Competing uses, sensitive and valuable marine resources, and overlapping jurisdictions complicate management

decision making in the marine environment. States are developing marine spatial planning capacity to help make

better decisions, particularly as demand for ocean space and resources is growing because of emerging human uses

(renewable energy, aquaculture) and traditional human uses (commercial fishing, commerce). This paper offers

perspectives on marine spatial planning efforts being carried out in four states across the US, and demonstrates

similarities and differences between them. The approach to marine spatial planning in each state is discussed with

specific attention given to issues such as what is driving the effort, data availability, maturity of the effort, and level of resources devoted to it. Highlighting the similarities and differences illustrates state and region specific challenges and the approaches being used to meet them. (PDF contains 4 pages

Smith, Brian

English

Aquatic Commons

 MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING APPROACHES AT THE STATE LEVEL: SIMILARITIES AND 
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MSP EFFORTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY 
 
Brian Smith,* NOAA Coastal Services Center (I.M. Systems Group) 
Bob Bailey, Oregon Coastal Resources Management Program 
Scott Geis, North Carolina Division of Coastal Management 
Matthew Warner, Michigan Coastal Management Program 
John Webber, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 
 
 
Abstract 
 
Competing uses, sensitive and valuable marine resources, and overlapping jurisdictions complicate management 
decision making in the marine environment. States are developing marine spatial planning capacity to help make 
better decisions, particularly as demand for ocean space and resources is growing because of emerging human uses 
(renewable energy, aquaculture) and traditional human uses (commercial fishing, commerce). This paper offers 
perspectives on marine spatial planning efforts being carried out in four states across the US, and demonstrates 
similarities and differences between them.  The approach to marine spatial planning in each state is discussed with 
specific attention given to issues such as what is driving the effort, data availability, maturity of the effort, and level 
of resources devoted to it.  Highlighting the similarities and differences illustrates state and region specific 
challenges and the approaches being used to meet them. 
 
Introduction 
 
Although marine spatial planning (MSP) has been underway internationally for nearly 30 years, many efforts in the 
US are relatively recent.  MSP is a public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of 
human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that are usually specified 
through a political process (Ehler and Douvere 2009).  Interest in MSP has increased noticeably over the last year, 
motivated by the President’s charge to the White House Council on Environmental Quality’s Interagency Ocean 
Policy Task Force (OPTF), to prepare a national framework for marine spatial planning.    
  
MSP identifies areas suitable for various human activities in order to reduce user conflicts, reduce environmental 
impacts, facilitate compatible uses, and preserve ecosystem services to meet various public objectives (White House 
Council on Environmental Quality 2009).  Potential state benefits from implementing the MSP process include 
identifying and resolving ocean use conflicts, opportunities to streamline permitting processes, and increased 
certainty for offshore development. 
 
Prior to the OPTF efforts, several states have been actively pursuing various aspects of MSP to address urgent ocean 
or lake area management needs.  Given that MSP activities in the US are relatively recent, even the most advanced 
of these has not had sufficient opportunity to implement a comprehensive process.  These examples contain 
elements of marine spatial planning or exemplify how agencies are working to use its guiding principles.  The 
objective of this document is to increase understanding of the issues surrounding MSP and the approaches being 
taken to implement it.   The efforts of the four states described here illustrate similarities and differences in their 
approaches.  
 
North Carolina 
 
North Carolina’s efforts in MSP are best described as taking their first steps.  Although they are at the very 
beginning of a comprehensive effort, they have significant existing data and ongoing projects that can contribute and 
evolve into to a more formal process and documentation.   
 
Currently, the coastal resource management structure in NC includes the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC), 
which is responsible for regulating development activities in coastal waters within the State’s 20 coastal counties. 
The CRC is supported by the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) which provides information, expertise, and 
recommendations on rule development and policy.  Both CRC and DCM are driving initial discussion and efforts 
related to MSP.  Their current activities center on permitting marine-based wind turbines and characterization of 
 sand resources.  Both CRC and DCM, however, have begun looking at how information from these activities can be 
leveraged with additional data from academics, non-profits and other state resource agencies to contribute to a more 
comprehensive process based on MSP principles (North Carolina Ocean Policy Steering Committee 2009).   
 
The NC Coastal Habitat Protection Plan or CHPP, has potential for use as an MSP framework.  The CHPP is a 
multi-agency cooperative that brings together staff from the various environmental resource agencies housed within 
the State’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources.  The focus of CHPP is to work together on 
environmental conservation, protection, and permitting.  Each of the agencies represented in CHPP also serve as 
staff to the various State Resource Commissions. 
 
