THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIT Y

Final Recommendations

Of The

Interagency Ocean Policy 

Task Force

July 19, 2010
Nothing in this document is intended to create private rights of action or other enforceable individual legal 

rights.

Photographs courtesy of the Department of the Interior, Department of the Navy, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

i

table of contents

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................1

i. Introduction..................................................................................................................1

ii. Summary of the Final Recommendations of the Task Force .....................................2

iii. Support for Joining the Law of the Sea Convention ...................................................8

iv. Conclusion.....................................................................................................................9

RE commendations ........................................................................................................10

Part ONE. National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our 

Coasts, and the Great Lakes ...................................................................................10

i. Vision...........................................................................................................................10

ii. National Policy Context..............................................................................................10

The Value of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes ........................................................................10

Challenges Facing the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes ...............................................................12

The State of the National Framework for Policy Coordination ................................................................13

Time to Act ..................................................................................................................................................14

iii. Policy............................................................................................................................14

iv. Principles.....................................................................................................................15

Part TWO. POLICY COORDINATION FRAMEWORK ..............................................19

i. National Ocean Council ............................................................................................20

ii. Authorities and Responsibilities of the National Ocean Council Co-Chairs .......21

iii. Steering Committee ....................................................................................................23

iv. National Ocean Council Staff Leadership and Support...........................................24

v. Ocean Resource Management Interagency Policy Committee................................24

vi. Ocean Science and Technology Interagency Policy Committee..............................25

vii. Governance Coordinating Committee......................................................................26

viii. Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel .......................................................27

ix. Review and Evaluation................................................................................................27

PART THREE.  Implementation Strategy...........................................................28

i. Introduction................................................................................................................29

Overview of National Priority Objectives...................................................................................................29

Planning.......................................................................................................................................................30

Transparency and Collaboration.................................................................................................................31

ii. National Priority Objectives ......................................................................................32
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

ii

How We Do Business...................................................................................................................................32

Areas of Special Emphasis ...........................................................................................................................36

PART FOUR. THE FRAMEWORK FOR EFFECTIVE COASTAL 

AND MARINE SPATIAL PLANNIN G.................................................................................41

i. Introduction................................................................................................................41

ii. What is Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning?........................................................41

iii. Why Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning? ............................................................42

The Benefits of CMSP..................................................................................................................................43

iv. Integration, Cooperation, and Coordination ...........................................................46

v. Public and Stakeholder Engagement.........................................................................47

vi. The Authority for Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning.........................................47

vii. The National Goals of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning .................................47

viii. The National Guiding Principles for Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning..........48

ix. Geographic Scope of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning ....................................49

The Great Lakes and CMSP........................................................................................................................50

Land-based Activities and Their Relation to CMSP ..................................................................................50

x. Development and Implementation of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning ........51

Regional Planning Body .............................................................................................................................52

CMSP Development Agreement..................................................................................................................54

Dispute Resolution Process .........................................................................................................................54

Work Plan ....................................................................................................................................................54

Essential Elements of the CMSP Process .....................................................................................................55

Essential Elements of the CMS Plan............................................................................................................58

xi. The Nature of the Planning Process and National Ocean Council-Certified 

Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans..............................................................................60

Relationship of CMSP to Existing Authorities ...........................................................................................62

Relationship of CMSP to Existing Regional Entities...................................................................................63

Relationship of CMSP to Existing Plans and Projects ................................................................................63

xii. National Consistency..................................................................................................63

Certification by the NOC for National Consistency ..................................................................................63

National CMSP Objectives, Performance Measures, and Guidance .........................................................64

xiii. Consistency with International Law .........................................................................65

xiv. Adherence to and Compliance with National Ocean Council-Certified 

Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans..............................................................................65

xv. Scientific Knowledge and Data Integration, Research, Management, 

and Access....................................................................................................................66

xvi. Implementation...........................................................................................................69

Phase I (1-12 months)..................................................................................................................................70

Phase II (9-24 months) ................................................................................................................................73

Phase III (18 months to 5 years) ..................................................................................................................74

xvii. Priorities for Financial and Other Support ..............................................................74
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

iii

PART FIVE.  Conclusion..............................................................................................77

APPENDIX A. PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM ON A NATIONAL POLICY FOR THE

OCEAN , OUR COASTS, AND THE GREAT LAKES ..........................................................a-i

APPENDIX B. INTERAGENCY OCEAN POLICY 

TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP LIST .....................................................................................b-i

APPENDIX C. PUBLIC Engagement............................................................................ c-i

i. Overview..................................................................................................................... c-i

ii. Summary of Public Comments on the Interim Report of the Interagency 

Ocean Policy Task Force and on the Interim Framework for Effective Coastal 

and Marine Spatial Planning .....................................................................................c-ii

Comments on the Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force........................................ c-ii

Comments on the Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning.................... c-v

Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

1

Executive Summary

I. Introduction

In order to better meet our Nation’s stewardship 

responsibilities for the ocean, our coasts, and the Great 

Lakes, President Obama established the Interagency 

Ocean Policy Task Force (Task Force) on June 12, 

2009. The Task Force is composed of 24 senior-level 

officials from executive departments, agencies, and 

offices across the Federal government and led by 

the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ). The President charged the Task Force with 

developing recommendations to enhance our ability to 

maintain healthy, resilient, and sustainable ocean, coasts, 

and Great Lakes resources for the benefit of present and 

future generations.

The Deepwater Horizon-BP oil spill in the Gulf of 

Mexico and resulting environmental crisis is a stark 

reminder of how vulnerable our marine environments are, and how much communities and our Nation 

rely on healthy and resilient ocean and coastal ecosystems. The ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes 

deeply impact the lives of all Americans, whether we live and work in the country’s heartland or along 

its shores. America’s rich and productive coastal regions and waters support tens of millions of jobs and 

contribute trillions of dollars to the national economy each year. They also host a growing number of 

important activities, including recreation, science, commerce, transportation, energy development, and 

national security and they provide a wealth of natural resources and ecological benefits. 

Nearly half of the country’s population lives in coastal counties, and millions of visitors enjoy our 

Nation’s seashores each year. The ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are vital places for recreation, 

including boating, fishing, swimming, nature watching, and diving. These activities not only help fuel 

our economy, but also are critical to the social and cultural fabric of our country. In addition, coastal 

ecosystems provide essential ecological services. Barrier islands, coral reefs, mangroves, and coastal 

wetlands help to protect our coastal communities from damaging floods and storms. Coastal wetlands 

shelter recreational and commercial fish species, provide critical habitat for migratory birds and 

mammals, and serve as a natural filter to help keep our waters clean. 

Despite the critical importance of these areas to our health and well-being, the ocean, coasts and Great 

Lakes face a wide range of threats from human activities. Overfishing, pollution, coastal development 

and the impacts of climate change are altering ecosystems, reducing biological diversity, and 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

2

placing more stress on wildlife and natural resources, as well as on people and coastal communities. 

Compounding these threats, human uses of the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes are expanding at a rate 

that challenges our ability to plan and manage significant and often competing demands. Demands 

for energy development, shipping, aquaculture, emerging security requirements and other new and 

existing uses are expected to grow. Overlapping uses and differing views about which activities should 

occur where can generate conflicts and misunderstandings. As we work to accommodate these multiple 

uses, we must also ensure continued public access for recreation and other pursuits, and sustain and 

preserve the abundant marine resources and healthy ecosystems that are critical to the well-being and 

prosperity of our Nation. 

The challenges we face in the stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes lie not only 

within the ecosystems themselves, but also in the laws, authorities, and governance structures intended 

to manage our use and conservation of them. United States governance and management of these areas 

span hundreds of domestic policies, laws, and regulations covering international, Federal, State, tribal, 

and local interests. Challenges and gaps arise from the complexity and structure of this regime.

The time has come for a comprehensive national policy for the stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, 

and the Great Lakes. Today, as never before, we better comprehend the links among land, air, fresh 

water, ocean, ice, and human activities. Advances in science and technology provide better and timelier 

information to guide decision-making. By applying the principles of ecosystem-based management 

(which integrates ecological, social, economic, commerce, health, and security goals, and which 

recognizes both that humans are key components of ecosystems and also that healthy ecosystems 

are essential to human welfare) and of adaptive management (which calls for routine reassessment of 

management actions to allow for better informed and improved future decisions) in a coordinated and 

collaborative approach, the Nation will more effectively address the challenges facing the ocean, our 

coasts, and the Great Lakes and ensure their continued health for this and future generations. 

II.  Summary of the Final Recommendations of the Task Force

To develop its recommendations, the Task Force reviewed Federal, State, and foreign policies and 

models, past and pending legislation, the recommendations contained in the two earlier Ocean 

Commissions’ reports, and public comments. 

The Task Force also initiated a robust public engagement process to receive input from a diversity of 

voices across the country. On behalf of the Task Force, CEQ hosted 38 expert roundtables to hear from 

a broad range of stakeholder groups. The Task Force also hosted six regional public meetings, and 

created a website to accept public comments through CEQ. The Task Force received more than 5,000 

public comments, with many of the groups commenting representing constituencies of hundreds or 

thousands of members. 

The Task Force recommendations set a new direction for improved stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, 

and the Great Lakes. They provide: (1) our Nation’s first ever National Policy for the Stewardship of the 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

3

Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes (National Policy); (2) a strengthened governance structure to 

provide sustained, high-level, and coordinated attention to ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes issues; (3) a 

targeted implementation strategy that identifies and prioritizes nine categories for action that the United 

States should pursue; and (4) a framework for effective coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) that 

establishes a comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem-based approach to address conservation, economic 

activity, user conflict, and sustainable use of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources.

National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes

The recommended National Policy establishes a comprehensive national approach to uphold our 

stewardship responsibilities; ensures accountability for our actions; and serves as a model of balanced, 

It is the Policy of the United States to:

•  Protect, maintain, and restore the health and biological diversity of ocean, coastal, and 

Great Lakes ecosystems and resources;

•  Improve the resiliency of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems, communities, and 

economies;

•  Bolster the conservation and sustainable uses of land in ways that will improve the 

health of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems;

•  Use the best available science and knowledge to inform decisions affecting the ocean, 

our coasts, and the Great Lakes, and enhance humanity’s capacity to understand, 

respond, and adapt to a changing global environment;

•  Support sustainable, safe, secure, and productive access to, and uses of the ocean, our 

coasts, and the Great Lakes;

•  Respect and preserve our Nation’s maritime heritage, including our social, cultural, 

recreational, and historical values;

•  Exercise rights and jurisdiction and perform duties in accordance with applicable 

international law, including respect for and preservation of navigational rights and 

freedoms, which are essential for the global economy and international peace and 

security;

•  Increase scientific understanding of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems as 

part of the global interconnected systems of air, land, ice, and water, including their 

relationships to humans and their activities;

•  Improve our understanding and awareness of changing environmental conditions, 

trends, and their causes, and of human activities taking place in ocean, coastal, and 

Great Lakes waters; and 

•  Foster a public understanding of the value of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes 

to build a foundation for improved stewardship.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

4

productive, efficient, sustainable, and informed ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes use, management, and 

conservation within the global community. The National Policy recognizes that America’s stewardship 

of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes is intrinsically and intimately linked to environmental 

sustainability, human health and well-being, national prosperity, adaptation to climate and other 

environmental change, social justice, foreign policy, and national and homeland security. It sets forth 

overarching guiding principles for United States management decisions and actions affecting the ocean, 

our coasts, and the Great Lakes. 

Policy Coordination Framework to Improve the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, 

and the Great Lakes

No single agency can successfully resolve the complex and pressing problems facing the ocean, our 

coasts, and the Great Lakes. Successful stewardship will require an effective governance structure with 

sustained leadership and broad interagency coordination to effectively manage the many uses of these 

resources. A coordinated Federal effort, proactively guided by a senior-level interagency body, will 

ensure that the hundreds of domestic policies, laws, and regulations governing the management of the 

ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are implemented in a meaningful way.

The Task Force recommends a combination of modifications to the structure of the existing Committee 

on Ocean Policy1

, a stronger mandate and direction, and renewed and sustained high-level engagement. 

Subject to later refinements, the Task Force recommends:

1. Establishing a new National Ocean Council (NOC) which consolidates and strengthens 

the Principal- and Deputy-level components of the existing Committee on Ocean Policy 

within a single structure;

2. Strengthening the decision-making and dispute-resolution processes by defining clear 

roles for the NOC and the NOC leadership;

3. Formally engaging with State, tribal, and local authorities to address relevant issues 

through the creation of a new committee comprised of their designated representatives; 

4. Strengthening the link between science and management through a new NOC Steering 

Committee; and

5. Strengthening coordination between the NOC, the National Security Council, the 

National Economic Council, the Office of Energy and Climate Change, the Council 

on Environmental Quality, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of 

Management and Budget, and other White House entities.

1

 The Committee on Ocean Policy was established by Executive Order 13366 in 2004 and has only been moderately 

effective in establishing forums for bringing Federal agencies together to coordinate on ocean-related matters.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

5

Policy Coordination Framework

These recommendations establish high-level direction and policy guidance from a clearly designated 

and identifiable authority. They also call for more consistent and sustained senior-level participation 

and attention on ocean-related issues from all member agencies and departments essential to effective 

management. The Task Force is confident that this combination of improvements provides a framework 

for more successful policy coordination to improve the stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the 

Great Lakes. 

Ocean Science and Technology 

Interagency Policy Committee

Chair/Co-Chairs

Reporting 

Communication

Ocean Resource Management 

Interagency Policy Committee

Chair/Co-Chairs

National Security 

Council 

National Economic 

Council

Coordination

Office of Energy and 

Climate Change 

National Ocean Council

Principals/Deputies

Co-Chairs: CEQ/OSTP

Governance Coordinating 

Committee 

State/Tribal/Local 

Ocean Research and 

Resources Advisory Panel

Working groups could be retained or established as standing or ad hoc Sub-Interagency Policy Committees (IPCs): e.g., Coastal 

and Marine Spatial Planning, Ocean Acidification, Ocean Observations, Mapping, Ocean Education, Climate Resiliency and Adaptation, 

Regional Ecosystem Protection and Restoration, Water Quality and Sustainable Practices on Land, and Arctic.

The Extended Continental Shelf Task Force and other designated interagency committees, as appropriate, would report to the Steering 

Committee and coordinate with the two IPCs. 

Steering Committee

(CEQ, OSTP, Director, 

and Chairs of the IPCs) 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

6

Implementation Strategy

The Task Force recommends an implementation strategy that identifies nine priority objectives (i.e., 

categories for action) that our Nation should pursue. These priority objectives provide a bridge between 

policy and specific actions, but do not prescribe in detail how individual entities will undertake their 

responsibilities, leaving those details to be determined through the development of strategic action 

plans. The Task Force recommends the following nine priority objectives:

National Priority Objectives

1. Ecosystem-Based Management: Adopt ecosystem-based management as a foundational 

principle for the comprehensive management of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great 

Lakes.

2. Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning: Implement comprehensive, integrated, ecosystembased coastal and marine spatial planning and management in the United States.

3. Inform Decisions and Improve Understanding: Increase knowledge to continually 

inform and improve management and policy decisions and the capacity to respond to 

change and challenges. Better educate the public through formal and informal programs 

about the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes.

4. Coordinate and Support: Better coordinate and support Federal, State, tribal, local, and 

regional management of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. Improve coordination 

and integration across the Federal Government, and as appropriate, engage with the 

international community.

5. Resiliency and Adaptation to Climate Change and Ocean Acidification: Strengthen 

resiliency of coastal communities and marine and Great Lakes environments and their 

abilities to adapt to climate change impacts and ocean acidification. 

6. Regional Ecosystem Protection and Restoration: Establish and implement an integrated 

ecosystem protection and restoration strategy that is science-based and aligns conservation 

and restoration goals at the Federal, State, tribal, local, and regional levels.

7. Water Quality and Sustainable Practices on Land: Enhance water quality in the ocean, 

along our coasts, and in the Great Lakes by promoting and implementing sustainable 

practices on land.

8. Changing Conditions in the Arctic: Address environmental stewardship needs in 

the Arctic Ocean and adjacent coastal areas in the face of climate-induced and other 

environmental changes.

9. Ocean, Coastal, and Great Lakes Observations, Mapping, and Infrastructure: 

Strengthen and integrate Federal and non-Federal ocean observing systems, sensors, data 

collection platforms, data management, and mapping capabilities into a national system, 

and integrate that system into international observation efforts.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

7

The NOC would develop strategic action plans for each of the priority objectives, focusing on key 

areas identified by the Task Force. Each strategic action plan would identify specific and measurable 

near-term, mid-term, and long-term actions, with appropriate milestones, performance measures, 

and outcomes to meet each objective. In addition, each plan would explicitly identify key lead and 

participating agencies; gaps and needs in science and technology; potential resource requirements and 

efficiencies; and steps for integrating or coordinating current and out-year budgets. This strategy would 

allow adequate time to fully consider the necessary details for implementation, and, as appropriate, to 

coordinate and collaborate with States, tribal, and local authorities, regional governance structures, 

academic institutions, non-governmental organizations, recreational users, and private enterprise. 

Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning 

As called for in President Obama’s June 12, 2009 memorandum, the Task Force recommendations 

provide a framework for CMSP that offers a new, comprehensive, integrated, regionally-based approach 

to planning and managing uses and activities. The recommended framework places sound science and 

the best available information at the heart of decision-making and would bring Federal, State, and 

tribal partners together in an unprecedented manner to cooperatively develop coastal and marine 

spatial plans (CMS Plans). This process is designed to decrease user conflict, improve planning and 

regulatory efficiencies, decrease associated costs and delays, engage affected communities and 

stakeholders, and preserve critical ecosystem functions and services. The recommendations emphasize 

The National Goals of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning

1. Support sustainable, safe, secure, efficient, and productive uses of the ocean, our 

coasts, and the Great Lakes, including those that contribute to the economy, commerce, 

recreation, conservation, homeland and national security, human health, safety, and 

welfare;

2. Protect, maintain, and restore the Nation’s ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources and 

ensure resilient ecosystems and their ability to provide sustained delivery of ecosystem 

services;

3. Provide for and maintain public access to the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes;

4. Promote compatibility among uses and reduce user conflicts and environmental impacts;

5. Improve the rigor, coherence, and consistency of decision-making and regulatory 

processes; 

6. Increase certainty and predictability in planning for and implementing new investments 

for ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes uses; and

7. Enhance interagency, intergovernmental, and international communication and 

collaboration.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

8

the importance of frequent and robust stakeholder, scientific, and public engagement throughout the 

planning process.

The recommended framework includes a unified definition of CMSP, identifies the reasons for 

engaging in the process, and describes the proposed geographic scope of the planning areas. The 

framework articulates national goals and guiding principles that would be followed in CMSP efforts 

and the development and implementation of CMS Plans. Under this framework, the United States will 

be subdivided into nine regional planning areas: Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Great Lakes, 

Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, West Coast, Pacific Islands, and Alaska/Arctic regions. Each region will 

have a corresponding regional planning body consisting of Federal, State, and tribal representatives 

to develop regional goals, objectives, and ultimately regional CMS plans. To provide for national 

consistency and support, the framework establishes and describes planning steps and elements, a 

process by which the NOC would guide and certify the development of regional CMS Plans, a method 

to address CMS Plan adherence and compliance, a robust information management system to allow 

easy access to and transparency of data and information necessary for planning, and mechanisms 

for frequent stakeholder and public input. In addition, the framework describes an implementation 

approach that maximizes flexibility among the regions, addresses regional capacity, and aims to have 

CMS Plans for all regions by 2015.

III. Support for Joining the Law of the Sea Convention

The Task Force strongly and unanimously supports United States accession to the Convention on the 

Law of the Sea and ratification of its 1994 Implementing Agreement. The Law of the Sea Convention 

is the bedrock legal instrument governing activities on, over, and under the world’s oceans. United 

States accession to the Convention will further our national security, environmental, economic, and 

diplomatic interests. 

Key reasons for accession include:

•  The Convention has garnered the unequivocal support of our national security leadership 

under both Republican and Democratic administrations, because, among other things, it 

codifies essential navigational rights and freedoms upon which our Armed Forces rely. 

•  The Convention sets forth the rights and responsibilities of nations to prevent, reduce, and 

control pollution of the marine environment and to protect and preserve resources off their 

shores.

•  By becoming a party to the Convention, U.S. legal rights to our extended continental shelf 

can be put on the strongest legal foundation. 

•  As a party to the Law of the Sea Convention, the United States would have the ability to 

participate formally and more effectively in the interpretation and development of the 

Convention. 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

9

•  Joining the Law of the Sea Convention would reaffirm and enhance United States 

leadership in global ocean affairs.

IV. Conclusion

In response to President Obama’s June 12, 2009 memorandum, and after careful consideration of 

thousands of valuable comments from political leaders, public and private organizations, and citizens, 

the Task Force is pleased to submit these final recommendations. Once implemented, these final 

recommendations will provide the first-ever comprehensive national policy of the United States to 

improve stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes.

The Task Force is unanimous in its call for the Nation to set a new course for improved stewardship 

of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. This must include a comprehensive, integrated, 

transparent, science-based, and ecosystem-based planning process to achieve the sustainable use of 

the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. The Task Force is mindful that these recommendations 

may create a level of uncertainty and anxiety among those who rely on these resources and may 

generate questions about how they align with existing processes, authorities, and budget challenges. 

The NOC will address questions and specifics as implementation progresses. Meaningful and frequent 

opportunities for stakeholder and public engagement throughout the implementation of the National 

Policy and implementation of coastal and marine spatial planning will be an essential component of 

cooperatively addressing these uncertainties head-on, and the Task Force recommendations embrace 

this approach. The Task Force is confident that the investments and improvements described in these 

final recommendations will advance the economic interests of the United States through sustainable 

and productive ocean uses; significantly improve our capacity to address the long-term challenges 

and impacts of climate and environmental changes; and provide a lasting foundation for improving 

the stewardship of and further enhancing the many vital benefits our Nation can derive from these 

resources.

With a clear National Policy and a revitalized, empowered, unified, and comprehensive framework to 

coordinate efforts set forth in these recommendations, we can achieve an America whose stewardship 

ensures that the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are healthy and resilient, safe and productive, 

and understood and treasured so as to promote the well-being, prosperity, and security of present and 

future generations.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

10

REcommendations

Part ONE. National Polic y for the Stewardship of the

Ocean , Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes

I. Vision

An America whose stewardship ensures that the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are healthy and 

resilient, safe and productive, and understood and treasured so as to promote the well-being, prosperity, 

and security of present and future generations.

II. National Policy Context

The Value of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the 

Great Lakes

America is intricately connected to and directly 

reliant on the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. 

Each of us – whether living and working in the 

country’s heartland or along its coasts – affects and is 

affected by these places. Their beauty inspires us, and 

their bounty contributes to our national well-being 

and security. Nearly half of our population is located 

in coastal counties. Our rich and productive coastal 

regions and waters account for the great majority of 

the national economy, totaling trillions of dollars each 

year, and support distant communities that may not 

even be aware of the connection between the land and 

sea. Millions of visitors enjoy our Nation’s seashores 

each year, contributing not only to the economy, 

but also to personal and communal satisfaction and 

fulfillment. The sea is both a refuge for spiritual 

reflection and a powerhouse of excitement for 

educating students of all ages and interests. 

