funding science.


As noted above, administrative costs for each case study could not be accurately ascertained;

information about this aspect was included when available. The CBP uses approximately15-20 percent

of its yearly budget to support administrative costs. In California, approximately $1.4 million per year

supports OPC’s administrative costs. $335,000 were devoted to OST operational costs in 2008-2009.

GOMC uses contractors, in-kind staff time contributions, and a rotating Secretariat to reduce member’s

administrative burden, and has overhead costs that run in the range of 13 to 23 percent of program

costs. In addition, one informant suggested that improving programs’ staff position flexibility, by not

locking in staff positions and linking positions to relevant projects, could reduce long-term

administrative costs. Improving the program’s flexibility in this way lessens institutionalization of

outdated positions and maintains relevant positions.

Recommendation 20: Once the NRTF has a prospective structure identified for a new

institution or institutional arrangements, it might consider a targeted search for and

survey of institutions that are similar to try to identify the real world administrative

costs of such an institution(s).


Appendix A: Case Study Survey Tool

Interviewee Information

Institutional Relationships

Stakeholders

Institutional Arrangements/Mechanisms:

Engagement: How do these Institutional Arrangements engage stakeholders in terms of disseminating

Interviewee Information: What is your role in ocean management or science (natural and social) for X

place? Do you have a strong knowledge and understanding of the institutional arrangements in X?


Key Institutions and Interactions: Please explain to me the overarching institutional arrangements for X

in the context of coastal and ocean management and science –based decision-making. What

Institutions are in this structure? and how do they interact?

Mandates: Is there formal agreements/mandate for these relationships? If so, is the legislation or

cooperative agreement effective? What works and what does not?

Effectiveness: Is the structure of the institutional arrangements effective in carrying out X’s ocean and

coastal priorities? Have any evaluations been conducted in recent years? Reports available?

Information Sharing: What mechanisms are in place for communicating and coordinating information

(such as research results and policy/ management changes ) among the key institutions responsible for

coastal/ocean management? Do they work well, or are there gaps?

Updating/Adaptive Management: Is there a system in place to adapt to new information or identify

needs within the region on a regular basis (yearly reviews, strategic plans, etc)?

Flexibility/Nimbleness: How flexible and nimble are these arrangements and mechanisms for coastal

and ocean management and science –based decision-making?

Strengths & Weaknesses: What are strengths/weaknesses of the Institutional Arrangements? If you

could draft over what would you change?

Institution/Organization:

Organization/Institution Role: What role does X organization play in the institutional arrangements

within the state (or region)?

Effectiveness: Is X’s role within these intuitional arrangements effective in carrying out X’s ocean and

coastal priorities? Have any evaluations been conducted in recent years? Reports available?

Information Sharing: What mechanisms are in place for communicating and coordinating information

(such as research results and policy/ management changes ) among the key institutions responsible for

coastal/ocean management? Do they work well, or are there gaps?

Updating/Adaptive Management: Does organization X have a system in place to adapt to new science

information or identify science needs on a regular basis (yearly reviews, strategic plans, etc)?

Flexibility/Nimbleness: How flexible and nimble is X’s mechanisms for coastal and ocean management

and science –based decision-making?



information to them and receiving their input into the policy and management decision-making

process? (e.g., advisory panels, public meetings and comment, development and dissemination of

notices and public education materials)


Engagement: How does the X engage stakeholders in terms of disseminating information to them and

receiving their input into the policy and management decision-making process? (e.g., advisory panels,

public meetings and comment, development and dissemination of notices and public education

materials)

Science


Obtaining Science Advice: How do the Institutional Arrangements obtain science advice (is it funded, or

is there an expert panel, etc)?

Identifying Priorities and Gaps: Is science advice or research prioritized and are there mechanisms for

identifying gaps? Is this regularly revised? (for instance, some Institutional Arrangements use an

annual science plan). How is research chosen/funded by the Institutional Arrangements? Do you think

this is a transparent process?

Ensuring Neutrality, Objectivity, and Trust: If it uses consultation and advice, how do the Institutional

Arrangements ensure that the scientific advice is objective, unbiased, and trusted? Is there a peer

review process of science and research conducted for policy and management?


Obtaining Science Advice: How does X obtain science advice (is it funded, or is there an expert panel,

etc)?

Identifying Priorities and Gaps: Is science advice or research prioritized and are there mechanisms for

identifying gaps? Is this regularly revised? (for instance, organizations use an annual science plan).

How is research chose/funded? Do you think this is a transparent process?

