The U.S. Maritime Transportation System (MTS) facilitates safe navigation through offshore and inshore waters that are critical for interstate and international commerce. For centuries, offshore areas were relatively free of obstructions. But today, alternative activities such as resource exploration and development, renewable energy generation, and environmental and resource conservation compete with traditional uses such as defense, transportation, commerce, and fishing. Development in offshore areas requires guidance and management.
Executive Order 13840 of 19 June 2018, Ocean Policy to Advance the Economic, Security, and Environmental Interests of the United States, provides an opportunity to apply business analysis in guiding offshore development—a process that is not dominated by political agendas but one that methodically considers the interests of all existing and potential stakeholders. Although all alternative uses of offshore regions are important and must be considered, business analysis will validate that none have as much impact on the U.S. economy as does the MTS. Maritime routes must be identified and safeguarded before other interests establish footprints that interfere with safe navigation.
Marine Planning Must Evolve
Historically, marine planning has emphasized exploration, exploitation, and protection of the marine environment and its resources while ignoring long-established activities. It initially focused on improved understanding of the oceans and marine science. This involved pollution abatement and environmental protection; living marine resources; the preservation of fisheries and enhancement of aquaculture; the exploitation of mineral resources; the effect of ocean characteristics and currents on landmasses and climate; and aspects pertaining to naval missions.1 Over time it was broadened to include renewable energy, biological diversity, resiliency, land-use impact on the water, global climate and environmental change, maritime heritage preservation, international law, stewardship, and defense.2 But marine planning still fails to account for traditional activities, including transportation and commerce.
The executive order prioritizes economic and security interests.3 It suggests that assessments will be supported by cost and benefit analysis. Regrettably, marine planning lacks discipline, can easily be manipulated to promote narrow agendas, and has not been reorganized to align with revised policy guidance. It must be a more methodical and balanced process, similar to urban planning.
Urban planning is used to achieve strategic, policy, and sustainability goals. Planners identify and integrate competing and complementary interests into design and functionality by considering all resources, capabilities, and requirements. It is a comprehensive review, validation, and approval process that includes all stakeholders.
As marine planning begins to resemble urban planning, the costs and benefits of all existing and proposed ventures will become clearer. The MTS will be recognized for its impact on economic security and given top priority in allocating sea space. In the end, maritime routes in offshore areas will resemble the Interstate Highway System to facilitate safe and rapid transportation between critical ports.
The Atlantic Coast Route
In 2011, the Coast Guard chartered the Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study (ACPARS) to address potential navigational safety risks associated with developing offshore renewable energy installations. ACPARS identified common navigation routes along the entire coast from Maine to Florida, with emphasis on waters seaward of existing port approaches. The study distinguished current and anticipated users to determine the impact that the siting, construction, and operation of proposed alternative energy facilities could have on coastal users, and whether routing measures should be modified or created to facilitate safe navigation.4 ACPARS did not consider detailed navigation routes to or from ports or international routes destined for the United States that are integral to a safe and efficient transportation infrastructure. The Coast Guard has not fully implemented the ACPARS recommendations.
Offshore wind energy offers an example of how complicated future marine planning could become if navigation routes are not identified and established before infrastructure is put in place. The 2016 National Offshore Wind Strategy Report noted that nearly 80 percent of U.S. electricity demand is located in coastal states, and offshore wind energy potential is nearly twice the nation’s current demand for electricity. It has tremendous potential to contribute to a clean, affordable, and secure national energy mix.5
The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is aggressively pursuing offshore wind energy development. BOEM has already issued at least a dozen leases for wind energy areas between Maine and North Carolina, and several states are aggressively pursuing ambitious goals involving offshore renewable energy. The first offshore wind farm (five turbines) off Block Island, Rhode Island, has been completed and is operational. Larger farms are expected to soon begin construction involving a much greater number of bigger and more capable turbines, and there are several areas that interfere with navigation routes identified in ACPARS as well as the approaches to several commercial or military ports. It is reasonable to assume that other offshore development initiatives and traditional uses may further complicate marine planning efforts.
