Is it Just a Little Bit of History Repeating?

Using Past Forestry Experiences to Frame Future Marine Planning

Katherine McKee

George Mason University

Environmental Science and Policy

Advisor: Dr. E. Christien Parsons

5/16/16

Abstract

Coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) in the United States is a management tool

still in its infancy. Knowledge from past planning ventures would only serve to strengthen the

present planning of CMSP. Fortunately the United States Forest Service has a one hundred and

thirty five year history of large scale spatial planning to draw from. Through an examination of

national forest history, comparisons were made between management structures of forestry and

marine planning. Three main issues from past forestry planning were discussed and compared to

the present planning of CMSP, in order to confirm that past forestry problems were considered

by marine planners. A final discussion will detail the benefits national forests received from

these three areas and what CMSP could be sacrificing by not learning from these lessons.

i

Uncertainties Put to Rest

Terrestrial and marine systems are logically two distinctly unique systems. The

differences between these two systems in the field of biology and policy management can make

comparisons challenging. With this knowledge in mind further discussion will illustrate how this

comparison is possible. More specifically why comparing past terrestrial planning to present

marine planning is one of the only practical real world examples available.

Globally, coastal and marine spatial planning has only been in existence for less than 20

years. Coastal and Marine Planning was first introduced in Australia in 1998 when a preliminary

planning framework was published (Jay et al., 2013a). The proposed framework detailed national

ocean planning goals and objectives but recommended planning to be done on a regional scale.

Unfortunately there was little political support to move forward and CMSP was postponed (Jay

et al., 2013a). Finally in the early 2000’s Australia revived CMSP and as of 2012 new zoning

measures are in their final stages. Similarly in the early 2000’s, Europe saw a surge of discussion

on the topic of CMSP. In particular Poland created pilot programs in 2003, Norway finished a

national CMSP framework in 2006, the U.K. established CMSP as a national policy priority in

2009, and 2011 saw the announcement of upcoming coastal and marine spatial plans in Sweden

(Jay et al., 2013a). As of 2013, all European countries were at varying degrees of implementation

with many in the early planning stages (Jay et al., 2013a). With implementation and planning

fairly recent, it is understandable that data on the success of efficiency of CMSP is unavailable.

This leaves the concept of comparing CMSP in the United States and other countries as an

unfeasible option.

Though large scale marine planning is a new concept for policy makers, planning on a

smaller scale is already in use. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are dedicated regions reserved

by law to provide lasting protection for resources found within its boundaries and are the

originating example for CMSP (Mayr, 2010). The most famous MPA, Australia’s Great Barrier

Reef, was created in 1975 to oversee the sustainable and ecological multi-use of the area (Day,

2008). This is one of the first instances of considering multiple uses in a marine space making it

appear as if MPAs could be a seamless model for comparison with CMSP in the United States.

Unfortunately MPAs do not encompass all of the necessary issues CMSP encounters. MPAs

were created with the main priority of conserving the ecosystem while CMSP must take all uses

and users of the ocean into equal consideration (Douvere et al., 2007). This leads to the

1

conclusion that MPAs are an oversimplification of the many uses and users MSP must operate

under. Comparing the two would not yield the multifaceted examination needed.

When comparing terrestrial and marine systems, spotting the differences can be much

easier than spotting the similarities. The most fundamental difference of air versus water is only

the beginning. Biological differences include the oceans lack of transparency, greater coverage

of the earth, and greater stratification of species. Managerial differences include less overall legal

protection of the ocean and a lack of ownership leading to a lack of responsibility (Norse and

Crowder, 2005). Though these differences are substantial and numerous, there exist principles

that eclipse them (Norse, and Crowder, 2005). Principles exist which are integral to the success

of planning in any system. One of the major strategic difficulties is determining which principles

should be borrowed from terrestrial management (Norse, and Crowder, 2005). Through a

detailed examination, three major principles have been recognized as fundamental to both

terrestrial and marine planning and will be used subsequently for comparisons.

As of 2015, a thorough examination of the economic, social, and environmental

outcomes from all ocean planning or implementation remained scarce (Blau and Green, 2015).

Deficiencies in marine planning information are due to unavailable data or overly simplistic

models. This leads to the necessity of a new type of comparison, the comparison between

marine and terrestrial systems. Fortunately the United States has over one hundred years of

planning in the nation’s national forests. This paper proposes a look back at forestry planning for

insights and lessons CMSP can learn from. By comparing these two systems, predictions can be

made to help guide CMSP to successful future.

Overview of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning

What is Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning?

Ocean planning is a modern political process operating all across the world. North

America, parts of Europe, Asia, and Australia have all stated that planning of the oceans is a

national priority (Jay et al., 2013a). Each country has made varying levels of effort to move

forward with plans at varying levels of completion with official names for the ocean planning

process as diverse as the plans. The most popular synonym for marine planning is “Marine

Spatial Planning” which is used by the bulk of Europe and Australia. Countries including the

2

United Kingdom refer to its policy as “Marine Planning” while Portugal which recognizes

“Maritime Space Planning”. China deviates from the widely used term “planning” by naming its

process “Marine Functional Zoning” and the United States specifically references coasts with

“Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning” (CMSP) (Jay et al., 2013a). A look at these differing

synonyms serves to demonstrate the various terms associated with marine planning but also

represents the variation found between each country’s plans. Marine planning does not consist of

a single overarching worldwide plan but allows each country to decide the fundamentals of

marine planning. This includes the defining marine planning, the forming of planning principles

and goals, and deciding which stakeholders to include in the planning process. Each country

must answer these questions independently meaning that identical plans and processes do not

exist and any discussion of planning must be country specific. As this paper specifically deals

with planning in the United States, any further reference to marine planning will be called coastal

and marine spatial planning (CMSP).

The United States initiated their adaptation of coastal and marine spatial planning in the

summer of 2009. Under the direction of Presidential Memorandum #13457 a task force of 24

senior representatives from various federal agencies crafted the basic framework of CMSP (The

White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2010). The task force formed the official

definition of CMSP in the United States 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” (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b). More concisely it provides a framework to integrate the

management of multiple human activities by locating the most suitable area for a use (Collie et

al., 2012). By striving to find the most suitable area for different activities, would lead to

reduced conflicts among users, while reducing the impacts on the environment and preserving

critical ecosystem services (Meridian Institute, 2011). In 2010, President Obama adopted all

recommendations given by the task force including the definition of CMSP (The White House,

2010). The United States was not the first country to utilize the concept of marine planning

(Rogers & Laffoley, 2013). Ocean issues from adverse human impacts and conflicts have posed

a major threat to ocean health and led many to consider ocean planning as a way to help prevent

these issues.

3

Issues Leading to CMSP

Coastal and marine spatial planning started to increase in popularity around the world in

the 1990’s. Many countries were seeing similar issues concerning ocean health and policies

(Rogers & Laffoley, 2013). Three main issues have been outlined as the catalyst for marine

planning. These issues include an increasing population, a worsening of ocean health, and a

disconnected regulatory system (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009a).

Over the years these issues have compounded, finally reaching the present state of concern that it

can no longer be ignored.

Concerns in the mid-20th century began to rise due to the exponential rise of human

populations (Population Reference Bureau, 2016). The beginning of the Common Era saw the

entire human population numbering only 300 million, roughly population of the United States

today (Population Reference Bureau, 2016). The Industrial Revolution began one of the largest

population’s increases with numbers reaching 1 billion by 1800 (Population Reference Bureau,

2016). Growth in the last 200 years has been explosive compared to every other time in history.

A billion people were added between the years 1960 and 1975; and another between 1975 and

1987 (Population Reference Bureau, 2016). As a world we entered the 20th century with 1.6

billion and left it with 6.1 billion (Population Reference Bureau, 2016). Today with our

population over 7 million, more and more people have become dependent on the sea.

Economically, the ocean is essential to the supporting the United States. One in every six jobs is

found in the marine field (Knap, 2002). Jobs are found in the fields of aquaculture,

transportation, environmental conservation, maritime heritage, mining, oil and gas exploration,

ports and harbors, recreation, renewable energy, scientific research, military activities, and

tourism (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2010). These job fields not only

employ a large portion of U.S. citizens but it also encompasses one third of the U.S. Gross

National Product (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2010). Around the

world, fisheries sustain around two billion people who use fish as their main source of protein

(Knap, 2002). Coastlines are also utilized with around 60% of the world’s population living

nearby (Knap, 2002). Rising populations have led to an increased need for marine sources that is

now driving the United States job market and economy. This exponential growth of populations

has changed human’s interactions with its environment so quickly. Environmental degradation

4

became a byproduct of growth and now negatively influences the resources needed to sustain not

only the U.S. but the world (Collie et al., 2012).

For years scientists have been publishing studies about the decreasing health of ocean

ecosystems (Gruber et al., 2012; Feary et al., 2007; Wilber et al., 2011). Increasing populations

using and needing more marine resources has placed further strain on the ocean. One ocean use

that has seen record declines are marine fisheries. As of 2016, 68% off all fish stocks are in poor

biological health and will continue to decline if no actions are taken (Costello et al., 2016). Large

predatory fish have been hit hardest with an estimated loss of more than 90% of populations

from overfishing (Clark & Clausen, 2008). Destructive fishing practices have also led to fishery

declines. The practice of dredging and trawling gathers fish by scraping the ocean floor while

sometimes flattening coral reefs in the process. This kills numerous fish and other reef species or

exposes them to predators. Fish are not the only species to use coral reefs. With around 25% of

all marine species calling coral reefs home, any destruction is exceptionally detrimental to

species sustainability (Miller and Spoolman, 2008). The world’s ocean floor has become a flurry

of activity when compared to its terrestrial counterpart. It is estimated that the amount of

disturbed ocean floor is 150 times larger than the amount of forests clear cut every year (Miller

and Spoolman, 2008). Disturbances on the ocean floor can be easy to recognize when corals are

crushed or seagrass flattened. Disturbances to the ocean surface can be harder to recognize.

Traveling ships and whales have been found to literally collide in open waters (Monnahan et al.,

2015). Shipping lanes used to transfer goods have been found to intersect with areas integral to

whale species. In the Santa Barbara Channel in California estimates show that 1.8 blue whales

are killed each year by ship strikes (Monnahan et al., 2015). Two whale deaths may seem

insignificant but any death is too large for a species listed as endangered and estimates are likely

an underestimate due to unreported or misidentified strikes (Monnahan et al., 2015). This short

discussion is by no means an exhaustive catalog of issues in the ocean. Destructive activities are

numerous. As ocean problems began to emerge it has made harder to ignore. To combat ocean

issues governments have used regulations to control ocean uses and user.

Over the last one hundred years new ocean conflicts have been introduced through rising

populations and increasing ocean degradation. This prompted federal, state, and local

governments to create regulations and agencies to manage the oceans. Unfortunately, traditional

governmental management structures have been found to hinder success. Today, eighteen federal

5

agencies manage a portion of the ocean and over one hundred and forty laws regulate the ocean

(Joint Ocean Committee Initiative, 2009). Agencies including the Fish and Wildlife Service, the

Forest Service, and Bureau of Ocean Energy are operated independently with separate staff

members, budgets, and mandates. Each agency works within their directive and communicates

little with other agencies. Creating a disconnected management structure that ignores input from

other ocean regulators (The Nature Conservancy, 2012). This traditional approach has failed to

realize the complexities and interconnections of the oceans. The narrow focus of this system has

allowed decisions to negatively affect agencies disregarded in the decision making process

(Margerum and Born, 1995). It has also allowed a fractured look at marine resources which has

become detrimental to the environment. For this reason CMSP has been introduced in hopes of

looking at the ocean as large system and not as individual resources (The White House Council

on Environmental Quality, 2009b).

Today’s ocean conflicts are due to the culmination of many issues. Rising populations

needing more resources created an unhealthy ocean environment which triggered a disconnected

regulatory system. These issues are what prompted the creation of Coastal and Marine Spatial

Planning. With better planning, the CMSP process should benefit all ocean users while

preserving the environment through a more engaged regulatory process.

Will CMSP Help?

Many have touted CMSP as a solution for many ocean issues while others have

questioned its effectiveness (Doherty, 2003; Jay, 2003b; House Committee on Natural

Resources, 2012). It can be difficult to find evidence as both benefits and complications of

CMSP are all hypothetical at this time. No country has implemented CMSP long enough to

gather any measurable results about its usefulness. Nevertheless, lists have been generated

predicting the benefits of CMSP environmentally, economically, and socially.

Every country embracing CMSP has discussed the benefits they hope the planning

structure will achieve. Some countries have created individual lists and some have cited a

general list published in 2009 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

Organization, including the United States (Ehler and Douvere, 2009). This operational marine

spatial planning guide states that with proper CMSP development numerous benefits can

certainly be achieved (Ehler and Douvere, 2009). Environmental benefits will be found through

6

the goal of considering all uses equally. Environmental objectives which have been less

important in the past will be incorporated more heavily into decision making. Uses will also be

compared to discover if any conflicts are present. Like in the case of whale ship strikes in Santa

Barbara, comparing users in the same geographical area can help identify conflicts and inspire

the redesigning of plan to reduce conflicts (Monnahan et al., 2015). Continued and new research

will be an important way to identify present and future incompatible uses. By creating a database

of uses, issues like the case of coral reef dredging could be identified (Miller and Spoolman,

2008). By discovering the presence of the sensitive coral reef, destructive bottom fishing

practices could be preemptively discouraged. Economic benefits can also be generated from this

database. It would give planners a greater certainty of where uses would be best performed

saving time and possible harmful results. The last benefit discussed was the notion of

transparency. Marine planning specifically calls for a further inclusion of stakeholder in the

planning of the oceans. By including more people in the planning process it would improve

community participation and trust (Ehler and Douvere, 2009). Overall CMSP is seen by the

United Nations and the United States as a beneficial process but others see larger systemic

problems that could be harmful (House Committee on Natural Resources, 2012).

Viewpoints differ greatly when discussing the effectiveness of CMSP. Some have

voiced concerns about potential issues of the proposed planning process. One of those concerns

is the issue of stakeholder influence (Jentoft and Knol, 2014). During the planning process

stakeholders have influence on the plans design. Many of these stakeholders have differing

perspectives on the problems and solutions CMSP should solve. For instance, stakeholders

including seabed mining and marine transportation have existing rights to extract resources from

the deep seas while the telecommunication and pharmaceutical industries do not. These varying

priorities would make the former industries more interested in planning further off the coast

while the latter industries would be more concerned with decisions made about coastal planning

(Pomeroy & Douvere, 2008). There are concerns that stakeholders with little representation or

resources risk being ignored in the planning process. This leaves some stakeholders with

unsolved problems and continued troubles (Jentoft and Knol, 2014). Concerns were also voiced

by congressional representatives from the states of Texas, Washington, and Alaska. They have

stated that the executive order announcing CMSP is too vague and lacks specific solutions

(House Committee on Natural Resources, 2012). Charges have been made about the lack of

7

research of CMSP impacts (House Committee on Natural Resources, 2012). The lack of research

on the possible economic and job loss, overall cost to implement, and a specific implementation

timetable have caused concern (House Committee on Natural Resources, 2012). Allegations

have also stated that CMSP will add cumbersome regulations which will slow down ocean uses

(House Committee on Natural Resources, 2012). Unfortunately published reports and the

introductory CMSP framework have been vague on these points. An Interim CMSP Framework

Report mentioned that marine planning is created to improve and build upon already existing

decision making and planning process. Further stating that no addition layers or delays will be

included (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). No further evidence was

given to assuage concerns.

Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning has both many supporters and critics presenting

reasonable arguments, but agreeing or disagreeing with a side is not the goal of this paper. For

the past six years, national and state agencies have been working on regional marine plans and

moving toward implementation. CMSP is advancing and the best way to aid stakeholders,

agencies, and the public is to make substantive contributions to better CMSP.

Coastal and marine spatial planning was established as a national priority in order to

better manage ocean issues. Through an adaptive, ecosystem-based, and comprehensive planning

process many anticipate the easing of ocean issues (The White House Council on Environmental

Quality, 2009b). All levels of government are moving forward with creating an inclusive process

while some have voiced concerns. The adaptable nature of CMSP will hopefully factor in these

concerns and make the process even stronger. Only the future will show if CMSP has truly lived

up to expectations.

International Foundation of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning

The similarities of worldwide ocean planning are few. Basic planning concepts such as

objective, scope, and structure differ by country, but an important similarity does exist. Each

plan is built on a foundation of the range in which each country has ocean sovereignty. A

sovereignty created by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

(Bondareff, 2011). The international agreement finally acknowledged a solution to the years of

global disputes over safety and resources.

8

Before 1982, inadequate ocean governance plagued the substantial number of countries

bordering the oceans. The only law governing ocean use was based on a customary tradition

called the “cannon-shot rule” (Wilder, 1998). Hostilities in the 17th century led countries to

protect themselves from close-passing ships through the firing of shore-based cannon artillery

(Wilder, 1998). As a way to limit these hostilities, an informal agreement was made. Each

country would have sovereignty over the farthest reach of their cannons, a distance of one mile

(Wilder, 1998). The rule was appropriately named “cannon-shot rule”. Not only did this rule help

calm tensions among nations but also unknowingly established a much larger precedent. By

establishing a sovereign one mile limit it deemed the rest of the ocean an open source to all

(Wilder, 1998). Soon countries started to depart from the non-binding “cannon-shot rule” and

began to create their own boundaries. For example Denmark declared authority to four miles off

its coasts while the United States stated they would extend its boundary by nine miles to expand

fishing rights (Wilder, 1998). It was clear the customary rule was ineffective. In the 1930s,

disputes over safety continued but a new dispute emerged. A dispute over who could possess

resources (Wilder, 1998). For instance salmon fisheries off the coast of Alaska were teeming and

very popular among foreign vessels including Japan. Many working in fisheries and government

officials feared foreign fleets would decimate the Alaskan salmon population and hurt American

fisheries (Wilder, 1998). Congress was pressured to propose legislation to protect fisheries by

asserting a twelve mile jurisdiction available only to U.S citizens (Wilder, 1998). A proposed

distance reaching far into globally understood open waters. Japan refused to engage in any

discussions that would block Japanese vessels from the salmon fishery (Wilder, 1998). This

ended in a stalemate which progressed into a complete breakdown upon the start of World War

II.

After centuries of conflict the issues of safety and resource authority were finally ready to

be examined. In 1958, these issues were discussed on an international scale at the United Nations

Assembly (Lugar, 2004). Twenty four years later the “Law of the Sea” agreement was written

and signed. The agreement was one of the longest ever written by the U.N and contained

hundreds of pages detailing various regulations and provisions. One provision in particular laid

the foundation of CMSP around the world, the concept of the Economic Exclusion Zone (EEZ)

(Lugar, 2004). The EEZ was an agreed upon zone of 200 miles from the shore solely controlled

by each country (Lugar, 2004). This space allows for complete jurisdictional claim of the area

9

and more importantly its resources (The White House Council on Environmental Quality,

2009b). The EEZ was now the expanded successor to the “cannon-shot rule”. Though the

United States was a part of the UNCLOS discussions it was never been officially ratified by the

United States Congress (Lugar, 2004). Objections to proposed regulations on seabed mining kept

President Reagan from ratifying the full agreement but other UNCLOS regulations were

independently implemented (Lugar, 2004). In 1983, Reagan accepted and implemented all but

the seabed restrictions of UNCLOS. The notion of the EEZ was now law (Lugar, 2004). Today

the EEZ marks the area marine spatial planning will be taking place. That means that CMSP will

have to plan the uses and users of over 3.5 million square miles of ocean and 95 thousand miles

of coastline (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b).

The concept of ocean sovereignty was first established to pacify jurisdictional conflicts

among countries. Over time, ocean planning included the sanctioning of resource exploitation

and increased country control from one to two hundred miles (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b). A countries new ability to regulate and use devoted resources

allowed for massive growth (Asgeirsdottir, 2008). This growth began to cause different types of

conflicts within the oceans. This led many countries to consider marine spatial planning as a way

to combat these new issues.

The Legislative Beginning of Marine Spatial Planning in the United States

International agreements helped all countries define ocean jurisdiction in the early

eighties. Before the UNCLOS agreement, the United States was wrangling with the need for

ocean regulations and research. The creation of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning could not

have been born without years of legislative struggle.

In the 20th century, the United States classified scientific knowledge as a minor demand

after decades of conflict from the Great Depression and two World Wars (Czika and McLean,

2008). In 1957 this view changed. It was the year that Americans looked upward and watched as

the Russian Space Satellite Sputnik circled the globe and initiated the “space race” (Czika and

McLean, 2008). Falling behind the Russians in knowledge and ingenuity led to a decade of

increased funding and support for the field of science (Czika and McLean, 2008). Ocean science

was given support through with the passing of the National Sea Grant College and Program Act

of 1966 (Shea, 1987). The Act called for the developing of research institutions to study the

10

ocean and its resources. Governmental agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric and

Administration were created to oversee specific ocean tasks and most notably to conduct

research (Shea, 1987). Research was made a priority, but the nation lacked national ocean

policies and regulations. National policies frame what a nation wants to achieve through creating

goals, objectives, and principles. At this point the United States lacked these basic points and

became directionless and “confused” (Shea, 1987). Congress was repeatedly receiving reports

testifying to the lack of comprehensive and integrated policies of ocean activities and

environment but little was done (Upton and Buck, 2010). The 1980s and 1990s saw some

support for creating national ocean policies in Congress. A few representatives repeatedly

introduced legislation to start framing ocean policies by creating an ocean policy team. These

failed attempts prompted the Pew Charitable Trust to examine ocean policy and submit its own

report of essential recommendations (Upton and Buck, 2010). One of the recommendations was

the creation of coastal and marine spatial planning (Upton and Buck, 2010). This

recommendation prompted the first introduction of CMSP in Congress. On four occasions a

planning bill was voted on but each time was voted against (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b). Over and over again Congress stated that CMSP was not a

priority. During this time Congress finally passed a law to establish a team to oversee ocean

policies. The Oceans Act of 2000 created the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and charged

them with making recommendations to Congress and the President on ocean issues (Czika and

McLean, 2008). The Commission later published the 2004 U.S. Ocean Action Plan and

recommended that Congress ratify UNCLOS and cooperate once again with the international

ocean community (Czika and McLean, 2008). The Commission hoped this would be the first

step toward a comprehensive national ocean policy but Congress ignored the recommendation.

Two years later Congress showed more interest in ocean issue and created the Joint Ocean

Commission Initiative along with the U.S. Commission of Ocean Policy and the Pew

Commission (Czika and McLean, 2008). The Initiative was formed to identify the most

important priorities Congress should accomplish and submit an annual report card gauging all

progress made toward the priorities. The very first report card published in 2007 found that six

out of seven priorities were not being fulfilled by receiving a grade of a C or below (Czika and

McLean, 2008). The failings include; a lack of policy and framework, minimal support for

UNCLOS, limited progress in research and education, slow implementation in fisheries

11

management, inadequate efforts in funding ocean policies and programs, and little recognition of

the role of oceans in climate change (Czika and McLean, 2008). The 2007 Joint Ocean

Commission Initiative Report Card uncovered the shortcomings of the federal government in

almost every area of ocean policymaking. Congress held hearings in response to these findings

but made no move to adopt any past recommendations. For years the path to creating ocean

priorities were filled with legislative struggle and neglect. This congressional obstruction was

finally broken in 2009 with President Obama signing the National Policy for the Oceans, Our

Coasts, and the Great Lakes Presidential Memorandum (The White House, 2009). The

memorandum established a special task force charged with the creation of comprehensive

national ocean policies. One of the main objectives required to implement effective ocean

policies was coastal and marine spatial planning (The White House, 2009). Since the signing of

this memorandum many members of Congress have attacked numerous points of coastal and

marine spatial planning. Some have tried and failed to defund CMSP stating that it is too vague

and would block economic activity (House Committee on Natural Resources, 2012). Some

states, the most vocal being Alaska, have also come out and opposed CMSP. Alaskan

representatives have openly stated that the executive order is too complicated and that they will

not be participating in the planning process (House Committee on Natural Resources, 2012).

While Alaska and other states resisted CMSP, other states were supportive. States like

Washington and Massachusetts were already in the process of creating or implementing

statewide CMSP before the 2009 memorandum (Hennessey, 2011). Today CMSP planning has

been embraced by almost all coastal states with some close to implementing the finalized plans.

Ocean policy has finally made it to the national stage. With the publishing of the

presidential memorandum, the long held aspiration of creating a national ocean policy and

coastal and marine spatial planning became a true priority. Initiating these concepts was a huge

step but now the government now had to build the actual framework.

Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Officially Reaches the United States

The path to coastal and marine spatial planning in the United States was an arduous

journey. Setting the groundwork for CMSP took decades and included contributions from both

domestic and international sources. The United Nations Law of the Sea agreement, years of

12

congressional standstills, governmental reports, pressures from outside sources, and the

intensifying conflicts between users and the environment all led to the final initiation of CMSP.

In 2009 Presidential Memorandum #13547 introduced CMSP to the United States and the

development of plans was quickly activated (The White House). Interim reports and frameworks

appeared within months of the memorandum. Figure 1 below details the seven official

documents that have been published between 2009 and 2013 to introduce CMSP. These

documents set a foundation of goals and guiding principles and constructed an operational

framework. To date, these seven documents are the only official documents describing CMSP in

the United States. By examining these documents, a better understanding of CMSP can be

gained. A discussion of each document will be presented below and will incorporate CMSPs

interworking’s and its current state.

Natural Policy for the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes Memorandum

The initiation of ocean planning in the United States started in on June 12th, 2009 with the

releasing of the Presidential Memorandum Natural Policy for the Oceans, our Coasts and the

Great Lakes (The White House, 2009). The objective was to generate a larger overarching

national ocean policy with CMSP as an essential priority for success (The White House, 2009).

The memorandum supported the notion that oceans play a vital role in the United States

13

June 12th, 2009

Memoradum: Natural Policy for the Oceans, Our Coasts, and the

Great LakesAuthor: President of

the United States

September 10th, 2009

Interim Report of the Interagency

Ocean Policy Task Force

Author: Council on Environmental

Quality's Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

December 9th, 2009

Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial

PlanningAuthor: Council on

Environmental Quality's

Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

July 19th, 2010

Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Task ForceAuthor: Council on

Environmental Quality's

Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

Executive Order #13547 -

Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great LakesAuthor: President of

the United States

April, 2013

National Ocean Policy

Implementation Plan

Author: National Ocean Council

July, 2013

Marine Planning Handbook

Author: National Ocean Council

Figure 1. Timeline of U.S. Government CMSP Documents

economy but are faced with increasing pressures which threaten its overall health (The White

House, 2009). To combat these issues the memorandum commanded the construction of a “clear

national policy that includes a comprehensive, ecosystem-based framework for the long term

conservation and use of our resources” (The White House, 2009). Initial suggestions on the

structure of the above framework were entrusted to the newly established Interagency Ocean

Policy Task Force. This Task Force gathered senior policy level officials from across the Federal

Government led by the Chair of the Department on Environmental Quality (The White House,

2009). Within ninety days the Task Force needed to publish recommendations to “ensure the

protection, maintenance, and restoration of the health of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes

ecosystems and resources” (The White House, 2009). After one hundred and eighty days a

second framework needed to also be published and would exclusively describe an effective

coastal and marine spatial plan (The White House, 2009). CMSP had to specifically be a

“comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem-based approach that addresses conservation, economic

activity, user conflict, and sustainable use of the ocean” as is consistent with international law

(The White House, 2009). Once the Task Force submitted the two frameworks their function was

completed. The function of the memorandum was to create an ocean policy summary that would

be later filled with specific recommendations from the Task Force (The White House, 2009).

One of the only requirements was the inclusion of CMSP. By singling out CMSP as a necessity

for a unified and comprehensive national ocean policy, served to underscore its importance (The

White House, 2009).

Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

The Natural Policy for Our Oceans Memorandum served as an announcement to the

United States and the world that a comprehensive national ocean policy was a priority. Now the

United States needed present how they would structure such a policy. Exactly ninety days after

the published memorandum the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force published its first report,

the Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009a). Over those ninety days, the task force requested input from

various stakeholders including all levels of government, tribal leaders, scientists, policy experts,

and the public (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009a). This final report

helped broadened the understanding of a national ocean policy by introducing CMSPs nine main

14

priorities (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009a). Priorities included the

adoption of ecosystem-based management, increasing political and scientific knowledge in order

to make more informed decisions, better coordination between Federal, State, local and tribal

management, the enhancing ocean water quality, and finally the creation of coastal and marine

spatial planning (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009a). This re-enforced

the importance of CMSP first discussed in the memorandum. The Task Force also

recommended the establishing of a team to continue assisting and monitoring CMSP after the

task force completed its tasks (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009a). The

National Ocean Council (NOC) was created to guide and assist regions with the development of

marine plans and certify that submitted marine plans fulfilled the national priorities (The White

House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009a). NOC was created purely to support regions

and has no overarching authority. The report specifically states that NOC cannot impede the

authority of any law or agency, or obstruct foreign affairs, or national security (The White House

Council on Environmental Quality, 2009a). Further discussion of CMSP in this report was short.

A full report solely dedicated to CMSP was due to be published in December (The White House

Council on Environmental Quality, 2009a). Three months later the Interagency Ocean Policy

Task Force published the Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning,

a report written exclusively to discuss the framework for marine spatial planning (The White

House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b).

Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning

Six months had passed since the announcement of coastal and marine spatial planning as

a national priority. On December 9th a report dedicated completely to the outlining of CMSP was

published. The Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning report

provided the public with a clearer description of CMSP (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b). It included its guiding principles, scope, and structure. To date

this report is the most essential document for CMSP in the United States. Not only did it

establish the basic foundation for CMSP but would be used as an outline for all future regional

marine plans (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). The framework for

coastal and marine spatial planning was composed within a relatively short document.

Containing only thirty five pages it outlined the important basics by defining CMSP, explaining

15

why it is necessary, and possible benefits. The rest of the report detailed larger guiding goals and

principles and included a detailed look at CMSP infrastructure (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b).

Coastal and marine spatial planning straddles the line between the national and state

level. Though the launching of CMSP was predominately on a national scale, further planning

and implementation would be developed using a regional approach (The White House Council

on Environmental Quality, 2009a). To achieve this regional approach the United States was

divided into nine regions deemed “Regional Planning Bodies” (RPBs) (The White House

Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). These RPBs would be responsible for the

development of individualized marine plan. The United States was divided into nine regions

consisting of the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, Great

Lakes, West Coast, Pacific Islands, and Alaska/Arctic (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b). Figure 2 illustrates the placement of each region and specifies

the states contained within each region. Figure 2 also shows shaded areas off the coast of each

RPB. These shaded areas represent the range of authority each RPB marine plan would have.