Ensuring Neutrality, Objectivity, and Trust: If it uses consultation and advice, how does X ensure that the

scientific advice is objective, unbiased, and trusted? Is there a peer review process of science and

research conducted for policy and management?

Integration of Science into Decisions


Science Integration Mechanisms: How do policy-makers and agency staff integrate scientific advice in

policy and management decision-making? (for example, do agency staff incorporate science panel’s

findings into set of recommendations for policy-makers)

Transparency; Do you think this is a transparent process?

Strengths and Weaknesses: What are the strengths of this system? Weaknesses? What would you

change if you could design the system from scratch?




Science Integration Mechanisms: How does X integrate scientific advice into its policy and management

decision-making?

Transparency; Do you think this is a transparent process?

Strengths and Weaknesses: What are the strengths of this system? Weaknesses? What would you

change if you could design the system from scratch?

Data Management


Storage: How are research data stored? (Publications, maps, tools, etc).

Accessibility: How is it made available to the public and partners?

Use: How is used or incorporated into policy and management decision?

Strengths and Weaknesses: What are the strengths of this system? Weaknesses?


Storage: How are research data stored? (Publications, maps, tools, etc).

Accessibility: How is it made available to the public and partners?

Use: How is used or incorporated into policy and management decision?

Strengths and Weaknesses: What are the strengths of this system? Weaknesses?

Funding


Sources: What types of funding sources does the Institutional Arrangements have access to/ uses?

Acceptance Channels: How are funds received (allocations, foundation support, project based) within

the Institutional Arrangements?

Funding Allocations: For each of the categories we discussed above – general Institutional

Arrangements for ocean and coastal management, Stakeholder engagement, Science Integration, Data

Management – how are funding disbursement choices made (competitive process, allocations, etc)?

Funding-Accountability: For each of the categories we discussed above – general Institutional

Arrangements for ocean and coastal management, Stakeholder engagement, Science Integration, Data

Management – how are disbursement choices reported and made clear to stakeholders, the public, and

other agencies?”

Administration: The administrative burden for coordinating these institutional arrangements may vary

across institutions. Do you have any insight into what these burdens, costs, and gaps (human resources,

funding, etc) are?

Strengths and Weaknesses: Can you cite particular strengths/weaknesses in the way the Institutional

Arrangements acquire and disburse funding?

Opportunities for Change: If you could draft over the process of allocating funding for policy/programs

and science, what changes would you make?




Sources: What types of funding sources does X organization have access to/ uses?

Acceptance Channels: How are funds received (allocations, foundation support, project based) within

X?

Funding Allocations: For each of the categories we discussed above – X’s role in ocean and coastal

management, Stakeholder engagement, Science Integration, Data Management – how are funding

disbursement choices made (competitive process, allocations, etc)?

Funding-Accountability: For each of the categories we discussed above – X’s role in ocean and coastal

management, Stakeholder engagement, Science Integration, Data Management – how are

disbursement choices reported and made clear to stakeholders, the public, and other agencies?”

Administration: Do you have any insight into the administrative burdens, costs, and gaps (human

resources, funding, etc) for X in relation to supporting the efforts of nearshore research and

management?

Strengths and Weaknesses: Can you cite particular strengths/weaknesses in the way X acquires and

disburses funding?

Opportunities for Change: If you could draft over the process of allocating funding for policy/programs

and science, what changes would you make?

Other

Lessons learned?

Do you have any other thoughts or ideas you would like to share?

Is there anyone else who you think we should talk to about what we discussed today?


Appendix B: Informant List

Case Study Region Informant

Oregon Robert Bailey, Manager, Oregon Coastal Management Program

Dave Fox, Marine Resource Assessment and Management Section

Leader, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Division, Marine

Resources Program

Jessica Keyes, Natural Resources Policy Advisor

Case Study Region Informant

Australia Toni Dam, Manager Program Strategy and Communications Section,

Cooperative Research Centres Branch, Research Division, Department of

Innovation, Industry, Science and Research

Jon Day, Director, Ecosystem Conservation and Sustainable Use, Great

Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA)