An inventory of available data that could support State level MSP is already underway at NC DCM.  In addition, 
various State universities have launched several projects characterizing resource potential for State waters.  The 
most notable achievement is the University of North Carolina Wind Energy Study commissioned by the NC General 
Assembly that outlines the potential for large scale wind energy development in Pamlico Sound (University of North 
Carolina at Chapel Hill 2009).  
 
Currently there is no specific formal public process in NC that would support MSP.  The CRC does, however, hold 
meetings every other month where there is a public input period.  There is also a public hearing anytime new rules 
are introduced by DCM staff and prior to rule adoption by the CRC. 
 
Michigan 
 
Michigan’s MSP efforts are in their infancy although recent interest in offshore wind energy generation may provide 
the impetus to devise a policy framework for MSP in Michigan’s Great Lakes waters. In February 2009, Governor 
Granholm created The Great Lakes Wind Council (Council) to examine issues and make recommendations related 
to offshore wind development.  The Council, which consists of key agency representatives and stakeholders, is 
driving much of the work for current offshore wind planning (Michigan Great Lakes Wind Council 2009).  No 
individual state agency employees are fully dedicated to MSP, but several employees within various agencies are 
involved in the Council’s offshore wind planning efforts as part of their responsibilities.  It’s expected that an 
expanded MSP effort would require the contribution of employees across state agencies including the Department of 
Energy, Labor and Economic Growth and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment. 
 
The Michigan Coastal Management Program (MCMP) realized in late 2007 that critical resource management 
decisions, in addition to wind energy discussions, were suffering from insufficient spatial data.  In response the 
MCMP provided funding for the lakebed alteration decision support tool (DST).  This effort was carried out with the 
Institute for Fisheries Research, a cooperative unit of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and 
Environment and the University of Michigan.  The Council is relying heavily on the DST, and it is expected it 
would play a major role in future MSP efforts.  The DST contains dozens of data layers sorted by theme including: 
biological features (e.g. fish spawn sites by species), environmental features (e.g. Areas of Concern), protected 
features (e.g. shipwrecks, bottomland preserves), base/political features (e.g. Coastal Zone Management area, 
shipping routes, marinas), and physical features (e.g. bathymetry, substrate).   
 
Although there is not a formal public process for MSP, the Council is charged with recommending a process for 
engaging the people of Michigan in a public dialogue about offshore wind.  It is expected that the state agencies will 
play a major role in implementing this public outreach process and this process would then be in place for any future 
larger MSP efforts. 
 
Oregon 
 
The State of Oregon asserted its interest in managing ocean resources in 1976 with adoption of Statewide Planning 
Goal 19, Ocean Resources, as part of the Coastal Management Program.  In 1991, the legislature enacted an Ocean 
Resources Management Program to promote coordinated action among state agencies responsible for ocean 
resources and to engage the public and stakeholders in that process.  The initial Territorial Sea Plan (TSP), adopted 
in 1994, created a policy template for coordinated management of uses in state ocean waters but, other than 
provisions for rocky shore management, contained no spatial component (Oregon Coastal Management Program 
1994).  
  
Recently, the geo-spatial component of marine planning has gained prominence through four principal activities.  
One, the Oregon Coastal Atlas (http://www.coastalatlas.net/), created by the Oregon Coastal Management Program, 
serves thousands of spatial data sets, provides information tools about the coast and ocean, and is a platform for 
additional MSP tools.  Two activities were initiated by a Governor’s directive in March 2008 that include a list of 
potential marine reserves be developed for legislative consideration using a community-based public process by 
December 2008, and a plan for ocean alternative energy be prepared by December 2009 for adoption into the 
Territorial Sea Plan.  The fourth activity, detailed mapping of the nearshore seafloor, was initiated in summer 2009. 
 
 The Governor’s marine reserves directive kicked off an interagency effort to provide, via the Internet, a variety of 
mapped information for the public and the state’s Ocean Policy Advisory Council.  This work enabled the public to 
download and use maps of a variety of marine spatial data.   And while Phase One of planning for ocean alternative 
energy focused on policies and standards, Phase Two, currently underway, will provide a geospatial basis for siting 
energy projects while protecting habitat and avoiding other ocean users.  The state is collaborating with local 
fishermen organizations and other stakeholders to map the extent, kind, and value of ocean fisheries.  Data from this 
effort, expected by early 2011, will be combined with data from the marine reserves process, new detailed seafloor 
data, and additional ecological data to support decisions regarding the location of ocean alternative energy 
development. 
  
