Fishing for Rumors

SandBar Printer-Friendly Article
SandBar 9:2, July, 2010 Recommended citation: Wilson, Nathan P., Fishing for Rumors , 9:2 SandBar 12 (2010). Fishing for Rumors The Ocean Policy Task Force’s Interim Framework for Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Makes a Splash Nathan P. Wilson, 2011 J.D. Candidate, University of Mississippi School of Law Earlier this year unsubstantiated rumors that President Obama planned to end recreational fishing spread across the news media and blogosphere.1 According to the New York Times, the bulk of the rumors originated after an online columnist for ESPN Outdoors posted an opinion piece stating that policies suggested by the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force “could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some of the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.”2 The site’s executive editor later posted a response noting that while the article was an opinion piece, “this particular column was not properly balanced and failed to represent contrary points of view.”3 Whether the fears were well-founded or not, policies suggested by the Task Force, especially with regard to coastal and marine spatial planning, appeared to stoke strong feelings among commercial and recreational fishermen. To address these concerns, this article examines the role of the Task Force, focusing on its Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning. Background On June 12, 2009, President Obama established the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force led by the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.4 The Task Force is comprised of senior officials from agencies represented on the existing Committee on Ocean Policy established under President Bush in 2004.5 President Obama charged the Task Force with developing recommendations addressing: 1) a national policy that ensures protection and restoration, enhances sustainability of coastal economies, provides for adaptive management to deal with climate change, and is coordinated with national security and foreign policy interests; 2) a framework for policy coordination among federal, state, tribal, regional governance structures and local authorities; and 3) an implementation strategy that prioritizes objectives to meet the recommended policy.6 In addition, the Task Force was specifically instructed to develop a framework for coastal and marine spatial planning. The framework must be comprehensive and address “conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and sustainable use of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources consistent with international law.”7 In preparation of the framework development, the Task Force solicited public engagement through six regional public meetings, thirty-eight expert roundtable meetings, and public comments.8 In September 2009, the Task Force issued its Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, with recommendations of approaches to protect the nation’s oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes, including coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP).9 Last December, the Task Force issued the Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning.10 Defining Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) Essential to the development of a CMSP framework is the need to clearly identify what CMSP encompasses. To that end, the Interim Framework defines CMSP as a “comprehensive, adaptive, integrated, ecosystem-based, and transparent spatial planning process, based on sound science, for analyzing current and anticipated uses of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes areas.”11 As the Interim Framework goes on to explain, “CMSP identifies areas most suitable for various types or classes of activities in order to reduce conflict among users, reduce environmental impacts, facilitate compatible uses, and preserve critical ecosystem services to meet economic, environmental, security, and social objectives.”12 In other words, CMSP deals with managing human activities by allocating those activities to specific areas based on the activity type. For example, in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary certain areas are identified for research while others are designated for preservation. It can also be used to identify areas for specific uses like wind farms, aquaculture or mining. In Oregon, the Department of Land Conservation and Development adopted a management plan that designates areas for wave energy. Rationale, Authority, and National Goals The current regulatory framework for managing coastal and ocean resources is of limited scope and embodies a sector-by-sector and statute-by-statute approach to decision making.13 Recent scientific and ocean policy assessments maintain that a fundamental change in the current management system is necessary to ensure the long-term health of oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes.14 To that end, the Interim Framework proposes a new approach which is both national in scope to address national interests, but also scalable to meet the needs of regional and local interests.15 The report explains that a federal agency’s ability to “internalize” the specific elements of a particular plan would depend on the applicable statutes.16 CMSP is not intended to supersede existing laws. Instead, it seeks to create a process to work within a statute’s authorizing language, which often give an agency the responsibility to plan and implement the objectives. When an agency has a pre-existing legal restraint to comply with a