With over 95,000 miles of coastline and the largest 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the world, our 

Nation benefits from a wealth of goods and services 

derived from the ocean, our coasts, and the Great 

Lakes. They provide food, fresh water, minerals, 

energy, and other natural resources and ecological benefits. They support tens of millions of jobs and 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

11

play a critical role in our Nation’s transportation, economy, and trade, as well as in the global mobility 

and readiness of our Armed Forces and the maintenance of international peace and security. They are 

also vital places for recreation, including boating, fishing, swimming, nature watching, and diving, 

which are critical to the economic, social, and cultural fabric of our country.

The ocean supports human health and well-being in myriad ways, including as a source of healthy 

foods, pharmaceuticals, and other beneficial compounds. The ocean is a source of existing energy and 

offers numerous opportunities for renewable energy, which can help to secure our energy independence 

and mitigate climate change. 

The ocean and Great Lakes exert significant influence over how our planet functions. Covering over 70 

percent of the Earth, the ocean plays a primary role in our planet’s environment and natural operations, 

including weather and climate. The ocean’s ability to absorb and store heat from the atmosphere and 

transport it to other parts of the globe keeps daily temperatures within a livable range. The Great Lakes 

are the largest freshwater system on Earth, with 10,000 miles of shoreline and some 95 percent of the 

Nation’s fresh surface water. While we commonly refer to different oceans (Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic, 

etc.), it is important to recognize that all of these bodies of water are connected and influenced by each 

other. These linkages require our Nation to recognize that we benefit from and affect one global ocean. 

The ocean shapes and sustains all life on Earth. We are dependent on the ocean for the air we breathe, 

the food we eat, and the water we drink. Though we may not think about it, processes on land and 

in the water, including biological processes, are intricately linked so that changes in one can have 

profound effects on the other. The ocean is both the beginning and the end of the Earth’s water cycle. 

Water that evaporates from the surface of the ocean becomes rain that falls on our fields and fills our 

aquifers. Much of this precipitation eventually finds rivers which flow back to the sea, starting the cycle 

once more. Half of the oxygen we breathe comes from microscopic plants living in the ocean. Coastal 

barrier islands, coral reefs, mangroves, and wetlands serve as buffers between coastal communities and 

damaging floods and storms. Coastal wetlands are a nursery for many recreational and commercial fish 

species, provide essential habitat for many migratory birds and mammals, and serve as a natural filter 

helping to keep our waters clean. Ocean and coastal ecosystems absorb and detoxify many pollutants, 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

12

recycle nutrients, and help control pests and pathogens. Marine ecosystems house biological diversity 

exceeding that found in the world’s rain forests. 

Challenges Facing the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes 

The importance of ocean, coastal, and Great 

Lakes ecosystems cannot be overstated; simply 

put, we need them to survive. It is clear that 

these invaluable and life-sustaining assets are 

vulnerable to human activities and, at the same 

time, human communities are rendered more 

vulnerable when these resources are degraded. Yet 

ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems are 

experiencing an unprecedented rate of change due 

to human activities. We are only now beginning to 

understand the full extent of the direct and indirect 

consequences of our actions on these systems. 

Climate change is impacting the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. Increasing water temperatures 

are altering habitats, migratory patterns, and ecosystem structure and function. Coastal communities 

are facing sea-level rise, inundation, increased threats from storms, erosion, and significant loss of 

coastal wetlands. The ocean’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere buffers the impacts 

of climate change, but also causes the ocean to become more acidic, threatening not only the survival of 

individual species of marine life, but also entire marine ecosystems. The ocean buffers increased global 

temperatures by absorbing heat, but increasing temperatures are causing sea levels to rise by expanding 

seawater volume and melting land-based ice. Increased temperatures may eventually reduce the ocean’s 

ability to absorb carbon dioxide. Conversely, climate change is predicted to lower the water levels of the 

Great Lakes, thereby altering water cycles, habitats, and economic uses of the lakes.

Along many areas of our coasts and within the Great Lakes, biological diversity is in decline due 

to overfishing, introduction of invasive species, and loss and degradation of essential habitats from 

coastal development and associated human activities. The introduction of non-native species can carry 

significant ecological and economic costs. Human and marine ecosystem health are threatened by a 

range of challenges, including increased levels of exposure to toxins from harmful algal blooms and 

other sources, and greater contact with infectious agents. Areas in numerous bays, estuaries, gulfs, 

and the Great Lakes are now consistently low in or lacking oxygen, creating dead zones along our bays 

and coasts. Unsustainable fishing (e.g., overfishing) remains a serious concern with consequences for 

marine ecosystems and human communities. In the Arctic, environmental changes are revealing the 

vulnerability of its ecosystems. These changes are increasing stressors and impacts on the ecosystems, 

people, and communities in the region and are presenting new domestic and international management 

challenges.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

13

Many of these concerns are attributable not only to activities within ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes 

ecosystems, but also to actions that take place in our Nation’s interior. For example, our industries, 

agricultural and transportation operations, cities, and suburbs generate various forms of pollution. 

Industrial operations emit pollutants, such as nitrogen and mercury, into the atmosphere that often 

find their way into the ocean and Great Lakes. Rain washes residues, chemicals, and oily runoff from 

our roadways into our estuaries and coastal waters. Heavy rainfall events can wash sediment, pesticides, 

debris, and nutrients from our fields, lawns, and agricultural operations into our waters. Urban and 

suburban development, including the construction of roads, highways, and other infrastructure, as well 

as modification to rivers and streams, can adversely affect the habitats of aquatic and terrestrial species.

Demands on the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are intensifying, spurred by population 

growth, migration to coastal areas, and economic activities. Human uses of the ocean, coasts, and the 

Great Lakes are expanding at a rate that challenges our ability to plan and manage them under the 

current sector-by-sector approach. New 

and expanding uses—including energy 

development, shipping, aquaculture, and 

emerging security requirements—are 

expected to place increasing demands 

on our ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes 

ecosystems. There is also increasing 

demand for access to these places for 

recreational, cultural, and other societal 

pursuits. As these demands increase, 

overlapping uses and differing views about 

which activities should occur where can 

generate conflicts and misunderstandings. At the same time, there is an overarching need to sustain 

and preserve abundant marine resources and healthy ecosystems that are critical to the well-being and 

continued prosperity of our Nation. 

The State of the National Framework for Policy Coordination 

The challenges we face in the stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes lie not only 

within the ecosystems themselves, but also in the laws, authorities, and governance structures intended 

to manage our use and conservation of them. United States governance and management of these 

areas span hundreds of domestic policies, laws, and regulations covering international, Federal, State, 

tribal, and local interests. These issues range from stewardship and resource use, to maritime safety and 

commerce, national security, water quality, ports and other transportation infrastructure, and energy. 

Challenges and gaps arise from the complexity and structure of this regime. 

These challenges are not limited to our domestic governance and management regimes. Our Nation, 

as a major maritime power and coastal State, has a large stake in the development and interpretation 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

14

of international law and policy applicable to the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. Our national 

security interests are tightly linked to navigational rights and freedoms, as well as to operational 

flexibility. Our national security and economic interests are also linked to our ability to secure U.S. 

sovereign rights over resources in extensive marine areas off our coasts, to promote and protect U.S. 

interests in the marine environment, and to ensure that our maritime interests are respected and 

considered internationally. The Administration’s support for accession to the 1982 United Nations 

Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Law of the Sea Convention) reflects several important objectives, 

including strengthening our Nation’s ability to participate in and influence international law and policy 

related to the ocean.

Time to Act

The time has come for a national policy to uphold our stewardship responsibilities, ensure 

accountability for our actions, and serve as a model of balanced, productive, efficient, sustainable, 

and informed ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes use, management, and conservation within the global 

community. Today, as never before, we better comprehend the linkages among land, air, fresh water, 

ocean, ice, and human activities. We recognize that change is occurring rapidly and must be addressed. 

Advances in science and technology provide better and timelier information and understanding to 

guide decision-making. By applying the principles of ecosystem-based management (in which we 

integrate ecological, social, economic, commerce, health, and security goals, and recognize humans 

as key components of the ecosystem and healthy ecosystems as essential to human well-being) and 

adaptive management (whereby we routinely assess management actions to allow for better informed 

and improved future decisions) in a coordinated and collaborative approach, the Nation can improve 

its response to environmental, social, economic, and security challenges. With a clear national policy 

and a revitalized, empowered, unifying, and comprehensive framework to coordinate efforts among 

Federal, State, tribal, and local authorities, including regional governance structures, non-governmental 

organizations, the private sector, and the public, we can work together toward the changes needed to 

secure the health and prosperity of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes.

III. Policy

America’s stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes is intrinsically and intimately 

linked to environmental sustainability, human health and well-being, national prosperity, adaptation 

to climate and other environmental changes, social justice, international diplomacy, and national and 

homeland security. Therefore, it is the policy of the United States to:

1. Healthy and Resilient Ocean, Coasts, and Great Lakes 

• Protect, maintain, and restore the health and biological diversity of ocean, coastal, and Great 

Lakes ecosystems and resources;

• Improve the resiliency of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems, communities, and 

economies;
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

15

• Bolster the conservation and sustainable uses of land in ways that will improve the health of 

ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems; and

• Use the best available science and knowledge to inform decisions affecting the ocean, our 

coasts, and the Great Lakes, and enhance humanity’s capacity to understand, respond, and 

adapt to a changing global environment.

2. Safe and Productive Ocean, Coasts, and Great Lakes 

• Support sustainable, safe, secure, and productive access to, and uses of, the ocean, our coasts, 

and the Great Lakes; 

• Respect and preserve our Nation’s maritime heritage, including our social, cultural, 

recreational, and historical values; and

• Exercise rights and jurisdiction and perform duties in accordance with applicable 

international law, including respect for and preservation of navigational rights and freedoms, 

which are essential for the global economy and international peace and security.

3. Understood and Treasured Ocean, Coasts, and Great Lakes 

• Increase scientific understanding of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems as part of 

the global interconnected systems of air, land, ice, and water, including their relationships to 

humans and their activities;

• Improve our understanding and awareness of changing environmental conditions, trends, 

and their causes, and of human activities taking place in ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes 

waters; and 

• Foster a public understanding of the value of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes to 

build a foundation for improved stewardship.

The United States will promote the objectives of this policy by:

• Ensuring a comprehensive and collaborative framework for the stewardship of the ocean, our 

coasts, and the Great Lakes that facilitates cohesive actions across the Federal Government, 

as well as participation of State, tribal, and local authorities, regional governance structures, 

non-governmental organizations, the public, and the private sector; 

• Cooperating and exercising leadership at the international level, including by joining the Law 

of the Sea Convention; and

• Supporting ocean stewardship in a fiscally responsible manner.

IV. Principles

1. United States management decisions and actions affecting the ocean, our coasts, and the Great 

Lakes will be guided by the following stewardship principles to further this policy:

a. As responsible environmental stewards we will protect, maintain, and restore the health, 

productivity, and resiliency of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems (including their 

waters and resources). Policies, programs, and activities of the United States should be 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

16

managed and conducted in a manner that seeks to 

prevent or minimize adverse environmental impacts to 

the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes ecosystems 

and resources, including cumulative impacts, and to 

ensure and improve their integrity. They should be 

managed and conducted in a manner that does not 

undermine efforts to protect, maintain, and restore 

healthy and biologically diverse ecosystems and the full 

range of services they provide; 

b. Decisions affecting the ocean, our coasts, and the Great 

Lakes should be informed by and consistent with the 

best available science. Decision-making will also be 

guided by a precautionary approach as reflected in 

the Rio Declaration of 1992, which states in pertinent 

part, “[w]here 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;” 

and

c. Actions taken to protect the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes should endeavor to 

promote the principles that environmental damage should be avoided wherever practicable 

and that environmental costs should be internalized, taking into account the approach that 

those who cause environmental damage should generally bear the cost of that damage.

2. Human activities that may affect ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems should be managed 

using ecosystem-based management and adaptive management, through an integrated framework 

that accounts for the interdependence of the land, air, water, ice, and the interconnectedness 

between human populations and these environments. Management should include monitoring 

and have the flexibility to adapt to evolving knowledge and understanding, changes in the global 

environment, and emerging uses.

3. Current and future uses of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources should be 

managed and effectively balanced in a way that:

a. Maintains and enhances the environmental sustainability of multiple uses, including those 

that contribute to the economy, commerce, recreation, security, and human health; 

b. Harmonizes competing and complementary uses effectively;

c. Integrates efforts to protect, maintain, and restore the health, productivity, and resiliency of 

ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and the services they provide; and

d. Recognizes environmental changes and impacts, including those associated with an 

increasingly ice-diminished Arctic, sea-level rise, and ocean acidification.

4. The United States should support disciplinary and interdisciplinary science, research, 

monitoring, mapping, modeling, forecasting, exploration, and assessment to continually improve 

understanding of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems. These efforts should include 

improving understanding of physical, biological, ecological, and chemical processes and changes, 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

17

their interconnectedness with other parts of the Earth system and with human populations, and 

the potential social and economic consequences of management decisions on the long-term health 

and well-being of the population, including human health and safety. This knowledge, along with 

traditional knowledge, should be applied through ecosystem-based management and adaptive 

management. Information resulting from these efforts should be easily accessible to the public.

5. The United States should develop an improved awareness of changing environmental conditions 

and trends, and their causes, and of human activities that take place in the ocean, coastal, and 

Great Lakes environments.

6. United States policies, programs, and activities should enhance formal and informal education 

about the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes and their uses to build a foundation for greater 

understanding and improved stewardship, and build capacity to produce future scientists, 

managers, and members of a dynamic and innovative workforce.

7. The United States should cooperate and provide leadership internationally in the protection, 

management, and sustainable use of the world’s ocean, coastal regions, and the Great Lakes in 

keeping with applicable conventions and agreements, and with customary international law, as 

reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention. 

8. United States programs, policies, and activities that may impact ocean, coastal, or Great Lakes 

ecosystems, or engage the use of their resources, should be designed to meet measurable 

benchmarks in support of clear goals and objectives related to stewardship of these ecosystems. 

a. These goals and objectives of programs and activities should be periodically reevaluated and 

their effectiveness assessed. This information should be used to adjust management priorities 

and guide future management and resource decisions; and 

b. The United States should develop appropriate standards and methods for measurement 

and assessment of parameters associated with the health of ocean, coastal and Great Lakes 

ecosystems.

9. United States policies, programs, and activities that may impact ocean, coastal, or Great Lakes 

ecosystems, or engage the use of their resources, should be assessed and conducted within an 

integrated and comprehensive interagency planning framework that:
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

18

a. Considers and addresses the full suite of impacts on resources, biological diversity, and 

ecosystems; 

b. Is based on the best available scientific knowledge;

c. Considers and addresses potential use conflicts; 

d. Ensures and advances coordination and collaboration across federal, state, tribal, and local 

jurisdictional lines, and with regional governance structures, the private sector, foreign 

governments, and international organizations, as appropriate; 

e. Is coordinated and promotes consistency with our homeland and national security and 

foreign policy interests;

f. Is coordinated and promotes consistency with other national strategies that include 

environmental stewardship components relevant to the ocean, our coasts, and the Great 

Lakes; 

g. Considers and respects our nation’s maritime heritage, including our social, cultural, 

historical, recreational, and aesthetic values;

h. Aims to maximize long-term net benefits to society by considering a range of reasonable 

alternatives that balance potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and 

other advantages; distributive impacts; and social justice and equity; 

i. Operates through an open and transparent approach that encourages broad public 

participation; 

j. Ensures consistency with management and budgetary goals and compliance with relevant 

legal requirements;

k. Seeks to eliminate redundancy and encourage efficiencies and synergies; and

l. Includes a reporting and accountability mechanism.

Implementing a number of the policy elements and principles directed above will require appropriate 

resources and assets. Departments and agencies shall work to identify future budgetary, administrative, 

regulatory, or legislative proposal requirements to implement these elements within the budgetary and 

management guidelines of the President’s budget.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

19

Part TWO. POLICY COORDINATION FRAMEWORK

The recommended policy coordination framework provides a combination of modifications to the 

structure of the existing Committee on Ocean Policy, a stronger mandate and direction, and renewed 

and sustained high-level engagement. This combination of improvements provides a framework for 

more successful policy coordination to improve the stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great 

Lakes. The recommended policy coordination framework would provide a reinvigorated structure that 

would strengthen ocean governance and coordination by providing clear and visible leadership and 

sustained high-level engagement within the Federal Government. Additionally, the structure would 

provide for greater participation by, and coordination of State, tribal, and local authorities, and regional 

governance structures. The linkage between management and science would be strengthened, as would 

coordination with other senior level entities on relevant economic, climate, and security matters. This 

combination of improvements would enhance the stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great 

Lakes.

Ocean Science and Technology 

Interagency Policy Committee

Chair/Co-Chairs

Reporting 

Communication

Ocean Resource Management 

Interagency Policy Committee

Chair/Co-Chairs

National Security 

Council 

National Economic 

Council

Coordination

Office of Energy and 

Climate Change 

National Ocean Council

Principals/Deputies

Co-Chairs: CEQ/OSTP

Governance Coordinating 

Committee 

State/Tribal/Local 

Ocean Research and 

Resources Advisory Panel

Working groups could be retained or established as standing or ad hoc Sub-Interagency Policy Committees (IPCs): e.g., Coastal 

and Marine Spatial Planning, Ocean Acidification, Ocean Observations, Mapping, Ocean Education, Climate Resiliency and Adaptation, 

Regional Ecosystem Protection and Restoration, Water Quality and Sustainable Practices on Land, and Arctic.

The Extended Continental Shelf Task Force and other designated interagency committees, as appropriate, would report to the Steering 

Committee and coordinate with the two IPCs. 

Steering Committee

(CEQ, OSTP, Director, 

and Chairs of the IPCs) 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

20

I. National Ocean Council 

Structure

The National Ocean Council 

(NOC) would be a dual 

Principal- and Deputy-level 

committee. Membership of 

the NOC would include: the 

Secretaries of State, Defense, 

the Interior, Agriculture, 

Health and Human 

Services, Commerce, Labor, 

Transportation, Energy, and 

Homeland Security; the Attorney 

General; the Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection 

Agency; the Chair of the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ); the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB); the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the Director of 

National Intelligence; the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP); the Director 

of the National Science Foundation; the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;2

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Assistants to the President for National Security 

Affairs, Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, Domestic Policy, Energy and Climate Change, 

and Economic Policy; an employee of the United States designated by the Vice President; the Under 

Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere (NOAA Administrator); and such other officers or 

employees of the United States as the Co-Chairs may from time to time designate. 

Co-Chairs

The NOC would be co-chaired by the Chair of the CEQ and the Director of OSTP. This construct 

would provide the NOC with the balance of equities at the most senior level of its leadership and better 

facilitate interagency cooperation and collaboration. 

Function

Subject to the direction of the President and unless as otherwise provided for by law, the NOC would 

perform the following functions:

1. Tier-one functions of the NOC (Principal-level). The NOC has overall responsibility for 

implementation of the National Policy, including coastal and marine spatial planning. Functions 

2

 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other independent regulatory agencies participate on the NOC by 

invitation of the Co-Chairs.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

21

would include: (1) periodically update and set national priority objectives; (2) review and provide 

annual direction on National Policy implementation objectives based on Administration priorities 

and recommendations from the Deputy-level; and (3) be a forum for dispute resolution and 

decision-making of issues that could not be resolved at the Deputy-level. The NOC would be 

required to meet a minimum of twice per year, but the Co-Chairs could call additional meetings as 

necessary for dispute resolution or other purposes. 

2. Tier Two (Deputy-level) functions would include: (1) ensure execution of National Policy 

implementation objectives; (2) ensure implementation of coastal and marine spatial planning; 

(3) transmit Administration priorities to the Ocean Resource Management Interagency Policy 

Committee (ORM-IPC) and Ocean Science and Technology Interagency Policy Committee 

(OST-IPC); (4) ensure activities of and products from the ORM-IPC and OST-IPC are consistent 

with Administration policy; (5) coordinate with the National Security Council (NSC), National 

Economic Council (NEC),3

 Office of Energy and Climate Change (OECC), and other offices, as 

appropriate; (6) provide direction and feedback to, and receive external input and advice from, 

its advisory bodies; and (7) assist with dispute resolution and decision-making, and if unable to 

do so, to forward the issues to the Principal-level. This group would also assume the duties of the 

statutorily mandated National Ocean Research Leadership Council (NORLC) under 10 U.S.C. § 

7902.

The Deputies would be required to meet a minimum of quarterly. 

II. Authorities and Responsibilities of the National Ocean Council Co-Chairs 

1. Advise the President on the Implementation of the National Policy for the Stewardship of the 

Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes 

The Co-Chairs would advise the President on matters regarding implementation of the National Policy 

for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes (National Policy), consistent with the 

consensus views of the NOC. If consensus cannot be achieved, the Co-Chairs would provide their own 

views equally with the views of each member of the NOC. 

2. Implementation of the National Policy

On behalf of the NOC, the Co-Chairs would have overall responsibility for coordinating and 

facilitating the implementation of the National Policy, subject to the direction of the NOC and the 

President, including the following:

•  Development of Strategic Action Plans – The Co-Chairs would facilitate development 

by the NOC of strategic action plans to further the National Policy and identify progress 

3

 The existing Committee on the Marine Transportation System’s coordination with the NOC governance structure 

would be done through the National Economic Council, at both the Principal-level and Deputy-level. Coordination 

with the ORM-IPC and OST-IPC would also be developed, as appropriate.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

22

toward meeting defined goals and 

objectives. 

•  Implementation of Coastal 

and Marine Spatial Planning –

The Co-Chairs would facilitate 

implementation of coastal and marine 

spatial planning in accordance with 

Part 4 below.

•  Reporting and Accountability – The 

Co-Chairs would be responsible 

for: (1) coordinating interagency 

reporting on implementation and 

progress; (2) monitoring and ensuring 

effective implementation of policy 

decisions; (3) providing oversight 

and accountability for document 

preparation; and (4) coordinating and 

expediting interagency review and 

clearance of documents and reports 

within the NOC purview. 

•  Budget – The Co-Chairs would coordinate the development of an annual budget guidance 

memorandum on ocean priorities consistent with the goals and objectives of the National 

Policy. While it is understood that the Co-Chairs’ authority would not be construed to 

impair or otherwise affect the function of the Director of OMB, they would work with 

OMB to issue interagency budget guidance consistent with annual priorities, develop 

crosscuts to inform the annual priorities on ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes stewardship, 

and consult with OMB and the NOC to identify programs that contribute significantly to 

the National Policy. The Co-Chairs also would work with OMB to coordinate preparation 

of the biennial Federal Ocean and Coastal Activities Report mandated by Section 5 of the 

Oceans Act of 2000. 

•  Emerging Issues – The Co-Chairs would bring any Presidential ocean actions or priorities 

to the NOC, as appropriate, for action and implementation and would coordinate proper 

management of and response to emerging issues of relevance to the National Policy. 