Massachusetts 
 
The MSP effort in Massachusetts began when the MA Oceans Act (the Act) was signed into law in May 2008.  The 
Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) were designated as the lead agency for 
developing an ocean plan. EEA worked closely with the MA Ocean Partnership (MOP) during the development of 
the plan. MOP is a broadly representative, independent public-private partnership created specifically to contribute 
to the Commonwealth’s ocean planning effort.   
 
The Act required the secretary of EEA to develop a comprehensive ocean management plan in 18 months, and it 
was released in January 2010.  The goal is to institute a comprehensive approach to ocean resource management that 
supports ecosystem health and economic vitality, balances current ocean uses, and considers future needs (Executive 
Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 2009). This was accomplished by determining siting and performance 
standards for specific ocean uses (renewable energy and related infrastructure, cables, pipelines, and sand extraction 
for beach nourishment) and by identifying and protecting “special, sensitive, or unique life and habitats.”   
 
The plan is being submitted to NOAA for incorporation into the existing coastal zone management program. In 
addition to the plan being implemented through federal consistency provisions, other existing state regulatory and 
permitting processes, including the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act and Chapter 91, the state’s waterways 
law, are to be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the ocean management plan. Therefore, the plan 
has regulatory “teeth” and multiple facets to its implementation.  
To facilitate the planning process, an Ocean Advisory Commission and Science Advisory Council were created.  
Public input sessions were scheduled in coastal and inland communities. Six agency work groups were formed to 
acquire and analyze existing data and information regarding habitat; fisheries; transportation, navigation, and 
infrastructure; sediment; recreation and cultural services; and renewable energy.   
 
Massachusetts uses MORIS (Massachusetts Ocean Resource Information System) to search and display spatial data 
on-line pertaining to the Massachusetts coastal zone. The MA Ocean Plan contains more than 50 maps providing 
spatial representations of jurisdictions, marine habitat, infrastructure, recreational areas, economically important 
areas, and navigational information.  
 
Finally, the Act intends for the plan to evolve, since there is a requirement to update the plan once every five years. 
To assist in this, the ocean management plan includes a science framework (identifying priority data/science 
acquisition for the next five years) and a system of plan performance/socioeconomic indicators to help gauge the 
effectiveness of the plan in meeting its stated goals. 
 
Analysis 
 
 The level of involvement and approaches taken to MSP in the US are varied.  The states compared here illustrate 
similarities and differences in the MSP drivers, maturity of the efforts, specific authority for MSP, approaches to 
public engagement, and availability of spatial data (Table 1).  In the cases of Massachusetts and Oregon, plans are in 
place and a process is ongoing.  North Carolina and Michigan are earlier in the process.  None of these states, 
however, has had the opportunity to monitor and evaluate a plan, leading to adaption of their MSP approach.  It is 
important to continue analyzing examples of MSP to learn about the benefits and challenges of different approaches.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
References 
 
Ehler, Charles and Fanny Douvere.  Marine Spatial Planning: a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based 
management.  Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme.  IOC Manual 
and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6. Paris: UNESCO. 2009. 
 
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.  Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan. 2009. 
 
North Carolina Ocean Policy Steering Committee.  Developing a Management Strategy for North Carolina’s Coastal 
Ocean. 2009.  
 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  Coastal Wind: Energy for North Carolina’s future. 2009. 
 
Oregon Coastal Management Program.  Oregon Territorial Sea Plan. 1994. 
 
Michigan Great Lakes Wind Council.  Report of the Michigan Great Lakes Wind Council, 
http://www.michiganglowcouncil.org/GLOW%20Report%209-1-09_FINAL.pdf. 2009. 
 
White House Council on Environmental Quality, Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force.  Interim Framework on 
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning. 2009. 
 
 
Brian M. Smith 
NOAA Coastal Services Center (IM Systems Group) 
2234 South Hobson Ave. 
Charleston, SC 29405 
Ph (843) 740 1268 
E-mail: brian.m.smith@noaa.gov 
Table 1. Elements of marine spatial planning in four US states. 
     
 North Carolina Massachusetts Michigan Oregon 
     
Primary driver Wind energy Wind energy Wind energy Conservation 
Secondary driver Sand resources Conservation NA Wave energy 
Maturity  Beginning < 5 years Beginning > 5 years 
Legislated authority No Yes No  Yes 
Public participation  Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Spatial data system No Yes Yes Yes 
Marine spatial plan  No Yes No Yes 
Implementing plan NA Yes NA Yes 
Evaluating plan NA Will be  NA No 
Adapting plan  NA Will be NA NA 


Marine spatial planning approaches at the state level: Similarities and differences between MSP efforts across the country

http://aquaticcommons.org/3954/1/Smith_2_papers.pdf

Marine spatial planning approaches at the state level: Similarities and differences between MSP efforts across the country

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Aquatic Commons