Marine plans would be operational within a zone of 200 miles from the coast, a zone also known

as the internationally agreed upon Economic Exclusion Zone (Lugar, 2004; The White House

Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). The Great Lakes RPB will manage the area from its

coast to the international boundary with Canada (The White House Council on Environmental

Quality, 2009b). These RPBs would be managing the largest EEZ in the world. This would

involve many steps between the establishment of a RPB and the final marine plan. Each RPB

would need to identify regional objectives, identify existing support, engage stakeholders and the

public, consult scientific and technical experts, analyze uses and impacts, prepare and release a

draft marine plan, hold public comment sessions, create a finalized marine plan taking comments

into consideration, and then help implement the plan making sure to monitor, evaluate and

modify the plan as needed (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b).

Fortunately each RPB did not have to execute this alone. The National Ocean Council was

created to help facilitate and develop regional plans. NOC served as a resource for RPB but also

as overarching observer (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009a). Once

regional plans were finished NOC would review it to make sure it was consistent with the

national objectives, goals, and principles (The White House Council on Environmental Quality,

16

2009b). Regional objectives, goals, and principles must be comparable to the national values as

they all had to be agreed upon by all agencies (The White House Council on Environmental

Quality, 2009b). It is important to note that any agreements made would not supersede any

existing law or agencies but agreed upon values would help guide future actions (The White

House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). NOC was also tasked with comparing each

plan with neighboring regions because activities and species do not respect state boundaries (The

White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). This insured that plans were

compatible across regional boundaries. After the plan was submitted NOC would make a

decision within six months (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). NOC

approval meant it carried the NOC certification and RPBs would now begin to implement their

plans (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). NOC would continue to

observe RPBs by surveying implementation. Through performance based measurements, NOC

would monitor and report progress toward the CMSP objectives (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b). All regions were expected to have marine plans certified by

NOC and implemented by mid-2015 (The White House Council on Environmental Quality,

2009b).

17

States in RegionAlaska/Arctic:

Alaska Pacific Islands:

Hawaii, Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Guam

West CoastCalifornia, Oregon, and Washington

Great Lakes:Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin

Gulf of Mexico:Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas

States in RegionNortheast:

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut

Mid-Atlantic:Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia

South Atlantic:Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina

Caribbean:Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands

Figure 2. Nine Proposed Regional Planning Areas (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b).

Much of the Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning

outlines an operational framework but a discussion of CMSP values is also present. Details

including CMSP goals and guiding principles were given great significance by the Task Force

and later by NOC. Goals and principles are terms that sound familiar but can be hard to

distinguish from one another. In the context of this report national goals were created to better

define desired CMSP outcomes while national principles will help guide the planning effort (The

White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). Goals dictate outcomes while

principles direct planning. In the Interim Framework, NOC included seven national goals that

should be achieved with the planning and implementation of CMSP (The White House Council

on Environmental Quality, 2009b). These goals spanned the notions of protecting and restoring

ocean resources, streamlining the regulatory process, and reducing user conflicts and

environmental impacts (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). These

goals would strive to better the oceans for all but would not be realized until after many years of

implementation. In order to realize these goals, CMSP would need to include national guiding

principles into marine planning. The framework included a list of twelve guiding principle listed

in Table 1 below.

Table 1Twelve Principles of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning

1 CMSP would use an ecosystem-based management approach that addresses cumulative effects to ensure the protection, integrity, maintenance, resilience, and restoration of

ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems, while promoting multiple sustainable uses.2 Multiple existing uses (e.g., commercial fishing, recreational fishing and boating, marine

transportation, sand and gravel mining, and oil and gas operations) and emerging uses (e.g., off-shore renewable energy and aquaculture) would be managed in a manner that

reduces conflict, enhances compatibility among uses and with sustained ecosystem functions and services, and increases certainty and predictability for economic

investments.3 CMSP development and implementation would ensure frequent and transparent

broad-based, inclusive engagement of partners, the public, and stakeholders, including with those most impacted (or potentially impacted) by the planning process

and with underserved communities.4 CMSP would take into account and build upon the existing marine spatial planning

efforts at the regional, State, tribal, and local level.5 CMS Plans and the standards and methods used to evaluate alternatives, tradeoffs,

cumulative effects, and sustainable uses in the planning process would be based on clearly stated objectives.

6 Development, implementation, and evaluation of CMS Plans would be informed by the best available science-based information, including the natural and social sciences.

7 CMSP would be guided by the precautionary approach as defined in Principle 15 of the

18

Rio Declaration, “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures

to prevent environmental degradation.”8 CMSP would be adaptive and flexible to accommodate changing environmental

conditions and impacts, including those associated with global climate change, sea-level rise, and ocean acidification, and new and emerging uses, advances in science and

technology, and policy technology, and policy changes.9 CMSP objectives and progress toward those objectives would be evaluated in a regular

and systematic manner and adapted to ensure that the desired environmental, economic, and societal outcomes are achieved.

10 The development of CMS Plans would be coordinated and compatible with homeland and national security interests, energy needs, foreign policy interests, emergency response and preparedness plans and frameworks, and other national

strategies, including the flexibility to meet current and future needs.11 CMS Plans would be implemented in accordance with customary international law,

including as reflected in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, and with treaties and other international agreements to which the United States is a party.

12 CMS Plans would be implemented in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws, regulations, and Executive Orders

(Source: The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b)

These twelve guiding principles (Table 1) span a large range of areas. International and domestic

law, special interests, innovative scientific research, the public, and stakeholders must be

included in each regional marine plan (The White House Council on Environmental Quality,

2009b). The plan must also be created in a way that is adaptive and ecosystem-based while

reducing conflicts and evaluating its progress (The White House Council on Environmental

Quality, 2009b). To create a successful plan many difficult topics must be addressed. The

difficulty of these principles may be why no RBP has submitted a finalized marine plan to NOC

(The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). These principles will function on

a larger scale in the second part of this paper as they will be used to realize possible

shortcomings when compared to planning in other environments

This report was the Nation’s defining CMSP document. It detailed the organizational

schemes and values future regional planning bodies would need to employ to move forward (The

White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). Subsequent documents continue to

expand on this report but additions are small. Any further glimpse into CMSP can only be done

when each regional planning body has finished a coastal and marine spatial plan.

19

Final Recommendations of the Interagency Task Force and Executive Order #13547

The year 2010 shined a bright light on the fragility of marine ecosystems. On April 20th

the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill leaked thousands of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico

(King, 2010). What is now known to be the largest oil spill in U.S. history brought public

attention to ocean policy and reinforced the government’s policy agenda (King, 2010). On 19

July 2010, four days after the oil rig was capped, President Obama signed Executive Order

#13546 - Stewardship of the Oceans, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes (The White House, 2010).

The order served to adopt the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task

Force published the same day and directed for it to be immediately implemented (The White

House, 2010). The CMSP portion of the report was almost an exact copy of the interim

framework published eight months before. In total, only three paragraphs were added to the

section on CMSP. Additions were made to the section on promoting public and stakeholder

engagement (The White House, 2010). The task force wanted to ensure that numerous

opportunities for input were made available so planning would include viewpoints from a broad

range of interests (The White House, 2010). CMSP would also be adding a formal mechanism to

help streamline communication between regional planning bodies and agencies already

managing and regulating ocean resources (The White House, 2010). The final addition was one

of the most important. NOC announced that state participation in CMSP would be completely

voluntary (The White House, 2010). If a state or group of states decided not to participate a

regional planning body would not be created. Instead planning would shift to the jurisdiction of

federal agencies who would establish CMSP for the area (The White House, 2010). These

updates were no doubt created to mollify concerns of CMSP opponents. The publishing of this

report was the last of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force duties. The task force was

officially disbanded as stated in the original memorandum and the National Ocean Council

formally took control of CMSP (The White House, 2010).

National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan and Marine Planning Handbook

Since the publication of the final recommendations the National Ocean Council has

published two documents. The first document was the National Ocean Policy Implementation

Plan and it only included a brief mentioning of CMSP (National Ocean Council, 2013a). It stated

20

that NOC will support and give guidance to any state wishing to participate in marine planning

(National Ocean Council, 2013a). The remainder of the implementation plan dealt with the other

eight national priorities stated in the Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

given less attention than CMSP (National Ocean Council, 2013a). The final document was

published three months later and dealt entirely with CMSP. The beginning of the Marine

Planning Handbook reiterated much of the CMSP information found in the Interim Framework

(National Ocean Council, 2013b). The second half of the handbook was formed like an

operational handbook. The handbook was created to help outline common practices for RPBs

and help enable the move from a national to a regional scale (National Ocean Council, 2013b). It

departed from a value driven document to tool based document (National Ocean Council,

2013b).

The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force and the National Ocean Council had finally

created a coastal and marine spatial planning framework. It took four years, seven documents,

and three groups of authors to create the framework and now the responsibility shifted to the

regional planning bodies. Each RPB had to accept national goals and objectives and craft a plan

that observed national values while fulfilling local needs (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b).

State of Regional Planning Bodies Today

The National Ocean Council has run into difficulties since they were tasked with helping

regional planning bodies create regional plans. As of early 2016, all nine regional planning

bodies are at various point of planning and are overdue with submitting finalized plans (Collier,

2013). The voluntary clause of CMSP has allowed some regions to bypass planning all together

while other regions are working hard to submit a plan for NOC’s approval (National Ocean

Council, 2013b). Issues with resistant and untimely planning bodies have slowed the NOC

proposed timeline of implementation (Collier, 2013). In order to understand the current state of

CMSP in the United States a look at the progress of each regional planning body is necessary.

The United States contains nine marine planning regions, each responsible for crafting a

marine plan (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). In order the craft a

marine plan the regions must first establish an official regional planning body and as of 2016

only three regions have done so; the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and the Pacific Islands (The White

21

House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). The Northeast Regional Planning Body was

the first RPB to be established (Northeast Regional Planning Body, 2016). It was launched in

2012 and has steadily worked toward submitting an ocean plan (Northeast Regional Planning

Body, 2016). In 2013, multiple public meetings were held to receive input on CMSP goals and

objectives (Northeast Regional Planning Body, 2016). The following year saw the publishing of

a Draft Framework for Ocean Planning with more public meetings to review goals (Northeast

Regional Planning Body, 2016). The regional planning body is still in the progress of reviewing

its ocean plan and has announced that it will submit a final version to NOC by June of 2016

(Northeast Regional Planning Body, 2016). The Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body followed

a similar trajectory to that of the Northeast. One year after the Northeast Planning Body was

launched the Mid-Atlantic Planning Body was created (Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body,

2015). In 2014, a draft framework was published and meetings were meeting to discuss the draft

in 2015 (Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body, 2015). The Mid-Atlantic Planning Body is

planning to submit a final ocean action plan to NOC by September of 2016 (Mid-Atlantic

Regional Planning Body, 2015). The Pacific Islands have also established a Regional Planning

Body but have done less than its counterparts since its inception in 2013 (Pacific Islands

Regional Planning Body, 2016). In 2014, the planning body finalized CMSP goals but has since

taken no other steps forward (Pacific Islands Regional Planning Body, 2016). These three

planning bodies have accomplished the most of all the regions. Unfortunately, none of these

planning bodies met the 2015 NOC submission deadline for a Final Ocean Plan (Collier, 2013).

Only the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions have announced dates when finalized plans will be

submitted to NOC (Collier, 2013). Once the plans have been approved by NOC, implementation

can begin.

Three regions officially established regional planning bodies, leaving six regions without

one. This deficiency would lead to the assumption that no other region has discussed CMSP,

which is untrue. Five regions have created an ocean policy organization under different names

and with differing purposes (Collier, 2013). These regions include the Gulf of Mexico, West

Coast, and South Atlantic, Great Lakes, and Caribbean (Collier, 2013). The first three regions

created “Alliances”, the Great Lakes formed a “Collaboration”, and the Caribbean produced a

“Partnership” (Collier, 2013). While these groups may focus on parts of CMSP, it is not

necessarily the group’s main focus. Many of these groups were created before CMSP became a

22

national priority, when other issues took precedence (Collier, 2013). Each region faced

individual issues which led to individual priorities and action plans. Initial issues of overfishing,

pollution, climate change, or ocean acidification could be equal priorities to the crafting of a

coastal and marine spatial plan (Collier, 2013). For instance the 2006 establishment of The West

Coast Governors Alliance on Ocean Health led to the publishing of a regional action plan in

2008, with top priorities including marine debris, climate change, and ocean acidification (West

Coast Governors Alliance on Ocean Health, 2016). Since then grants have been received to

compile advanced regional data. This data was used in 2014 to create a geospatial online data

portal, the last action taken by the West Coast Governors Alliance on Ocean Health (West Coast

Governors Alliance on Ocean Health, 2016). So far there has been no direct mentioning of

CMSP in planning (West Coast Governors Alliance on Ocean Health, 2016). The Gulf of Mexico

Alliance was established in 2004, fully five years before the establishment of CMSP. Like the

West Coast Governors Alliance on Ocean Health, the Gulf of Mexico Alliance developed an

action plan shortly after being established to identifying important issues on which to focus (Gulf

of Mexico Alliance, 2016). Unfortunately resources and focus was shifted after the Deepwater

Horizon Oil Spill in 2010 for cleanup (Gulf of Mexico Alliance, 2016; King, 2010). In 2013

action plan reappeared but has received negative remarks due to few accomplishments (Gulf of

Mexico Alliance, 2016). The Great Lakes have been working for years under a different

Executive Order. Signed by President Bush in 2004, the order created the Great Lakes Regional

Collaboration with the goal of protecting, restoring, and improving the Great Lakes ecosystem

(Collier, 2013). Priorities for the Great Lakes include reducing toxics, invasive species, non-

point source pollution, while improving sustainable development, and coastal health (Collier,

2013). No direct mention of CMSP has been made. The Governor’s South Atlantic Alliance

convened in 2009 and just like other Alliances, published an action plan one year later (Collier,

2013). The biggest difference from the other Alliances is that the South Atlantic has started to

working in CMSP. In 2015, a CMSP simulation exercise was designed to identify the best

management practices (Governor’s South Atlantic Alliance, 2015). The exercise explored the

streamlining of the permitting process, identified data needs and facilitated communication with

users (Governor’s South Atlantic Alliance, 2015). Nothing further has been published. Of all five

groups, the Caribbean Regional Ocean Partnership has the most work to do. Since its creation in

2012, the only step forward they have made was a meeting held with tourism and hospitality

23

groups to discuss the future of the industry in the marine planning process (Caribbean Fisheries

Management Council, 2014). Hopefully more is to come. These five regions do not have official

regional planning bodies but some have made progress in issues that involve CMSP (Collier,

2013). The first principle of CMSP is to address cumulative effects to ensure integrity, resilience,

and restoration of the ocean (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b).

Several groups discussed above are working to reduce toxins, invasive species, and non-point

source pollution, issues that have cumulative effects (The Nature Conservancy, 2012). Working

on these individual issues also works toward the goals and principles of CMSP. In the coming

years these existing alliances and partnerships will most likely directly support or become formal

regional planning bodies themselves (The Nature Conservancy, 2012).

The last region to assess is the Alaska/Arctic region. As discussed above the

Alaska/Arctic in particular has been the most vocal opponent of CMSP. The North Pacific

Fishery Management Council Executive Director Chris Oliver has stated that CMSP adds a new

layer of bureaucracy and would not be welcome to the area (Collier, 2013). Due to this

opposition and the voluntary directive of CMSP the region has chosen to not establish CMSP

(The White House, 2010). Though opposition is very strong, some movement has been made. In

2011, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and the Environmental Law Institute held a

seminar to open lines of communication between Arctic communities and national agencies but

as of 2016 no forward movement has been made (Collier, 2013).