•  International – In implementing this policy, the Co-Chairs would coordinate with the 

Secretary of State and the heads of other relevant agencies on matters related to the policy 

issues that arise within the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, International 

Whaling Commission, Arctic Council, International Maritime Organization, regional 

fishery management organizations, and other similar international organizations.

3. Co-Chairs of the NOC

•  The Co-Chairs shall have authority to call NOC meetings, draft the agenda, prioritize 

issues, and call Deputies’ meetings. 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

23

4. Coordination and Integration

•  The Co-Chairs would be the point of contact to coordinate with the National Security 

Advisor (NSA), NEC Director, and Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate 

Change (APECC), and other senior White House officials, as appropriate. The CoChairs would have authority to request meetings with these entities for the purposes of 

coordination and resolution of issues of overlapping responsibility. 

5. Decision-Making and Dispute Resolution 

•  The Co-Chairs would seek to encourage decisions and recommendations based on 

consensus of the NOC. 

•  Disputes that could not be resolved at the Deputy-level would be referred to the Co-Chairs. 

The Co-Chairs would facilitate resolution among the Principals. 

•  With respect to those matters in which resolutions or consensus could not be reached, the 

Co-Chairs would coordinate with the APECC, NEC Director, and NSA, as appropriate, to 

frame the disputed issue or issues for decision by the President. 

•  The establishment of the NOC would not be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (1) 

authority granted by law to an executive department or agency or the head thereof; or (2) 

functions assigned by the President to the NSC (or subordinate bodies) relating to matters 

affecting foreign affairs, national security, homeland security, or intelligence – any of these 

matters that are not resolved by consensus within the NOC will be forwarded to the NSC 

for resolution.

III. Steering Committee

Structure

The Steering Committee would be a high-level, streamlined body of five members from OSTP, 

CEQ, and one Chair each of the ORM-IPC and OST-IPC, and the Director of the NOC Staff. 

The Steering Committee would meet at least every other month, but more often as issues require, 

and work in consultation with NSC, NEC, and OMB to ensure their respective input on relevant 

matters, as appropriate. NOC staff would attend these meetings and be responsible for ensuring the 

implementation of agreed-upon actions.

Function

The Steering Committee would be the key forum for ensuring integration and coordination on 

priority areas within the NOC. In particular, it would ensure that there is coordination of management 

and science issues and that the activities of the ORM-IPC and OST-IPC are aligned to fully support 

implementation of the National Policy and priorities agreed upon by the NOC. The Steering 

Committee would identify key issues and assist in developing the agenda for the NOC. The NOC 

staff would be responsible for ensuring the implementation of agreed upon actions. In addition, the 

Extended Continental Shelf Task Force and other designated interagency committees, as appropriate, 

would report to the Steering Committee.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

24

IV. National Ocean Council Staff Leadership and Support

Structure

Two senior-level staff members, a Director of the NOC Staff, and a Deputy Director, would support 

the Co-Chairs in the implementation of the National Policy. On a day-to-day basis they would be 

responsible for ensuring the execution of the functions of the full-time staff supporting the NOC. They 

would be charged with ensuring the effective operation of the NOC, and the efficient implementation 

of the National Policy, under the guidance of the Co-Chairs. In addition, the NOC would initially be 

supported by an ocean policy office consisting of a minimum of six to eight dedicated staff comprised 

of interagency representatives on staggered two-year assignments from departments, agencies, and 

offices represented on the NOC. These full-time NOC staff personnel would report to the staff Director 

and Deputy Director.

Function 

The staff Director and Deputy Director, as appropriate, would represent the Co-Chairs at policylevel meetings and forums, external events, and interaction with Congress. They would work with 

the IPC Co-Chairs to also ensure policy coordination and integration of the IPCs and facilitate close 

coordination between the NOC and its Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel (ORRAP) and 

Governance Coordinating Committee (GCC). They would oversee the NOC staff on a day-to-day basis 

and serve as the points of contact to coordinate at a staff level with CEQ, NSC, NEC, OSTP, OECC, and 

other offices, as appropriate. The staff Director, Deputy Director, and other NOC staff personnel would 

serve as the core support to the NOC in its operations and in implementation of the National Policy. 

Each member of the NOC staff would be required to have programmatic experience and analytical 

skills. Each staff member would work to provide administrative support to, and ensure coordination 

among, the NOC and the IPCs, GCC, and other appropriate entities.

V. Ocean Resource Management Interagency Policy Committee

Structure

The ORM-IPC is the successor to the current Subcommittee on Integrated Management of Ocean 

Resources. Chairs of the ORM-IPC are designated by the NOC. The group would consist of Deputy 

Assistant Secretaries or comparable representatives, or appropriate senior-level representatives with 

decision-making authority from departments, agencies and offices represented on the NOC. The ORMIPC reports to the NOC. The ORM-IPC may establish Sub-IPCs as necessary, as approved by the NOC. 

Function

The ORM-IPC would function as the ocean resource management body of the NOC, with an emphasis 

on ensuring the interagency implementation of the National Policy, national priority objectives, and 

other priorities defined or approved by the NOC. This would include the development of strategic 

plans, in coordination with the OST-IPC, for the implementation of priority management objectives, 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

25

with clear outcomes, milestones, deadlines, designated agencies, and performance measures with an 

adaptive review process. The ORM-IPC Chairs would develop a charter for the operation of the body, 

to be approved by the NOC, including, but not limited to, membership, meetings (e.g., requiring that it 

meet at least every two months), development of a new or updated work plan based on direction from 

the NOC, and a process for external input (e.g., State, tribal, local, regional, and the public). 

VI. Ocean Science and Technology Interagency Policy Committee

Structure

The National Science and Technology Council’s (NSTC) Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and 

Technology (JSOST) would serve as the OST-IPC. Chairs of the OST-IPC would be appointed through 

NSTC procedures in consultation with the NOC. The group would consist of Deputy Assistant 

Secretaries or comparable representatives, or appropriate senior-level representatives with decisionmaking authority from departments, agencies, and offices represented on the NOC. The NSTC would 

direct the OST-IPC to advise and assist the NOC in consonance with this National Policy and to work 

with associated bodies (e.g., the ORM-IPC) accordingly.

Function

The OST-IPC would function as the ocean science and technology body of the NOC, with an emphasis 

on ensuring the interagency implementation of the National Policy, national priority objectives, and 

other priorities for science and technology objectives. This would include the development of strategic 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

26

plans (e.g., the Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy), in coordination with the 

ORM-IPC, for interagency implementation of priority science and technology objectives, with clear 

outcomes, milestones, deadlines, designated agencies, and performance measures with an adaptive 

review process. The OST-IPC Chairs, in close coordination with the NOC, would develop a charter 

for the operation of the body, to be approved by the NSTC, and would include, but not be limited 

to, membership, meetings (e.g., requiring that it meet at least every two months), development of a 

new or updated work plan based on input from the NOC, and a process for external input (e.g., State, 

tribal, regional, and public). The OST-IPC would also retain the legislatively mandated functions of 

JSOST, report to the NSTC’s Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, and maintain a close 

operational relationship with the NOC. It would continue to adhere to the rules and regulations of the 

NSTC. The OST-IPC may establish Sub-IPCs, as necessary, and will do so under NSTC procedures and 

in close coordination with the NOC.

VII. Governance Coordinating Committee

Structure

The NOC, in consultation with the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, would 

establish the GCC that would consist of eighteen members from States, federally-recognized tribes, 

and local governments. Members would be chosen by the NOC and would be comprised of: (1) one 

State representative each from the Great Lakes Region, Gulf of Mexico Region, Mid-Atlantic Region, 

Northeast Region, South Atlantic Region, and West Coast Region, chosen in consultation with the 

Governors represented on the existing regional governance structures;4

 (2) one State representative 

each from Alaska, the Pacific Islands,5

 and the Caribbean,6 chosen in consultation with respective 

Governors; (3) two at-large representatives from inland States, chosen in consultation with the National 

Governors Association; (4) one State legislative representative, chosen in consultation with the National 

Conference of State Legislatures; (5) three at-large tribal representatives, chosen in consultation with 

tribal councils, national and regional tribal organizations (e.g., the National Congress of American 

Indians); and (6) three local government representatives from coastal States (i.e., two mayors and one 

county official), chosen in consultation with the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of 

Cities, and the National Association of Counties. Representatives would serve for staggered two-year 

terms. These representatives would select a Chair and Vice-Chair from their members. In addition, the 

GCC may establish subcommittees chaired by representatives of the GCC. These subcommittees would 

include additional representation, as appropriate, from State, tribal, and local governments, respectively, 

to provide for greater collaboration and expanded exchange of views. The GCC would be supported by 

the NOC staff.

4

 Existing regional governance structures include the Great Lakes Commission, the Governors’ South Atlantic Alliance, 

the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean, the Northeast Regional Ocean Council, 

and the West Coast Governors’ Agreement on Ocean Health. 5

 For purposes of this section “Pacific Islands” include Hawaii, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, and American Samoa. 6

 For purposes of this section “Caribbean” includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

27

Function

The role of the GCC would be to serve as a formal body for State, tribal, and local government 

representatives to deliberate and coordinate with the NOC on issues of inter-jurisdictional collaboration 

and cooperation on the National Policy and related matters. These matters would include coordinating 

on the development of a uniform procedure to facilitate resolution at the regional level of disputes 

regarding the development of coastal and marine spatial plans (CMS Plans) prior to elevation to the 

NOC and providing advice on long-term strategic management and research priorities. The GCC would 

submit to the IPCs and the Steering Committee ocean and coastal related issues for potential discussion 

by the NOC and provide input on issues at the request of the Steering Committee. The GCC would 

also have regular and continued communication with the IPCs, via the NOC Steering Committee, 

throughout the development of the strategic action plans and implementation of the National Policy. 

The United States has a unique legal relationship with federally recognized American Indian and 

Alaska Native tribal governments (tribes) as set forth in United States treaties, statutes, Executive 

Orders, and court decisions. These instruments establish a framework for the Federal Government’s 

recognition of and support for tribal sovereignty and tribal self-government and self-determination, 

consistent with applicable Federal law, but not necessarily with State law. While the GCC includes 

three tribal representatives, the function of the GCC and these representatives would not replace 

Government-to-Government consultations with tribes under existing authorities.

VIII. Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel

Structure

The ORRAP is a legislatively established body that advises the NORLC under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA). 

Function

The ORRAP would provide independent advice and guidance to the NOC. Current membership is 

comprised of individuals from the National Academies, State governments, academia, and ocean 

industries, representing marine science, marine policy, and other related fields. However, ORRAP 

membership would be reviewed to determine whether to include additional representatives to broaden 

the level of expertise in support of the goals of the National Policy. The NOC would routinely provide 

guidance and direction on the areas for which it seeks advice and recommendations from the ORRAP.

IX. Review and Evaluation

After 12 months of operation, the NOC would conduct a review of the governance structure to evaluate 

its effectiveness and make any necessary changes or improvements.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

28

PART THREE. Implementation Strateg y

National Priority Objectives

How We Do Business

1. Ecosystem-Based Management: Adopt ecosystem-based management as a foundational 

principle for the comprehensive management of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great 

Lakes.

2. Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning: Implement comprehensive, integrated, 

ecosystem-based coastal and marine spatial planning and management in the United 

States.

3. Inform Decisions and Improve Understanding: Increase knowledge to continually 

inform and improve management and policy decisions and the capacity to respond to 

change and challenges. Better educate the public through formal and informal programs 

about the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes.

4. Coordinate and Support: Better coordinate and support Federal, State, tribal, local, 

and regional management of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. Improve 

coordination and integration across the Federal Government and, as appropriate, engage 

with the international community.

Areas of Special Emphasis

1. Resiliency and Adaptation to Climate Change and Ocean Acidification: Strengthen 

resiliency of coastal communities and marine and Great Lakes environments and their 

abilities to adapt to climate change impacts and ocean acidification. 

2. Regional Ecosystem Protection and Restoration: Establish and implement an 

integrated ecosystem protection and restoration strategy that is science-based and aligns 

conservation and restoration goals at the Federal, State, tribal, local, and regional levels.

3. Water Quality and Sustainable Practices on Land: Enhance water quality in the ocean, 

along our coasts, and in the Great Lakes by promoting and implementing sustainable 

practices on land.

4. Changing Conditions in the Arctic: Address environmental stewardship needs in 

the Arctic Ocean and adjacent coastal areas in the face of climate-induced and other 

environmental changes.

5. Ocean, Coastal, and Great Lakes Observations, Mapping, and Infrastructure: 

Strengthen and integrate Federal and non-Federal ocean observing systems, sensors, 

data collection platforms, data management, and mapping capabilities into a national 

system and integrate that system into international observation efforts.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

29

I. Introduction

The National Policy would provide our Nation with a 

comprehensive approach, solidly based on science and 

technology, to uphold our stewardship responsibilities, 

and ensure accountability for our actions to present 

and future generations. Furthermore, the United States 

intends, through the National Policy, to serve as a 

model of balanced, productive, efficient, sustainable, 

and informed ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes use, 

management, and conservation within the global 

community. This implementation strategy recommends 

a clear set of priority objectives that our Nation should 

pursue to further the National Policy. 

Overview of National Priority Objectives

This implementation strategy recommends nine priority 

objectives. The first four, which together frame How 

We Do Business, represent overarching ways in which 

the Federal Government must operate differently or 

better to improve stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, 

and the Great Lakes. The implementation of ecosystembased management embodies a fundamental shift in 

how the United States manages these resources, and provides a foundation for how the remaining 

objectives would be implemented. Within that construct, the implementation of coastal and marine 

spatial planning and management would mark the beginning of a new era of comprehensive, integrated 

techniques to address conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and sustainable use of ocean, 

coastal, and Great Lakes resources. The other overarching objectives – to better inform decisions and 

improve understanding by the public through a strengthened ability to obtain and use science and 

information and to better coordinate and support science-based management across various authorities 

and governance structures are, in and of themselves, not new concepts. However, these efforts have 

suffered from the lack of a clear National Policy and a comprehensive framework within which to 

achieve desired outcomes. 

The implementation strategy also identifies five Areas of Special Emphasis, each of which represents a 

substantive area of particular importance to achieving the National Policy. These priority areas of work 

seek to address some of the most pressing challenges facing the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. 

For many years, scientists, resource managers, private industry, and others have been wrestling with 

these issues with a variety of existing Federal Government programs in place to address them. While 

those efforts have delivered their share of results, in each of these critical areas more can – and must – 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

30

be done. In many cases, we have lacked the capability and understanding – both scientific and technical 

– to affect the type of change required. In the last several years, however, science has significantly 

evolved and advanced, and our capacity to respond to environmental and technological changes in 

these five areas has improved substantially. With this strategy, these specific areas of work should 

be viewed as national priorities with a renewed and coordinated effort at finding and implementing 

solutions. Over time, the NOC will assess the progress on these areas and also identify other areas to be 

addressed.

Planning

Together, these nine priority objectives provide a bridge between the National Policy and action on the 

ground and in the water, but do not prescribe in detail how individual entities would undertake these 

responsibilities. For each priority objective, the NOC would be responsible for, and oversee development 

of, a strategic action plan within six to twelve months from its establishment. The NOC’s ORM-IPC 

and OST-IPC would be charged with developing these plans. The plans would address the Obstacles

and Opportunities identified for each objective and would focus on, but not be limited to, the key areas 

identified under each objective. In addition, each plan would:

•  Identify specific and measurable near-term, mid-term, and long-term actions, with 

appropriate milestones, performance measures, and outcomes to fulfill each objective;

•  Consider smaller-scale, incremental, and opportunistic efforts that build upon existing 

activities, as well as more complex, larger-scale actions that have the potential to be truly 

transformative;

•  Explicitly identify key lead and participating agencies; 

•  Identify gaps and needs in science and technology; and

•  Identify potential resource requirements and efficiencies; and steps for integrating or 

coordinating current and out-year budgets. 

The plans would be adaptive to allow for modification and addition of new actions based on new 

information or changing conditions. Their effective implementation would also require clear and easily 

understood requirements and regulations, where appropriate, that include enforcement as a critical 

component. Implementation of the National Policy for the stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and 

the Great Lakes will recognize that different legal regimes, with their associated freedoms, rights, and 

duties, apply in different maritime zones. The plans would be implemented in a manner consistent with 

applicable international conventions and agreements and with customary international law as reflected 

in the Law of the Sea Convention. The plans and their implementation would be assessed and reviewed 

annually by the NOC and modified as needed based on the success or failure of the agreed upon 

actions. Upon identification and finalization of plans, the NOC Co-Chairs, in collaboration with OMB, 

would develop an annual interagency ocean budget guidance memorandum. Recognizing the reality 

of the limited availability of new resources, each of the Federal agencies engaged in the implementation 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

31

of strategic action plans would re-evaluate how resources should best be allocated in light of their 

statutory and regulatory mandates. 

While these plans are under development, any agency that is conducting an activity that supports or 

furthers one of the objectives would bring them to the attention of the NOC. The NOC – working 

with the agency – would review the activity to determine how it might best contribute to overall 

implementation of the priority objectives, including being incorporated into the relevant strategic 

action plan.

Transparency and Collaboration

Transparency in developing strategic action 

plans and implementing the National Policy is 

critical. As the NOC develops and revises the 

plans, it will ensure substantial opportunity 

for public participation. Final plans, revisions, 

and reports of how well plan performance 

measures are being met would be made 

publicly available.

The effective implementation of this farreaching and comprehensive National 

Policy would require active collaboration of 

the Federal Government with State, tribal, 

and local authorities, regional governance 

structures, academic institutions, nongovernmental organizations, recreational interests, and private enterprise. In developing and revising 

the plans, the NOC would reach out to these interested parties, as appropriate, through the NOC’s 

GCC, the ORRAP, workshops, and by other means. Furthermore, international collaboration on 

a broad range of ocean issues is an important component of these objectives. The Nation plays a 

leadership role in various international forums that deal with these issues, such as the Arctic Council, 

the International Maritime Organization, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, regional 

fisheries management organizations, and the International Whaling Commission. By joining the Law 

of the Sea Convention now, we can reaffirm and enhance United States leadership in the development 

and interpretation of international law applicable to the ocean. The Convention’s provisions are 

highly favorable to the national security, environmental, and economic interests of the United States. 

Becoming a party would give the United States the ability to participate formally and more effectively 

in the interpretation and development of the Convention.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

32

II. National Priority Objectives

How We Do Business

1. Ecosystem-Based Management: Adopt ecosystem-based management as a foundational 

principle for the comprehensive management of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes.

Obstacles and Opportunities

Traditional management of resource use and other activities in the ocean, along our coasts, and in the 

Great Lakes has focused on individual species, resources, areas, or actions with limited consideration 

for how the management practices of one might impact the sustainability of another. This has often 

led to disjointed management approaches resulting in loss of resources, economic hardship, and 

environments at risk. To ensure healthier, more resilient, and productive ocean, coastal, and Great 

Lakes environments, comprehensive management systems are needed that fully integrate ecological, 

social, economic, and security goals into decisions. Embedding ecosystem-based management, 

grounded in science, as an overarching principle would be a fundamental shift in the traditional 

way the Federal Government approaches management of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. 

It would provide the opportunity to ensure proactive and holistic approaches to better manage the 

use and conservation of these valuable resources. This broad-based application of ecosystem-based 

management would provide a framework for the management of our resources, and allow for such 

benefits as helping to restore fish populations, control invasive species, support healthy coastal and 

Great Lakes communities and ecosystems, restore sensitive species and habitats, protect human health, 

and rationally allow for emerging uses of the ocean, including new energy production.

The Plan Should Address: 

•  “Best practices” for developing and implementing effective ecosystem-based management 

systems; 

•  Identification and prioritization of geographic areas of special sensitivity or in greatest 

need for ecosystem-based management; 

•  Establishment of a process for working with States, tribal, and local authorities and 

regional governance structures to apply the most successful approaches in these areas of 

the greatest need; and

•  Measures to ensure that decisions about ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes activities, uses, 

and goals are made based on the best available science and incorporate principles of 

ecosystem-based management. 

2. Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning: Implement comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem-based 

coastal and marine spatial planning and management in the United States.

Obstacles and Opportunities

The ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are host to countless commercial, recreational, scientific, 

energy, and security activities, which often occur in or near areas set aside and managed for 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

33

conservation and resource protection goals. Overlapping uses 

and differing views, about what activities should occur and 

where, can generate conflicts and misunderstandings. Coastal 

and marine spatial planning (CMSP) that fully incorporates 

the principles of ecosystem-based management will provide 

a means to objectively and transparently guide and balance 

allocation decisions for use of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes 

waters and resources. It would allow for the reduction of 

cumulative impacts from human uses on marine ecosystems, 

provide greater certainty for the public and private sector in 

planning new investments, and reduce conflicts among uses 

and between using and preserving the environment to sustain 

critical ecological, economic, recreational, and cultural 

services for this and future generations. 

The Plan Should Address:

•  Implementation and expansion of the Framework 

for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning as 

described later in this document.

3. Inform Decisions and Improve Understanding: 

Increase knowledge to continually inform and improve 

management and policy decisions and the capacity to 

respond to change and challenges. Better educate the 

public through formal and informal programs about 

the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. 

Obstacles and Opportunities

A broad program of basic and applied disciplinary and 

interdisciplinary scientific research, mapping, monitoring, observation, and assessment, coupled with 

development of forecasts, models, and other decision-support tools, is required to build knowledge of 

ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and processes and ensure that management and policies 

are based on sound science. Increased understanding of watershed processes and the linkages with 

our coasts will be necessary to develop better decision-support tools to adequately manage human 

uses, human impacts, including disproportionate impacts on minority or low income populations, 

and watershed conservation activities that affect our ocean and coasts. In addition, increased scientific 

knowledge and a more comprehensive awareness and a detailed understanding of current and emerging 

human activities taking place in and around our waters are essential to sound ocean planning and 

management. However, there are significant gaps in our understanding of ocean ecosystem dynamics, 

ocean conditions and trends, and the complex links between these conditions and human health, 

economic opportunities, national and homeland security, and social justice. There is significant 

opportunity to improve how and what information we gather to better understand change and respond 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

34

to challenges, better integrate 

current scientific knowledge 

(natural, social and traditional/

cultural) and real-time data into 

decision-making, improve the 

management and integration 

of data supporting science and 

decision-making, and identify and 

close knowledge gaps necessary to 

adequately understand the impacts 

of human activities on the ocean, 

our coasts, and the Great Lakes. A 

diverse, interdisciplinary, oceanliterate workforce that has the 

appropriate skills and training to capitalize on these opportunities is needed. In addition, formal and 

informal education programs developed and implemented to target grades K-12 and beyond would 

create opportunities for enhanced appreciation of coastal and ocean issues, and better prepare the 

workforce of the future. Robust education programs already exist in many NOC member agencies 

and can serve as the foundation for increasing knowledge on ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes issues. 

Success in building our knowledge and applying it to improve management also relies on an engaged 

and informed public. Many Americans do not realize the importance of the ocean, our coasts, and the 

Great Lakes to their daily lives, the benefits they provide, or the possibilities they present for further 

discovery. There is great opportunity to raise awareness and identify ways we can help protect our 

waters and their resources. 