John Hicks, Business Manager, Marine Directorate, Queensland Parks

and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment and Resource

Management

Terry Hughes, Director, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies

David Souter, Research and Spatial Systems Director, Reef and

Rainforest Research Centre Limited

British Columbia Meaghan Calcari, Program Officer- British Columbia, Marine

Conservation Initiative, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

Andrew Day, Director, Tsawalk Partnership, West Coast Vancouver

Island Aquatic Management Board

Evert Kenk, Program Director, PacMARA

Henry Kucera, Executive Director, PacMARA

California Amber Mace, Executive Director, Ocean Protection Council

Skyli McAfee, Executive Director, California Ocean Science Trust

Sam Schucat, Executive Officer, California Coastal Conservancy

Chesapeake Bay Joe Grist, Fisheries Management, Virginia Marine Resources

Commission

Matt Fleming, Program Director, Coastal Program, Department of

Natural Resources

Carl Hershner, Director, Center for Coastal Resources Management

Associate Professor of Marine Science, Virginia Institute of Marine

Science

Frederick Hoffman, Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program, VA

http://www.westcoastaquatic.ca/Home.htm



Department of Environmental Quality

Jane McCroskey, Jane McCroskey, Chief, Administration and Finance,

Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC)

Laura McKay, Program Manager, Coastal Zone Management Program,

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

Robert O’Reilly, Deputy Chief, Fisheries Management, Virginia Marine

Resources Commission (VMRC)

Peyton Robertson, Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) Chesapeake Bay Office

Gwynne Schultz, Director, Coastal Zone Management Program,

Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Gwen Shaunhnessy, Coastal Hazards and Climate Programs Specialist,

Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Gulf of Maine Stewart Fefer, Project Leader. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Gulf of

Maine Program

David Keeley, Principal, Keeley Group

Cindy Krum, Association of U.S. Delegates to the Gulf of Maine Council

on the Marine Environment

Michele Tremblay, Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment

Coordinator


Appendix C: Detailed Description of Case Study Screening

The Consulting Team conducted a rapid assessment of 15 potential case studies (see Table 1 for a list of

the potential case studies), completing an assessment tool, performing web-based research, and

drawing on experience to screen for those ocean and coastal case studies whose institutional

arrangements included mechanisms for the following:

Funding

Stakeholder Advice

Science Advice

Incorporation of science in management decision-making

Data management, sharing, and products

Education, outreach, and community engagement

Scientific research

Scientific synthesis for policy input

Table 1: List of Potential Place-based Case Studies

U.S. /States

U.S. Multi-State/Regional

International

California

Florida

Hawaii

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Washington

Virginia

Chesapeake Bay

Gulf of Maine

Gulf of Mexico

Great Lakes

Pacific States

Australia-Queensland

Canada - British Columbia

New Zealand

The Consulting Team collected data about marine institutions and their programs, screening numerous

institutions in each place-based case study against twelve criteria in light of the NRTF mandate. Table 2

outlines the twelve criteria.

Table 2: Criteria for Selection of Case Studies

Criteria Definition


Partners:

Government (local, state, federal/ national), nongovernmental organization

(NGO), inter-governmental organization (IGO), private foundation

Legislative Mandate

or Agreement:

Mandate or Agreement and governing process in place

Funding Sources: Diversity of revenue and long-term funding mechanism for marine

management and research

Funding Process: Description of process/mechanism for funding institutional activities



Stakeholder advice: Stakeholders’ advisory role via committee or representation

Community

engagement/

outreach:

Brief description of type of outreach mechanisms: workshops, media campaign,

etc.

Science Advice: Science advice and peer review provided /obtained

Scientific Research: Institution and capacity (financial and human) to conduct scientific (social and

natural science) research relevant for decision-making

Incorporation of

science into decision-

making process:

Mechanism, requirements, and capacity for incorporating science and science-

based decision-making process

Synthesis of science

for policy input:

Mechanism and capacity for scientific synthesis for decision-making (e.g.,

prioritization, gap analysis, synthesis of science and data for decision-making, or

use of boundary institution such as California Ocean Science Trust)

Data management/

sharing/ products:

Mechanisms for data management, sharing, and products

Accessibility of

Information:

Grants, strategy, evaluation, process, organizational charts, legislation, etc

The Consulting Team used a rapid assessment tool for case study selection. Each place-based case study

was ranked according to the preliminary data gathering effort that used the Consulting Team’s best

effort to quickly make an assessment.195 The Consulting Team shared two elements – institutional

analysis synthesized from a larger volume of raw data, and ranking definitions – with the NRTF

Operations Committee and discussed the case study options on a May 24, 2010 conference call. The

NRTF members expressed an interest in funding mechanism and institutional interactions (how

arrangements differ and which organizations are involved). The Operations Committee directed the

Consulting Team to incorporate their guidance in making a final selection of cases. Based on this

guidance, the Consulting Team chose four place-based case studies as follows:

California: While a number of the most innovative components of California’s system are

relatively new, the state provides a West Coast example with similar concerns and management

actions. In addition, Oregon’s nearshore policies will at times need to utilize cross-border

political actions; the need to coordinate across state boundaries supported an in-depth case

study write-up.