Each region has made the decision whether to move forward with CMSP or not. Those

who have agreed to move forward with CMSP have made great strides but all have failed to

submit finalized plans (Collier, 2013). The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force recommended

that regions create plans by 2013 in order to have the plans certified and ready to implement by

2015 (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). No region has yet to meet

this target (Collier, 2013). The Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Bodies have

announced that finalized plans will be submitted in 2016 (Collier, 2013). This absence of

regional plans has made the CMSP documents of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force and

National Ocean Council documents more essential. Any discussion on the state of CMSP at this

time can only be done on a national scale. After NOC has six months to certify final plans

submitted in 2016 by the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, can the regional management of CMSP be

discussed (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b).

24

Avoiding Past Difficulties

As stated multiple times above, CMSP in the United States and around the world is just

beginning (Collier, 2013). The infancy of this process suggests that any guidance offered would

only strengthen the outcome. Unfortunately any data on an already developed CMSP is limited,

leading to the search for other alternatives (Collier, 2013). The best alternative would involve a

process with many similarities to the planning model of CMSP. The best process discovered was

the extensive history of forestry planning in the United States. Similarities include magnitude of

space to be managed, presence of diverse uses and ecosystems, and the management by

governmental entities (Fedkiw, 1998). All allowing for a useful examination of parallels found

between each process. Subsequent discussion will provide an in-depth look at the forestry

planning process and the main issues it encountered. These issues will then be compared to the

framework formed by NOC in the Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial

Planning. The purpose is to compare forestry planning issues and determine if each issue has

been specifically discussed by CMSP. By comparing CMSP with the past forestry process, it

could indicate whether CMSP managers have learned from past implementation mistakes of the

United States Forest Service. Further predictions on how the inclusion or exclusion of these

issues will influence CMSP implementation in the long run.

What is the United States Forest Service?

The Forest Service is one of the oldest federal agencies in existence. Established in 1905,

the Forest Service was created to oversee the current and future protection, use, and management

of large expanses of government owned land known as national forests (United States General

Accounting Office, 1999 ). National forests are utilized by numerous uses including fishing,

recreation, timber, wilderness areas, species habitats, and historical sites (Fedkiw, 1998). While

these uses can have opposing purposes, the Forest Service strives to balance economic needs for

resources and services while addressing the need for healthy ecosystems (Fedkiw, 1998). As of

2016 there are one hundred and five national forests and twenty national grasslands found in

forty four states as seen in Figure 3 (United States General Accounting Office, 1999).

25

Collectively national forests and grasslands make up one hundred and ninety million acres of

federally owned land; roughly 9% of the entire area of the United States (USDA Forest Service,

2013). In addition to the 190 million acres, the Forest Service also provides technical and

financial help to state and local agencies who manage an additional 500 million acres of non-

federal forests (USDA Forest Service, 2013). The one hundred and thirty five year history of the

Forest Service has seen modifications from laws, reports, Presidents, Congressional

Representatives, and outside forces (Fedkiw, 1998). These modifications increased protection,

accountability, sustainability, and education (Fedkiw, 1998). Transforming the Forest Service to

what it is today.

A Note for Clarification

National Forests and National Parks are terms that first seem synonymous but are actually two

separate entities. Though both reside on public land they have diverse purposes (Ettema, 2013).

National Parks were created for the purpose of preserving wilderness while National Forests

were created to be used for both ecological and economic reasons (Ettema, 2013). National Parks

are under the Department of the Interior and supervise around 80 million acres whereas National

Forests supervise more than twice the area and fall under the umbrella of the Department of

Agriculture (Ettema, 2013).

26

Figure 3. Map of National Forest and National Grassland locations in the United States (U.S.D.A. Forest Service Website, 2013).

Foundation of the National Forest Service in the United States

The beginning of the National Forest Service is rooted in the establishment of the United

States as a nation. The 1789 United States Constitution formed the framework of this Nation and

entrusted powers to each branch of the newly formed government (U.S. Constitution.

Art.IX/Sect.3). Article 4, Section 3 gave Congress the power to regulate all territory belonging to

the United States, territory later called public domain (U.S. Constitution. Art.IX/Sect.3).

Congress would later use this power to establish new states, incentivize westward settlements,

and create the National Forest Service (Vincent et al., 2014).

Advancing eighty two years from publishing of the Constitution, the United States was a

very different country. Years of environmental degradation started to negatively impact the

environment and harm residents. Natural disasters made worse by destructive forest practices

plagued parts of the East. Between 1871 and 1891, huge wildfires and floods were carried over

areas which had been heavily logged in New England and the Midwest (Fedkiw, 1998). The

1871 fire in Wisconsin killed 1,500 people, caused massive destruction and the 1889 flooding

from a dam break in Johnstown, Pennsylvania was made worse by the absence of forest buffers

(Fedkiw, 1998; Williams, 2003). This destruction and loss of life was blamed on the heavy

deforestation which served as buffers to natural disasters (U.S. Congress, 1992). A migration

was initiated with the dwindling of space and resources from severe harvesting practices and

rising populations (Fedkiw, 1998). Many were journeying west to areas of untouched wilderness

while the federal government incentivized westward expansion in the name of manifest destiny

(Hess Jr., 1997). The Homestead Act of 1862 granted ownership of 160 acres to those who could

make the journey (Hess Jr., 1997). Once pioneers arrived, they worked toward settling the west

through timber removal, grazing cattle, farming crops, mining minerals, and building railroads

(Hess Jr., 1997). With vast untouched quantities of land, few gave thought to how these practices

were influencing the environment. The first voice of was that of George Perkins Marsh

(Williams, 2000). His book, Man and Nature: Or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human

Action examined how human actions of ancient cultures harmed the environment and led to the

demise of civilizations (Williams, 2000). He listed areas integral for survival and in need of

better management (Williams, 2000). One of the most important areas for survival was forests

(Williams, 2000). Marsh hoped his book would serve as a warning for America to abandon

destructive practices and prevent their decline (Williams, 2000). Unfortunately few listened.

27

Marsh was not alone in his push for protection. A surveyor for the U.S. Geological Survey John

Wesley Powell and Timothy O’Sullivan a landscape photographer brought the degradation of the

West to Congress’ attention (Williams, 2000). Accounts of degraded lands and photos of proof

swayed Congress to create of the nation’s first national park in 1872, Yellowstone (Williams,

2000). Not the overarching solution they had hoped for. The last pivotal conservationist of this

time was a retired physician and enthusiastic forest preservationist, Dr. Franklin B. Hough

(Williams, 2000). At a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science

(AAAS), Dr. Hough presented his study “On the Duty of Governments on the Preservation of

Forests” (Williams, 2000). Dr. Hough showed the connection between unrestricted timber

production of the Mediterranean area to the collapse of their timber supplies and further harm to

the environment (Williams, 2000). This troublesome report led the AAAS to send a petition to

Congress the next day outlining the importance of forest preservation (Williams, 2000). With

pressures from AAAS and other concerned citizens, the beginning of federal forestry

involvement started. The Appropriations Act of 1876 included one amendment that referenced

forestry (Williams, 2000). The amendment earmarked $2,000 to fund a committee to examine

the state of forestry in the U.S. The committee’s first act was to award Dr. Hough a grant to

study all parts of forestry (Williams, 2000). He was tasked with studying supply, consumption,

needs, and possible new forestry methods. Two years later he submitted a report to Congress that

recommended the retaining of timber resources as property of the Federal Government

(Williams, 2000). He expressed the importance of young growth forests to a healthy forest and

hoped that with a governmental supervised leasing program, timber cutting could be monitored

(Williams, 2000). This study led Congress to establish the Division of Forestry in 1881, later

called the Forest Service, under the Department of Agriculture, and named Dr. Hough as its first

Chief (Williams, 2000). Congress had allocated staff and resources with the sole purpose of

managing forests but problems emerged. Influential groups including the American Forestry

Association and the Boone and Crocket Club protested the lack of forestry policies protecting the

forests (Williams, 2000). Members of these groups included future President Theodore

Roosevelt and future chief of the Forest Service Gifford Pinchot (Williams, 2000). The policies

requested would later bring about the creation of the National Forest System as we see it today

(Williams, 2000).

28

The Beginning of Forest Management in the United States

Events in the 18th century bestowed Congress with the power to regulate U.S. territory

and created the Division of Forestry to oversee it. A structure had been formed, but no

regulations or policies had been passed to guide them (Fedkiw, 1998). The Forest Reserve Act of

1891 was yet another building block to create forest management (Muhn, 1992). This building

block came in the form of a last minute addendum consisting of only one sentence (Muhn, 1992).

Addendum 24 allowed the President to establish reserves on public domain lands that required

the protection of timber found within (Muhn, 1992). This led to the banning of unsanctioned

activities including settlement, timber harvesting, grazing, hunting, fishing, tourism, and

scientific studies (Arnold, 1992). Forest reserve resources were now off limits. The Act

articulated nothing more. Issues concerning financial authority or management policies were not

discussed (Muhn, 1992). Twenty seven days later President Harrison used his newly established

authority to create the countries’ first forest reserve, what is now called the Shoshone and

Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming (Fedkiw, 1998). By the end of President Harrison’s

term, over 13 million acres were set aside in Colorado, Arizona, California, Oregon,

Washington, and Alaska (Fedkiw, 1998). For the next six years Congress would debate the need

for more policy specifics missing in the Forest Reserve Act, while the Division of Forestry

worked within narrow parameters (Fedkiw, 1998). Specifics were finally provided with the

passing of the 1897 Organic Act (Williams, 2000). The Act established the main legal basis for

the management of forests and outlined a more detailed management structure for the Division of

Forestry (Williams, 2000). This broad law granted the Department of Agriculture the right to

oversee forest reserves and established its guiding principles as the protection and improvement

of the forests (Fedkiw, 1998). These principles were achieved in a three goal approach; the

protection of forests from fire, protection of watersheds, and protection of timber resources for

use (Fedkiw, 1998). Of these approaches, forest fires were singled out as the most important duty

of the Division of Forestry. At that time an excess of timber was thought to be problematic as it

was the cause of intensified fire and floods (Fedkiw, 1998). So the best management practice at

the time was to eliminate a certain amount of trees that fed fires and impaired water drainage

(Bassman, 1974). Timber in the Organic Act was seen as both harmful and an essential resource

with untapped economical potential. Before the Organic Act, timber was taken for free by

individuals and companies through a federal permitting system (Fedkiw, 1998). This law stopped

29

the taking of free timber and created a market for timber (Fedkiw, 1998). Opponents to the law

argued that this would turn the focus on the profits of timber and away from the health or

longevity of the resource (Fedkiw, 1998). Timber needed to be preserved for future generations.

Proponents felt the law would eliminate degrading timber practices (Fedkiw, 1998). By adding

stipulations, any timber taken must meet the requirements of having no benefit to the forest

sustainability and is required for use by citizens (Fedkiw, 1998). This law was a compromise

between the timber industry who wanted to continue to take free timber and those who were

afraid of increased pillaging of the timber resources (Fedkiw, 1998). Timber usage was not the

only use discussed in the Organic Act. The Act reopened forest reserves after the previous Forest

Reserve Act closed usage to private citizens (Fedkiw, 1998). Any areas found by a staff member

of the Department of the Interior to be better adapted to other uses including mining, farming,

hunting, or fishing may be used as such (16 U.S.C. Sec. 551.). This was the first mention of

multiple-use planning in forestry management (Bassman, 1974). The Division of Forestry

received a significant transformation, in 1905, with the appointment of Gifford Pinchot, known

later as the Father of American Conservation (Fedkiw, 1998). Pinchot not only transformed the

structure of the Division of Forestry but also redirected its overall goal (Fedkiw, 1998). Pinchot’s

first modification after his appointment was the uniting of all forestry personnel. He transferred

the Division of Forestry from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture

(Fedkiw, 1998). The staff members on the ground surveying and mapping forests were now

unified under the same department as forestry experts located in Washington D.C, allowing staff

members to receive technical assistance from experts (Fedkiw, 1998). This shift inspired Pinchot

to rename the Division of Forestry the Forest Service, what it is called today (Fedkiw, 1998).

Two years later Congress also did some renaming. In order to emphasize forests were for use as

described in the Organic Act, Forest Reserves were officially renamed National Forests (Fedkiw,

1998). The new Forest Service overseeing the newly named National Forests Pinchot was about

to modify the goal of national forestry (Fedkiw, 1998). The disillusionment of the notion that

forests were inexhaustible guided Pinchot to the notion of resource contribution and longevity

(Fedkiw, 1998). His most well-known quote stated the National Forests must “provide the

greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people in the long run” (USDA Forest

Service, 2011). Pinchot wanted to emphasize that benefits should be for all and not for those who

were closest or had prior claim to the resource (USDA Forest Service, 2011). It also highlighted

30

the importance of using resources wisely by planning and thinking long-term (USDA Forest

Service, 2011). This idea of natural resource conservation became a national goal.

The work of Marsh, Powell, O’Sullivan, and Dr. Hough tried to bring attention to better

management practices for the purpose of combating degrading forestry practices in the United

States (Williams, 2000). This aspiration was finally realized with the conservational approach

crafted by Gifford Pinchot. The Forest Service now had a pathway to better manage National

Forests but following this path proved difficult. Mismanagement and uninformed decisions led to

problems that plagued the Forest Service for years (Fedkiw, 1998).

Problems Encountered in Forestry Planning

The year 1905 was a turning point for the Forest Service. Finally it had secured its

position in a federal agency, funding, staff members, and a guiding principle (USDA Forest

Service, 2011). The future of the National Forests was now the responsibility of the Forest

Service. In the years immediately following the Service’s initiation, national forests saw few

conflicts with resource demands remaining relatively modest and space being abundant (Fedkiw,

1998). However, populations were about to swell (Fedkiw, 1998). An amplified need for

resources increased pressures on forests and forestry staff (Fedkiw, 1998). Pressures were made

worse with poor choices stemming from mismanagement and a lack of knowledge (Fedkiw,

1998; Williams, 2000). The brief history above sets the stage for the subsequent issues

discovered in forestry planning. The largest issues that faced the Forest Service in its long history

include the following; research and data limitations, managing resources individually, and

lacking outward transparency (Fedkiw, 1998; Williams, 2000). The history discussed from this

point forward serves as evidence for the three problems that faced a growing Forest Service.

Choices that led to these issues were not necessarily made to be deceitful or dishonest but

revealed the inexperience many forestry staffers possessed (Fedkiw, 1998). Inexperience would

soon be replaced with knowledge as these issues were slowly realized and attempts were made to

solve them. The years of knowledge acquired by the Forest Service can be used as a tool to

instruct burgeoning agencies on how to avert past mistakes (Jay, 2013b). The newest planning

concept in the United States, coastal and marine spatial planning, has hopefully acquired the

knowledge ascertained through the forestry planning experience. Unfortunately, there are three

31

specific areas in which CMSP has not learned from past forestry experiences. Areas marine

planners need to reconsider are research and data limitations, a lack of authority, and public

participation restrictions. To further understand these CMSP shortcomings, a synopsis of each

lacking area will be constructed for both CMSP and forestry planning to see if CMSP has truly

discussed the issues found by the Forest Service. The final discussion will encompass the

benefits national forests received from these three areas and what CMSP could be sacrificing by

not learning from these lessons.

Three Issues Realized by the Forest Service

1. Research and Data Limitations

Discussion of Research and Data Limitations in United States CMSP

Within the Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning, the

Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force set firm standards for how regional planning bodies should

confront research when preparing a marine plan (The White House Council on Environmental

Quality, 2009b). CMSP is designed as a fundamentally science based process that requires

scientific data and knowledge to be effective and fulfill CMSP principles and goals (The White

House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

lists how research of all areas pertaining to both human uses and the ocean environment plan

should be accomplished in order to create an effective marine plan (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b).