CMS Plan, the report calls for the National Ocean Council (NOC) to work with the agency to decide whether to pursue a legislative solution or changes in regulations.17 The report identifies seven broad national goals for CMSP. The goals include: support sustainable and productive uses, protect and ensure resilient ecosystems, provide public access, reduce user conflicts, improve the decision-making process, increase predictability in planning for and implementing new investments, and enhance communication and collaboration.18 Development of a CMS Plan As envisioned by the Interim Framework, the geographic planning area for CMSP would extend landward from the mean high water line to include the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, Great Lakes, and the continental shelf.19 Development and implementation of CMSP would be conducted on a regional approach. The Task Force recommends nine regional planning areas: Alaska/Arctic, Caribbean, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, Pacific Islands, South Atlantic, and West Coast.20 These regions are recommended based on large marine ecosystems (LMEs), which are defined based on consistent ecological conditions and other factors.21 The regional planning bodies would be comprised of Federal, State, tribal authorities, and community representatives with interests relevant to CMSP for that region much like the current council structure under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Ideally, the regional planning bodies will work together to create a CMS plan that includes a nine-step process: 1) identify objectives, 2) identify existing efforts in the region, 3) engage stakeholders and the public, 4) consult scientists and other experts, 5) analyze data, uses, services, and impacts, 6) develop and evaluate alternative future use scenarios and tradeoffs, 7) release a draft of a CMS plan and allow for public comment, 8) finalize CMS plan and submit for NOC review, and 9) implement, monitor, evaluate and modify. The goal of the process is to ensure consistency across regions. Implementation of a CMS Plan Prior to implementation, the NOC will review the CMS Plan to ensure consistency with national policy and any other guidance provided by NOC. It would also consider the plan’s compatibility with adjacent regions, before providing certification. Once certified by NOC, the plan would be co-signed by appropriate state, federal, and tribal representatives. After signature of the parties, implementation would begin. The report calls for a three-phase implementation plan that would last up to five years. Conclusion Opponents of CMSP have expressed concern that the Task Force might “side with preservationist who would like to ban all consumptive use of these public waters, with inclusion of the Great Lakes a [sic] means of pushing federal control into inland lakes, reservoirs, and streams.”22 Recreational fishing groups also were troubled that the Interim Report did not distinguish between recreational anglers and commercial fishermen. Members of the Task Force have downplayed those concerns. At an event for recreational fishers, NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco stated, “As an active participant in the task force process, I want to assure the recreational fishing community that this concern has been heard. The task force has now received significant input from anglers across the country. I am confident that when the task force releases its final report, your interests will be recognized.”23 While it is clear that the report does not recommend a ban on recreational fishing, it does provide recommendations for a new approach in managing ocean and coastal resources. It is also important to remember that the task force is only tasked with making recommendations for a national policy. The time period for public comments on the interim report has closed and the final report with all of the recommendations is expected later this year. Endnotes 1. Allison Winter, Obama Admin Jumps to Squelch Rumors of U.S. Fishing Ban, The New York Times, March 3, 2010. 2. Robert Montgomery, “Culled Out” ESPNoutdoors.com, March 10, 2010, http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/saltwater/news/story?id=4975762. 3. Steve Bowman, “From the Editor” ESPNoutdoors.com, March 10, 2010, http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/saltwater/columns/story?columnist=bowman_steve&id=4982359. 4. Pres. Memorandum, National Policy for the Oceans, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes, 74 Fed. Reg. 28591 (June 12, 2009). 5. Exec. Order No. 13366, 3 C.F.R. 244 (2005). 6. Pres. Memorandum, supra note 2. 7. Id. 8. See The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/oceans. 9. The White House Council of Environmental Quality, Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (2009). 10. The White House Council of Environmental Quality, Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (2009). 11. Id. at 1. 12. Id. 13. Id. 14. Id. at 2. 15. Id. 16. Id. at 6. 17. Id. 18. Id. at 7. 19. Id. at 8. 20. Id. at 11-12. 21. Id. 22. Robert Montgomery, “Now We Wait” ESPNout -doors.com, March 10, 2010, http://sports.espn. go.com/outdoors/saltwater/news/story?id=4663915. 23. Press Release, NOAA Administrator Discusses Recreational Fishing’s Concerns at 2009 Sportfishing Summit, Nov. 3, 2009, available at http://www.asafishing.org/newsroom/news_pr110309.html.
Phone (662) 915-7775 • Fax (662) 915-5267 • 256 Kinard Hall, Wing E, University, MS 38677-1848

SandBar 9:2, July, 2010
Recommended citation: Wilson, Nathan P., Fishing for Rumors , 9:2 SandBar 12 (2010).