Inform and Improve

The Plan Should Address: 

•  Identification of priority issues in addressing emerging topics and changes in ocean, 

coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and processes;

•  Specific scientific requirements and research needs, including the need for reconciling 

inconsistent standards, physical infrastructure, research platforms, organizations, and data 

management, to identify critical gaps, ensure high quality data, and provide information 

necessary to inform management, including mechanisms to transition research results into 

information products and tools for management;

•  The development of a more comprehensive awareness of environmental conditions 

and trends and human activities that take place in the ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes 

environments; and

•  Requirements for routine integrated ecosystem assessments and forecasts, including 

impacts related to climate change, to address vulnerability, risks, and resiliency, and inform 

tradeoffs and priority-setting.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

35

Educate

The Plan Should Address: 

•  Challenges, gaps, opportunities, and effective 

strategies for training and recruiting the 

current and next generation of disciplinary 

and interdisciplinary scientists, technicians, 

operators, managers, and policy-makers, with a 

particular focus on the needs of disadvantaged 

or under-served communities; and

•  Identification of successful formal and 

informal education and public outreach 

approaches, including their application toward 

a focused nation-wide campaign to build 

public awareness, engagement, understanding, 

and informed decision-making, with specific 

emphasis on the state of ecosystems.

4. Coordinate and Support: Better coordinate and support Federal, State, tribal, local, and 

regional management of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. Improve coordination and 

integration across the Federal Government and, as appropriate, engage with the international 

community.

Obstacles and Opportunities

One of the significant obstacles to effective management of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes 

is the complex set of Federal, State, tribal, and local laws, authorities, mandates, and governance 

structures intended to manage their use and conservation. Consistent approaches to the management 

of resources, including ecosystem-based and adaptive management, are difficult to achieve given this 

shared, piece-meal, and overlapping jurisdictional model. Furthermore, the United States is party to 

numerous international agreements and subject to customary international law regarding use and 

protection of the ocean and the Great Lakes. The United States should engage with international 

partners bilaterally and multilaterally to achieve increased cooperation and coordination on 

ocean issues. Through increased communication, coordination, and integration across all levels 

of government, we can streamline processes, reduce duplicative efforts, leverage resources, resolve 

disparities, and enhance synergy. A set of shared principles and objectives coordinated among all levels 

of government would translate into effective outcomes consistent with the National Policy.

Coordinate 

The Plan Should Address: 

•  Identification of gaps, inconsistencies, and duplications in statutory authorities, policies, 

and regulations, and taking necessary and appropriate actions to address them; 

•  Procedures to identify and align mutual and consistent management objectives and actions 

across jurisdictions; 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

36

•  Tangible tools and procedures to prevent and resolve conflicts across jurisdictions and 

disagreements concerning jointly managed ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources; and

•  Opportunities for engaging the international community to further the objectives of the 

policy, as appropriate.

Support

The Plan Should Address: 

•  Actions to assist the States in advancing the network of regional alliances to protect ocean, 

coastal, and Great Lakes health; 

•  Evaluation of existing or new funding sources and options to protect, maintain, and restore 

ocean resources; and

•  Legislative or regulatory changes necessary to simplify the sharing and transfer of resources 

among Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies.

Areas of Special Emphasis

1. Resiliency and Adaptation to Climate Change and Ocean Acidification: Strengthen resiliency of 

coastal communities and marine and Great Lakes environments and their abilities to adapt to 

climate change impacts and ocean acidification.

Obstacles and Opportunities

The ocean plays a central role in shaping 

the Earth’s climate and influencing 

climate variability. Because of this 

important relationship and the ecosystem 

services that the ocean, our coasts, and 

Great Lakes provide, global climate 

change and its associated impacts as well 

as ocean acidification pose some of the 

most serious threats to these ecosystems 

and coastal communities. Warming ocean 

temperatures have a profound impact on 

the distribution of rainfall over land, the melting of ice sheets, and the distribution and productivity 

of species. Sea-level rise, increased severe storm events, rapid erosion, and salt water intrusion threaten 

low-lying coastal communities with the destruction of infrastructure, flood inundation, the potential 

displacement of millions of people, and the loss of key species and habitats. At the same time, climate 

change is predicted to lower the water levels of the Great Lakes, thereby altering water cycles and supply, 

habitat, and economic uses of the Lakes. In addition, ocean acidification is expected to have significant 

and largely negative impacts on the marine food web, ocean ecosystems as a whole, and biological 

diversity in general. Since climate change and ocean acidification may have widespread impacts, 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

37

increased coordination of monitoring and mapping efforts and improved understanding of the changes 

in the ocean are vital to minimizing these impacts on our marine and Great Lakes ecosystems and 

coastal communities. We have an opportunity and a responsibility to develop strategies for reducing 

the vulnerability, increasing the resilience, and improving adaptation of human and natural systems to 

climate change impacts, as well as for mitigating the effects of climate change itself.

The Plan Should Address: 

•  Research, observations and modeling needed to forecast regional and local scale climate 

change impacts and related vulnerabilities for natural resources, health, infrastructure, and 

livelihoods, including social and economic impacts;

•  Better integration of ocean and coastal science into the broader climate dialogue and 

measures to improve understanding of the connections among land, water, air, ice, and 

human activities;

•  Evaluation of potential social and economic costs related to sea-level rise, such as 

accelerating erosion, increased saltwater intrusion, and more severe coastal and inland 

flooding;

•  Adaptive actions to identified climate change impacts and related vulnerabilities, such as 

ocean acidification, and the development of ecological and economic resilience strategies 

and priorities for research and monitoring to address these strategies; 

•  Changes to local and regional ocean and lake management systems that incorporate 

changing climate risks and elements of resilient systems; and 

•  A comprehensive approach to understanding human health implications of policies for the 

ocean, our coasts, and Great Lakes, and for identifying opportunities for the protection 

and enhancement of human health.

2. Regional Ecosystem Protection and Restoration: Establish and implement an integrated 

ecosystem protection and restoration strategy that is science-based and aligns conservation and 

restoration goals at the Federal, State, tribal, local, and regional levels. 

Obstacles and Opportunities

Along our coasts and the Great Lakes, essential habitats continue to suffer significant losses and 

degradation due to coastal development, sea-level rise, and associated human activities. Impacts on 

these ecosystems and the people and communities in these areas are presenting new management 

challenges. Additionally, external stressors, including invasive species, are impacting native species and 

habitat. While progress has been made in addressing some of these challenges through ecosystem-based 

management, the threat of critical habitat loss and degradation of ecosystem services is still apparent 

in the Gulf Coast, the Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, South Florida, San Francisco Bay, and the Great 

Lakes. By addressing coastal and ocean challenges that cross jurisdictional boundaries and sectors 

on a regional and ecosystem scale, we can more effectively manage these resources. Because climate 

change is impacting our coastlines, it has become even more important to assess and place priorities on 

ecosystem restoration projects. These experiences provide valuable lessons for other coastal ecosystems.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

38

The Plan Should Address: 

•  Prioritization of the locations and geographic scope of coastal and Great Lakes ecosystem 

restoration projects, including implementation of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative;

•  Interim and longer term goals and mechanisms to facilitate collaboration among 

stakeholders to implement projects;

•  Best practices for collaborative science-based planning to achieve ecosystem restoration 

goals building on the lessons learned in ongoing ecosystem restoration efforts; 

•  Impacts of invasive species on ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems, and a range of 

methodologies for control and prevention of these species; and

•  Protection, maintenance, and restoration of populations and essential habitats supporting 

fisheries, protected species, ecosystems, and biological diversity.

3. Water Quality and Sustainable Practices on Land: Enhance water quality in the ocean, along 

our coasts, and in the Great Lakes by promoting and implementing sustainable practices on 

land.

Obstacles and Opportunities

Nonpoint source pollution (pollution that comes from diffuse 

sources instead of one specific point), caused by poor land 

management practices, is the leading cause of water quality 

problems in the United States and a major cause of rapidly 

declining ocean and coastal ecosystem health. Runoff from 

suburban streets and lawns, agricultural and industrial uses, 

transportation activities, and urban development – even hundreds 

of miles away – negatively impacts water quality, resulting in 

deleterious effects on ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes systems as 

evidenced by harmful algal blooms, expansive dead zones, marine 

debris, and increased incidents of human illness. Areas with 

particularly poor water quality are known to experience frequent 

beach closures, massive fish kills, and areas of toxic sediments. 

Since this pollution comes from many diffuse sources throughout 

the country, addressing it requires a strong commitment to coordination and cooperation between 

multiple sectors and among Federal, State, tribal, local authorities, and regional governance structures. 

Fortunately, a number of point and non-point source prevention programs are available to Federal, 

State, tribal, local, regional, and private entities to reduce the amount of pollutants that are transported 

from our Nation’s watersheds and into our coastal waters. There are opportunities to achieve significant 

reductions in these inputs to our coasts and ocean through concrete mechanisms that integrate and 

coordinate land-based pollution reduction programs.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

39

The Plan Should Address: 

•  The major impacts of urban and suburban development and agriculture, including forestry 

and animal feedlots, on ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes waters;

•  The relative contributions of significant land-based sources of pollutants, sediments, and 

nutrients to receiving coastal waters and ways to address them, including recommendations 

of how to integrate and improve existing land-based conservation and pollution programs;

•  Best management practices, use of conservation programs, and other approaches for 

controlling the most significant land-based sources of nutrients, sediments, pathogens, 

toxic chemicals, solid waste, marine debris, and invasive species; and

•  The establishment of a comprehensive monitoring framework and integration with State 

monitoring programs.

4. Changing Conditions in the Arctic: 

Address environmental stewardship needs 

in the Arctic Ocean and adjacent coastal 

areas in the face of climate-induced and 

other environmental changes.

Obstacles and Opportunities 

Climate change is having a disproportionally 

greater impact on polar regions than elsewhere, 

and the Arctic region is faced with serious 

problems. Permafrost is thawing at an 

accelerated rate, which leads to the release of 

large amounts of methane. Multi-seasonal sea 

ice is rapidly deteriorating. Much of the Alaskan 

Arctic seashore is threatened by coastal erosion 

and other environmental challenges. Increased human activity in the area is bringing additional 

stressors to the Arctic environment, with serious implications for Arctic communities and ecosystems. 

At the same time, the diminishing ice presents opportunities and pressures for increased development 

of living and non-living resources and for increased commerce and transportation. Working with all of 

the stakeholders, including the indigenous communities, we have the opportunity to develop proactive 

plans, informed by the best science available, to manage and encourage use while protecting the fragile 

Arctic environment.

The Plan Should Address: 

•  Better ways to conserve, protect, and sustainably manage Arctic coastal and ocean 

resources, effectively respond to the risk of increased pollution and other environmental 

degradation on humans and marine species, and adequately safeguard living marine 

resources;
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

40

•  New collaborations and partnerships to better monitor and assess environmental conditions 

and devise early warning and emergency response systems and procedures to be prepared 

for and respond to emerging events in the Arctic region, such as environmental disasters; 

•  Consistency and coordination with the implementation of United States Arctic Region 

Policy as promulgated in National Security Presidential Directive 66/Homeland Security 

Presidential Directive 25 (2009); and 

•  Improvement of the scientific understanding of the Arctic system and how it is changing in 

response to climate-induced and other changes.

5. Ocean, Coastal, and Great Lakes Observations, Mapping, and Infrastructure: Strengthen and 

integrate Federal and non-Federal ocean observing systems, sensors, data collection platforms, 

data management, and mapping capabilities into a national system and integrate that system 

into international observation efforts. 

Obstacles and Opportunities 

Our ability to understand weather, climate, and ocean conditions, to forecast key environmental 

processes, and to strengthen ocean management decision-making at all levels is informed by a 

sound knowledge base. Efficient and effective coordination of the many available tools, continued 

development of new tools and infrastructure, and integration of them into a cohesive, unified, 

robust system is becoming increasingly difficult as an ever increasing number of data collection and 

processing systems come on line. New ground-breaking observation technologies give us the ability to 

observe and study global processes at all scales. These new tools, if fully integrated, will significantly 

advance our knowledge and understanding of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. Furthermore, 

successful integration of new tools and data will improve our ability to engage in science-based 

decision-making and ecosystem-based management by ensuring that biological, ecological, and social 

data and processes are included in the calculus.

The Plan Should Address:

•  A nationally integrated system of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes observing systems, 

comprised of Federal and non-Federal components, and cooperation with international 

partners and organizations, as appropriate;

•  Regional and national needs for ocean information, to gather specific data on key ocean, 

coastal, and Great Lakes variables that are required to support the areas of special emphasis 

and other national needs;

•  The use of unmanned vehicles and remote sensing platforms and satellites to gather data 

on the health and productivity of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes;

•  The capabilities and gaps of the National Oceanographic Fleet of ships and related facilities; 

and

•  Data management, communication, access, and modeling systems for the timely 

integration and dissemination of data and information products. 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

41

PART FOUR. THE FRAMEWORK FOR EFFECTIVE COASTAL 

AND MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING

I. Introduction

Coastal and marine spatial planning is one of the nine priority objectives in the recommendations. 

This framework for CMSP in the United States provides a definition of CMSP, identifies the reasons for 

engaging in CMSP, and describes its geographic scope. It articulates national CMSP goals and guiding 

principles that would be adhered to in CMSP efforts and the eventual development and implementation 

of coastal and marine spatial plans. In addition, this framework describes how CMSP and CMS Plans 

would be regional in scope and developed cooperatively among Federal, State, tribal, local authorities, 

and regional governance structures, with substantial stakeholder and public input. 

II. What is Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning?

CMSP is a comprehensive, 

adaptive, integrated, ecosystembased, and transparent spatial 

planning process, based on sound 

science, for analyzing current and 

anticipated uses of ocean, coastal, 

and Great Lakes areas. CMSP 

identifies areas most suitable 

for various types or classes of 

activities in order to reduce 

conflicts among uses, reduce 

environmental impacts, facilitate 

compatible uses, and preserve 

critical ecosystem services to 

meet economic, environmental, 

security, and social objectives. In practical terms, CMSP provides a public policy process for society to 

better determine how the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes are sustainably used and protected - now and 

for future generations.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

42

III. Why Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning? 

The Nation’s interests in the ocean, our coasts, 

and the Great Lakes support a growing number 

of significant and often competing uses and 

activities, including commercial, recreational, 

cultural, energy, scientific, conservation, and 

homeland and national security activities. 

Combined, these activities profoundly influence 

and benefit coastal, regional, and national 

economies and cultures. However, human uses 

of our ocean, coasts, and the Great Lakes are 

expanding at a rate that challenges our ability 

to plan and manage them under the current 

sector-by-sector approach. While many existing 

permitting processes include aspects of crosssectoral planning (through, for example, the 

process governed by the National Environmental 

Policy Act), most focus solely on a limited range 

of management tools and outcomes (e.g., oil and 

gas leases, fishery management plans, and marine 

protected areas). Missing from this picture is 

a more integrated, comprehensive, ecosystembased, flexible, and proactive approach to 

planning and managing these uses and activities. 

This new approach would be national in scope to 

address national interests, but also scalable and 

specific to regional and local needs. Without such 

an improved approach, we risk an increase in 

user conflicts, continued planning and regulatory 

inefficiencies with their associated costs and 

delays, and the potential loss of critical economic, 

ecosystem, social, and cultural services for 

present and future generations. 

Recent scientific and ocean policy assessments 

have demonstrated that a fundamental change in 

our current management system is required to 

achieve the long-term health of our ocean, coasts, 

and Great Lakes in order to sustain the services and benefits they provide to society. The present way we 

Traditional, New, and Expanding Ocean, 

Coastal, And Great Lakes Uses

The ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are 

home to and support myriad important human 

uses. CMSP provides an effective process to better 

manage a range of social, economic, and cultural 

uses, including:

•  Aquaculture (fish, shellfish, and seaweed 

farming)

•  Commerce and Transportation (e.g., cargo 

and cruise ships, tankers, and ferries)

•  Commercial Fishing

•  Environmental/Conservation (e.g., marine 

sanctuaries, reserves, national parks, and 

wildlife refuges)

•  Maritime Heritage and Archeology

•  Mining (e.g., sand and gravel)

•  Oil and Gas Exploration and Development

•  Ports and Harbors

•  Recreational Fishing

•  Renewable Energy (e.g., wind, wave, tidal, 

current, and thermal)

•  Other Recreation (e.g., boating, beach 

access, swimming, surfing, nature and whale 

watching, and diving)

•  Scientific Research and Exploration

•  Security, Emergency Response, and Military 

Readiness Activities

•  Subsistence Uses

•  Tourism

•  Traditional Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering

•  Working Waterfronts
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

43

manage these areas cannot properly account for cumulative effects, sustaining multiple ecosystem 

services, and holistically and explicitly evaluating the tradeoffs associated with proposed alternative 

human uses.

Scientific understanding and information are central 

to achieving an integrated and transparent planning 

process. Natural and social sciences can inform 

decisions about how to achieve societal objectives from 

the Nation’s ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes waters, 

both now and into the future, while maintaining 

ecosystem integrity. Built on this foundation of sound 

science, this new system for planning should facilitate 

maintenance of essential ecosystem services, encourage 

compatible uses, minimize conflicts, evaluate tradeoffs 

in an open and transparent manner, and include 

significant and meaningful stakeholder involvement.

The Benefits of CMSP

As recommended in this framework, CMSP is 

intended to yield substantial economic, ecological, 

and social benefits. To do so, it must fully incorporate 

the principles of sound science for ecosystem-based 

and adaptive management, be transparent, and be 

informed by stakeholders and the public. Many have 

raised concerns regarding whether CMSP would result 

in additional layers of regulatory review or delays in 

decision-making. To the contrary, CMSP is intended to 

build upon and significantly improve existing Federal, 

State, tribal, local, and regional decision-making and 

planning processes. Thus, while the development of 

CMSP would require significant initial investments of 

both human and financial resources, these investments are expected to result in substantial benefits. 

Several States, regions, and other nations have already recognized the many advantages of marine 

spatial planning, undertaken the planning process, and are eager to take positive steps to realize those 

advantages.

CMSP can facilitate sustainable 

economic growth. For instance: 

In the NetherlandsA “preferred sand mining area” has 

been identified within its territorial 

sea. This use allocation through 

marine spatial planning will allow 

sand extraction closer to shore at less 

cost to both the private sector and the 

government, especially in the next 

20 years when it is used for coastal 

adaptation to anticipated climate 

change. 

In GermanyAn environmental assessment for 

a wind farm permit costs about €1 

million (US$1.5 million) to prepare. 

Because the federal government 

has already prepared a Strategic 

Environmental Assessment for its 

marine spatial plan that includes 

priority areas for wind farms, costs 

of preparing and reviewing an 

environmental assessment for every 

permit proposed in a “Priority Wind 

Farm Area” will be reduced or avoided.

Examples Courtesy of Dr. Charles Ehler, 

UNESCO
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

44

CMSP is intended to facilitate sustainable economic growth in coastal communities by providing 

transparency and predictability for economic investments in coastal, marine, and Great Lakes 

industries, transportation, public infrastructure, and related 

businesses. CMSP could promote national objectives such as 

enhanced national energy security and trade and provide specific 

economic incentives (e.g., cost savings and more predictable and 

faster project implementation) for commercial users. 

CMSP is intended to improve ecosystem health and services 

by planning human uses in concert with the conservation of 

important ecological areas, such as areas of high productivity 

and biological diversity; areas and key species that are critical to 

ecosystem function and resiliency; areas of spawning, breeding, 

and feeding; areas of rare or functionally vulnerable marine 

resources; and migratory corridors. Enhanced ecosystem services 

and benefits can be attained through CMSP because they are 

centrally incorporated into the CMS Plan as desired outcomes 

of the process and not just evaluated in the context of individual 

Federal or State agency action. CMSP allows for a comprehensive 

look at multiple sector demands which would provide a more 

complete evaluation of cumulative effects. This ultimately is 

intended to result in protection of areas that are essential for the resiliency and maintenance of healthy 

ecosystem services and biological diversity, and to maximize the ability of marine resources to continue 

to support a wide variety of human uses. 

CMSP allows proactive 

planning to integrate a 

wide range of ecosystem 

services. For instance:

Provisioning

Energy, Seafood, Biomedical

Regulating and Supporting

Flood Prevention, Biological 

Diversity Maintenance, Climate 

Regulation, Erosion Control, 

Control of Pests and Pathogens, 

Nutrient Recycling, and Primary 

Production

Cultural Services

Education, Recreational, 

Heritage, and Spiritual
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

45

Example of the Potential Benefits of CMSP: Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

From a societal perspective, CMSP would improve opportunities for community and citizen 

participation in open planning processes that would determine the future of the ocean, our coasts, and 

the Great Lakes. For example, the CMSP process would recognize the social, economic, public health, 

and conservation benefits of sustainable recreational use of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources 

(e.g., fishing, boating, swimming, and diving), by providing improved coordination with recreational 

users to ensure consideration of continued access and opportunities to experience and enjoy these 

activities consistent with safety and conservation goals. Integrated engagement and coordination should 

result in stronger and more diverse ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes stewardship, economies, and 

communities. Moreover, CMSP can assist managers in planning activities to sustain cultural and 

recreational uses, human health and safety, and the continued security of the United States. For 

Comprehensive planning enabled NOAA, the United States Coast Guard, and several other government agencies 

and stakeholders to examine shipping needs, proposed deepwater liquefied natural gas port locations, and 

endangered whale distribution in a successful effort to reconfigure the Boston Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) to 

reduce the risk of whale mortality due to collisions with ships in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. 

The reconfigured TSS reduced risk of collision by an estimated 81% for all baleen whales and 58% for endangered 

right whales. Industry TSS transit times increased by only 9 – 22 minutes (depending on speed) and conflict with 

deepwater ports was eliminated. In addition, the new route decreased the overlap between ships using the TSS, 

commercial fishing vessels, and whale watch vessels, thereby increasing maritime safety. CMSP has the significant 

potential of applying this integrated, multi-objective, multi-sector approach on a broader and sustained scale.

Diagram Courtesy of NOAA/Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

46

instance, CMSP would help to ensure that planning areas identified as important for public use and 

recreation are not subject to increased risk of harmful algal blooms, infectious disease agents, chemical 

pollution, or unsustainable growth of industrial uses.

IV. Integration, Cooperation, and 

Coordination

Strong partnerships among Federal, State, 

tribal, and local authorities, and regional 

governance structures would be essential to a 

truly forward-looking, comprehensive CMSP 

effort. One of the significant benefits of CMSP 

is to improve the ability of these authorities 

to seamlessly coordinate their objectives with 

broader planning efforts by participating in 

the CMSP process for areas within and beyond 

their jurisdictional waters. Many States and 

regional governance structures have already 

engaged in some form of comprehensive 

marine planning and CMSP would build 

upon and incorporate these efforts. Also, the 

United States has a unique legal relationship 

with federally-recognized American Indian 

and Alaska Native tribal governments. These 

tribal governments, and the indigenous 

populations in Hawaii and the United States 

Commonwealths and Territories, are integrally 

linked to the maritime realm and would play 

an important role in CMSP. 