195

The analysis synthesizes information about multiple organizations within each case study area; the rankings reflect whether, within a given case, at least some component satisfies the criteria. For our recommended case studies, we worked with the raw data to select those cases, which we believe best satisfied the criteria. These underlying data distinguished selected cases from others, which appear to have a similar rank in the simplified analysis we are providing the NRTF Operations Committee with this memo.



Chesapeake Bay (Maryland and Virginia): Maryland and Virginia were chosen not only for the

longevity of their programs, but for the overarching context of managing the Chesapeake Bay

region and the methods of funding projects through such organizations as the Chesapeake Bay

Foundation.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Australia/ Queensland): Australia was selected because it has

been a strong leader in coastal and resource management particularly in the context of the

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the State of Queensland, and the Cooperative

Research Centers.

Gulf of Maine (Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment): Gulf of Maine was selected

for its management and use of public participation in the development of their action plans.


Appendix D: Case Study Committees and Board Composition information and webpage links

California

Organization: Link

Ocean Protection Council (OPC) http://www.opc.ca.gov/about/

OPC Staff http://www.opc.ca.gov/opc-staff/

OPC Science Advisory Team (OPC-SAT) http://www.opc.ca.gov/ocean-protection-council-

science-advisory-team-opc-sat/

California Ocean Science Trust (OST) Board http://www.calost.org/bios.html

OST Staff http://www.calost.org/staff.html

Chesapeake Bay Region

Organization Link

Chesapeake Bay Program Organizational

Structure

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/committeeactiviti

es.aspx?menuitem=14890

Chesapeake Bay Program History http://www.chesapeakebay.net/historyofcbp.aspx

?menuitem=14904

Chesapeake Bay Program Staff http://www.chesapeakebay.net/officestaff_alpha.

aspx?menuitem=14915

Chesapeake Bay Program Science and Technical

Advisory Committee (STAC)

http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/members

Chesapeake Bay Program Management Board http://www.chesapeakebay.net/management_bo

ard.aspx?menuitem=47089

Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) http://www.chesapeakebay.net/committee_cac_i

nfo.aspx?menuitem=46325

Chesapeake Executive Council http://www.chesapeakebay.net/exec.htm

Implementation Committee http://www.chesapeakebay.net/committee_ic_inf

o.aspx?menuitem=16436

Chesapeake Bay Trust Board of Trustees http://www.cbtrust.org/site/c.miJPKXPCJnH/b.545

4857/k.B331/Board_of_Trustees.htm

Chesapeake Bay Trust Staff http://www.cbtrust.org/site/c.miJPKXPCJnH/b.545

4853/k.CA36/Staff.htm

Chesapeake Bay Commission Members http://www.chesbay.state.va.us/members.htm

Chesapeake Bay Commission Staff http://www.chesbay.state.va.us/offices.htm

Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust Fund http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/ccp/funding/trust_f

und.asp and

http://www.baystat.maryland.gov/trustfund_info.

html

SB 213-established the Chesapeake and Atlantic http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/ccp/funding/pdfs/s

http://www.opc.ca.gov/about/

http://www.opc.ca.gov/opc-staff/

http://www.opc.ca.gov/ocean-protection-council-science-advisory-team-opc-sat/

http://www.opc.ca.gov/ocean-protection-council-science-advisory-team-opc-sat/

http://www.calost.org/bios.html

http://www.calost.org/staff.html

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/committeeactivities.aspx?menuitem=14890

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/committeeactivities.aspx?menuitem=14890

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/historyofcbp.aspx?menuitem=14904

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/historyofcbp.aspx?menuitem=14904

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/officestaff_alpha.aspx?menuitem=14915

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/officestaff_alpha.aspx?menuitem=14915

http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/members

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/management_board.aspx?menuitem=47089

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/management_board.aspx?menuitem=47089

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/committee_cac_info.aspx?menuitem=46325

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/committee_cac_info.aspx?menuitem=46325

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/exec.htm

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/committee_ic_info.aspx?menuitem=16436