Inaction Comes at a Price
There are countless ways for ocean areas to be used and, as technology evolves, new ways to access marine resources. The number and size of these activities will escalate considerably and in ways that cannot now be clearly envisioned. There must be greater awareness of vulnerabilities and the full range of natural disasters and manmade calamities that could occur or be unleashed by an adversary. Planning does not keep pace with crisis management and other federal priorities and, as a result, there is even greater vulnerability and risk.
For example, in the Gulf of Mexico, placement of hundreds of oil rigs dating back to 1938 caused an atypical ship-routing scheme that wasn’t settled until after many platforms were in place. Fairways created in 1982 had to be interwoven among obstructions and do not meet marine planning guidelines identified in ACPARS. This resulted in a circuitous design that is inefficient, increases risk of collision or allision, leads to greater costs, and wastes fuel. It is clear that delay or indecision in planning adversely affects maritime safety, security, and stewardship, while creating additional costs for the public and risk.
Recommended Actions
The way ahead requires action in two areas:
Executive Branch Management. Marine planning and oceans policy at the federal level are currently shared by the chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality and the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The change in emphasis from previous administrations’ focus on biological diversity, renewable energy, conservation, and environmental protection and stewardship to advancing U.S. economic and security interests did not include an essential change in federal government leadership or a bureaucratic reorganization. This is needed to ensure effective marine planning consistent with new policy guidance while considering traditional offshore activities. The National Economic Council and the Homeland Security Council are more appropriate executive branch entities to coordinate marine planning activities, and the existing executive order must be amended to reflect this.
Fairways and Regulations. A right of way is an easement granted or reserved for transportation purposes. Similarly, a shipping safety fairway is a corridor in which no artificial island or fixed structure, whether temporary or permanent, is permitted. Fairways are the nautical equivalent to rights of way, and they represent the critical first step to establishing the maritime highway system. Creating fairways involves new regulations, and allowing a public vetting for the proposed rule would incorporate input from all stakeholders. ACPARS recommended shipping safety fairways, stating:
The identified navigation corridors should be applied during marine planning activities . . . to ensure appropriate consideration is given to shipping early in the siting process. In addition, the Coast Guard should consider developing these navigation corridors into official shipping safety fairways or other appropriate vessel routing measures.6
Although new regulations would not seemingly be supported by the current administration, this rulemaking is aligned with policy guidance, is reasonable, and makes sense.7 This action would ensure the MTS is maintained and inform stakeholders of potential conflicts before they embark on proposals in areas within or adjacent to the MTS. It would also benefit both industry and consumers directly by focusing on optimal routing and navigation safety.
Establishing fairways will maintain the traditional obstruction-free routes to and from U.S. ports and along the Atlantic coast, saving time and money on transits while reducing the risk of collision, allision, and grounding. Coordinating fairways with existing and new routing measures, such as traffic separation schemes, will develop the maritime highway system the MTS needs to facilitate rapid and safe movement between critical ports. The nation cannot delay this any longer. It must act now to ensure the U.S. Atlantic and Pacific offshore areas are not developed in a manner reminescent of the Gulf of Mexico.
1. Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, Science and Environment: Panel Reports of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources (Stratton Commission Report), 1 (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1969).
2. The White House, Executive Order 13547, Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes, 19 July 2010.
3. The White House, Executive Order Regarding the Ocean Policy to Advance the Economic, Security, and Environmental Interests of the United States, 19 June 2018, section 4.
4. U.S. Coast Guard, Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study Final Report, 24 February 2016, 1.
5. U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of the Interior, National Offshore Wind Strategy Report, September 2016, 3.
6. U.S. Coast Guard, Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study Final Report, 16.
7. The White House, Executive Order Regarding the Ocean Policy, section 4 (i)(1).