The United States shares maritime and 

Great Lakes boundaries with a number of 

countries and has the world’s largest EEZ 

and an extensive Continental Shelf. The 

development of CMSP provides opportunities 

for engagement with other countries, in 

coordination with the Department of State 

and other relevant agencies. The views and 

decisions of relevant international fora should 

be taken into account, where appropriate, in 

CMSP and the development of CMS Plans. 

The ability for States and tribes to participate in 

the CMSP process for areas within and beyond 

their respective jurisdictions can afford the 

following potential opportunities and incentives:

•  Encourage and inform the Federal 

government to better manage resources 

or address processes that transcend 

jurisdictional boundaries; 

•  Define local and regional objectives and 

develop and implement CMSP in a way that is 

meaningful to regionally specific concerns;

•  Leverage, strengthen, and magnify local 

planning objectives through integration with 

regional and national planning efforts;

•  Proactively address concerns over proposed 

activities impacting State and tribal interests 

and minimize use conflicts before they 

escalate;

•  Leverage support from the Federal 

government to build CMSP capacity, access 

CMSP data, and acquire scientific, technical, 

and financial assistance; 

•  Access data through CMSP portal(s) and 

utilize science tools developed, established, 

and maintained for CMSP efforts;

•  Benefit from sustained Federal participation 

on the regional planning bodies that consist 

of representatives empowered to make 

decisions and commitments on behalf of 

their respective agencies, in turn helping to 

integrate and improve decision-making; 

•  Provide a clearer and easier point of access 

for all Federal agencies with regard to ocean, 

coastal, and Great Lakes issues; and

•  Achieve regulatory efficiencies, reduction in 

administrative delays, and cost savings.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

47

Similarly, as the United States is a leader in various international fora that deal with marine issues, the 

United States should introduce relevant aspects of CMSP for consideration by such bodies. 

V. Public and Stakeholder Engagement

In addition to coordination and cooperation among all levels of government, robust public and 

stakeholder engagement is integral to a successful CMSP process. Given the multi-objective nature 

of CMSP it is critical to ensure there are numerous opportunities for a broad range of input to gain 

a better understanding of the human uses and influences on the planning area, and expectations, 

interests, and requirements for the future. Including a broad range of interests throughout the planning 

and implementation of CMSP is necessary to strengthen mutual and shared understanding about 

relevant problems and opportunities and will better inform the process and its outcomes.

VI. The Authority for Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning

Federal statutes often include authorizing language that explicitly gives agencies the responsibility 

to plan and implement the objectives of the statutes. Moreover, several Federal statutes specifically 

authorize agency planning with respect to the ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes environments. Federal 

agencies and departments also administer a range of statutes and authorized programs that provide 

a legal basis to implement CMSP. These statutory and regulatory authorities may govern the process 

for making decisions (e.g., through Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking and adjudications) and 

not just the ultimate decisions made. The processes and decision-making CMSP envisions would be 

carried out consistent with and under the authority of these statutes. State, tribal, and local authorities 

also have a range of existing authorities to implement CMSP, although this will vary among and within 

regions. This framework for CMSP is to provide all agencies with agreed upon principles and goals to 

guide their actions under these authorities, and to develop mechanisms so that Federal, State, tribal, 

and local authorities, and regional governance structures can proactively and cooperatively work 

together to exercise their respective authorities.

An agency or department’s capacity to internalize the elements of any particular CMS Plan would vary 

depending on the nature of applicable statutes. CMSP is intended to provide a better framework for 

application of these existing laws and agency authorities, but is not intended to supersede them. Where 

pre-existing legal constraints, either procedural or substantive, are identified for any Federal agency, 

the NOC would work with the agency to evaluate necessary and appropriate legislative solutions or 

changes to regulations to address the constraints. In the interim, agencies would comply with existing 

legal requirements but should endeavor, to the maximum extent possible, to integrate their actions with 

those of other partners to a CMS Plan.

VII. The National Goals of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning 

For CMSP to be successful, it must be based on clear, broad-based goals that define the desired 

outcomes to be achieved. CMSP in the United States would be developed and implemented to further 

the following goals:
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

48

1. Support sustainable, safe, secure, efficient, and productive uses of the ocean, our 

coasts, and the Great Lakes, including those that contribute to the economy, commerce, 

recreation, conservation, homeland and national security, human health, safety, and 

welfare;

2. Protect, maintain, and restore the Nation’s ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources and 

ensure resilient ecosystems and their ability to provide sustained delivery of ecosystem 

services;

3. Provide for and maintain public access to the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes;

4. Promote compatibility among uses and reduce user conflicts and environmental impacts;

5. Improve the rigor, coherence, efficiency, and consistency of decision-making and 

regulatory processes; 

6. Increase certainty and predictability in planning for and implementing new investments 

for ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes uses; and

7. Enhance interagency, intergovernmental, and international communication and 

collaboration.

VIII. The National Guiding Principles for Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning

In order to achieve the national goals of CMSP, planning efforts are to be guided by the following 

principles: 

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, 

subsistence uses, 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, provides for public access, 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 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

49

sound science and the best available information, including the natural and social 

sciences, and relevant local and traditional knowledge.

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

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, sealevel rise, and ocean acidification; and new and emerging uses, advances in science and 

technology, and policy changes. 

9. CMSP objectives and progress toward those objectives would be evaluated in a regular 

and systematic manner, with public input, 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 Law of the Sea Convention, and with treaties and other 

international agreements to which the U.S. is a party.

12. CMS Plans would be implemented in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws, 

regulations, and Executive Orders.

IX. Geographic Scope of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning

The geographic scope of the planning area for CMSP in the United States includes the territorial sea, 

the EEZ, and the Continental Shelf. The geographic scope of the planning area would extend landward 

to the mean high-water line. The geographic scope for the Great Lakes would extend from the ordinary 

high-water mark and include the lakebed, subsoil, and water column to the limit of the United States 

and Canada international boundary, as maintained by the International Boundary Commission, and 

includes Lake St. Clair and the connecting channels between lakes. Privately owned lands as defined by 

law would be excluded from the geographic scope.

The geographic scope would include inland bays and estuaries in both coastal and Great Lakes 

settings. Inclusion of inland bays and estuaries is essential because of the significant ecological, 

social, and economic linkages between these areas with offshore areas. Additional inland areas may 

be included in the planning area as the regional planning bodies, described in Section X of this Part, 

deem appropriate. Regardless, consideration of inland activities would be necessary to account for 

the significant interaction between upstream activities and ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes uses and 

ecosystem health. Likewise, consideration would also be given to activities occurring beyond the EEZ 

and continental shelf that may influence resources or activities within the planning area. 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

50

The Great Lakes and CMSP

Great Lakes resources are governed 

in part by a body of law, treaties, 

and regional policy that is distinct 

from our ocean and other coastal 

areas. Of paramount significance 

is the Great Lakes Water Quality 

Agreement (GLWQA) with Canada 

and its implementation under various 

Federal laws that commit each country 

to restore and maintain the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the 

Great Lakes through use of ecosystembased management. However, while 

various Federal regulatory authorities 

apply in the United States Great Lakes, the submerged lands underlying them are largely under the 

jurisdiction and ownership of the Great Lakes States.

CMSP efforts in the Great Lakes would be complementary to and closely coordinated with the GLWQA 

and other Great Lakes initiatives and authorities, such as the President’s Great Lakes Restoration 

Initiative and Executive Order 13340, which established a cabinet-level Great Lakes Interagency Task 

Force, its Regional Working Group, and a multi-stakeholder Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. 

Land-based Activities and Their Relation to CMSP

Although the geographic scope of the CMSP area in the United States would not include upland 

areas unless a regional planning body determines to include them, the health and well-being of the 

ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are in large part the result of the interrelationships among 

land, water, air, and human activities. Effective management of environmental health and services, 

maritime economies, commerce, national and homeland security interests, and public access necessitate 

connecting land-based planning efforts with ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes planning. Thus, successful 

implementation of CMSP would ultimately depend upon a better integration of coastal planning that 

considers influences from, and activities within, coastal watersheds and other contributing land areas. 

Land-based watershed planning efforts (e.g., components of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative 

Action Plan) should inform and influence CMSP within each region. Similarly, ocean, coastal, and 

Great Lakes activities that affect land-based ecosystems should be considered and accounted for during 

CMSP efforts using the existing State and Federal programs including the Coastal Zone Management 

Act (CZMA), Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and other relevant authorities. It is the intent of the 

CMSP process to better understand how current mandates and programs interact towards the common 

goals of CMSP and, in doing so, to better coordinate, and where appropriate, strengthen their collective 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

51

benefits. In addition, watershed monitoring, terrestrial observation activities, and ocean, coastal, and 

Great Lakes observation systems should be linked to provide the necessary information on interactions 

and impacts across the land-sea boundary. 

X. Development and Implementation of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning

CMSP would be developed and implemented 

using a regional approach to allow for the 

variability of economic, environmental, and 

social aspects among different areas of the 

United States. This section describes the regional 

approach, recommended steps, and the essential 

elements to be included in the development and 

implementation of CMSP. 

Given the importance of conducting CMSP 

from an ecosystem-based perspective, combined 

with the likely involvement of existing regional 

governance structures in developing plans, a 

consistent planning scale with which to initiate 

CMSP is at the large marine ecosystem (LME) scale.7

 These recognized LMEs were defined on the basis 

of consistent ecological conditions and other factors. Overall, the boundaries of regional governance 

structures for the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf Coast, and West Coast lie within LME 

boundaries. This regional approach, consistent with the LMEs, would also be applied to the Great 

Lakes, Alaska, the Pacific Islands, and the Caribbean. Therefore, for CMSP purposes, the United States 

would be subdivided into nine regional planning areas based on LMEs, with modifications as necessary 

to ensure inclusion of the entire U.S. EEZ and Continental Shelf and to allow for incorporation of 

existing state or regional ocean governance bodies. The NOC would facilitate the development of 

regional CMS Plans for those areas. 

7

 The U.S. ocean and coastal waters hold all or parts of eleven LMEs: the West Bering Sea, East Bering Sea, Chukchi 

Sea, Beaufort Sea, Gulf of Alaska, California Current, Gulf of Mexico, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Insular Pacific-Hawaiian, and the Caribbean Sea. For representational purposes only, the five 

Alaskan LMEs are depicted as a single complex in the map on page 52. Although, as a large fresh-water system, the 

Great Lakes are not usually considered an LME, they do represent a large regional ecosystem of similar scale and are 

considered as such for this framework. Further detail on LMEs can be found at: http://www.lme.noaa.gov.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

52

Large Marine Ecosystems and Regional Planning Areas

Regional Planning Body 

The NOC would work with the States8 and federally-recognized tribes, including Alaska Native 

Villages, to create regional planning bodies – coinciding with the regional planning areas – for the 

development of regional CMS Plans. The membership of each of the nine regional planning bodies 

would consist of Federal, State, and tribal authorities relevant to CMSP for that region (e.g., resource 

management, including coastal zone management and fisheries management, science, homeland and 

national security, transportation, and public health). Members would be of an appropriate level of 

responsibility within their respective governing body to be able to make decisions and commitments 

throughout the process. Each regional planning body would identify Federal and non-Federal co-leads.9

 

Appropriate State and tribal representation would be determined by applicable States and tribes, 

consistent with the types of representation described by the NOC per Section XVI of this Part. Regional 

planning bodies would develop a mechanism to engage other indigenous community representatives 

8

 For purposes of this framework, “States” also include the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. 9

 Each regional planning body would have one Federal co-lead, one State co-lead, and, as appropriate, one tribal co-lead. 

The co-leads would be responsible for guiding and facilitating the timely progress of the CMSP process, but would not 

have final decision-making authority. 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

53

with jurisdictional responsibilities or interests relevant to CMSP, as well as coordinate with appropriate 

local authorities throughout the CMSP process. In addition, the regional planning bodies would 

provide a formal mechanism for consultation 

with the Regional Fishery Management 

Councils (RFMCs) across their respective 

regions on fishery related issues given their 

unique statutory responsibilities under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) 

and quasi-regulatory role in fisheries 

management.10 The NOC would prepare 

guidance for regional planning bodies in 

meeting these consultative process 

requirements in order to ensure consistency 

across regions. In the future, if other 

statutorily-mandated or quasi-regulatory 

groups are identified, the NOC would 

determine whether a formal mechanism for 

consultation should be developed for such 

groups and, if necessary, provide guidance for 

regional planning bodies on the development 

of such a process.

Each regional planning body11 should make 

every effort to ensure representation from 

all States within a region, ideally through, or 

as part of, the existing regional governance 

structures created by or including the States 

to address cross-cutting issues, including 

regional planning. Given that activities that happen outside of the planning area of each regional 

planning body may affect CMSP decisions in that area, ex officio membership on these bodies could 

be extended to adjacent coastal States to help integrate and enhance consistency among regions. 

Inland States may also be afforded membership, as determined appropriate by the regional planning 

body. It is also recognized that the United States shares maritime boundaries with other nations (e.g., 

Canada and Mexico) and the regional planning bodies for those respective areas may include ex officio 

representatives or observers from these nations. 

10 There are no Regional Fishery Management Councils in the Great Lakes Region, but the Great Lakes regional planning 

body should work with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and other relevant entities, as appropriate. 11 The Task Force based the State membership of the nine regional planning areas in part on the membership of the 

existing regional governance structures, where they exist, with the following one exception: Pennsylvania was added to 

the Mid-Atlantic Region, in addition to the Great Lakes Region, because Pennsylvania has a coastline on the Delaware 

River that would, under the defined geographic scope, be included in the CMSP regional planning area.

Nine Proposed Regional Planning Areas 

and Corresponding Minimum State 

Representation

1. Alaska /Arctic Region: Alaska

2. Caribbean Region: Puerto Rico and U.S 

Virgin Islands

3. Great Lakes Region: Illinois, Indiana, 

Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin

4. Gulf of Mexico Region: Alabama, Florida, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas

5. Mid-Atlantic Region: Delaware, Maryland, 

New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and 

Virginia

6. Northeast Region: Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont

7. Pacific Islands Region: Hawaii, 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, American Samoa, and Guam 

8. South Atlantic Region: Florida, Georgia, 

North Carolina, and South Carolina 

9. West Coast Region: California, Oregon, and 

Washington
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

54

Furthermore, there would be flexibility to develop sub-regional plans provided that these plans are 

encompassed in an overarching regional CMS Plan and overseen by the regional planning body. 

This construct may be particularly useful in the Alaska/Arctic and Pacific Islands Regions given the 

geographic breadth, the logistical constraints of coordinating resources across a region that spans the 

international dateline, and that multiple LMEs are encompassed by the Alaska/Arctic Region.

CMSP Development Agreement

The members of each regional planning body (the “partners”) would prepare and execute a CMSP 

Development Agreement, a model of which the NOC would develop as described in Section XVI of this 

Part. The Development Agreement would be an express commitment to work cooperatively to engage 

in CMSP and develop eventual CMS Plans, identify the regional planning body members for each of 

the partners, and define ground rules, roles, and responsibilities of the partners. 

Dispute Resolution Process 

CMSP would provide a process for resolving conflicts should members of the regional planning 

bodies disagree during the development or modification of CMS Plans and in the interpretation of 

NOC-certified CMS Plans. The NOC would develop this process, in cooperation with the GCC, to 

ensure consistency from region to region. This process would be designed in a way to ensure that most 

disputes would be resolved at the regional level. If a conflict cannot be resolved at the regional level, the 

regional planning body leads would elevate the issue to the NOC for resolution, via the NOC resolution 

process outlined earlier. In those instances in which such a conflict reflects a dispute between Federal 

and non-Federal members at the regional level, the NOC would consult with the GCC as part of this 

process. Disputes regarding a specific agency’s decisions pursuant to its statutory authority would be 

addressed through the various procedures and mechanisms available under that authority or other 

relevant authorities (e.g., Administrative Procedure Act).

Work Plan

Each regional planning body would develop a formal regional work plan that describes the agreedupon process for CMSP and development of CMS Plans (including all essential elements), specifies 

members, identifies co-leads, establishes key milestones, identifies resources, specifies time frames, and 

addresses the essential elements required for the planning process, as defined below. The work plan 

would allow flexibility to account for the particular circumstances of a given region (e.g., if a region has 

existing State plans). In addition, each work plan would specify a formal mechanism for consultation 

to engage the RFMCs within the region as well as a mechanism to engage the indigenous community 

representatives. The work plan should also describe how the regional planning body would coordinate 

with appropriate local authorities. The NOC would review and approve each regional work plan prior 

to its implementation. 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

55

Essential Elements of the CMSP Process

The CMSP process consists of a series of steps that would eventually lead to the development of a 

comprehensive, multi-sectoral, and multi-objective CMS Plan. Although the CMSP process envisions 

optimum flexibility among and within regions, the following essential elements – and how the partners 

plan to accomplish them – would need to be addressed in the work plan in order to ensure a level 

of national consistency across regions. The process would be adaptive and refined as regions gain 

experience with CMSP.

•  Identify Regional Objectives: Each region would define and 

agree upon a set of specific and measurable regional objectives 

that provide clear direction, outcomes, and timeframes for 

completion. These regional objectives would be consistent with 

the national goals and principles identified in this framework 

and with any national objectives the NOC has articulated for 

purposes of CMSP. These objectives would serve as a statement 

of purpose and need for action to guide the planning 

process and eventual development of an ecosystem-based, 

comprehensive, integrated CMS Plan.

•  Identify Existing Efforts that Should Help Shape the Plan 

throughout the Process: The regional planning body would 

identify existing efforts (e.g., State and Federal ocean plans, 

data management efforts, and CMSP decision products) that 

would allow the regional plan to build on existing work. This 

work should be leveraged and expanded to enable a more 

Essential Elements of the CMSP Process

•  Identify Regional Objectives

•  Identify Existing Efforts that Should Help Shape the Plan throughout the 

Process

•  Engage Stakeholders and the Public at Key Points throughout the Process

•  Consult Scientists and Technical and Other Experts

•  Analyze Data, Uses, Services, and Impacts 

•  Develop and Evaluate Alternative Future Spatial Management Scenarios 

and Tradeoffs 

•  Prepare and Release for Public Comment a Draft CMS Plan with 

Supporting Environmental Impact Analysis Documentation 

•  Create a Final CMS Plan and Submit for NOC Review 

•  Implement, Monitor, Evaluate, and Modify (as needed) the NOC-certified 

CMS Plan 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

56

organic and holistic approach that would advance the region as a whole while not duplicating or 

hindering existing and ongoing efforts. These existing efforts can include those that are region-wide, 

State focused, or more site-specific marine spatial plans or efforts (e.g., Great Lakes Restoration 

Initiative Action Plan, Massachusetts Ocean Plan, Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management 

Plan, or National Marine Sanctuary management plans), as well as issue-specific plans that seek 

to incorporate some aspects of CMSP approaches and principles (e.g., ocean energy and fishery 

management plans), as appropriate. 

•  Engage Stakeholders and the Public at Key Points throughout the Process: The regional planning 

body would ensure there is frequent and regular stakeholder engagement throughout all phases of 

the CMSP process, including development, adoption, implementation, evaluation, and adaptive 

management phases. To better ensure all concerns and ideas are considered, stakeholder engagement 

should be emphasized with those most impacted (or potentially impacted) by the planning process. 

Considerations should also be given to ensuring inclusion of underserved communities. Regions 

would establish an inclusive and transparent process for stakeholder participation (or, if applicable, 

utilizing an existing process) that ensures engagement with a representative balance of major 

social, cultural, economic, environmental, recreational, human health, and security interests. The 

regional planning body should also identify previous stakeholder input to regional or State CMSP 

efforts including the existing documentation on their input and needs. Stakeholder and public 

participation would be sought through a variety of robust participatory mechanisms that may 

include, but are not limited to, workshops, town halls, public hearings, public comment processes, 

and other appropriate means. Stakeholder and public engagement would be consistent with existing 

requirements for public notice and input under applicable laws. Additionally, regional planning 

bodies would operate with the maximum amount of transparency, participation, and collaboration 

to the extent permissible by law. The NOC would provide guidance on such operating procedures 

including methods that ensure effective public and stakeholder participation, encourage diversity of 

opinions, and contribute to the accountability of the CMSP process (e.g., public meetings, document 

availability, and timely public notification). 

•  Consult Scientists and Technical and Other Experts: 

The regional planning body would consult scientists, 

technical experts, and those with traditional knowledge 

of or expertise in coastal and marine sciences and other 

relevant disciplines throughout the process to ensure that 

CMSP is based on sound science and the best available 

information. To this end, the regional planning body would 

establish regional scientific participation and consultation 

mechanisms to ensure that the regional planning body 

obtains relevant information. Such consultation could take 

the form of regional private-public technology and science 

partnerships. In addition, the regional planning bodies 

would work with existing science and technical entities, 

such as the regional ocean observation organizations, and 

other organizations with relevant physical, biological, 

ecological, and social science expertise. Scientific 

participation and consultation mechanisms would provide 

scientific and technical oversight and support to the regional planning body throughout the CMS 

Plan development, implementation, and evaluation phases. 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

57

•  Analyze Data, Uses, Services, and 

Impacts: With assistance from scientific 

and technical experts, the regional planning 

body would investigate, assess, forecast, and 

analyze the following:

❍❍ Important physical and ecological 

patterns and processes (e.g., basic 

habitat distributions and critical habitat 

functions) that occur in the planning 

area, including their response to 

changing conditions; 

❍❍ The ecological condition and relative 

ecological importance or values of areas within the planning area, including identification 

of areas of particular ecological importance, using regionally-developed evaluation and 

prioritization schemes that are consistent with national guidance provided by the NOC;

❍❍ The economic and environmental benefits and impacts of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes 

uses in the region;

❍❍ The relationships and linkages within and among regional ecosystems, including 

neighboring regions both within and outside the planning area, and the impacts of 

anticipated human uses on those connections;

❍❍ The spatial distribution of, and conflicts and compatibilities among, current and emerging 

ocean uses in the area;

❍❍ Important ecosystem services in the planning area and their vulnerability or resilience to the 

effects of human uses, natural hazards, and global climate change;

❍❍ The contributions of existing placed-based management measures and authorities; and 

❍❍ Future requirements of existing and emerging ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes uses.

This analysis would form the basis of the Regional Assessment described in the Essential Elements 

of the CMS Plan below. The regional planning body would identify and leverage existing 

approaches and efforts to collect information as well as clearly identify where there are gaps in data 

and information and what assumptions are made in the assessments, forecasts, and analyses to 

‘compensate’ for lack of information and data.

•  Develop and Evaluate Alternative Future Spatial Management Scenarios and Tradeoffs: The 

regional planning body would identify a range of alternative future spatial management scenarios 

based upon the information gathered on current, emerging, and proposed human uses, ecosystem 

conditions, and ecosystem services. Comparative analyses would assess, forecast, and analyze 

the tradeoffs and cumulative effects and benefits among multiple human use alternatives. The 

alternatives and the supporting analyses would provide the basis for a draft CMS Plan. 