In the Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning, a list of

twelve CMSP priorities was presented as seen in Table 1 (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b). Of the twelve principles, number six deals precisely with

information needs (Table 1) (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b).

Specifically, it states that all stages of CMSP, from development to implementation and

evaluation, should be informed by the best available science-based information (The White

House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). In order to obtain the best available science-

based information, marine planners must consult with experts and institutions that have scientific

and technical expertise (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). These

relationships would allow for experts to assist and oversee marine planning while guaranteeing

32

that decisions are based with the most up to date science (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b). The Framework lists the informational needs CMSP requires to

be successful. The list includes knowledge of the physical characteristics of the planning area,

the present health and importance of each ecosystem, and an inventory of sensitive species and

habitat (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). By incorporating this

information into marine plans, it would allow planners to maintain essential ecosystem services

of the oceans (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). Human impacts

were also required to be investigated, specifically the cumulative risks and impacts of human

uses and recognizing the relationship between the distributions of ecosystems and user conflicts

(The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). This would help evaluate

tradeoffs, minimize conflicts, and encourage compatible uses that lead to a more effective marine

plan (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b).

A science based process is not complete without a foundation of research. The amount of

research needed would be extensive due to the vast areas of ocean range and subject matter

CMSP must cover. The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force put great emphasis on creating a

centralized data portal to house the data (The White House Council on Environmental Quality,

2009b). A yet to be appointed national agency would run the data portal with the purpose of

consistently investigating, assessing, forecasting and analyzing human uses, ecosystem

conditions, management alternatives, information and data gaps, and the overall CMSP

effectiveness (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). This publically

accessible data portal would allow marine planners to decipher what and where ocean uses could

coexist harmoniously (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b).

The discussion above details all of the requirements the Interagency Ocean Policy Task

Force gave to each regional planning body. It is apparent that research and information gathering

will play a significant role in the development of CMSP, but more is needed to make sure

planners have deliberated over each aspect of research development. By examining the long

history of forestry research, CMSP can be scrutinized to make sure all lessons learned by the

Forest Service have been incorporated into the framework.

33

History of Research and Data Limitations in United States ForestryResearch has served a large role in the progress of the Forest Service. Forestry records

are full with examples of how forestry research directed by the Forest Service has led to

advancements in the field of forestry. Though research was not a priority in the Forest Service’s

early history, forestry chiefs quickly realized its importance.

Before the establishment of the Forest Service, the presence of research and education

institutions for foresters was absent. Forestry research institutions were nonexistent in the United

States and American universities had yet to incorporate forestry into the curriculum. Due to the

exclusion of American forestry programs, those seeking forestry experiences had to travel to

Europe for instruction (Fernow, 1911). The third forestry chief, Bernhard Fernow, and the fourth

forestry chief, Gifford Pinchot, were educated in Germany and France respectively (McKown,

2008). Forestry training was so underappreciated that before 1900 Fernow and Pinchot were the

only two men in America trained as foresters; all other forestry staff members had no formal

forestry education (McKown, 2008). For example the first ranger hired was a performing

cowboy in the Colonel William F. Cody’s Wild West Show, Frank Hammitt (Williams, 2000).

His knowledge of his native Colorado secured him the job, but he lacked any technical forestry

knowledge (Williams, 2000). Uneducated foresters were not challenged in the early years of

forestry management as the job involved few tasks, until the reopening of national forests by the

Organic Act of 1897 (Williams, 2000; Fedkiw, 1998). Permitting systems for sheep grazing and

timber harvesting was now a mainstay of a forester’s duties, and placed stress on those who had

no advanced knowledge or research institutions to reference (Williams, 2000; Wiener, 1982).

Superiors of the Department of the Interior in Washington D.C. were of little help to foresters on

the ground, as many of the top national forest managers were predominately lawyers (Hays,

1959). Lawyers emphasized a strict interpretation of the laws and held little emphasis on

improving policies through education or research to garner better results (Hays, 1959). Many had

never even stepped foot into the national forests (Hays, 1959). This lack of knowledge led to

negative impacts on the forests but would ultimately stimulate forestry education and research in

the United States.

For most of the 19th century, livestock grazed openly in the United States. Millions of

sheep were grazed on public lands for meat and wool which garnered profits but also caused

damaging losses. Observational accounts from settlers, the only view into early forests,

34

described a scene of forests and fields devoid of grasses where large flocks of sheep were kept

(McKelvey & Johnson, 1992). After national forests were created from portions of public lands

where sheep had historically grazed, two field reports submitted by foresters in 1893 and 1894

verified the reports from past settlers. The report described absent grasses in areas where sheep

had grazed and the presence of exposed and unmoored soil that was washed into nearby rivers

during rainstorms (McKelvey & Johnson, 1992). The observational accounts and reports were

submitted to superiors in D.C. but was largely ignored (McKelvey & Johnson, 1992). After the

national forests were reopened to users in 1897, permits were given for sheep grazing. Permits

were awarded without the support of a research institute and disregarded past reports from

citizens and foresters (Fedkiw, 1998). Damaging effects from sheep grazing were again observed

in reports submitted in 1900 and 1902 from the Sierra Nevada National Forest Region

(McKelvey & Johnson, 1992). The national forest was found to be stripped of an estimated

3,000,000 acres of grass in sheep grazing areas (McKelvey & Johnson, 1992). The professionally

educated foresters Fernow and Pinchot saw this destruction and recognized the need for an

educated workforce including professional foresters and researchers. The efforts of these two

foresters would change forestry practice in the United States.

Intensifying pressures and negative impacts led to the realization that education was a

necessary component of effective forestry management, leading Forestry Chief Bernhard Fernow

and forester Gifford Pinchot to overhaul forestry education in the United States (Fedkiw, 1998;

Green, 2006). In 1898, Fernow resigned from the Division of Forestry and established the first

forestry department at Cornell University (USDA Forest Service, 1967). He hoped to create a

pool of professional foresters and researchers that could be funneled into the later named Forest

Service (USDA Forest Service, 1967). Yale followed suit two years later and also established a

forestry school and by 1948 twenty two schools had accredited forestry programs (Clapp, 1951).

Changes were also made within the Forest Service when the next chief, Gifford Pinchot, sought

to include knowledge qualifications into the forester hiring process (Fedkiw, 1998). In 1905,

Pinchot required all applicants take a written exam and pass a field examination (Fedkiw, 1998).

Questions were created to test an applicant’s knowledge of basic timber practices, mapping, and

construction (Fedkiw, 1998). Hiring foresters with some forestry experience served as a stopgap

while university trained foresters slowly graduated and met the needs of the Forest Service. By

1910 there were around 500 men in the United States with some level of professional forestry

35

training (USDA Forest Service, 1967). Now that forestry schools had created a pool of educated

foresters with research experience, the Forest Service became to open research stations and

progress toward a more informed forestry management scheme. The Forest Service opened the

first research stations within a few years of the matriculation of the first class of educated

foresters. The first forest experiment station, the Fort Valley Experimental Research Facility,

was established in 1908 in Arizona and two years later the first station in cooperation with a

university was established (Bergoffen, 1976). With funding from the Forest Service, the Madison

Wisconsin Forestry Experiment Station was established along with Wisconsin State University

(Bergoffen, 1976). Together the Forest Service and Wisconsin State University initiated range

grazing and vegetation research to determine a method that would limit negative impacts on the

forests (Fedkiw, 1998). The research led to the creation of a deferred rotational grazing system

that moved sheep from pasture to pasture and allowed for the regrowth of grasses (Fedkiw,

1998). This produced improved vegetative conditions and soil stability but did not alleviate the

issues completely (Fedkiw, 1998). Research on sheep grazing continued in the late 1920’s when

the notion of carrying capacity was introduced (Fedkiw, 1998). In the western states, foresters

voluntarily followed the notion of carrying capacity and reduced the number of sheep on national

forests by 3 million in a twenty nine year span (Figure 4) (Fedkiw, 1998). In 1934, the Report on

the Western Ranges submitted to Congress found that by decreasing the number of sheep and

rotating grazing ranges, ground vegetation increased three to four-fold (Fedkiw, 1998). Private

sheep ranges that had not used the carrying capacity research in found significantly deteriorated

pastures (Fedkiw, 1998). The positive results acquired by western forestry research stations led

to the passing of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and set a national regulated grazing structure

with the goal of preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration (Fedkiw, 1998).

36

Research continued to be a mainstay of the Forest Service but went through many

transformations (Fedkiw, 1998). In 1928, the McSweeney-McNary Research Act was passed and

authorized a broader scale of forestry research and provided increased funding (Fedkiw, 1998).

By 1930 the Forest Service had twelve research stations (Fedkiw, 1998). Research in the 1940s

was drastically altered during World War II when past projects were abandoned for new ones

designed to assist with wartime duties (Williams, 2000). The Timber Production War Project

shifted focus to how timber could be used to advance the war effort by making packing crates for

military supplies, bridges, ships, docks, planes, barracks, and gun stocks (Williams, 2000). The

post war economic boom shifted research needs back to the domestic front and infused much

needed research funds (West, 1990). Annual budgets increased from $6 million in 1955 to $14

million in 1960 and $42 million in 1970 (West, 1990). This influx of funding allowed for crucial

research that began to be widely used. In the years between 1977 and 1979, eighty one

innovations were created by Forest Service researchers (McDonald & Lassoie, 1996). Areas of

research include improved quality if biological environment, enhanced public involvement,

enhanced safety, and the reduction of cost through more efficient process (McDonald & Lassoie,

1996). These areas continued to improve as time progressed and more research was completed.

For example, in 1983 the Intermountain Research Station in Utah created a model that could

predict fire spread rates, intensity, and expected size of fires in forests (McDonald & Lassoie,

1996). Forecast models using fuel type, moisture, slope, and wind velocity were being used in

real-time situations and led to the enhancing of safety standard of fire management plans both

domestically and abroad (McDonald & Lassoie, 1996). Five years later scientists at the North

Central Forest Experiment Station in Minnesota along with the support of university researchers

were able to demonstrate a connection between emissions from fossil fuel combustion to the

acidity of precipitation and sulfur deposition in soil (McDonald & Lassoie, 1996). Sulfur

depositions in soil and tree tissue along lakes were found to be related to the sulfate deposited by

acid rain (McDonald & Lassoie, 1996). These findings led Minnesota to create emission

limitations that have seen a substantial drop in sulfur emissions since 1990, improving the

quality of the biological environment (Swain, 2002). These examples of research are only a

minute portion of research to come out of forestry research. In 1991 forestry researchers

published one thousand and twelve scientific papers in two hundred and forty various journals

and cited by five hundred and eighty three other published papers (McDonald & Lassoie, 1996).

37

In the same year the Forest Service received $168 million in funding from the federal

government with 11% or around $18 million supporting research at universities and private

industries. As of 2002 federal support and successful research projects have made the Forest

Service the major contributor of forestry research in the United States.

The first twenty years of national forest management was performed without the support

of an educated workforce. Issues of degrading environmental conditions led forestry leaders to

establish forestry programs at universities and Forest Service research. Throughout the history of

the Forest Service, examples of research as seen above served to demonstrate the importance of

research to the progress of the field of forestry. The experiences of the Forest Service show the

important role research should have in all environmental planning.

Takeaway Lessons for CMSP

Coastal and marine spatial planning was initiated one hundred and thirty five years after

the establishment of the later named Forest Service. Years of forestry planning allowed the

Forest Service to learn important lessons that could be later passed to CMSP managers. One of

the lessons CMSP learned was the importance of research as seen through its inclusion in the

Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (The White House

Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). Research has no doubt been described as a priority

for CMSP but certain forestry lessons on how to best acquire information was missing. The

important points missing from the Framework include the absence of a dedicated CMSP research

institution and the lack of direct support to outside research institutions through grants (The

White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). These important lessons learned from

forestry have unfortunately not been reiterated by marine planners.

The initiation of forestry research came within ten years of the Division of Forestry

shifting to the Forest Service and universities embracing forestry programs (Fedkiw, 1998).

Issues with environmental degradation from forestry management decisions, like in the case of

sheep grazing in the western United States, prompted the Chief of Forestry to initiate the

employing of professional foresters and researchers (Fedkiw, 1998). For years, countless

innovations originated from research programs operated by the Forest Service and allowed for

enhancements including improved quality of environment and enhanced safety (McDonald &

Lassoie, 1996). For these reasons it is obvious why CMSP decided to prioritized research in the

38

planning stages. Unfortunately, CMSP did not embrace all of the lessons the Forest Service

learned. CMSP did not include a system of direct support for research either internally or

externally (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). Within the Interim

Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning, research was determined to be

obtained through consultation with institutions and experts (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b). Nowhere in the document is there discussion of creating a

dedicated research institution for use by NOC and RPBs. As the framework stands, all

information will have to be prepared by those not directly associated with marine planning and

the absence of financial support of other research institutions through grant raises multiple issues

on the effectiveness of this arrangement (The White House Council on Environmental Quality,

2009b). Research institutions including universities, NGOs, and private industries study multiple

areas of the marine environment in order to solve individually specific issues (Polster, 2007). It

is impossible to consider that every research project prepared by these entities today and in the

future will coincide with the wants and needs of CMSP (Polster, 2007). RPBs could consult with

every institution but there is no guarantee that the research RPBs need will be available (Polster,

2007). This issue is how grant programs were created. Researchers, especially in science have

always been in need of grants to fund their research (Polster, 2007). Without grants there is no

incentive for others to pay for a project that will have no personal gain and only monetary loss,

leaving CMSP without a cache of researchers to rely on (Polster, 2007). The Framework leaves

CMSP without a research institution to rely on or a grant program to fund outside research. The

Forest Service became the largest research entity in the United States and influenced forestry

research everywhere in part by funding research through a dedicated research institution

(McDonald & Lassoie, 1996). Foregoing a grant program would keep CMSP at the mercy of

other researchers and in the end could slow marine planning and implementation or allow for

decisions to be made without the best available science.

The absence of grant money not only jeopardizes access to research but is a further

hindrance on important personal interactions at universities (Kaufert & Cummings, 1955).

Universities are the only research providers that are training the next generation of forestry

scientists (Kaufert & Cummings, 1955). A closer connection to universities would allow for

outreach to students and permit NOC and RPBs to personally train potential future personnel and

give guidance and advice (Kaufert & Cummings, 1955). By not cultivating university

39

relationships through an absent grant program, incoming marine researchers could be less

prepared or knowledgeable about the work of a marine researcher (Kaufert & Cummings, 1955).

The decision of CMSP to consult and not directly support any research institution could

have consequences. The government has a stake in the further expansion of research as it leads to

better management, but by omitting support for research institutions difficulties could arise

(USDA Forest Service, 1964). This is an important forestry lesson that CMSP should reconsider.

2. Lack of Authority

Discussion of Authority in United States CMSP

Coastal and marine spatial planning is a process that ultimately aspires to identify the

most suitable use for an area, leading to the reduction of devastating conflicts seen between users

and the environment (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). Past

scientific and political assessments have found that the current system does not properly account

for the entire ocean system (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). A

fundamental change to the current management system is required to achieve long term goals of

ocean health (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). The past structure of

ocean management and enforcement included separate agencies for each ocean use and user (The

White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). The Interim Framework for Effective

Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning strives to change this dynamic by heavily emphasizing the

need for integration and cooperation among multiple uses, users, and managing agencies (The

White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b).