Fishing for Rumors
The Ocean Policy Task Force’s Interim Framework for Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Makes a Splash

Nathan P. Wilson, 2011 J.D. Candidate, University of Mississippi School of Law

Earlier this year unsubstantiated rumors that President Obama planned to end recreational fishing spread across the news media and blogosphere.1 According to the New York Times, the bulk of the rumors originated after an online columnist for ESPN Outdoors posted an opinion piece stating that policies suggested by the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force “could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some of the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.”2 The site’s executive editor later posted a response noting that while the article was an opinion piece, “this particular column was not properly balanced and failed to represent contrary points of view.”3
Whether the fears were well-founded or not, policies suggested by the Task Force, especially with regard to coastal and marine spatial planning, appeared to stoke strong feelings among commercial and recreational fishermen. To address these concerns, this article examines the role of the Task Force, focusing on its Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning.

Background
On June 12, 2009, President Obama established the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force led by the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.4 The Task Force is comprised of senior officials from agencies represented on the existing Committee on Ocean Policy established under President Bush in 2004.5 President Obama charged the Task Force with developing recommendations addressing: 1) a national policy that ensures protection and restoration, enhances sustainability of coastal economies, provides for adaptive management to deal with climate change, and is coordinated with national security and foreign policy interests; 2) a framework for policy coordination among federal, state, tribal, regional governance structures and local authorities; and 3) an implementation strategy that prioritizes objectives to meet the recommended policy.6
In addition, the Task Force was specifically instructed to develop a framework for coastal and marine spatial planning. The framework must be comprehensive and address “conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and sustainable use of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources consistent with international law.”7 In preparation of the framework development, the Task Force solicited public engagement through six regional public meetings, thirty-eight expert roundtable meetings, and public comments.8 In September 2009, the Task Force issued its Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, with recommendations of approaches to protect the nation’s oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes, including coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP).9 Last December, the Task Force issued the Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning.10

Defining Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP)
Essential to the development of a CMSP framework is the need to clearly identify what CMSP encompasses. To that end, the Interim Framework defines CMSP as a “comprehensive, adaptive, integrated, ecosystem-based, and transparent spatial planning process, based on sound science, for analyzing current and anticipated uses of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes areas.”11 As the Interim Framework goes on to explain, “CMSP identifies areas most suitable for various types or classes of activities in order to reduce conflict among users, reduce environmental impacts, facilitate compatible uses, and preserve critical ecosystem services to meet economic, environmental, security, and social objectives.”12 In other words, CMSP deals with managing human activities by allocating those activities to specific areas based on the activity type.
      For example, in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary certain areas are identified for research while others are designated for preservation. It can also be used to identify areas for specific uses like wind farms, aquaculture or mining. In Oregon, the Department of Land Conservation and Development adopted a management plan that designates areas for wave energy.

Rationale, Authority, and National Goals
The current regulatory framework for managing coastal and ocean resources is of limited scope and embodies a sector-by-sector and statute-by-statute approach to decision making.13 Recent scientific and ocean policy assessments maintain that a fundamental change in the current management system is necessary to ensure the long-term health of oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes.14 To that end, the Interim Framework proposes a new approach which is both national in scope to address national interests, but also scalable to meet the needs of regional and local interests.15
      The report explains that a federal agency’s ability to “internalize” the specific elements of a particular plan would depend on the applicable statutes.16 CMSP is not intended to supersede existing laws. Instead, it seeks to create a process to work within a statute’s authorizing language, which often give an agency the responsibility to plan and implement the objectives. When an agency has a pre-existing legal restraint to comply with a CMS Plan, the report calls for the National Ocean Council (NOC) to work with the agency to decide whether to pursue a legislative solution or changes in regulations.17
      The report identifies seven broad national goals for CMSP. The goals include: support sustainable and productive uses, protect and ensure resilient ecosystems, provide public access, reduce user conflicts, improve the decision-making process, increase predictability in planning for and implementing new investments, and enhance communication and collaboration.18