•  Prepare and Release for Public Comment a Draft CMS Plan with Supporting Environmental 

Impact Analysis Documentation: Once a draft CMS plan and supporting environmental impact 

analyses, including alternatives, are completed, the regional planning body would release it for 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

58

appropriate public review and comment. During the development of a CMS Plan and before formal 

adoption of a final CMS Plan, regional planning bodies would also have the flexibility to move 

forward with CMSP efforts and agreements to address ongoing issues and regional coordination. It 

is recognized that these agreements would likely become part of the final CMS Plan. In drafting the 

CMS Plan, the regional planning body would resolve disputes using the process developed by the 

NOC, as discussed above in this Section. 

•  Create a Final CMS Plan and Submit for NOC Review: Based on public review of the draft plan 

and alternatives, the regional planning body would develop the final CMS Plan and environmental 

impact analysis that includes elements detailed in the Essential Elements of the Plan. The regional 

planning body would submit the final CMS Plan to the NOC for national consistency certification, 

as described in Section XII of this Part. Certification by the NOC would not occur until after release 

of the final CMS Plan for 30 days of public notice. These CMS Plans are intended to be iterative and 

are expected to be modified through the adaptive process described below.

•  Implement, Monitor, Evaluate, and Modify (as needed) the NOC-Certified CMS Plan: The 

regional planning body would have an ongoing responsibility to monitor and assess the effectiveness 

of the CMS Plan. The regional planning body would adapt the CMS Plan, as necessary, based on 

relevant changes in ecological, economic, human health, safety, security, or social conditions and 

information. During implementation, each region would integrate new data and scientific findings 

to refine regional objectives and their respective goals. As new technologies are developed to observe 

and monitor ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes environments and their uses, they would be considered 

for application in regional CMSP monitoring and evaluation efforts.

Essential Elements of the CMS Plan

CMS Plans are expected to vary from region to region according to the specific needs, capacity, and 

issues particular to each region. A completed CMS Plan would contain the following essential elements 

in order to ensure national consistency across regions and certification by the NOC. Scientific data, 

information, and knowledge, as well as relevant traditional knowledge would underpin each of these 

essential elements. 

Essential Elements of the CMS Plan

•  Regional Overview and Scope of Planning Area 

•  Regulatory Context 

•  Regional Assessment 

•  Objectives, Strategies, Methods, and Mechanisms for 

CMSP 

•  Compliance Mechanisms

•  Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms 

•  Incorporation of the Dispute Resolution Process 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

59

•  Regional Overview and Scope of Planning Area: The CMS Plan would include a regional overview 

of the planning area. This overview would include a description of the planning area’s ecosystems 

and their biological, chemical, and physical environments; social, recreational, human health, safety, 

security, and economic uses; ecological and conservation considerations, including identification 

of important ecological areas, habitats, flora, and fauna; and other concerns of the region. The 

overview would describe how the CMS Plan relates to and furthers the National Policy, CMSP 

national goals and principles, any national objectives developed by the NOC, regional objectives, 

and other relevant national, regional, State, and other policies. The CMS Plan would also define the 

geographic scope of the planning area. 

•  Regulatory Context: The CMS Plan would describe the statutes, rules, and regulations relevant to 

implementing CMSP throughout all levels of government. It would also describe, as appropriate, the 

principal existing planning processes (e.g., Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan or State 

marine spatial plans) that may be relied on or incorporated as part of the regional CMS Plan.

•  Regional Assessment: The CMS Plan would include a regional assessment, based on 

environmental, social, economic, and other necessary data and knowledge, describing the existing 

and predicted future conditions, uses, and characteristics of the ocean, coastal, or Great Lakes areas 

covered in the CMS Plan. The regional assessment would include: relevant biological, chemical, 

ecological, physical, cultural, and historical characteristics of the planning area; ecologically 

important or sensitive species/habitats/ecosystems; and areas of human activities. The assessment 

would also include an analysis of ecological condition or health and of cumulative risks as well as 

forecasts and models of cumulative impacts. The regional assessment would explain the information 

obtained and analyses conducted during the planning process and how they were used to help 

determine management decisions and plan alternatives. 

•  Objectives, Strategies, Methods, and Mechanisms for CMSP: This section would describe the 

regional objectives and proposed strategies, methods, and mechanisms for CMSP for the region. 

It would provide the analysis, evaluation of options, and the basis for the conclusions made in the 

CMS Plan. It would describe the spatial determinations for conservation and uses, at the appropriate 

scale, and include any necessary visual representations. The CMS Plan would describe the strategies, 

methods, and mechanisms for integrated or coordinated decision-making, including addressing use 

conflicts. The CMS Plan would further describe the continuing processes by which implementation 

would proceed, including mechanisms to ensure that individual partner and collaborative decisionmaking are reviewed for consistency with plan priorities and objectives. The CMS Plan would 

describe continued opportunities for stakeholder and public engagement. It would provide the 

flexibility needed to accommodate activities and operations in preparation for and response to 

disasters, emergencies, and similar incidents. The CMS Plan would also consider a regional process 

for requesting variances and amendments. 

•  Compliance Mechanisms: The CMS Plan would specify mechanisms to enhance coordination and 

cooperation among decision-makers and promote consistency in each agency’s interpretation and 

application of its respective existing laws and regulations used for implementation and enforcement 

of CMS Plans. 

•  Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms: The CMS Plan would specify the monitoring and 

evaluation mechanisms, including a reporting mechanism, to be employed to assess the effectiveness 

of the CMS Plan and identify where and when changes need to be considered. As part of monitoring 

and evaluation, regional planning bodies would define a clear set of regional performance measures 

to be used to assess whether or not the region is meeting national and regional objectives and goals. 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

60

Additionally, regional planning bodies would participate in the periodic execution of regional 

ecosystem assessments to evaluate impacts of management actions from economic, ecological, and 

social perspectives in order to inform the CMS Plan. Monitoring and evaluation will follow from 

and build upon the original regional assessment, consistent with national guidance provided by the 

NOC.

•  Incorporation of the Dispute Resolution Process: The CMS Plan would incorporate the dispute 

resolution process, as described in Section X of this Part. 

XI. The Nature of the Planning Process and National Ocean Council-Certified 

Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans

CMSP is intended to provide Federal, State, tribal, and regional bodies, stakeholders, and the public 

with a meaningful forum within which to develop a plan to better manage multiple sustainable uses, 

resolve conflicts, and support ecosystem-based management of the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes 

in accordance with shared goals, guiding principles, and applicable legal authorities. In this way, 

regional objectives and national objectives, goals, and guiding principles can be considered in a single, 

comprehensive, and integrated process. In order to be successful, the outcome of CMSP would have 

to result in meaningful improvements in the way that Federal, State, tribal, local, and regional bodies, 

stakeholders, and the public participate in the use and conservation of these areas. 

While the goal of this framework is to move toward comprehensive, integrated, flexible, proactive, 

ecosystem-based CMSP, this would not happen instantaneously. CMSP must be initiated and developed 

thoughtfully, allowing for time to address the myriad complexities and challenges that would 

undoubtedly arise as the process moves forward. Moreover, while this framework identifies some of the 

incentives and benefits for a coordinated Federal, State, tribal, and regional effort and envisions a fully 

coordinated planning process, there would be substantial flexibility to determine how best to develop 

and implement CMSP for each particular region. In the event that a particular State or tribe opts not to 

participate in the development or implementation of a CMS Plan, the development or implementation 

of the CMS Plan would continue. While this is not optimal because it would not result in a fully 

integrated CMS Plan, the benefits of coordinated planning among the participating partners warrant its 

completion. 

Development and implementation of CMS Plans would be an iterative process leading to a 

comprehensive, multi-objective, multi-sectoral plan within the first five years. Since each region may 

have different drivers and capabilities for CMSP, regions may choose to prioritize initial development 

and implementation steps. While CMSP should help resolve many use conflicts, it is not realistic to 

expect that all such conflicts would be resolved. Further, partners might agree not to resolve certain 

issues in a CMS Plan at a particular time, but rather to acknowledge these issues and indicate how the 

parties would continue to work on them as part of the iterative CMSP process. Such issues may be 

resolved as data gaps are filled, new information is developed, or as State or Federal legal authorities are 

enacted, changed, or updated. 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

61

To ensure that CMSP is effective and has a positive overall impact, each partner participating in CMSP 

would need to commit in good faith to: (1) a cooperative, open, and transparent CMSP process leading 

to the development and implementation of CMS Plans, acknowledging that each partner may have 

different authorities and non-discretionary mission objectives that must be fully addressed; (2) ensure 

that consideration of the National Policy, national CMSP goals, objectives, and principles, and regional 

CMSP objectives are incorporated into the decision-making process of all the partners consistent with 

existing statutory, regulatory, and other authorities, and the critical needs of emergency response, and 

homeland and national security activities; and (3) dispute resolution processes that enable concerns 

and issues not resolved through the cooperative planning process to be resolved quickly, rationally, and 

fairly. 

Signing onto the CMS Plan would be an express commitment by the partners to act in accordance 

with the CMS Plan, within the limits of applicable statutory, regulatory, and other authorities, and 

respecting critical emergency response and homeland and national security needs. Thus, State and 

Federal regulatory authorities would adhere to, for example, the processes for improved and more 

efficient permitting, environmental reviews, and other decision-making identified in the CMS Plan 

to the extent these actions do not conflict with existing legal obligations. State and Federal authorities 

with programs relevant to the CMS Plan would in a timely manner review and modify programs, as 

appropriate, to ensure their respective activities, including discretionary spending (e.g., grants and 

cooperative agreements), adhere to the CMS Plan to the extent possible. State and Federal agencies 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

62

would also be expected to formally incorporate relevant components of the CMS Plan into their 

ongoing operations or activities consistent with existing law. This may be implemented in a variety 

of ways. For example, agencies could enter into memoranda of understanding (MOUs) to coordinate 

or unify permit reviews and decision-making processes. Where existing regulatory or statutory 

requirements impose constraints on the ability of an agency to fully implement the CMS Plan, the 

agency would seek, as appropriate, regulatory or legislative changes to fully implement the CMS Plan.

Relationship of CMSP to Existing Authorities 

CMSP under this framework would not vest the NOC or 

regional planning bodies with new or independent legal 

authority to supersede existing Federal, State, or tribal 

authorities. Rather, the NOC would facilitate the development 

of CMSP and provide national context and guidance within 

which bottom-up, flexible, regionally-based CMS Plans 

would be developed and implemented. Regional planning 

bodies would function as convening and planning bodies that 

comprise Federal, State, and tribal representatives responsible 

for implementing existing authorities to create a process, and 

ultimately a plan, to better apply such existing authorities to 

achieve agreed upon regional goals and objectives. 

In and of themselves, CMS Plans, would not be regulatory or 

necessarily constitute final agency decision-making. However, 

they are intended to guide agency decision-making and 

agencies would adhere to the final CMS Plans to the extent 

possible, consistent with existing authorities, as described in 

Section XIV of this Part. Adherence to and implementation of the CMS Plan would be the result of a 

multi-year planning process by which regional planning body members would openly discuss their 

respective legal authorities, requirements, and processes and how they can be better applied in the 

CMSP context. Once a CMS Plan is approved, Federal, State, and tribal authorities would implement 

them through their respective legal authorities. Thus, for example, State permitting decisions 

remain within the purview and are the responsibility of the relevant State agency, not the NOC, 

regional planning body, or any of its other members. Also, as described earlier, disputes regarding 

a specific agency’s decisions pursuant to its statutory authority would be addressed through the 

various procedures and mechanisms available under that authority or other relevant authorities (e.g., 

Administrative Procedure Act). 

One example of the potential relationship between CMSP and existing authorities is the application 

of CZMA Federal consistency. Since there will be multiple Federal agencies and States involved in 

any one CMS Plan, the Federal agencies would need to determine how CZMA review would occur as 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

63

Federal agencies adopt the plan. For example, if a State works with the Federal agencies to develop a 

CMS Plan, the CMS Plan could include measures to ensure that it is consistent to the maximum extent 

practicable with the enforceable policies of a State’s CZMA program. The relevant State could consider 

potential changes to the State’s enforceable policies to achieve agreed upon regional CMSP objectives. 

Also, a CMS Plan might include CZMA Federal consistency administrative efficiencies so that CZMA 

review would not be needed for some activities. Finally, if a State incorporates a CMS Plan into its 

federally approved CZMA program, then it is likely that the CMS Plan would not need a CZMA Federal 

consistency review.

Relationship of CMSP to Existing Regional Entities

As mentioned above, the regional planning bodies would build upon the efforts of the existing regional 

governance structures. The regional planning bodies in conjunction with the NOC and the GCC would 

establish formal mechanisms or consultative processes to engage entities with statutorily-mandated 

or quasi-regulatory bodies that have an express role in the management and regulation of ocean, 

coastal, and Great Lakes resources. Specifically, as discussed earlier in Section X, a formal mechanism 

for consultation with the RFMCs would be incorporated into the CMSP process. In addition, 

regional planning bodies would coordinate with other existing regional entities and bodies such as 

Harbor Safety Committees, Regional Aquatic Nuisance Species Panels, and Area Maritime Security 

Committees, as appropriate.

Relationship of CMSP to Existing Plans and Projects

CMSP is not meant to delay or halt existing or pending plans and projects related to marine and Great 

Lakes environments or their uses. However, those responsible for making decisions on such plans and 

projects would be expected to take into account the national CMSP goals and principles, national 

policies, and any identified national and regional CMSP objectives in future decision-making to the 

extent possible under existing law. Once a CMS Plan is put into effect following NOC certification, 

its implementation would be phased in to avoid undue disruption or delay of projects with pending 

permits or other applications. The NOC would provide additional guidance on how best to accomplish 

this phased-in approach.

XII National Consistency

Certification by the NOC for National Consistency 

The NOC would review each regional CMS Plan to ensure it is consistent with the National Policy, 

CMSP goals and principles as provided in this framework, any national objectives, performance 

measures, or guidance the NOC has articulated, and any other relevant national priorities. The 

NOC’s review would ensure that the CMS Plans include all the essential elements described in this 

framework. The NOC would also consider the CMS Plan’s compatibility with an adjacent region’s CMS 

plan regarding issues that cross regional boundaries. Certification by the NOC would not occur until 

after release of the final CMS Plan for 30 days of public notice. The NOC would review and make a 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

64

decision on certification within six months of receipt of the CMS Plan. If a regional CMS Plan does 

not meet certification requirements, the NOC would work with the regional planning body to address 

issues with the CMS Plan and could allow for approval of those parts of a CMS Plan that do meet such 

requirements. Upon certification by the NOC, a decision document adopting the CMS Plan would be 

co-signed by senior State officials (e.g., Governors), tribal representatives, as appropriate, and senior 

officials of the Federal agencies represented on the regional planning body. Upon signature by the 

partners, the CMS Plan would be considered “in effect” and implementation would begin.12

National CMSP Objectives, Performance Measures, and Guidance 

The NOC would establish national objectives, 

national outcome-based performance 

measures, and guidance to promote 

national consistency in the development and 

implementation of CMS Plans. Because the 

intent of CMSP is integration across sectors, 

the NOC would develop a range of national 

objectives. These may include: economic, 

conservation, security, and social objectives. 

The NOC would also develop national 

performance measures to evaluate, monitor, 

and report on progress towards implementing 

national CMSP objectives. As specified in the 

Essential Elements of the CMSP Process and 

the Essential Elements of the Plan, regional planning bodies would develop region-specific objectives 

and associated performance measures, as part of the regional CMSP process. Regional performance 

measures developed by the regional planning bodies would be used to track improvements towards 

stated CMS Plan objectives. These regional measures and objectives would be consistent with the 

nationally established objectives and measures. 

Regional and national performance measures should directly relate to the stated national and regional 

objectives established in the CMSP process. Performance measures would assess both conservation and 

socio-economic objectives of the CMS Plan. Measures of conservation may include, but are not limited 

to, indicators of ecosystem health such as the status of native species diversity and abundance, habitat 

diversity and connectivity, and key species (i.e., species known to drive the structure and function of 

ecosystems). In addition, socio-economic measures would be developed and may include, but are not 

limited to: the economic value or productivity of certain economic sectors, such as commercial and 

recreational fisheries, aquaculture, and offshore energy; the number of recreation days; and the time 

12 If the NOC does not certify a plan, it would provide to the regional planning body the specific reasons for its decision. 

The regional planning body would then have continued opportunity to address the NOC’s reasons and resubmit the 

plan. 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

65

required for permit applications to complete the regulatory process. Performance measures would 

provide a means of demonstrating results of and provide accountability for the CMSP process to 

stakeholders, the general public, and decision-makers. 

The NOC would develop guidance in conjunction with the regional planning bodies for regional 

objectives and concomitant performance measures to ensure that they are cost-effective, measurable, 

interpretable, grounded in theory, responsive, and specific. The NOC would develop consistent 

guidance for these ecological and socio-economic approaches and tools to assist regional planning 

bodies in these efforts in order to provide for nationally applicable common scales of assessment. 

This will ensure that regional planning bodies are given the independence and flexibility to develop 

regionally meaningful objectives and measures, but also assure that regional measures and reporting 

are consistent with a national CMSP performance system.

XIII. Consistency with International Law 

CMS Plans would be implemented in accordance with customary international law, including as 

reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention, and with treaties and other international agreements to 

which the United States is a party. Seaward of the baseline, development and implementation of CMS 

Plans are to be consistent with the extent to which the United States exercises its rights and jurisdiction 

and performs duties in its territorial sea, EEZ, and Continental Shelf. CMS Plans would not change the 

rights, duties, and jurisdiction of the United States under international law, including with respect to 

navigational rights and freedoms. Nothing in this document or in CMS Plans developed pursuant to it 

would create private rights of action or other enforceable individual legal rights regarding the meaning 

and applicability of international law.

XIV. Adherence to and Compliance with National Ocean Council-Certified Coastal 

and Marine Spatial Plans

Signatories and all NOC member agencies would adhere to a NOC-certified CMS Plan, within the 

limits of their existing statutory and regulatory authorities. If a signatory intends to take an action 

that does not substantially adhere to a certified CMS Plan, it would need to provide advance notice to 

the regional planning body and the NOC, including justification (e.g., new statutory requirement) for 

the non-adherence. The CMS Plan signatories and the NOC would periodically evaluate the reasons 

requiring deviation from a NOC-certified CMS Plan, and, as appropriate, develop recommendations 

for minimizing these deviations in the future, including CMS Plan modification or underlying 

regulatory or statutory changes. Disputes regarding agency interpretation of a CMS Plan would be 

resolved according to the dispute resolution process developed by the NOC, as described above. 

Agencies would incorporate components of the CMS Plan into their respective regulations to the extent 

possible. Adherence with CMSP would be achieved through Federal and State agencies and tribal 

authorities incorporating CMS Plans into their pre-planning, planning, and permitting processes, to 

the extent consistent with existing laws and regulations. The CMS Plan signatories would periodically 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

66

review these processes, and where legal constraints are identified, would seek to remedy these 

constraints, including by working with the NOC to evaluate whether a legislative solution or changes to 

regulations are necessary and appropriate.

The effectiveness of the CMSP process depends, in-part, on the willingness and the ability of Federal, 

State, and tribal authorities to ensure that activities of third-parties are in compliance with relevant 

laws and regulations. The Nation would not achieve the benefits of comprehensive and integrated 

CMSP if there were inconsistent use or violation of the applicable laws and regulations. Successful 

enforcement, carried out by agencies exercising their individual enforcement authorities and 

responsibilities, must be based upon clear, concise, and easily understood requirements that reflect the 

practical realities of compliance and enforcement. 

CMS Plans would provide a framework for improved coordination and cooperation among Federal, 

State, tribal, and local enforcement agencies as they work together to enforce existing regulations 

in accordance with their respective authorities in support of regional goals that often extend 

beyond individual agency jurisdictions. To the extent permitted by existing laws and regulations, 

this cooperative regional approach should build productive partnerships that encourage sharing of 

information and best practices, help foster mutually agreed upon enforcement priorities and strategies, 

and make more effective use of scarce enforcement resources by focusing those resources on the highest 

regional enforcement priorities. A cooperative enforcement approach for Federal, State, and tribal 

CMSP-related laws could also facilitate more consistent interpretation and application of regulations 

across agencies and jurisdictions, resulting in greater certainty and understanding for ocean, coastal, 

and Great Lakes users, which in turn could foster improved compliance and overall effectiveness. 

The NOC and CMS Plan signatories would periodically review enforcement effectiveness and seek to 

remedy any conflicts or gaps in existing Federal-State-tribal coordinated enforcement mechanisms. 

XV. Scientific Knowledge and Data Integration, Research, Management, and Access

CMSP is fundamentally science-based and adaptive in response to new evidence, technology, and 

understanding. Essential to CMSP are scientific knowledge and data, collectively referred to here as 

information. Information is necessary to comprehensively, consistently, and continually investigate, 

assess, forecast, and analyze human uses, ecosystem conditions, management alternatives, information 

and data gaps, and CMS Plan effectiveness. Reflecting our long history of ocean science and 

exploration, the United States holds vast stores of natural and social science information about ocean, 

coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and their uses which can immediately be used to begin informing 

CMS Plan development. However, data and knowledge gaps, particularly regarding the complexities 

of these ecosystems, human use patterns, and the relationship between the two, indicate the need 

for continuing research to supplement existing information, especially in the context of changing 

environmental conditions and societal needs. Additional CMSP research will provide new information, 

including on specific and cumulative effects, ecosystems processes and resiliency, and the assessment 

and valuation of ecosystem services. 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

67

Relevant and credible information is critical for successful planning and, in turn, must be accessible to 

Federal, State, and local managers, tribes, 

academics, the private sector, and the 

public. A robust national information 

management system dedicated to coastal 

and marine scientific data and 

information products is required to meet 

the diverse data and application 

requirements of CMSP, and the varying 

technical capabilities of users. The NOC, 

working with the regional planning 

bodies, would create a system that is 

compatible with existing Federal 

information systems, captures relevant 

Federal information resources, has 

effective governance and accountability 

across agencies, and preserves data 

confidentiality, where appropriate. The 

NOC would leverage and build upon 

existing national data systems and 

initiatives (e.g., ocean observation), where appropriate. Within this construct, Federal agencies and the 

other regional partners would make relevant data, metadata, and derived products available and web 

accessible using recognized national and international standards and protocols to the extent permitted 

by law and regulation. In addition, State agencies, tribes, academia, the private sector, stakeholders, and 

other non-governmental sources would be encouraged to make their relevant information and 

knowledge, including local and traditional knowledge, available through this system. Exceptions would 

include sensitive but unclassified information that cannot be synthesized and modified into a format 

that is appropriate for broader distribution, pursuant to CMSP needs and information that is 

proprietary, statutorily confidential, or classified information.

To provide easy user access to agency CMSP-related information, a national information management 

system with either a central portal or regional portals that connect to CMSP information would 

be developed. The NOC would identify a Federal lead agency or collaborative entity to manage, 

implement, and update the CMSP portal(s) and components of the information management system. 

System interoperability, information exchange, and information and application technologies are 

intrinsically linked and would be developed and implemented together within the CMSP portal(s). 