Human uses of the ocean have expanded greatly within the last century and have begun

to challenge the ability of individual agencies to manage uses successfully. CMSP was created to

resolve these problems through a cooperative and coordinated framework where all agencies

would support uniform goals that extend beyond individual agency jurisdiction (The White

House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). The Interim Framework for Effective Coastal

and Marine Spatial Planning described the move from evaluating outcomes through individual

governmental agencies and laws to a comprehensive look at all sectors to acquire a more

complete evaluation of outcomes (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b).

Four of the twelve main guiding principles of CMSP list the many agencies and laws marine

planners must incorporate into every marine plan (Table 1) (The White House Council on

40

Environmental Quality, 2009b). Principle four discussed the need to build upon and work with

already existing marine spatial plans (The White House Council on Environmental Quality,

2009b). This includes the alliances, collaborations, and partnerships already established by

various states (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b; Collier, 2013).

Principle ten referenced the need to cooperate with many governmental interests including

foreign and domestic; emphasis on homeland and national security, emergency preparedness,

and all other national strategies (Table 1) (The White House Council on Environmental Quality,

2009b). Principle eleven referenced the need for implementing marine plans in accordance with

all international agreements; emphasizing the need for practically the entire Law of the Sea,

excluding seabed restrictions (Table 1) (The White House Council on Environmental Quality,

2009b). Principle twelve is the final principle and states that CMSP must be implemented in

accordance with all United States laws, regulations, and Executive Orders with emphasis on

Executive Order #13340, the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (Table 1) (The White House

Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). The Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and

Marine Spatial Planning states that each of these groups and laws must cooperate to serve

CMSP but enforcement of obligatory cooperation is not within the ability of CMSP.

CMSP strives to bring all Federal, State, and regional groups together to create a system

where all uses are integrated into the planning process (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b). However, CMSP has no authority to dictate where and how uses

and users utilize the ocean (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). The

framework states that no action taken by marine planners can supersede any existing agency’s

authority or laws (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). Authority for

planning, implementation, and enforcement of all ocean uses stays with the agency it was

originally assigned (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). Any marine

plan made by NOC or RPBs has no regulatory authority or represents the final decision of any

agency (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). For CMSP to be achieved,

Federal, State, and regional agencies must incorporate NOC and RPB findings into individual

pre-existing or future planning and permitting structures. CMSP is completely dependent on the

cooperation of all agencies and laws as there is no obligation to include any ideas created by

NOC or RPBs into agency structures. Furthermore, CMSP effectiveness is predicated on the

41

willingness of agencies to enforce CMPS on all users (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b).

The collaboration between all International, Federal, State, regional agencies and

governing structures must be strong for CMSP to be effective (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b). The integrated view of CMSP is ultimately under the authority

of each individual agency and not the National Ocean Council (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b). The future of CMSP will be determined by how well agencies

can work together for the common goal of CMSP.

History of Authority in United States Forestry

The Forest Service was created to oversee the current and future protection, use, and

management of large expanses of government owned land, known as national forests (United

States General Accounting Office, 1999). In 1881, the Division of Forestry was created to study

and report on forestry matters (Williams, 2000). Ten years later the Forest Reserve Act

authorized the President to establish national forests (Williams, 2000). After years of

Congressional debates and pressures from the Boone and Crocket Club and the American

Forestry Association, the Organic Act of 1897 gave the Forest Service authority over national

forests (Fedkiw, 1998). The Organic Act stated that the Secretary of Agriculture shall make rules

and regulations and establish a service, later the Forest Service, to insure the preservation of

forests from destruction (16 U.S.C. Sec. 551). In 1905, the Forest Service was tasked with

regulating uses and above all preserving forests from destruction by overseeing and protecting

national forests from fire and plundering (Fedkiw, 1998). For the next one hundred years, the

Forest Service would derive its authority from more than one hundred and forty Federal laws

including the Weeks Act of 1911 and McSweeney-McNary Act of 1928. Both of these laws

increased the Forest Service’s authority and led to positive changes in the national forest.

In 1910, one hundred and fifty two national forests comprised one hundred and ninety

one million acres, predominantly in the West and Mid-western states (USDA Forest Service,

1910). No national forests were found in the Northeast and two of the one hundred and fifty two

national forests were found in the Eastern State of Florida (USDA Forest Service, 1974).

National forests were more common in western states as the land had yet to be purchased and

allowed the federal government to be the original purchaser (Shands, 1992). In Eastern States,

42

most of the land was owned by private citizens and were much smaller due to an extensive

history of rigorous logging (Shands, 1992). Colonists and pioneers cleared areas to make room

for homes and crops and by the mid-1800s much of the Northeast and Central Atlantic had been

cleared of forests (Shands, 1992). The 1850s brought about increased logging technology and led

to an eight-fold increase in commercial lumber production in eastern states (Shands, 1992). In

1850, 5.4 billion board feet were being harvested from forests and by 1910 44.5 billion board

feet were harvested due to increased technology. Once the Northeast and Central Atlantic forests

were exhausted, loggers turned to the Midwest, then the South, and finally the West (Shands,

1992). A 1902 report by the Secretary of Agriculture detailed evidence of damaged forests due to

intensive clearcutting. He concluded that to protect forests and watersheds from further harm,

Federal action was necessary (Conrad, 1997). On March 1st, 1911 President Taft signed the

Weeks Act into law (Shands, 1992). The Weeks Act established authority for the Forest Service

to cooperate with States and purchase lands, specifically in the eastern United States, to add to

the National Forest System (USDA Forest Service, 1974). The Forest Service worked to

recommend land for purchase through a special National Forest Reservation Commission

(Conrad, 1997). By 1915, 1.3 million acres were purchased (Conrad, 1997). The land consisted

of mostly cutover forestland or abandoned farmland (Shands, 1992). The forests were deemed

“lands nobody wanted” and the rehabilitation of these forests became the theme of management

for the Eastern national forests (Shands, 1992). In the Manistee National Forest in Michigan,

foresters planted over one thousand tree seedlings a day in cutover forests (Shands, 1992). In

Texas, fifteen thousand acres of seedlings were planted every year. Between 1952 and 1987, the

number of trees on eastern national forest more than doubled from fifteen million cubic feet to

thirty two million cubic feet (Conrad, 1997). In 1961, President Eisenhower established the last

two national forests under the Weeks Act, bringing the total number of acres purchased by the

Weeks Act to twenty million acres (Conrad, 1997).

Between 1881 and 1928, research in national forests was hindered by the early primitive

scientific understanding of resource management (Fedkiw, 1998). With increasing populations

leading to increased demands for resources, the need for better scientific understanding was great

(Fedkiw, 1998). During these uncertain scientific times, adaptive management and the adjusting

of management to match shifting conditions became the mode for forest uses (Fedkiw, 1998).

National forest management became a large scale experiment under the authority of the Forest

43

Service. To help base management on scientific principles, educated foresters Fernow and

Pinchot worked to involve research as part of the Forest Service’s objectives. The first forest

experiment station was opened in 1908 and by 1930 the Forest Service had twelve research

stations (Bergoffen, 1976; Fedkiw, 1998). During this time, the Forest Service Chief submitted

annual reports to Congress stating the need for more research; specifically research focused on

forestry problems and less on the products that could be made from timber (Steen, 1976). Forest

fire prevention and watershed preservation were receiving triple sometimes quadruple the

support when compared to forestry research (Barnett, 2004). Research was also lacking a

unifying legislation and congressional support (Barnett, 2004). The Forest Service spent four

years lobbying Congress to expanded research activities and with the support of the American

Forestry Association; the McSweeney-McNary Act was passed on May 22nd, 1928 (Steen, 1976).

The Act authorized the Forest Service to expand research activities and allowed for the

establishment of the Forestry Research Program. The Act served as the founding of inventory

and monitoring activities of the Forest Service (Steen, 1976). The passage of the McSweeney-

McNary Act finally recognized the importance of research as equal to other forestry activities,

increased research budgets, and was given the full support of Congress (Steen, 1976). Research

successes due to the passage of the Act in 1928 are discussed above in the Research and Data

Limitations section and in no way represents the exhaustive list of research achievements. Other

successes born from expanded research activities include successful nursery production of pine

seedling through testing, treating, and storing technology, established protocols for managing

eroded soils and restoring productivity, and the development of a fungicide that controlled

brown-spot needle blight from decimating longleaf pine trees (Barnett, 2004). In less than 30

years, researchers were able to provide basic management guidelines that resulted in great

progress in the restoring of denuded eastern forests (Barnett, 2004).

The authority given to the Forest Service by Congress allowed for positive impacts on

national forests. Regenerated eastern forests and new forestry innovations can all be attributed to

the Forest Service’s authority. The past experiences of the Forest Service show the important

role authority should play in all environmental planning.

44

Takeaway Lessons for CMSP

The early years of forestry management were filled with pioneering the practical field of

forestry (Shands, 1992). This included mapping, building roads and trails, and fighting forest

fires (Shands, 1992). Foresters were in essence custodians of the national forests (Williams,

2000). Quickly detrimental issues arose. Eastern forests were in a state of disorder and forests

were impaired due to research deficiencies (Shands, 1992). Only specialized authority awarded

to the Forest Service by Congress allowed for forests to be improved (Shands, 1992; Barnett,

2004). The authority to perform tasks is one of the greatest differences between the Forest

Service and the National Ocean Council. While the Forest Service has over one hundred and

forty laws bestowing a range of authority on national forests, the National Ocean Council and

marine planners have no authority to dictate ocean utilization within Coastal and Marine Spatial

Planning (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). Again, the important

lessons learned from forestry have unfortunately not been reiterated by marine planners.

The beginning of the Forest Service started with the bestowing of authority from

Congress to preserve national forests from destruction. The bestowing of authority by Congress

through the Weeks Act of 1911 and McSweeney-McNary Act of 1928 serves as examples of

how the Forest Service used its authority to improve the health of the national forests. Without

the Weeks Act, all forests in the east would not have been purchased by the Federal government

and conceivably never regenerated to successful forests (Shands, 1992). The absence of the

McSweeney-McNary Act would have hindered expanded research activities and delayed or

stopped the discovering of forestry research successes such as; the successful nursery production

of pine seedling and a fungicide that that controlled brown-spot needle blight (Barnett, 2004).

For these reasons it is difficult to understand why NOC, RPB, and CMSP were given no

authority. The Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning states that

CMSP cannot supersede any existing agencies or laws and all planning must stay with the

existing agency the ocean use was originally assigned (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b). All decisions, plans, implementation, and enforcement will only

be achieved if each agency cooperates not only with CMSP but with the other agencies (The

White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). Authority in any planning process has

been described as the single most important aspect for success (Ehler, 2008; Ehler & Douvere,

2009). The ability to enforce plans is critical to sustaining governance of an environment (Ehler

45

& Douvere, 2009; Chhatre & Agrawal, 2008). A study of the correlation between enforcement

and national forest health found that as the authority of enforcement in forests increased, forest

degradation decreases (Chhatre & Agrawal, 2008). Forests that were degraded to begin with

have higher levels of regeneration as enforcement levels increase (Chhatre & Agrawal, 2008).

The authority to enforce laws has a great impact on the health of forests or any ecosystem

(Chhatre & Agrawal, 2008). Having agencies working toward integration and cooperation has

been shown in the past to be challenging (Ehler & Douvere, 2009). So much so the consultant

for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Charles

Ehler and the coordinator of the Marine Programme for UNESCO, Fanny Douvere state that it

will take substantial interagency motivation to achieve CMSP outcomes (Ehler & Douvere,

2009). Motivation including incentives such as financial contributions, awareness, and education

may be needed to encourage all agencies to participate (Ehler & Douvere, 2009). The very goal

of CMSP is to create an integrated and cooperative process but by leaving authority with each

individual agency, CMSP is perpetuating the past structure of individual and separate ocean

management and enforcement systems (Ehler & Douvere, 2009). Creating an authoritative

marine plan is understandably difficult, but this should not be an excuse. The initiation of an

enforceable marine plan should be a future goal (Ehler, 2008).

The Forest Service’s authority over the national forests has precipitated many positive

impacts on the forests and progress for the field of forestry. Unfortunately, the Interim

Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning did not give CMSP the authority

to directly accomplish its principles and goals. This decision could bring complications to

successful CMSP and is an important forestry lesson that CMSP should reconsider.

3. Public Participation Restrictions

Discussion of Public Participation in United States CMSP

CMSP is intended to provide a forum for Federal, State, and regional agencies along with

stakeholders and the public to discuss and develop a plan to better manage ocean uses (The

White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). For CMSP to be effective it must

educate and involve the public while also being informed by the public. The Interagency Ocean

Policy Task Force lists the ways in which marine planners should incorporate the public into the

46

planning process in order to create an effective marine plan (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b).

CMSP is a process constructed upon the idea of transparency to initiate integrated and

successful public participation (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b).

For this idea to function, CMSP first asks all participating partners including agencies, industries,

stakeholders, and the public to commit in good faith to an open and transparent process (The

White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). How agencies will work together to

construct a public participatory CMSP process is further detailed in the Framework. The societal

perspective of CMSP details the need of not only informing the public but striving to engage and

involve them in the process (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). One

of the guiding principles of CMSP details the need for societal engagement. Principle three states

that CMSP development and implementation should be transparent with emphasis on engaging

partners, the public, and stakeholders in the planning process (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b). CMSP must include and improve opportunities for the public

and stakeholders to participate in the planning process (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b). In order to engage the public, CMSP should include workshops,

blogs, webinars, and other outreach methods (The White House Council on Environmental

Quality, 2009b). This would allow planners to define CMSP, discuss potential impacts, and

potential ways the public can participate (The White House Council on Environmental Quality,

2009b). Special attention should be given to those who will be directly impacted by the planning

process, a group known as stakeholders (The White House Council on Environmental Quality,

2009b). The Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning further

recommended the creation of a stakeholder advisory board to help organize wide-ranging

representation with emphasis on including underserved communities (The White House Council

on Environmental Quality, 2009b). Once planning has concluded and a draft plan is created, the

plan must be released for public for review and comment through public hearings and comment

processes as required by existing laws (The White House Council on Environmental Quality,

2009b). Based on the public comments received, the final plan would take the comments and

amend the plan accordingly (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). After

planning has concluded and implementation has begun, public participation is still necessary

(The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). Marine plans should also include

47

continued opportunities for the engagement after the plans have been submitted and approved

(The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). One recommendation is the

creation of performance methods that will measure, monitor, and report on the progress of CMSP

during implementation (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). These

measures would provide the means of providing results to the public and demonstrating

transparency and accountability of the process (The White House Council on Environmental

Quality, 2009b). These results must be publically available through an easily accessed web based

portal to allow for a credible and relevant process (The White House Council on Environmental

Quality, 2009b). Engagement must be for the long term and include phases of implementation,

evaluation, and adaptation (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). The

public and stakeholder community must be informed and engaged for CMSP implementation to

be effective.

The CMSP process is committed to improving opportunities for the public to participate

in marine planning process. The public and stakeholders must be engaged and involved in the

decision making process from the planning stages to implementation (The White House Council

on Environmental Quality, 2009b). The success of CMSP will depend on how well marine

planners are able to integrate the public into the planning process.

History of Public Participation in United States Forestry

The Forest Service has seen a transformation of public interest in the last one hundred

years. In the early 1900s, the public showed little interest in the national forests (Williams,

2000). By the 1960s the Forest Service was faced with an onslaught of court cases and appeals.

The public was now aware of the various activities the national forests maintained and demanded

to be involved in forestry decisions.

