	Introduction

Scientific documentation of the ecological condition of the oceans, such as the reports recently issued by the United States Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission, has been cited as evidence of deteriorating aquatic conditions. The Bush Administration has also released a U.S. Recently there has been debate over whether the development of a more comprehensive system of marine resource preservation is appropriate. Currently, a number of U.S. marine sites have been designated for and receive special protections under laws specifically aimed at preserving ocean resources, such as the National Marine Sanctuary Program, established in 1972 by the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act; the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and the Coastal Zone Management Act. In September of 2006, the National Marine Protected Areas Center, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, issued its Draft Framework for Developing the National System of Marine Protected Areas. This report analyzes various sources of legal authority to assess their possible application to marine environments and will outline the protection and management system each might support. U.S. Jurisdiction Over Marine Resources

International law recognizes that coastal nations have legal authority to manage certain ocean resources within their jurisdiction. Additionally, certain resource protection and management frameworks now in place might also be applied to ocean resources in the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, and the EEZ should Congress or the President designate such areas for protection. The Exclusive Economic Zone

Consistent with UNCLOS III and international law and custom, the United States has claimed an EEZ extending, in general, 200 nautical miles from its coasts. § 1a-2(h), the act states that the Secretary of the Interior shall
[p]romulgate and enforce regulations concerning boating and other activities on or relating to waters located within areas of the National Park System, including waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States: Provided , That any regulations adopted pursuant to this subsection shall be complementary to, and not in derogation of, the authority of the United States Coast Guard to regulate the use of waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. the creation of a "marine reserve" via executive order. On the other hand, there is some indication that regulatory authority over the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge is separate from the rest of the reserve. Conclusion

In light of the recent publication of the Revised Draft Framework for Developing the National System of Marine Protected Areas and the introduction of H.R. However, use of these various conservation authorities for the creation of an MPA would carry concerns peculiar to each particular statute and would be limited by the extent of U.S. jurisdiction over offshore lands and waters.
Recent events, including the release of the President's U.S. Ocean Action Plan and reports issued by the United States Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission, have prompted a reexamination of U.S. ocean policy and debate over an "ecosystem approach" to ocean resource management. One proposed mechanism for conserving ocean resources is the Marine Protected Area (MPA), conceptualized as a zoning system for the portions of the ocean under U.S. jurisdiction. This has been highlighted by the issuance of the Revised Draft Framework for Developing the National System of Marine Protected Areas (Draft Framework), issued on March 17, 2008, by the National Marine Protected Areas Center, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The introduction of H.R. 21 in the 110th Congress has also focused attention on the health of ocean resources.
The relative merits and the potentially negative consequences of such an MPA system have been widely discussed. Advocates of additional protection argue that a more comprehensive system as outlined in the Draft Framework should be established. Others argue that the current system is effectively managing ocean resources and that additional restrictions would be economically harmful.
Apart from the relative merits of each position, there is some question as to the applicability of current federal law to the oceans and whether new protections could be imposed administratively, without additional legislation. To some extent, regulatory authority depends upon the nature of the jurisdiction that the United States has claimed over various ocean resources vis-à-vis other nations and vis-à-vis the states. Consistent with international law, the United States claims jurisdiction over marine areas extending 200 nautical miles from its coast and has regulated resources in the zones composing this area under multiple legal authorities.
Several current laws which might provide authority for the creation of MPAs are aimed specifically at the ocean environment. The National Marine Sanctuary Program, established by the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act each specifically contemplate various levels and forms of aquatic resource protection.
Additionally, certain generally applicable laws, while primarily intended for use on land, would arguably support the designation of an MPA in some circumstances. Indeed, U.S. MPAs within the territorial seas have been established as national monuments, national parks, national wildlife areas, and, most recently, as a reserve via executive order.
This report outlines U.S. jurisdiction over ocean resources and analyzes the existing laws to assess their application to marine environments.