To ensure national consistency, minimum data standards for CMSP information would be adopted 

and include standards for information quality. All information management and provision activities 

would be developed and updated with participation from existing and appropriate Federal data centers 

and initiatives. The NOC would ensure that the information is publicly available and easy-to-access 

Principles to Manage and Disseminate 

CMSP Information

•  CMSP information is a national strategic asset 

and must be developed and managed on an 

ongoing basis to meet planning needs.

•  CMSP information would be made available 

and accessible with nationally compliant 

“information about information” (i.e., metadata) 

to stakeholders.

•  Federal agencies would improve metadata to make 

information easier to discover, retrieve, use, and 

manage.

•  CMSP information that is collected, produced, 

or disseminated by Federal agencies, including 

information obtained from non-Federal sources, 

would meet government-wide information quality 

standards, and any other additional minimum 

standards adopted by the NOC. 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

68

through computer readable files and web service 

formats that support a variety of CMSP and user 

needs. This could include web browsers, geospatial 

web services, and other web-based collaborative 

resources. The CMSP portal would leverage 

emerging web technologies, including private sector 

partnerships, to increase transparency and promote 

public engagement. 

In order to build upon the existing CMSP scientific 

foundation, the NOC would establish mechanisms 

to identify and address priority CMSP science 

needs. This would include identification of priority 

CMSP research, data acquisition and information 

synthesis gaps, and new tools that would be required to apply science more effectively in the CMSP 

process. Identification of data, information, and research needs would be conducted on a regular basis 

as part of the adaptive and iterative process to improve the development and application of CMSP over 

time. 

Additionally, nationally consistent, derived data products, ranging from consistent habitat maps as data 

layers to specialized decision-support tools, would be developed to provide a consistent framework 

for regional assessments and alternative future spatial management scenarios. The NOC may provide 

further guidance for using such information in decision-making, for example, how to decide which 

areas are of particular ecological importance or value. Designed or adapted specifically for CMSP, these 

science-based decision-support tools, including models, assessments, and visualization capabilities, 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

69

would enable the regional planning bodies to synthesize information most relevant to CMSP decisions 

in ways that produce robust comprehensive CMS Plans. These tools would offer a shared knowledge 

base for meaningful stakeholder engagement, objective assessment of alternative and future scenarios, 

identification of the types of uses that are consistent with societal objectives, and regular evaluation 

of CMS Plans. They would be developed and made accessible in a way that regional and State efforts 

could build upon or add regional specific data and information to leverage these efforts and analyze the 

regionally-specific aspects of their planning within the broader national framework.

XVI. Implementation

Implementation of this framework would occur in multiple phases through the NOC and among the 

regions. As a first step, the NOC would undertake initial actions to develop and build a foundation 

for the national CMSP efforts. Concurrently, the NOC would directly engage States and tribes to 

discuss cooperative strategies to move forward with CMSP. Recognizing the extensive scope of the task 

of developing and implementing CMSP, it is important for Federal, State, tribal, and other partners 

to prioritize efforts in this initial implementation period. Each of the regions could have different 

priorities and be at varying stages in the development of the data, analyses, and the relevant issues for 

NOC Strategic Action Plan

Work Plans Developed

First CMS Plan 

Submitted for 

NOC Certification 

(3 Years)

Data Guidance and Information Management System Developed

Initial Regional Steps Implemented

Governance

Coordinating 

Committee Formed

COASTAL AND MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING PHASED IMPLEMENTATION

NOC Actions

Regional Planning Body Actions

CMSP Process Implementation

All Initial CMS 

Plans Completed 

and Certified

(mid-2015)

Strategic Action Plan and

Guidance Released

Information 

Management System 

Operationalized and

All Relevant Data 

Linked

Prototype Portal 

Launched and

Data Standards 

Released

National 

Workshop

Regional 

Planning 

Bodies 

Formed

Coordinate 

with States 

and Tribes

Federal Agency 

Coordination 

Work Plans

Submitted to NOC

Funding and Support 

Re-evaluated by 

NOC

Regional Capacity

Assessment and Initial 

Regional Steps 

Identified

Additional Guidance

Released by NOC

PHASE I (1-12 Months)

PHASE II (9-24 Months)

PHASE III (18 Months-5 Years)

NOC Organizes
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

70

policy-makers. With these differences in mind, the phased approach outlined below would enable the 

NOC and the regions sufficient time to develop capacity, build on existing efforts, and leverage and 

gain efficiencies from lessons learned. In order to best achieve the completion of CMS Plans in all 

regions by 2015, the NOC would have the flexibility to make minor adjustments or modifications to 

this implementation schedule.

Phase I (1-12 months)

Many of the actions the NOC and State, tribal, and regional representatives commence in Phase I would 

serve as the foundation to implement CMSP on a national scale.

Develop NOC Internal Organization and Begin Strategic Action Plan (Months 1-9)

In the first month of Phase I, building on the initial establishment and organization period of the 

NOC, the NOC would determine how best to incorporate CMSP into the NOC governance structure 

(e.g., establish a CMSP Interagency Policy Sub-Committee), decide on the roles of individual agencies 

in implementing specific elements of the CMSP framework, including identification of a lead Federal 

agency for each regional planning body that would serve with non-Federal co-lead(s), and assess 

resource needs including personnel, financial, and technical CMSP support.

The NOC would then begin development of a strategic action plan to address specific areas that require 

additional consideration, analysis, and elaboration. The strategic action plan would be released in six 

to nine months and include: national objectives; national performance measures; guidance regarding 

the development of a national information management system, including identification of additional 

CMSP information and research needs; legal analysis and recommendations for legislative changes, if 

necessary; description of a dispute resolution mechanism, as described previously; and any additional 

guidance the NOC deems appropriate for CMSP. The NOC would also further assess the relationship 

between RFMCs and regional planning bodies and determine the most effective mechanism for 

engagement in the CMSP process, including whether representation on the regional planning bodies 

is the best method for such engagement. The NOC would ensure opportunity for the GCC, existing 

regional governance organizations, and public participation as it develops the strategic action plan for 

coastal and marine spatial planning. The NOC, in cooperation with the GCC, would provide for a 

mechanism for resolving disputes if they occur among the members of the regional planning bodies 

during the development of CMS Plans, as described in Section X of this Part.

Develop and Implement Public and Stakeholder Engagement

Early and meaningful steps to facilitate public and stakeholder outreach and education regarding CMSP 

and its implementation are vital to advance national CMSP efforts. As discussed above, the NOC would 

ensure substantial opportunity for public participation as it develops all nine strategic action plans, 

including the strategic action plan for coastal and marine spatial planning. Also, to better inform all 

participants and the public, the NOC would work with Federal agencies and the regional planning 

bodies, when established, to guide the drafting and production of educational materials, guidebooks, 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

71

manuals, and other materials. These materials would be developed keeping in mind that the content 

should reflect the issues, language, and methods that would be meaningful in a particular region. These 

materials would include a glossary of key CMSP terms in order to reduce potential misunderstandings 

that could result in an inconsistent or ineffective CMSP process. The NOC, in coordination with 

the regional planning bodies, when established, would hold additional informational workshops 

for stakeholders to discuss the CMSP process and potential ways stakeholder participation would 

take place. Additional stakeholder engagement would be conducted by the regional planning bodies 

throughout the CMSP process.

National Objectives and National Performance Measures

As part of the strategic action plan, the NOC would establish national objectives for CMSP consistent 

with, and in furtherance of, the National Policy, CMSP goals and principles, and other relevant national 

goals and priorities. These national objectives would serve as additional direction for the development 

of regional objectives and to help to maintain national and regional consistency of CMSP. Along with 

these objectives, national outcome-based performance measures would be established to help define 

success and measure results. 

Guidance Regarding the Development of a National Information Management System 

While overarching objectives and measures would help direct CMSP efforts, guidance on data, 

technology, and tools would also be developed. During the first six to nine months, initial actions 

to coordinate, integrate, and manage data would be necessary. The NOC would begin development 

of a national information management system and CMSP portal(s), adopt minimum data standards 

consistent with government-wide information quality standards, identify a Federal lead agency or entity 

to manage, implement, and update the CMSP portal(s), identify and begin development of any new 

standard tools or models needed for CMSP in all regions, and identify additional CMSP information 

and research needs. At the end of nine months, guidance on these fundamentals would be released 

as part of the strategic action plan and a prototype CMSP portal(s) would be operational. However, 

building the information management system and linking the relevant data may take up to two years 

and would be ongoing as new information becomes available.

Legal Analysis and Recommendations of Legislative Changes, if Necessary 

Also, as part of the strategic action plan, the NOC would oversee efforts to identify gaps and conflicts 

in Federal authorities and recommend potential steps to reconcile them. This effort would examine 

how various statutory authorities of particular agencies can be harmonized in order to support 

comprehensive, integrated CMSP. Further, the NOC would consider how legal authorities of Federal, 

State, tribal, and local entities might collectively be used to support implementation of regional CMSP 

efforts. In doing so, the NOC should identify objective priorities and existing grant or other assistance 

programs that can support CMSP, consistent with relevant authorities.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

72

Convene and Organize Federal Agency Representatives in the Regions (Months 1-2)

National and regional Federal agency representatives would convene to discuss current and improved 

methods for communicating, sharing data and products, exploring regulatory efficiencies, and 

determining how best to work with State and tribal partners to achieve a CMS Plan. Due diligence 

is necessary on the part of the Federal community to self organize and coordinate among agencies 

before engaging State and tribal partners to ensure that a service is being provided in a way that meets 

considerations unique to each region.

Develop Model Agreement (Months 1-3)

During the first three months of Phase I, the NOC would create and make available a model 

development agreement to be used by the regional planning bodies. This model would be used to foster 

efficiency and consistency in forming the regional planning bodies. As described in Section X of this 

Part, the development agreement would be an express commitment to work cooperatively to engage in 

CMSP and develop eventual CMS Plans, identify the lead representatives for each of the partners, and 

define ground rules, roles, and responsibilities of the partners.

Organize and Convene a National Workshop(s) and CMSP Simulation Exercise (Months 2-4)

Within the initial two to four months of Phase I, the NOC would also organize and convene, with input 

from the GCC, one or more workshops and a CMSP process simulation exercise for potential regional 

planning body representatives. The workshop(s) would be a forum to directly engage Federal, State, 

and tribal representatives, to give an overview of CMSP and the national framework, to demonstrate 

and test how this framework would work in a planning exercise, and to discuss collaborative strategies 

to move forward. The NOC would identify lessons learned and additional operational issues that were 

brought to light from the workshop(s) and exercise within two months of workshop completion. 

Determine Composition of and Establish Regional Planning Bodies (Months 4-6)

After the workshop and exercise are held, the NOC, with advice from the GCC, would determine the 

additional types of representation needed for the composition of the regional planning bodies. Once 

the composition of the regional planning bodies is determined, the NOC would coordinate with the 

appropriate State authorities (e.g., Governors) and tribal representatives to establish regional planning 

bodies for each of the nine regions, identify specific members, and enter into a development agreement. 

Capacity Assessment and Identification of Initial Regional Steps (Months 6-12)

During the latter six to twelve months of Phase I, the regional planning bodies would conduct a 

regional CMSP capacity assessment. The assessment would evaluate capabilities, expertise, and 

resources in each region available to develop and implement CMSP. In addition, the assessment 

would help to identify and prioritize initial regional steps described below in Phase II. The NOC, in 

coordination with the regional planning bodies, would make a determination on how best to meet the 

needs identified in the capacity assessment and to support the initial regional steps through existing 

mechanisms, and possibly new resources and/or funding mechanisms.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

73

Develop Stakeholder and Scientific Participation Process (Months 6-18)

During Phase I, each regional 

planning body would begin to 

identify key stakeholders, scientific 

and technical experts, nongovernmental organizations, and 

other partners to engage in the 

CMSP process. A formal mechanism 

for regular stakeholder, scientific, 

and technical input would be 

established and incorporated into 

the process. Additionally, regional 

planning bodies, in conjunction 

with the NOC, would establish 

procedures and methods to ensure 

transparency, participation, and collaboration in the planning process, such as public meetings, 

document availability, and timely public notification.

Phase II (9-24 months)

Building on Phase I’s initial foundational steps of CMSP implementation, Phase II focuses on building 

capacity and testing specific issues or elements of the process. 

Initial Regional Steps (Months 9-18) and Work Plan Development (Months 12-24)

During Phase II, the NOC would enable the regions to focus during the initial work plan development 

period on those issues that are of highest regional priority. In this way, these early steps in each region 

can serve as a test for the other regions for specific issues. For example, a region may select to begin 

CMSP efforts by organizing, gathering, and analyzing data, whereas another region may select to focus 

on developing regional CMS Plan objectives. The focus for each region’s initial steps should be agreed 

upon after the capacity assessment is completed at the end of Phase I. After the initial regional steps are 

underway, the regional planning bodies would begin development of a full CMSP work plan, as detailed 

in Section X of this Part. In development of its work plan, each regional planning body should integrate 

the lessons learned from its and other regions’ initial steps and also consider how to best integrate 

relevant ongoing regional planning initiatives. 

Work Plan Submittal and Planning Process Preparation (Months 18-24)

Once initial regional steps are completed or in tandem with their completion, the regional planning 

bodies would submit to the NOC a package consisting of the proposed work plan. Once the work 

plan is submitted, the NOC would re-evaluate how best to support the regional CMSP effort through 

existing mechanisms, and possibly new resources or funding mechanisms to build on the lessons 

learned from the initial regional CMSP steps. For example, support might involve individual agencies 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

74

contributing staff or technical expertise to efforts coordinated through the NOC, or identifying 

existing grant programs to help support CMSP and achieve mutually agreed upon outcomes.

Phase III (18 months to 5 years)

While continuing to advance the actions and steps of Phases I and II, regional planning bodies would 

build out and scale up their efforts to establish a comprehensive CMSP process during Phase III to 

develop, multi-objective, multi-sectoral CMS Plans in all regions.

Develop and Carry Out CMSP Process and Provide Feedback from Initial Regional Steps (Months 18 

and beyond)

After the initial regional steps are undertaken by each region, the regional planning bodies would 

transition into Phase III, developing and carrying out a CMSP process using the initial regional steps 

and the work of the NOC as a foundation. There is recognition that some regions’ planning processes 

might be longer or more complicated than others. The timeframes for completion of the CMSP 

process are intended to be flexible to account for differing levels of resources, capacity, and other 

factors. During this process, regional planning bodies, in coordination with the NOC, would develop 

a mechanism for providing feedback and status reports to the NOC and appropriate State and tribal 

leadership to share lessons learned, best practices, and ensure routine and frequent communication 

nationally and among the regions. The regional planning bodies, in coordination with the NOC, 

would also ensure consistency, address questions and concerns, and adaptively manage the effort as 

appropriate. Although there would be flexibility in the framework to allow for variable CMSP process 

timeframes, regional planning bodies are encouraged to have final CMS Plans completed in three years 

and all regions would be expected to have final CMS Plans certified and implementation started by 

mid-2015. These final CMS Plans are intended to be iterative and are expected to be modified through 

the adaptive process beyond 2015.

XVII. Priorities for Financial and Other Support

Recognizing the reality of the limited availability of new resources, each of the Federal agencies engaged 

in this bold mission of developing and implementing CMSP would re-evaluate how resources are 

allocated in light of their statutory and regulatory mandates. Agencies would use the implementing 

actions of the President to recommend adjustments to their respective agency priorities to better align 

with the approved National Policy and CMSP goals. As CMSP is developed and implemented over 

time, the NOC would consider any additional resource needs through the budget prioritization process 

described earlier. Various Federal agencies would have differing roles to support the scientific basis and 

governance structures necessary to develop and implement CMSP. The following four areas should 

receive initial priority consideration for financial and other support for CMSP.

1. National Workshop(s) and Simulation Exercise 

Priority: Hold a national workshop(s) and simulation exercise. 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

75

Rationale: The first step towards a constructive process for CMSP would be for the participants to 

engage in a forum that creates a common vision for implementing CMSP, to identify challenges and 

solutions for regional CMSP development, and to enhance the capacity of regions to implement CMSP. 

This priority also would include support to ensure widespread involvement of Federal, State, and tribal 

representatives.

2. Initial Support for Regional CMSP Processes

Priority: Support the development of regional CMSP, including the capacity for regional planning 

bodies and the NOC to carry out initial CMSP activities. 

Rationale: A comprehensive and inclusive approach for regional CMSP planning processes would be 

based on each region engaging Federal, State, and tribal representatives to form the regional planning 

bodies. An effective process to sustain initial CMSP activities would necessitate regional planning 

bodies to organize and establish the necessary CMSP coordination (e.g., partnerships, interagency 

teams, and technical support staffing). To attain national and regional objectives, regional planning 

bodies would assess capacities, target resources, and begin implementing initial regional steps (e.g., 

stakeholder engagement, information acquisition, and CMS Plan development). This priority would 

also include support for the NOC to establish and carry out the necessary national CMSP steps (e.g., 

national objectives, national guidance, and building regional capacities), as described in Section XVI of 

this Part.

3. National Data and Information Management System, Prototype CMSP Portal(s) and Initial 

Development of Science and Information Needs

Priority: Improve and integrate the information (i.e., data and knowledge) used to inform CMSP; and 

identify additional scientific research to support CMSP information needs. 

Rationale: Effective CMSP would utilize the best available data and objective analyses. Such 

information would be nationally consistent, publicly available, and easily accessible to promote public 

engagement and allow for a consistent framework for regional implementation. Priority would be given 

to developing the national information management system and a prototype CMSP data portal(s). 

Subsequent efforts would identify and fill key national information needs,13 and develop CMSP 

decision-support tools and derived data products, including visualization tools, forecasting, and routine 

integrated ecosystem assessments. Additionally, scientific understanding is central to make informed 

CMSP decisions that reflect an integrated and transparent planning framework. To achieve this end 

would require a robust research foundation. 

13 Identification and filling information gaps, as previously presented in the framework, is an ongoing and iterative 

process. This framework recognizes that the acquisition of data and knowledge would proceed in tandem with 

developing CMS Plans using sound science and the best available information.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

76

4. Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement 

Priority: Build the knowledge, skills, and understanding of CMSP through regional planning bodies 

and stakeholder workshops, blogs, webinars, and other outreach methods. 

Rationale: An informed and engaged public and stakeholder community is critical to the effective 

implementation of the CMS Plans. Effective CMSP is predicated on the building of knowledge, skills, 

and understanding of CMSP through a range of robust outreach approaches.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

77

PART FIVE. Conclusion

In response to President Obama’s June 12, 2009 

memorandum, and after careful consideration of 

thousands of valuable comments from political 

leaders, public and private organizations, and 

citizens, the Task Force is pleased to submit these 

final recommendations for a comprehensive national 

ocean policy, an improved governance structure, a 

targeted implementation strategy, and a framework 

for effective coastal and marine spatial planning. Once implemented, these final recommendations will 

provide the first-ever comprehensive national policy of the United States to improve stewardship of the 

ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes.

The Task Force is unanimous in its call for the Nation to set a new course for improved stewardship 

of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. This must include a comprehensive, integrated, 

transparent, science-based, and ecosystem-based planning process to achieve the sustainable uses of 

the ocean, our coasts and the Great Lakes. The Task Force is mindful that these recommendations 

may create a level of uncertainty and anxiety among those who rely on these resources and may 

generate questions about how they align with existing processes, authorities, and budget challenges. 

The NOC will address questions and specifics as implementation progresses. Meaningful and frequent 

opportunities for stakeholder and public engagement throughout the implementation of the National 

Policy and implementation of coastal and marine spatial planning will be an essential component of 

cooperatively addressing these uncertainties head-on, and the Task Force recommendations embrace 

this approach. The Task Force is confident that the investments and improvements described in these 

final recommendations will advance the economic interests of the United States through sustainable 

and productive ocean uses; significantly improve our capacity to address the long-term challenges and 

impacts of climate and environmental changes; and provide a lasting foundation for further enhancing 

the many vital benefits our Nation can derive from these areas. 

With a clear National Policy and a revitalized, empowered, unified, and comprehensive framework to 

coordinate efforts set forth in these recommendations, we can achieve an America whose stewardship 

ensures that the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are healthy and resilient, safe and productive, 

and understood and treasured so as to promote the well-being, prosperity, and security of present and 

future generations. 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

a-i

APPENDIX A. 

PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM ON A NATIONAL POLICY FOR THE 

OCEAN, OUR COASTS, AND THE GREAT LAKES

THE WHITE HOUSE 

Office of the Press Secretary 

For Immediate Release June 12, 2009 

June 12, 2009 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 

SUBJECT: NATIONAL POLICY FOR THE OCEANS, OUR COASTS, 

AND THE GREAT LAKES

The oceans, our coasts, and the Great Lakes provide jobs, 

food, energy resources, ecological services, recreation, 

and tourism opportunities, and play critical roles in our 

Nation's transportation, economy, and trade, as well as the 

global mobility of our Armed Forces and the maintenance of 

international peace and security. We have a stewardship 

responsibility to maintain healthy, resilient, and sustainable 

oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes resources for the benefit of 

this and future generations. 

Yet, the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes are subject to 

substantial pressures and face significant environmental 

challenges. Challenges include water pollution and degraded 

coastal water quality caused by industrial and commercial 

activities both onshore and offshore, habitat loss, fishing 

impacts, invasive species, disease, rising sea levels, and 

ocean acidification. Oceans both influence and are affected 

by climate change. They not only affect climate processes but 

they are also under stress from the impacts of climate change.

Renewable energy, shipping, and aquaculture are also expected to 

place growing demands on ocean and Great Lakes resources. These 

resources therefore require protection through the numerous 

Federal, State, and local authorities with responsibility and 

jurisdiction over the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. 

To succeed in protecting the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes, the 

United States needs to act within a unifying framework under a 

clear national policy, including a comprehensive, ecosystem-based 

framework for the longterm conservation and use of our resources. 

In order to better meet our Nation's stewardship responsibilities 

for the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes, there is established an 

Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (Task Force), to be led by 

the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. The Task 

Force shall be composed of senior policy-level officials from the 

executive departments, agencies, and offices represented on the 

Committee on Ocean Policy established by section 3 of Executive 

Order 13366 of December 17, 2004. This Task Force is not meant to 

duplicate that structure, but rather is intended to be a temporary 

entity with the following responsibilities: 

more

 (OVER) 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

a-ii

2

 1. Within 90 days from the date of this memorandum, the Task 

Force shall develop recommendations that include: 

 a. A national policy that ensures the protection, 

maintenance, and restoration of the health of ocean, 

coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources, 

enhances the sustainability of ocean and coastal 

economies, preserves our maritime heritage, provides 

for adaptive management to enhance our understanding 

of and capacity to respond to climate change, and is 

coordinated with our national security and foreign 

policy interests. The recommendations should prioritize 

upholding our stewardship responsibilities and ensuring 

accountability for all of our actions affecting 

ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources, and 

be consistent with international law, including 

customary international law as reflected in the 1982 

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 

 b. A United States framework for policy 

coordination of efforts to improve stewardship of 

the oceans, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. The Task 

Force should review the Federal Government's existing 

policy coordination framework to ensure integration 

and collaboration across jurisdictional lines in meeting 

the objectives of a national policy for the oceans, 

our coasts, and the Great Lakes. This will include 

coordination with the work of the National Security 

Council and Homeland Security Council as they formulate 

and coordinate policy involving national and homeland 

security, including maritime security. The framework 

should also address specific recommendations to improve 

coordination and collaboration among Federal, State, 

tribal, and local authorities, including regional 

governance structures. 

 c. An implementation strategy that identifies and 

prioritizes a set of objectives the United States should 

pursue to meet the objectives of a national policy for 

the oceans, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. 