When the McSweeney-McNary Act in 1928 was passed, public participation was at a

minimum (Williams, 2000). Research on forest health and the advancement of forestry

innovations was largely unseen (Steen, 1976; Barnett, 2004). Research continued to quietly

progress until World War II, when American needs changed (Williams, 2000). Timber was

needed to fulfill wartime necessities including ships, planes, and gunstocks which came from the

newly designated Timber Production War Project (Williams, 2000). The urgency of the war

effort made timber the priority and delegated all other uses as less essential (Fedkiw, 1998). The

48

overwhelming need for timber led national forests to harvest timber at an amplified rate,

producing 2 billion board feet between the years 1925 and 1945 as seen in Figure 5 (Fedkiw,

1998). Timber needs continued to stay elevated after World War II with the post-war economic

housing boom (Fedkiw, 1998). After World War II, populations grew rapidly as did leisure time

and disposable income (Williams, 200). This allowed for increased interests in outdoor

recreation and expanded the public’s interest in forest use and management (Williams, 2000).

The continued harvesting of timber from 1945 to 1970 at a rate of 5% a year was becoming

noticeable to a more observant public (Fedkiw, 1998). This fixation on timber was being

criticized by members of Congress and interest groups who felt other uses were being ignored

(Williams, 2000). This criticism led to the passing of the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of

1960 (MUSY) (Williams, 2000). MUSY was created with the purpose of ensuring all uses of the

national forests were being treated equally by authorizing the multiple use and sustained yield of

renewable resources (Williams, 2000). The previous Organic Act had discussed multiple uses but

never detailed the full range of uses. MUSY further defined the multiple uses of forests to

include fish and wildlife, outdoor recreation, and range grazing resources (Williams, 2000).

Previously important uses including fire prevention and watershed protection would now have to

be managed in combination with other uses (Williams, 2000). The ideal combination would best

meet the needs of American citizens. Unfortunately, Congress did not establish guidelines for

creating priorities and left the Forest Service with the power to decide how to balance competing

uses (Burnett & Davis, 2002). At this time the Forest Service came under great scrutiny,

49

publically the Forest Service was embracing multiple uses but internally continued to harvest

timber heavily into the 1990s seen in Figure 6 (Burnett & Davis, 2002). MUSY had negatively

impacted the reputation of the Forest Service as well as the national forests (USDA Forest

Service, 1974). During the controversy of MUSY, a new movement of environmental awareness

was beginning to emerge (Williams, 2000). The catalyst for this environmental movement was

the publishing of Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring (Williams, 2000). Published in 1962,

Silent Spring brought awareness to the harmful environmental effects of DDT and other

pesticides and herbicides. The new environmental movement was unhappy with the negative

impacts of governmental activities and precipitated the creation of the National Environmental

Protection Act of 1970 (NEPA) (Williams, 2000). NEPA mandated that the planning of any

significant environmental activity must now include a more formalized public participation

(Williams, 2000). The public would now be involved in commenting on an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) (Williams, 2000). An EIS was a comprehensive document that listed all

environmental impacts and possible management alternatives of any significant Federal action

(Williams, 2000). Once an agency announced a new Federal action it had to provide public

notice of any hearings or meetings related to NEPA and make all NEPA related document

publically available (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2007). Once the first

draft of an EIS was completed, it had to be publically published and made available for public

comment (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2007). After the agencies had

time to read over all comments the Final EIS would be published (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2007). To show that the public’s voice was being heard the Final EIS

would have to respond to each of the substantive comments received from the public through

either the modification of the EIS or the explanation of why the modification was not made (The

50

White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2007). This began the public’s involvement in

governmental actions (Williams, 2000). Though NEPA had made great strides for the

environmental movement, issues on national forests persisted. Timber needs were still growing

in the early 1970s and instances of clearcutting entire swaths of national forests were becoming

evident (Figure 6) (Williams, 2000) Two of the most famous examples of the clearcutting

controversies were found in the Bitterroot and Monogahela National Forests (Burnett & Davis,

2002). Years of publicly driven lawsuits and appeals over these instances of clearcutting led to

Congressional hearings and finally the passing of two forestry laws, the Forest and Rangeland

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 and the National Forest Management Act of 1976

(NFMA) (Burnett & Davis, 2002). The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning

Act of 1974 was the first congressional response to criticism of national forest management

(Williams, 2000). It required the Forest Service to conduct resource assessments and inventories

for all national forests but did not include any provision for public participation (Burnett &

Davis, 2002; Williams, 2000). Two years later the National Forest Management Act of 1976

(NFMA) was passed and directed the Forest Service to create management plans for all national

forests and required increased public participation in Forest Service planning (Leach, 2006).

NEPA stipulated that agencies must announce federal actions to the public and then gather public

comments, but any further procedures were not discussed (Leach, 2006). Leaving agencies to

create individual NEPA public participation processes (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2007). The Forest Service interpreted this as issuing a draft plan, asking

for comments, then publishing the final draft (The White House Council on Environmental

Quality, 2007). This system was found to be ineffective in making the public feel like they were

51

Year Court Appeals1986 1631987 5631988 6281989 1,0441990 1,0451991 1,2491992 1,453

Court Appeal Activity, 1986-1992

involved in the process (Leach, 2006). NFMA strived to push NEPA farther by requiring the

Forest Service to hold public meetings that help foster public participation (The White House

Council on Environmental Quality, 2007; Leach 2006). This addition was a promising step but

did not stem the tide of public discourse (Williams, 2000). The forest management strategies of

the Forest Service, especially with timber practices, were no longer accepted by the public

(Williams, 2000). Public comments and meetings were not producing the results the public

wanted, so they turned to the courts (Williams, 2000). Between 1986 and 1992 court appeals of

Forest Service decisions increased from 163 to 1,453 as seen in Table 2 (Williams, 2000). The

continued issue of court battles led the Forest Service to establish a national task force in 1988 to

determine the reason for the increasing amount of court appeals. In 1989, the task force

recommended a revision of NFMA that included the informing and involving of public interests

earlier in the planning process and the education of citizens on the laws of NEPA and NFMA

(Williams, 2000). The Forest Service implemented these changes and yet dissatisfaction with

forest planning grew (Williams, 2000). Understanding how to properly organize public

participation is still a challenge for the Forest Service (Bruna-Garcia & Marey-Perez, 2014).

Within the last twenty years there has been a surge of peer reviewed discussions about public

participation (Figure 7) (Bruna-Garcia & Marey-Perez, 2014). Effective public participation is

still a growing idea and as of 2016 the Forest Service is still working to involve and engage the

52

public in forestry decisions (Bruna-Garcia & Marey-Perez, 2014). Further discussion and study

will be needed to find a successful technique for public participation.

Public participation in forestry activities has only been legally obtainable in the last forty

seven years. The National Environmental Protection Act and the National Forest Management

Act authorized the public to be involved in forestry decisions but many felt disconnected and

disregarded (Williams, 2000). The Forest Service has yet to find a successful system to deal with

public discord and new ideas will be needed to satisfy the public. The forestry lesson for CMSP

in regard to public participation is to find new ways to better engage and involve the public.

Takeaway Lessons for CMSP

The history of public participation in the Forest Service has been tumultuous. NEPA and

NFMA both attempted to satisfy the public’s need for information and involvement but issues

continued exist (Williams, 2000). NEPA continues to serve as a basic guideline for all Federal

actions, including marine planning, but other participation requirements will be needed. The

history of public participation clearly shows that CMSP needs to create new ideas to involve the

public. The previous forestry lessons have described positive forestry examples that CMSP can

learn from, but this lesson is different. It describes the failure of the Forest Service and the

changes CMSP should embrace in order to become more successful.

The original conception of NEPA was to help formalize and extend the reach of public

participation (Williams, 2000). NEPA set basic guidelines for the planning of an agency action

but any further public participation was left to the discretion of each agency (Williams, 2000).

Public participation in NEPA was described as often brief, without continuity, influenced by

agency bias, disjointed, and poorly planned (Hansen & Wolff, 2011). These descriptions can also

explain the history of public participation in forestry (Williams, 2000). The problems of NEPA

and the Forest Service clearly demonstrated the need for a more inclusive system. The Interim

Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning has shown progress on this front,

by listing the new ways in which CMSP can involve the public (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b). CMSP details the need to not only inform but engage and

involve the public in the process. To better inform the public, CMSP recommended the inclusion

of workshops, blogs, webinars, and other outreach methods to describe CMSP, discuss potential

impacts, and potential ways for the public to participate (The White House Council on

53

Environmental Quality, 2009b). To insure the opinions of stakeholders are heard, the Interagency

Ocean Policy Task Force recommended the creation of a stakeholder advisory board with

emphasis on underserved communities (The White House Council on Environmental Quality,

2009b). This would help organize a wide range of groups and make sure all thoughts are heard.

The Task Force also recommends the creation of a publically accessible web portal that would

compile all information gathered during the planning process (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b). This would allow for a transparent, credible, and relevant

process. Within each marine plan there should also be performance measures that would be used

to measure, monitor, and report on the progress of CMSP during implementation (The White

House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). The extending of public participation into

implementation is one of the largest changes CMSP has recommended. Both NEPA and NFMA

stopped requiring public participation after the planning stages (Leach, 2006). CMSP makes it

clear that engagement must be for the long term and that the public must be included in the

phases of implementation, evaluation, and adaptation (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b). The Task Force states that further opportunities for engagement

during these phases should be included in marine planning (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b). These five public participation recommendations show that

CMSP has learned from past Forest Service failures when involving the public in decisions. The

supervising council of NEPA, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), has

also realized the limitations of public participation in NEPA. In a 2003 report, Modernizing

NEPA Implementation, the CEQ discussed similar recommendations to improve the NEPA

process (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2003). Both CMSP and the

“improved” NEPA discussed the need to use newer methods of communication; this included

web-based training and the publishing of post-implementation monitoring data to increase public

knowledge of progress (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2003). These

similar recommendations show that CMSP is embracing 21st century ideas of public

participation. CMSP has shown that public participation is a priority and has created a system

that strives to better include the public, but there are still a few shortcomings that could

jeopardize all of CMSPs work.

CMSP has updated the public participation process but more can be done. In a guide

written for UNESCO detailing a step-by-step approach to establishing marine spatial planning,

54

UNESCO consultant Charles Ehler and coordinator Fanny Douvere have discussed the need to

update public participation methods (Ehler & Douvere, 2009). Ehler and Douvere detailed the

main needs for successful public participation by making the process easily understood by the

public (Ehler & Douvere, 2009). Scientists and economists tend to use dense language when

writing reports which can be difficult for the public to understand (Ehler & Douvere, 2009). CMSP has not referenced the need for plain language and could make the public feel detached

from the process (Ehler & Douvere, 2009). The biggest shortcoming of the CMSP public

participation process is addressed in the section above, it details the need for authority to

successfully implement CMSP. That forestry lesson is also relevant in the discussion of public

participation in CMSP. CMSP has setup a more modernized process for effective public

participation but as CMSP has no authority. Implementation would be on a voluntary basis with

the agency in charge deciding whether to implement the process (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2009b). CMSP states that all agencies should coordinate to establish

similar agency processes but there is no guarantee agencies will follow CMSP recommendations

(The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2009b). The White House Council on

Environmental Quality has stated in the past that regulatory agencies tend to focus solely on their

issues, thus ignoring the other agencies needs and mission (The White House Council on

Environmental Quality, 2003). This precedent of isolation and disregard puts the idea of

cooperation jeopardy. By not implementing the CMSP public participation process, individual

agencies could see similar increases in public discord in the form of court cases and appeals to

CMSP implementation decisions as seen in forestry (Williams, 2000). This lack of authority

again places the future of CMSP implementation, specifically public participation, on uncertain

ground.

NEPA and NFMA originally dictated public participation in forestry but left the public

wanting more participation and involvement. The lack of public participation concepts served as

a lesson to CMSP and led to the creation of new participation concepts. These new

recommended concepts were reiterated by the White House Council on Environmental Quality

but more work can be done to improve and a lack of CMSP authority could keep the necessary

public participation system from successful implementation.

55

Conclusion

National forests were the Federal Government’s first effort in managing a large natural

resource system (Fedkiw, 1998). Over one hundred and thirty five years later, many lessons have

been learned and can now be handed to the next planning process. Coastal and marine spatial

planning is the most recent planning processes to be initiated and could use any knowledge from

past planning ventures to strengthen its outcome. Through the examining of past forestry issues

including research and data limitations, lack of authority, and public participation restrictions; a

conclusion on whether marine planners have learned a lesson from past forestry mistakes can be

reached. To take a line from Dame Shirley Bassey, is it all just a little bit of history repeating? In

regards to the three issues above, yes. CMSP is in danger of repeating past mistakes by not

learning from both the solutions and mistakes the Forest Service has demonstrated. The mistakes

should have served as lessons to CMSP, instead CMSP will have to re-learn these lessons

through practice and risk hindering the effectiveness of marine planning.

References

16 U.S.C. Sec. 551. Organic Act of 1897. 1897. Accessed 4/6/2016. Available online at <http://www.cfr.washington.edu/classes.esrm.459/yellowstone/yellowstone/Project1/Yellowstone_Docs/ORGANIC%20ACT%20OF%201897.pdf>.

Alvarez M. The State of America’s Forests. Bethesda Society of American Foresters; 2007.

56

Arnold R. Congressman William Holman of Indiana: Unknown Founder of the National Forests. Forest History Society 1992.

Asgeirsdottir A. Who Gets What?: Domestic Influences on International Negotiations Allocating Shared Resources. New York: State University of New York Press; 2008.<http:// www.foresthistory.org/Publications/Books/Origins_National_Forests/sec20.htm>.

Barnett, JP. Southern Forest Resource Conditions and Management Practices from 1900–1950: Benefits from Research. In: Rauscher, H.M., Johnsen, K.H. (Eds.), Southern Forest Science: Past, Present, and Future. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SRS-75. Asheville, NC: Southern Research Station 2004;15–24.

Barton GA. Empire Forestry and American Environmentalism. Environ Hist 2000; 6:187–203.Bassman R. The Organic Act: A Historical Perspective. Nat Resour Law 1974;7:503-520.Bergoffen WW. 100 Years of Federal Forestry. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 402 USDA

Forest Service; 1976. Blau J, Green L. Assessing the Impact of a New Approach to Ocean Management: Evidence to

Date from Five Ocean Plans. Mar Policy 2015;56:1–8. Bondareff JM. The Impact of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning on Deepwater Drilling. Nat

Resour Env 2011;26: 3–6.Bruna-Garcia X, Marey-Perez MF. Public Participation: A Need of Forest Planning.

Biogeosciences 2014;7:216-226.Burnett M, Davis C. Getting Out the Cut:Politics and National Forest Timber Harvests, 1960-

1995. Admin Soc 2002;V34:202-228.Caribbean Fisheries Management Council Regular Meeting. 2014. Accessed February 6, 2016

<http://caribbean-mp.org/en/events/cfmcmeeting/>. Chhatre A, Agrawal A. Forest Commons and Local Enforcement. P Natl Acad Sci USA

2008;105:13286-13291.Clapp E. Education and Demonstration in American Forestry. J Polit 1951;13:345-368.Clark B, Clausen R. The Oceanic Crisis. Mon Rev 2008;60: 91–111.Collie JS, Adamowicz WL, Beck MW, Craig, B, Essington TE, Fluharty D, et al. Marine Spatial

Planning in Practice. Estuar Coast Shelf S 2012:117:1-11. Collier BW. Orchestrating Our Oceans: Effectively Implementing Coastal and Marine Spatial

Planning in the U.S. Sea Grant L & Pol’y J 2013;6:77-115.Conrad DE. The Lands we Cared for… A History of the Forest Service’s Eastern Region.