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/committee_ic_info.aspx?menuitem=16436

http://www.cbtrust.org/site/c.miJPKXPCJnH/b.5454857/k.B331/Board_of_Trustees.htm

http://www.cbtrust.org/site/c.miJPKXPCJnH/b.5454857/k.B331/Board_of_Trustees.htm

http://www.cbtrust.org/site/c.miJPKXPCJnH/b.5454853/k.CA36/Staff.htm

http://www.cbtrust.org/site/c.miJPKXPCJnH/b.5454853/k.CA36/Staff.htm

http://www.chesbay.state.va.us/members.htm

http://www.chesbay.state.va.us/offices.htm



http://www.baystat.maryland.gov/trustfund_info.html

http://www.baystat.maryland.gov/trustfund_info.html

http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/ccp/funding/pdfs/sb213.pdf



Coastal Bays Trust Fund, BayStat Subcabinet, and

Scientific Advisory Panel

b213.pdf

Virginia Institute of Marine Science Departments http://www.vims.edu/research/departments/inde

x.php

VIMS-Ways to Give http://www.vims.edu/giving/waystogive/index.ph

p

VIMS Foundation http://www.vims.edu/giving/foundation/index.ph

p

Virginia Marine Resource Council Board

Membership and Term Limits

http://www.mrc.state.va.us/commissionboard.sht

m

Great Barrier Reef

Organization Link

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

(GBRMPA) About including: Organizational Chart,

Advisory Group Structure, and Performance

Framework

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?

q=cache:5tkQfJnqk7oJ:www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_

site/about_us+GBRMPa+Advisory+Group+Structur

e&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

GBRMPA Board http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/about_us/g

reat_barrier_reef_marine_park_authority_board

GBRMPA Science Integration http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_service

s/science_management

GBRMPA Consultation and Community

Involvement

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/manageme

nt/who_participates/consultation_community_inv

olvement and

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/manageme

nt/who_participates/lmac

Australia Institute of Marine Science Council http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/about/corporate/co

rporate-governance-council.html

ARC Centre of Excellence Coral Reef Studies

annual report

http://www.coralcoe.org.au/pub-

annualreport.html

Great Barrier Reef Foundation (GBRF) Board http://www.barrierreef.org/Whoweare/Board.asp

x

GBRF Team http://www.barrierreef.org/Whoweare/GBRFTea

m.aspx

GBRF Scientific Advisory Committee http://www.barrierreef.org/Whoweare/ScientificA

dvisoryCommitteeISAC.aspx

GBRF Chairman’s Panel http://www.barrierreef.org/Whoweare/Chairmans

Panel.aspx

http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/ccp/funding/pdfs/sb213.pdf

http://www.vims.edu/research/departments/index.php

http://www.vims.edu/research/departments/index.php

http://www.vims.edu/giving/waystogive/index.php

http://www.vims.edu/giving/waystogive/index.php

http://www.vims.edu/giving/foundation/index.php

http://www.vims.edu/giving/foundation/index.php

http://www.mrc.state.va.us/commissionboard.shtm

http://www.mrc.state.va.us/commissionboard.shtm

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5tkQfJnqk7oJ:www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/about_us+GBRMPa+Advisory+Group+Structure&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us




http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/about_us/great_barrier_reef_marine_park_authority_board

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/about_us/great_barrier_reef_marine_park_authority_board



http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/management/who_participates/consultation_community_involvement





http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/about/corporate/corporate-governance-council.html

http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/about/corporate/corporate-governance-council.html

http://www.coralcoe.org.au/pub-annualreport.html

http://www.coralcoe.org.au/pub-annualreport.html

http://www.barrierreef.org/Whoweare/Board.aspx

http://www.barrierreef.org/Whoweare/Board.aspx

http://www.barrierreef.org/Whoweare/GBRFTeam.aspx

http://www.barrierreef.org/Whoweare/GBRFTeam.aspx

http://www.barrierreef.org/Whoweare/ScientificAdvisoryCommitteeISAC.aspx

http://www.barrierreef.org/Whoweare/ScientificAdvisoryCommitteeISAC.aspx

http://www.barrierreef.org/Whoweare/ChairmansPanel.aspx

http://www.barrierreef.org/Whoweare/ChairmansPanel.aspx



Gulf of Maine

Organization Link

Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment

(GOMC) About

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/

GOMC Councilors http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/councilors.ph

p

GOMC Committees (including the Working Group,

Secretariat Team, Outreach, Management and

Finance, ESIP, Gulfwatch, etc.)

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/committees/

GOMC Member Agencies http://www.gulfofmaine.org/knowledgebase/gom

c_member_links.php

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/councilors.php

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/councilors.php

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/committees/

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/knowledgebase/gomc_member_links.php

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/knowledgebase/gomc_member_links.php