2. Within 180 days from the date of this memorandum, the Task 

Force shall develop, with appropriate public input, a recommended 

framework for effective coastal and marine spatial planning. This 

framework should be a comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem-based 

approach that addresses conservation, economic activity, user 

conflict, and sustainable use of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes 

resources consistent with international law, including customary 

international law as reflected in the 1982 United Nations 

Convention on the Law of the Sea. 

3. The Task Force shall terminate upon the completion of its 

duties.

The Task Force's recommendations and frameworks should be cost 

effective and improve coordination across Federal agencies. 

This memorandum covers matters involving the oceans, the 

Great Lakes, the coasts of the United States (including its

more
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

a-iii

05-05-10 DELIBERATIVE PRE-DECISIONAL COMMUNICATION

NOT ADMINISTRATION POLICY -- DO NOT RELEASE

3

territories and possessions), and related seabed, subsoil, and 

living and non-living resources. 

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right 

or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in 

equity by any party against the United States, its departments, 

agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any 

other person. Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to 

impair or otherwise affect the functions of the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, 

administrative, regulatory, and legislative proposals. 

The Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality is hereby 

authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal

Register.

BARACK OBAMA 

# # # 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

b-i

APPENDIX B. INTERAGENCY OCEAN POLICY 

TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP LIST

Task Force Chair 

White House Council on Environmental Quality

Nancy Sutley

Chair

Department of Agriculture

Robert Bonnie

Senior Advisor to the Secretary

Department of Commerce 

Dr. Jane Lubchenco

Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere 

NOAA Administrator

Department of Defense

Vice Admiral James Houck 

Judge Advocate General of the Navy

Environmental Protection Agency

Peter Silva

Assistant Administrator for Water

Department of Energy

David Sandalow

Assistant Secretary for Policy and International 

Affairs

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

John Katz

Deputy Associate General Counsel

Department of Health and Human Services

Dora Hughes

Counselor for Science & Public Health

Department of Homeland Security 

Admiral Thad Allen 

Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard

Department of the Interior

Laura Davis

Associate Deputy Secretary

Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Major General Darren McDew 

Vice Director for Strategic Plans and Policy, 

Joint Staff

Department of Justice

John Cruden 

Acting Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources Division

Department of Labor

Megan Uzzell

Senior Advisor to the Secretary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Dr. Michael Freilich

Director of the Earth Science Division

National Security Council

Ed Fendley

Director for International Environmental 

Issues

National Science Foundation

Timothy Killeen

Assistant Director for the Geosciences

Department of the Navy

Robert Work

Under Secretary of the Navy

Department of State

David Balton

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Fisheries

Department of Transportation

Katie Thomson

Counselor to the Secretary of Transportation

Office of the Vice President

Terrell McSweeney

Deputy Assistant to VP & Domestic Policy Advisor

White House Office of Energy and Climate Change

Jody Freeman

Counselor for Energy and Climate

White House Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs

Michael Fitzpatrick

Associate Administrator

White House Office of Management and Budget

Sally Ericsson

Associate Director for Natural Resource Programs

White House Office of Management and Budget

Xavier Briggs

Associate Director for General Government Programs

White House Office of Science and Technology 

Policy

Shere Abbott

Associate Director of Environment 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

c-i

APPENDIX C. PUBLIC Engagement

Below is a description of the methods and summary results from the Task Force’s public engagement 

process. In addition, included is a summary of key public comments and how they were addressed by 

the Task Force in the Final Recommendation. 

I. Overview

The Task Force carried out a public engagement process throughout the 180-day period to receive input 

for consideration as it developed these recommendations. This builds on the comprehensive reports 

of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission, which were based on 

significant scientific, public, and stakeholder input. CEQ, on behalf of the Task Force, organized and 

hosted thirty-eight expert roundtables to hear from a broad range of stakeholders and interest groups. 

The roundtables included representatives from sectors including energy, conservation, recreational 

fishing, commercial fishing, transportation, agriculture, human health, State, tribal, and local 

governments, ports, recreational boating, business, and national and homeland security. Task Force 

representatives attended each roundtable. There was robust participation and the Task Force received 

many valuable comments and perspectives for its consideration during each session. 

On behalf of the Task Force, CEQ also set up a website to accept public comments. The Task Force 

received approximately five thousand comments from a range of affected parties, including academia, 

citizens, commercial and recreational interests, non-governmental organizations, and States, tribes, 

and regional governance structures. Many of the groups commenting represented constituencies of 

hundreds or thousands of members. 

Additionally, the Task Force hosted six regional public meetings with over two thousand public 

participants, in which Task Force members were available to answer questions and the public was able 

to voice their concerns and opinions. These meetings took place in the following regions: Alaska (held 

in Anchorage, Alaska, August 21, 2009); West Coast (held in San Francisco, California, September 

17, 2009); East Coast (held in Providence, Rhode Island, September 24, 2009); Pacific Islands (held 

in Honolulu, Hawaii and via satellite link, September 29, 2009); Gulf Coast (held in New Orleans, 

Louisiana, and via interactive video link October 19, 2009); and Great Lakes (held in Cleveland, Ohio, 

October 29, 2009). 

The public meetings, roundtables, and website showcased a strong desire and enthusiasm among 

participants for a national policy that provides clarity and direction regarding how the Nation will 

better care for the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. A valuable and wide diversity of interests 

were represented, and several key themes emerged. While not exhaustive, these include:

•  Support for adopting ecosystem-based management as a guiding principle, acknowledging 

regional differences, and practicing adaptive management in light of concerns about 

competing uses and growth of industrial uses;
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

c-ii

05-05-10 DELIBERATIVE PRE-DECISIONAL COMMUNICATION

NOT ADMINISTRATION POLICY -- DO NOT RELEASE

•  Support for embracing science-based decision-making and investing in ecosystem-based 

science, research, ocean observations, and mapping including comprehensive research on 

the linkages among ecosystem health, human health, economic opportunity, national and 

homeland security, social justice, and environmental change, including climate change;

•  Desire for improved coordination and collaboration across Federal, State, tribal, and local 

governments, and regional governance structures, and for improved transparency and 

public participation, while avoiding new layers of bureaucracy and unnecessary costs;

•  Support for improving both formal and informal education about the ocean, our coasts, 

and the Great Lakes; 

•  Support for ensuring that policies are adequately funded; and

•  Support for joining the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Law of 

the Sea Convention).

II. Summary of Public Comments on the Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean 

Policy Task Force and on the Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine 

Spatial Planning

The Task Force reviewed the public comments received in response to the Interim Report and Interim 

Framework and determined whether substantive comments were adequately addressed, merited further 

consideration and resulting changes, or were more suited for further consideration by the National 

Ocean Council (NOC), if established, as it implements the National Policy, if adopted. 

Comments on the Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

Substantive comments on the Interim Report ranged from general support for a national policy and 

improved Federal coordination, to concerns over the process, and concerns that the Interim Report did 

not adequately account for economic uses of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes, or specifically 

mention the benefits of certain types of activities. There also were comments on governance, and 

numerous specific comments on the nine priority objectives of the implementation strategy, and other 

specific recommendations (e.g., reauthorize certain laws). The following summarizes some of the key 

substantive comments received and how the Task Force addressed them:

1. Overall Tone and Balance 

Comments have suggested that the balance between conservation and ocean uses in the report 

was skewed too much toward stewardship, and failed to emphasize certain types of uses such 

as recreational fishing, aquaculture, or renewable energy. The Task Force determined that 

the overall tone and balance of the recommendations were consistent with the President’s 

direction to recommend a stewardship policy for the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. 

Improved stewardship will support not only healthier and more resilient ocean, coastal, and 

Great Lakes ecosystems and services, but also benefit the economies (e.g., commercial and 

recreational activities) and communities that rely on them. The Task Force recognizes the 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

c-iii

significant role of recreation and other existing and emerging sustainable uses (e.g., renewable 

energy, aquaculture) of ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes resources. However, it did not single 

out individual sectors for discussion in the recommendations. Rather, the recommendations 

discuss better managing all uses of the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes in a sustainable manner. 

2. Recreational Users 

Comments expressed a concern that recreational fishing interests and the unique distinction 

between recreational and commercial fishing were not adequately represented in the Interim 

Report. Additionally, the Task Force received comments to recognize that recreational users 

(e.g., anglers, boaters, and other outdoor enthusiasts) not only use and rely on the health of 

ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources, but have a long history of actively participating in 

their conservation and stewardship. 

The Task Force made several changes in the recommendations to distinguish recreational and 

commercial fishing and to more expressly recognize the importance of access to the ocean, 

our coasts, and the Great Lakes for recreation. The Task Force recognizes the importance of 

recreation, including sustainable recreational fishing, and that Americans should continue to 

enjoy such outdoor experiences, which are also critical to the economic, social, and cultural 

fabric of our country. Recreational users have a long history of actively participating in the 

stewardship of the ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. Ensuring healthier oceans, 

coasts, and Great Lakes will benefit all recreational activities and the communities and 

economies that rely on them. 

3. Ecosystem-Based Management

A range of comments were received concerning the use of ecosystem-based management in 

the Interim Report. Some suggested that the language regarding ecosystem-based management 

be strengthened while others would like to ensure that ecosystem-based management, while 

a good principle, not be mandated. The Task Force determined that this principle, which was 

articulated in the President’s June 12, 2009 memorandum, is critical to how we govern and 

manage our ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes and should remain as one of the nine priority 

objectives. How ecosystem-based management will be defined and implemented would be 

further addressed by the NOC as it develops a strategic action plan for this priority objective. 

4. Precautionary Approach

A range of comments were received concerning the use of the precautionary approach as 

one of the National Principles. Application of a precautionary approach, as defined in the 

recommendations (“[w]here 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”), is consistent with and essential for improved 

stewardship. Moreover, the United States has already affirmed this exact wording in the 1992 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

c-iv

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Many comments supported its inclusion 

while others were concerned it would be used to prevent activities from occurring. These latter 

comments, however, may have misinterpreted the precautionary approach here as mandating, 

for example, the prohibition of activities that present an uncertain potential for significant 

harm unless the proponent of the activity shows that it presents no appreciable risk of harm. 

The Task Force has retained the precautionary approach as reflected in the Rio Declaration 

in its final recommendations, as it believes that we must be able to avail ourselves of timely, 

cost-effective stewardship measures, consistent with the approach articulated in the Rio 

Declaration. Some comments used the term “precautionary principle,” but the United States 

has long taken the position that precaution is a tool or approach rather than a “principle,” 

given the lack of a single definition or agreed formulation and the differing implications of its 

various forms.

5. National Ocean Council Membership

Comments were received on the role of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) in the recommended governance structure, particularly that it should have a 

more prominent role on the NOC. The Department of Commerce would have a seat on the 

NOC. However, the Task Force recognizes that NOAA (an agency within the Department 

of Commerce) plays a particularly important role in coastal and ocean research, planning, 

and management. While the Task Force had always envisioned that NOAA would have a 

substantial role within the NOC and in the implementation of these recommendations, 

the Task Force has determined that the final recommendations should be more explicit by 

clarifying that the NOAA Administrator should also be added as a member of the NOC. 

6. State, Tribal, and Local Government Role

A variety of comments were received pertaining to the role of State, tribal, and local 

governments in the recommended governance structure. Comments advocated for a greater 

role for State, tribal, and local governments and for more detail regarding the interplay of the 

Governance Advisory Committee with other entities in the NOC structure. The Task Force 

addressed these comments in five main areas: (1) changing the name of the Governance 

Advisory Committee to the Governance Coordinating Committee (GCC) to more accurately 

reflect its function; (2) modifying the composition of the GCC to include representation 

from local governments and State legislatures; (3) expressly acknowledging the unique legal 

relationship with federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments; 

(4) clarifying GCC functions and its relationship to other governance structure entities; and 

(5) strengthening coordination and collaboration between the GCC and various levels of the 

NOC.
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

c-v

7. Transparency and Public Input

Comments suggested adding more detail on how the NOC will incorporate public input 

and keep the public informed about its actions. The Task Force addressed these comments 

throughout the recommendations, including adding new text that expressly identifies the need 

for the NOC to ensure substantial opportunity for public participation as it develops strategic 

action plans.

8. Additional Priority Objectives and Specificity of Implementation Strategy

Comments suggested a range of additional priority objectives, including Community and 

Cultural Access, Protection of Culture and Traditions, Caribbean and the Pacific Islands, 

Antarctica, Coral Reefs, Marine Aquaculture, Recreational Fishing, Fisheries Management, 

Renewable Energy, Marine Transportation Safety, and Collaborative Environmental Problem 

Solving in Underserved Coastal Communities. While the Task Force strongly considered a 

wide array of priority objectives, the Task Force determined that the nine priority objectives, 

with some minor modifications, set out in these recommendations were the most appropriate 

initial priorities of the NOC. In addition, the NOC may always identify additional or different 

priority objectives in years to come. In fact, the functions of the NOC include updating and 

setting national priority objectives, as well as providing National Policy implementation 

objectives. Comments also advocated for more specificity in the implementation strategy, but 

the Task Force determined that further clarity and detail is best determined by the NOC and 

its component bodies.

Comments on the Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning

Substantive comments on the Interim Framework ranged from questioning the overall need for coastal 

and marine spatial planning (CMSP) to general support for a new, more efficient, ecosystem-based 

approach to managing sustainable uses of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. Some comments 

also advocated for ensuring that CMSP provides a balance between economic uses and stewardship, 

while others raised questions or concerns over the relationship of CMSP to existing processes and 

authorities and specifics of how the process will work. Some comments were similar to those received 

on the Interim Report and are addressed in the previous section. The following summarizes some of 

the additional key substantive comments received on the Interim Framework and how the Task Force 

addressed them. 

1. Why Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning

Comments raised a variety of issues regarding the general nature of this effort. For example, 

it was suggested that the Interim Framework did not provide an adequate description of the 

problem trying to be solved; that existing processes are sufficient and only require improved 

coordination rather than a new top-down bureaucracy with too much authority vested in 

the National Ocean Council. Other comments strongly supported the need for CMSP and 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

c-vi

the benefits to be derived from more proactive, multi-objective, multi-sectoral planning. 

Some comments raised concern that many processes in the Interim Framework were vague and 

required greater clarity and definition of terms (e.g., ecosystem-based management). 

The recommendations describe a flexible, regionally based approach for the development 

of CMSP. The NOC would facilitate development of coastal and marine spatial plans (CMS 

Plans) and provide national guidance to ensure national consistency, as appropriate. The 

Task Force has made a number of changes to better clarify the processes described in the 

recommendations. The recommendations also describe that the NOC would provide further 

clarity through the development of a strategic action plan and national guidance documents, 

which would be developed with public and stakeholder input.

2. Overarching Goals, Principles, and Nature of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning

Comments suggested that the Interim Framework should have as its primary overarching goal 

“protection, maintenance, and restoration” as this is a fundamental goal that supports all 

others (e.g., healthy ecosystems support the full range of ecosystem services). Other comments 

suggested that the Interim Framework should recognize benefits of commercial and recreational 

uses, and the significant economic benefits to be derived from the responsible production of 

energy resources, and other economic activities in Federal offshore waters. 

The Task Force agrees that healthy ecosystems provide the foundation for the full range 

of ecological services the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes provide, including economic, 

environmental, and societal benefits. CMSP is intended to result in better management of 

and planning for sustainable multiple uses (e.g., energy, recreation, and commercial and 

recreational fishing) across sectors as well as to improve conservation of the ocean, coasts, and 

Great Lakes. The Task Force believes that the recommendations adequately discuss the multiobjective nature of CMSP and the potential economic, environmental, and societal benefits.

3. Integration, Cooperation, and Coordination

Comments requested that the Task Force clarify that CMSP is intended to build off of and 

incorporate existing plans, processes, and authorities. Comments also requested that the Task 

Force recognize that certain decisions should be left to, or deference be given to, State decisionmakers. There are a number of places throughout the Interim Framework (e.g., “Essential 

Elements of the CMSP Process”) that expressly discuss the relationship of CMSP to existing 

processes. The Task Force has made additional clarifying changes to address these comments. 

4. Geographic Scope

There were a number of comments on various aspects of the geographic scope for CMSP, 

including the treatment of private lands, inland areas, and bays and estuaries. The 

recommendations exclude private lands from the CMSP planning area; clarifying that the 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

c-vii

exclusion applies to all private lands, not only private submerged lands. The Task Force 

decided to leave the regional planning bodies with the flexibility to include inland areas 

within the geographic scope, but has recommended that the NOC, in coordination with the 

GCC, develop guidance for the regional planning bodies to help determine whether to include 

inland areas. Finally, the Task Force determined to maintain the requirement to include bays 

and estuaries due to the strong linkages with ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes areas. 

5. Development and Implementation of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning

A number of comments raised questions regarding the role, composition, and operation of 

the regional planning bodies. The Task Force has maintained the core composition of regional 

planning bodies to include State, Federal, and tribal authorities, and has further articulated 

the types of representatives to be considered for inclusion. The Task Force did not add local 

governments to the regional planning bodies due to the numerous and wide variety of local 

authorities that could result in very disparate participation and representation across regions. 

However, the recommendations require regional planning bodies to coordinate with local 

governments, as appropriate, throughout the process. 

Some comments suggested adding a Regional Fishery Management Council (RFMC) 

representative to the regional planning bodies given their unique quasi-regulatory role under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act). The Task Force is interested in finding the most effective opportunity for sustained 

and meaningful engagement with the RFMCs as it is their statutory responsibility to develop 

fishery management plans and management measures for fisheries which NOAA then reviews 

and, if approves, implements through regulation. While the Task Force acknowledges the 

relatively unique role that RFMCs play, it did not want to prescribe a particular method for 

how RFMCs should be included in the CMSP process without more thoughtful consideration 

and analysis. The recommendations describe that the regional planning bodies would provide 

a formal mechanism for consultation with the RFMCs across their respective regions on 

fishery related issues and that the NOC would further assess if representation on the regional 

planning bodies is the best method for this engagement. In the future, if other statutorilymandated or quasi-regulatory groups are identified, the NOC would determine whether a 

formal mechanism for consultation should be developed for such groups and, if necessary, 

provide guidance for regional planning bodies on the development of such a process.

Comments questioned how the regional planning bodies would operate, who would lead 

them, and how decisions would be made. Comments also suggested clarifying that the regions 

could create sub-regional planning bodies. The Task Force has clarified that the work plan 

to be developed by each regional planning body would specify the participants, Federal and 

non-Federal co-lead(s), timing, milestones, etc. The Task Force also clarified that there would 

be flexibility to develop sub-regional plans provided that these plans are encompassed in the 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

c-viii

regional planning body’s final CMS Plan. The Task Force recognized that this flexibility may 

be particularly useful in the Alaska/Arctic and Pacific Islands Regions. 

There were a number of comments regarding strengthening involvement of stakeholders, 

the public, and scientific and technical experts in the CMSP process. The recommendations 

clarify and strengthen their role in CMSP, including requiring the development of inclusive 

and transparent stakeholder and scientific participation and consultation mechanisms in each 

region. 

6. Nature of Planning Process and CMS Plans and Adherence to CMS Plans

Comments raised questions about whether CMS Plans would be comprehensive, multiobjective, and multi-sectoral. The Task Force has clarified that while there is flexibility as 

part of the CMSP process to address different priority issues at certain times, the final CMS 

Plans would be required to achieve this level of comprehensiveness in order to receive NOC 

certification. The Task Force also clarified that while it is recognized that CMSP is an iterative 

process and initial CMS Plans would likely identify gaps in understanding that may limit the 

ability to make informed decisions at a particular time, these gaps would be identified in the 

CMS Plan along with an implementation approach to how they would be addressed in future 

iterations of the CMS Plan. 

A number of comments raised questions regarding the binding or non-binding nature of 

CMS Plans and the requirements to adhere to them. Comments also questioned the scope 

of the allowance for deviations from CMS Plans. The Task Force has clarified the language 

regarding the binding nature of CMS Plans to be consistent throughout the document. As it 

relates to deviations, the existing language allows for deviations from CMS Plans, but requires 

periodic reviews to determine why they are occurring and to identify remedies to minimize 

such deviations. The Task Force expects that as agencies gain experience with this process, any 

deviations would be minimized. The Task Force does not intend this language to be a broad 

exemption to CMS Plans.

Comments also expressed that the Interim Framework does not clearly establish the relationships 

between CMS Plans and existing regulatory authorities, including the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, and Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act. The Task Force has added language to better clarify the 

relationship between CMSP and existing authorities.

Comments suggested that the Task Force consider adding language that addresses what 

happens if a State opts out or a regional plan does not meet NOC certification requirements. 

The Task Force has added language clarifying that even if some States or tribes opt out of the 

CMS Process, the Federal, and participating State and tribal authorities would continue to 

develop and implement a regional CMS Plan. 
Final Recommendations Of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

c-ix

7. National Consistency

Comments raised concerns that with nine different regions there could be different 

standards applied to the same activities (e.g., ballast water), or potential for other significant 

inconsistencies regarding commerce and other socio-economic sectors. The recommendations 

make clear that the NOC would develop national guidance and objectives to ensure national 

consistency and seek to minimize inconsistencies and conflicts across regions for cross-cutting 

or national issues. Development of this guidance would include opportunities for robust public 

and stakeholder participation.

8. Scientific Knowledge and Data Integration, Research, Management, and Access

Comments raised concerns over the complexities and resources needed to create a new 

information management system and encouraged adapting an existing system or search tool 

as an alternative. Comments also requested that the Interim Framework make clear that State, 

local, and other data would be included in the system, not only Federal data. Other comments 

requested a greater emphasis on local and traditional knowledge as data/information sources. 

These issues have been addressed in the recommendations.

9. Implementation 

Comments on the length of the implementation process varied from the timeframe for 

development of CMS Plans being too short to excessively long. The Task Force determined 

that given the varied range of comments the phased, flexible approach recommended in the 

document provides an ambitious, but achievable timeline to develop CMSP in the United 

States.

10. Resources

While the Task Force is mindful of the national economic situation and budgetary challenges, 

it is confident that making the investments and improvements in these recommendations will 

advance the economic interests of the United States and facilitate greater efficiencies across 

the Federal Government. Recognizing the reality of the limited availability of new resources, 

Federal agencies would re-evaluate how resources are allocated in light of their statutory 

and regulatory mandates to further the recommended National Policy. Also, the President’s 

Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request includes funding that would support priority activities 

identified in these recommendations, such as coastal and marine spatial planning, geospatial 

modernization, regional ocean partnerships, water quality improvement, habitat restoration, 

integrated ecosystem assessments, coastal and estuarine land protection, research and 

development of ocean sensor technology, and environmental tools to support resilient coastal 

communities.