Washington D.C.: USFS. 1997.Costello C, Ovando D, Clavelle T, Strauss K, Hilborn R, Melnychuk M, et al. Global Fishery

Prospects Under Contrasting Management Regimes. P Natl Acad Sci USA 2016;113:5125-5129.

Czika J, McLean C. From the Stratton Plan to GEOSS: A Brief History of U.S. Ocean Policy. IEEE J. Ocean Eng 2008;2008:1-13.

Day J. The Need and Practice of Monitoring, Evaluating and Adapting Marine Planning and Management—Lessons from the Great Barrier Reef. Mar Policy 2008;32: 823–31.

Diamond J, Schempp A, Mengerink K, Austin J. Marine Spatial Planning in U.S. Waters: An Assessment and Analysis of Existing Legal Mechanisms, Anticipated Barriers, and Future Opportunities. Washington D.C.: Environmental Law Institute; 2009.

Doherty P. Ocean Zoning: Perspectives on a New Vision for the Scotian Shelf and Gulf of Maine. Halifax: Ecology Action Centre; 2003.

57

Douvere F, Maes F, Vanhulle A, Schrijvers J. The Role of Marine Spatial Planning in Sea Use Management: The Belgian Case. Mar Policy 2007;31:182–91.

Ehler C. Conclusions: Benefits, Lessons Learned, and Future Challenges of Marine Spatial Planning. Mar Policy 2008;32:840-843.

Ehler C, Douvere F. Marine Spatial Planning: a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. I. In: OC Manual and Guides No. 53 IDNPU, Editor. 2009.

Ettema H. What Are the Differences between National Parks and National Forests? National Forest Foundation. 2013. Accessed April 15, 2016. <https://www.nationalforests.org/blog/what-are-the-differences-between-national-parks-and-national-forests>.

Feary DA, Almany GR, Jones GP, McMormick MI. Coral Degradation and the Structure of Tropical Reef Fish Communities. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 2007; 333:243-248.

Fedkiw J. Managing Multiple Uses on National Forests, 1905-1995: A 90 year Learning Experience and It Isn’t Finished Yet. FS-628. Washington D.C. USDA Forest Service; 1998.

Fernow B. A Brief History of Forestry in Europe the United States and Other Countries. Toronto: University Press; 1911.

Floyd BM. Oceanography and Ocean Engineering : Marine Protected Areas. New York: Nova Science Publishers. 2010.

Hansen RP, Wolff TA. Environmental Review & Case Study: Reviewing NEPA’s Past: Inproving NEPA’s Future. Envi Prac 2011;13:235-249.

Hays SP. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890-1920. Pittsburg University of Pittsburg Press; 1959.

Holmer S. A Conservation History of the National Forests. United Forest Defense Campaign, 2005. Accessed April 22, 2016. Available online at <http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Global/usa/planet3/PDFs/a-conservation-history-of-the.pdf>.

Gopnik M. Integrated Marine Spatial Planning in U.S. Waters: The Path Forward. Report to the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation; 2008. Accessed April 15, 2016. Available online at <http://www.msp.noaa.gov/_pdf/Gopnik_MSP_in_US_Waters.pdf>.

Governor’s South Atlantic Alliance. Marine Spatial Planning Simulation Exercise. 2015. Accessed January 29, 2016. <http://southatlanticalliance.org/?p=1473>.

Green CC. Forestry Education in the United States. Seattle WA: Science and Technology Librarianship; 2006.

Gruber N, Hauri C, Lachkar Z, Loher D, Frolicher TL, Plattner G. Rapid Progression of Ocean Acidification in the California Current System. Science 2012;337:220-223.

Gulf of Mexico Alliance. Gulf of Mexico Alliance News. Accessed March 31, 2016. <http://www.gulfofmexicoalliance.org/announcements/news/>.

Hennessey J. Marine Spatial Planning in Washington: Final Report and Recommendations of the State Ocean Caucus to the Washington State Legislature. Department of Ecology State of Washington; 2011. Accessed April 15, 2016. <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/msp/>.

Hess K, Jr. John Wesley Powell and the Unmaking of the West. Environ Hist 1997;2:7-28. Holmer S. A Conservation History of the National Forests. United Forest Defense Campaign;

2005. Accessed May 11, 2016. Available online at <http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Global /usa /planet3/PDFs/a-conservation-history-of-the.pdf>.

58

House Committee on Natural Resources. House Votes to Halt Funding for Obama Administration’s Mandatory Ocean Zoning. 2012. Accessed April 15, 2016. <http://naturalresources.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=294808>.

Jay S, Flannery W, Vince J, Liu W, Xue JG, Matczak M, et al. International Progress in Marine Spatial Planning. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff; 2013a.

Jay S. From Disunited Sector to Disjointed Segments? Questioning the Functional Zoning of the Sea. Plann Theor Prac 2013b;14:509-525.

Jentoft S, Knol M. Marine Spatial Planning: Risk or Opportunity for Fisheries in the North Sea? Marit Stud 2014;12:13.

Joint Ocean Commission Initiative. Changing Oceans, Changing World: Ocean Priorities for the Obama Administration and Congress. 2009. Accessed in April, 17, 2016. Available online at <http://www.jointoceancommission.org/~/media/JOCI/PDFs/20090407JOCI ChangingOceansChangingWorld.pdf>.

Kaufert F H, Cummings WH. Forestry and Related Research in North America. Baltimore MD: Monumental Printing Company;1955.

King R. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Disaster: Risk, Recovery, and Insurance Implications. Congressional Research Service; 2010.

Knap A, Dewailly E, Furgal C, Galvin J, Baden D, Bowen B, et al. Indicators of Ocean and Human Health. C J Public Health 2002;93:S34–38.

Leach WD. Public Involvement in USDA Forest Service Policymaking: A Literature Review. J Forest 2006;104:43-49.

Lugar RG. The Law of the Sea Convention: The Case for Senate Action. The Brookings Institution; 2004. Accessed March 17, 2016. <http://www.brookings.edu/research/speeches/2004/05/04energy-lugar>.

Margerum R, Born S. Integrated Environmental Management: Moving from Theory to Practice. J Environ Plann Man 1995;38:371-391.

Mayr FB, Upton HF, Buck EH, Vann, A. Marine Protected Areas. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2010.

McDonald P, Lassoie J. The Literature of Forestry and Agroforestry. Ithaca NY, Cornell University Press; 1996.

McKelvey KS, Johnson JD. Historical Perspectives of the Sierra Nevada and the Transverse Ranges of Southern California: Forest Conditions at the Turn of the Century. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133; 1992.

McKown H. September 1898: Biltmore Forest School. This Month in North Carolina History. UNC Library; 2008. <http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-newsouth/4577/>.

Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body. Summary of Discussions Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body Meeting. Meridian Institute ; 2015. Accessed January 29, 2016. <http://www.boem.gov/MidA-RPB-September-2015-Meeting-Summary-and-Appendices/>.

Miller C, Lewis JG. A Contested Past: Forestry Education in the United States, 1898-1998. J Forest 1999;38:38-43.

Miller GT, Spoolman S. Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions. 16th edBrooks/Cole Cengage Learning; 2008.

Monnahan CC, Branch TA, Punt AE. Do Ship Strikes Threaten the Recovery of Endangered Eastern North Pacific Blue Whales? Mar Mammal Sci 2015;31:279–97.

59

Muhn J. Early Administration of the Forest Reserve Act: Interior Department and General Land Office Policies, 1891-1897. Forest History Society; 1992. Accessed April 4, 2016. <http://www.foresthistory.org/Publications/Books/Origins_National_Forests/sec17.htm>.

National Ocean Council. National Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Workshop: Summary Report. Washington D.C.: Meridian Institute; 2011a.

National Ocean Council. National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan. 2013a. Accessed May 8, 2016. Available online at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_ocean_policy_implementation _plan.pdf>.

National Ocean Council. Marine Planning Handbook. July, 2013b. Accessed April 3, 2016. Available online at <https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/final_marine_ planning_handbook.pdf>.

National Research Council. Forestry Research: A Mandate for Change. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press; 1990.

National Research Council. National Capacity in Forestry Research. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press; 2002.

The Nature Conservancy. Marine Planning Policy – USA Regions. 2012. Accessed January 29, 2016. <http://www.marineplanning.org/Policy/USA_Regions.html>.

The Nature Conservancy. Marine Spatial Planning: Practical Approaches to Ocean and Coastal Decision-making. 2012. Accessed April 4, 2016. <http://www.marineplanning.org/Policy/USA_National.html>.

Norse EA, Crowder LB. Marine Conservation Biology: The Science of Maintaining the Sea’s Biodiversity. Washington D.C.: Island Press; 2005.

Northeast Regional Planning Body. Goals & Objectives | Ocean Planning in the Northeast. Accessed January 29, 2016. <http://neoceanplanning.org/about/goals-objectives/>.

Ocean Research Advisory Panel. Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management: A Report to the National Ocean Council. 2013. Accessed May 8, 2016. Available online at <http://www.nopp.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Implementing-EBM-v4.pdf>.

Pacific Islands Regional Planning Body. Accessed March 31, 2016. <http://pacificislandsrpb.org/>.

Polster C. The Nature and Implications of the Growing Importance of Research Grants to Canadian Universities and Academics. High Educ 2007;53:599-622.

Pomeroy R, Douvere F. The Engagement of Stakeholders in the Marine Spatial Planning Process. Mar Policy 2008;32:816-822.

Population Reference Bureau. Human Population: Population Growth. 2016. Accessed March 9, 2016. <http://www.prb.org/Publications/LessonPlans/HumanPopulation/PopulationGrow th.aspx>.

Puettmann KJ, Coates KD, Messier CC. Critique of Silviculture: Managing for Complexity. Washington D.C.: Island Press; 2008.

Rogers AD, Laffoley D. Introduction to the Special Issue: The Global State of the Ocean; Interactions between Stresses, Impacts and Some Potential Solutions. Synthesis Papers from the International Programme on the State of the Oceans 2011 and 2012 Workshops. Mar Pollut Bull 2013;74:491-494.

Rowley WD. Reviewed Work: Decade of Change: The Remaking of Forest Service Statutory Authority during the 1970s by Dennis C. Le Master. J Am Hist 1985;72:200-201.

Shands WE. The Lands Nobody Wanted: The Legacy of the Eastern National Forests. Durham

60

NC: Forest History Society; 1992. Accessed May 11, 2016. Available online at <http:// www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Policy/WeeksAct/LandsNobodyWanted_Shands.pdf >.

Shea EL. A History of NOAA, Being a Compilation of Facts and Figures Regarding the Life and Times of the Original Whole Earth Agency. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 1987. <http://www.lib.noaa.gov/noaainfo/heritage/ noaahistory.html>.

Steen HK. The U.S. Forest Service: A History. Durham NC: Forest History Society; 1976.Swain E. Acid Rain in Minnesota. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: St. Paul MN; 2002.Torres H, Muller-Karger F, Keys D, Thornton H, Luther M, Alsharif. Whither the U.S. National

Ocean Policy Implementation Plan? Mar Policy 2015;53:198-212.Toumey J.W. The Interdependence of Forest Conservation and Forestry Education. Science

1916;44:327-337.UNESCO-IOC. Australia (Great Barrier Reef) Marine Spatial Management. 2016. Accessed

February 6, 2016 <http://www.unescoiocmarinesp.be/spatial_management_practice /australia_great_barrier_reef>.

United States General Accounting Office . Land Management: The Forest Service’s and BLM’s Organizational Structures and Responsibilities. 1999. Available online at <https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-RCED-99-227/pdf/GAOREPORTS-RCED-99-227.pdf>.

Upton HF, Buck EH. Ocean Commissions: Ocean Policy Review and Outlook. Congressional Research Service; 2010.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Forest Service Planning: Accommodating Uses, Producing Outputs, and Sustaining Ecosystems. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1992.

U.S. Constitution. Art.IX/Sect.3. <http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/constitution#essay-126>.

USDA Forests Service. National Forests – Location, Date, and Area. Washington D.D. Forest Service; 1910. Accessed 5/11/16. Available online at <http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar/ LAR-documents/LAR_1910.pdf >.

USDA Forest Service. A National Forestry Research Program. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1964.

USDA Forest Service. Careers in Forestry. U.S. Government Print Office; 1967. USDA Forest Service. Environmental Program for the Future: A Long Term Forestry Plan

(Draft). Washington D.C. The Forest Service; 1974.USDA Forest Service. . The U.S. Forest Service – An Overview. 2011. Accessed April 5, 2016.

Available online at <http://www.fs.fed.us/documents/USFS_An_Overview_ 0106MJS.pdf>.

USDA Forest Service. USDA Forest Service – Caring for the Land and Serving People. 2013. Accessed April 15, 2016. <http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/map/finder.shtml>.

Vincent CH, Hanson LA, Bjelopera LP. Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data. Congressional Research Service; 2014.

West Coast Governors Alliance on Ocean Health. West Coast Governors Alliance on Ocean Health. 2016. Accessed March 31, 2016. <http://www.westcoastoceans.org/>.

West TL. Research in the U.S.D.A Forest Service: A Historian’s View. Washington D.C.:USDA Forest Service; 1990.

61

The White House. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: National Policy for the Oceans, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes. 2009. Available online at <https://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/2009ocean_ mem_rel.pdf>.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality. The NEPA Task Force: Report to the Council on Environmental Quality – Modernizing NEPA Implementation. 2003. Accessed on May 13, 2016. Available online at <https://ceq.doe.gov/ntf/report/ finalreport.pdf>.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality. A Citizen’s Guide to the NEPA: Having Your Voice Heard. 2007. Accessed on May 13, 2016. Available online at <https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa/Citizens_Guide_ Dec07.pdf>.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality. Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. 2009a. Available online at <https://www.whitehouse .gov/assets/documents/09_17_09_Interim_Report_of_Task_Force_FINAL2.pdf>.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality. Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning. 2009b. Available online at <https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/091209-Interim-CMSP-Framework-Task-Force.pdf>.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality. Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. 2010. Available online at <https://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/OPTF_FinalRecs.pdf >.

The White House. Stewardship of the Ocean, our Coasts, and the Great Lakes: Executive Order #13547. 2010. Available online at <https://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ 2010stewardship-eo.pdf>.

Wiener AA. The Forest Service Timber Appraisal System: A Historical Perspective 1891-1981. Washington D.C.: USDA Forest Service; 1982.

Wilberg MJ, Livings ME, Barkman JS, Morris BT, Robinson JM. Overfishing, Disease, Habitat Loss and Potential Extirpation of Oysters in Upper Chesapeake Bay. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 2001;436:131-144.

Wilder, RJ . Listening to the Sea: The Politics of Improving Environmental Protection. University of Pittsburgh Pre; 1998.

Williams G. The USDA Forest Service – The First Century. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Services; 2000.

Williams G. The Beginnings of the National Forests in the South: Protection of Watersheds. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Services; 2003.

Zenner EK. The Ongoing Story of Silviculture on Our Natural Public Forests. J Forest 2014;112:611-616.

62

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Parsons, Dr. de Mutsert, and Dr. Wood in helping me complete my final project. I would like to thank Steve Metz for his understanding

character and encouraging nature that helped me finish this paper. Thank you to my aunt, Dawn McKee, for her support and dependability. I would also like to thank my sister, Sarah McKee, for

her constant sympathetic ear and reassuring presence. Most of all, I would like to thank my mother, Denise McKee, for her constant support and guidance through this thing called life.