Development of a CMS Plan
As envisioned by the Interim Framework, the geographic planning area for CMSP would extend landward from the mean high water line to include the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, Great Lakes, and the continental shelf.19 Development and implementation of CMSP would be conducted on a regional approach. The Task Force recommends nine regional planning areas: Alaska/Arctic, Caribbean, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, Pacific Islands, South Atlantic, and West Coast.20 These regions are recommended based on large marine ecosystems (LMEs), which are defined based on consistent ecological conditions and other factors.21
The regional planning bodies would be comprised of Federal, State, tribal authorities, and community representatives with interests relevant to CMSP for that region much like the current council structure under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Ideally, the regional planning bodies will work together to create a CMS plan that includes a nine-step process: 1) identify objectives, 2) identify existing efforts in the region, 3) engage stakeholders and the public, 4) consult scientists and other experts, 5) analyze data, uses, services, and impacts, 6) develop and evaluate alternative future use scenarios and tradeoffs, 7) release a draft of a CMS plan and allow for public comment, 8) finalize CMS plan and submit for NOC review, and 9) implement, monitor, evaluate and modify. The goal of the process is to ensure consistency across regions.

Implementation of a CMS Plan
Prior to implementation, the NOC will review the CMS Plan to ensure consistency with national policy and any other guidance provided by NOC. It would also consider the plan’s compatibility with adjacent regions, before providing certification. Once certified by NOC, the plan would be co-signed by appropriate state, federal, and tribal representatives. After signature of the parties, implementation would begin. The report calls for a three-phase implementation plan that would last up to five years.

Conclusion
Opponents of CMSP have expressed concern that the Task Force might “side with preservationist who would like to ban all consumptive use of these public waters, with inclusion of the Great Lakes a [sic] means of pushing federal control into inland lakes, reservoirs, and streams.”22 Recreational fishing groups also were troubled that the Interim Report did not distinguish between recreational anglers and commercial fishermen.
Members of the Task Force have downplayed those concerns. At an event for recreational fishers, NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco stated, “As an active participant in the task force process, I want to assure the recreational fishing community that this concern has been heard. The task force has now received significant input from anglers across the country. I am confident that when the task force releases its final report, your interests will be recognized.”23
While it is clear that the report does not recommend a ban on recreational fishing, it does provide recommendations for a new approach in managing ocean and coastal resources. It is also important to remember that the task force is only tasked with making recommendations for a national policy. The time period for public comments on the interim report has closed and the final report with all of the recommendations is expected later this year.

Endnotes
1.   Allison Winter, Obama Admin Jumps to Squelch Rumors of U.S. Fishing Ban, The New York Times, March 3, 2010.
2.   Robert Montgomery, “Culled Out” ESPNoutdoors.com, March 10, 2010, http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/saltwater/news/story?id=4975762.
3.   Steve Bowman, “From the Editor” ESPNoutdoors.com, March 10, 2010, http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/saltwater/columns/story?columnist=bowman_steve&id=4982359.
4.   Pres. Memorandum, National Policy for the Oceans, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes, 74 Fed. Reg. 28591 (June 12, 2009).
5.   Exec. Order No. 13366, 3 C.F.R. 244 (2005).
6.   Pres. Memorandum, supra note 2.
7.   Id.
8.  See The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/oceans.
9.   The White House Council of Environmental Quality, Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (2009).
10. The White House Council of Environmental Quality, Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (2009).
11. Id. at 1.
12. Id.
13. Id.
14. Id. at 2.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 6.
17. Id.
18. Id. at 7.
19. Id. at 8.
20. Id. at 11-12.
21. Id.
22. Robert Montgomery, “Now We Wait” ESPNout -doors.com, March 10, 2010, http://sports.espn. go.com/outdoors/saltwater/news/story?id=4663915.
23. Press Release, NOAA Administrator Discusses Recreational Fishing’s Concerns at 2009 Sportfishing Summit, Nov. 3, 2009, available at http://www.asafishing.org/newsroom/news_pr110309.html.