10-3-13

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said claimants should not be paid for fictitious or wholly non-existent losses. ​ As part of today's decision, the Fifth Circuit also reversed the District Court's denial of BP's motion for a preliminary injunction staying the payment of business economic loss claims under the agreement. The Fifth Circuit has ordered the District Court to "expeditiously craft" an injunction that stays payments to people who did not suffer "actual injury traceable to loss from the Deepwater Horizon accident" until the matter is "fully heard and decided through the judicial process."  (More here)

Energy Galore?

by 

Dave Harbour

Two weeks ago the Anchorage Marriott hosted huge group of energy executives.   They hailed from Australia, Japan, Calgary, Bismarck, Houston, Washington, D.C. and elsewhere.  Several dozen participants work and live in Anchorage, Barrow, Juneau and Fairbanks.

Called the 9^th Annual Oil & Gas Congress, the theme was, “Advancing Alaska as a Global Energy Competitor”.    The event included an “Alaskan Critical In-State Energy Summit”, Chaired by Drue Pearce (NGP Photo), former Alaska State Senate President.  Last week, you read here the wisdom of my Congress Co Chair, Alaska North Slope Borough Mayor Charlotte Brower. 

This week, let’s focus on issues touching every Alaskan.  (Read More….)

Statement by the White House Press Secretary on H.R. 527 and S. 793

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013, the President signed into law:

New York Times by Melanie Wilkinson.  "One thing we've seen with the situation of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is that it's become an international debate," says Michael Whatley (NGP Photo), the executive vice-president of the Consumer Energy Alliance.

H.R. 527, the "Helium Stewardship Act of 2013," which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to continue to sell crude helium from the Federal Helium Reserve for a specified timeframe; extends payments to certain counties under the Secure Rural Schools program; increases the cap on payments to States that have completed all of their high-priority coal mine reclamation projects; provides $50 million for remediation and reclamation of abandoned oil and gas wells within the National Petroleum Reserve; provides $50 million to the National Park Service for maintenance and infrastructure projects within national parks; and requires the Bureau of Land Management to reduce the royalty on the value of soda ash and certain related minerals produced on Federal lands to 4 percent for a two-year period; and

S. 793, the "Organization of American States Revitalization and Reform Act of 2013," which promotes reform of the Organization of American States.

Today's (LATEST) report from the National Ocean Policy Coalition:

I. MID-ATLANTIC REGIONAL PLANNING BODY HOLDS INAUGURAL MEETING
II. GULF OF MEXICO ALLIANCE ANNOUNCES “MARINE PLANNING MEETING”

I. MID-ATLANTIC REGIONAL PLANNING BODY HOLDS INAUGURAL MEETING
 
Last week, federal, state, and tribal representatives of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body (RPB) convened their inaugural meeting in West Long Branch, New Jersey.  The RPB was formally established in April 2013 and is tasked under the National Ocean Policy Executive Order with developing a coastal and marine spatial plan for Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
 
At the outset, RPB representatives discussed their desire for, among other things, a more streamlined process for decision-making, a more resilient coast and coastal communities, preservation of military training areas, conflict prevention, a well-functioning marine transportation system, a “better” and “balanced” approach to ocean management, dialogue across “stovepipes,” compacted and streamlined regulations, a science-based approach, and information coordination.
 
The following documents formed the basis for the two-day discussion that followed (please note that these documents are posted on the RPB’s website, which is hosted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and which is currently down):

 

Meeting Agenda

Draft 5-Year Timeline

Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean Proposed Products and Services for use by the Mid-Atlantic RPB

Draft Regional Ocean Planning Goals and Geographic Focus Ideas for the Mid-Atlantic

Mid-Atlantic RPB Stakeholder Engagement: Current Mechanisms and Options for the Future

Draft Charter

 

Concerns were expressed about whether the proposed timeline is achievable with opportunities for adequate engagement.  Some asked how the RPB effort could proceed in the absence of an actual ocean plan, while others voiced support for a living process over a static plan.  With regard to a revised proposed timeline that would push back finalization of an initial work plan from Summer 2014 to September 2014, some voiced skepticism as to the practicality of such a schedule, while others suggested such a timeline was too slow.  Under the revised proposed timeline for goals distributed on Day 2 of the meeting, the RPB would engage the public and stakeholders on a draft vision, goals, example objectives, and actions from January-March 2014, with a vision and goals finalized at an April 2014 RPB meeting.



During the initial draft goal discussion, recommendations included keeping goals short and brief and orienting them to the economy and jobs, keeping goals measurable and achievable, building hazard resilience into all that the RPB does, developing a vision for the RPB, broadening the goal facilitate offshore renewable energy to include other types of energy/mineral activity or ocean development in general, keeping the focus on offshore renewable energy or further narrowing to offshore wind, focusing on goals that are shared among all RPB states, adding goals for coastal hazard/resilience as well as recreational access, setting out to improve and restore as well as protect habitats and ecosystem functionality, and more broadly addressing maritime industries in a possible objective to ensure safe and efficient port access.

A revised set of possible goals and example objectives that was circulated for RPB discussion on Day 2 ultimately took a higher-level approach to goals, while further narrowing the focus on offshore energy to wind in the possible example objectives.



With regard to geographic focus, members noted that the draft language provides flexibility as to whether to include certain estuaries and generally voiced support for an ocean-focused effort that excludes inland areas.  The federal co-lead called for leaving flexibility for geographic focus since some ocean activities intersect with coastal and upland areas. 
 
The stakeholder engagement session included recommendations by RPB participants to pursue MARCO’s offer to help develop a Stakeholder Liaison Committee, explore options for a path to establish a Federal Advisory Committee in the long-term if resources allow, engage stakeholders at their own meetings in their communities, support formation of a science advisory board, and consider establishment of a non-member ex officio/ombudsman position on the RPB for stakeholders.  
 

As to the discussion about the relationship between the RPB and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean (MARCO), support was voiced for working closely with MARCO on their existing data portal in support of RPB activities as well as for using industry standards for portal data.  At the same time, clarification was sought on how the RPB would interact with MARCO if their portal does not meet all the federal needs (e.g. new data needs to be added), and members recommended adding state-based data and Coast Guard studies to the portal.  It was noted that MARCO is looking at how to incorporate stories and case studies into the portal.

With regard to the regional ocean assessment that MARCO and Monmouth University will work to develop in support of MARCO and RPB efforts (using a $75,000 NOAA grant), it was noted that the RPB’s eventual goals will help inform the content of the assessment.  RPB participants called for the assessment to be a standalone document and to also be incorporated into the data portal, and voiced support for using existing data and information, traditional knowledge, stakeholder information, and the global Ocean Health Index to help develop the assessment.   



As to the draft RPB charter, the RPB is aiming to finalize it by Nov. 15, and suggestions were made to clarify the role of the National Ocean Council and whether RPB members represent their agencies or departments, be general in the charter in referencing groups that the RPB would coordinate with, adopt 2-year, staggering terms for RPB co-leads (with options for consecutive terms), include RPB ex officio/ombudsman language in the charter (for non-governmental participation) if the RPB decides to pursue the idea, reference the Governance Coordinating Committee in the charter, and treat local officials as a stakeholder sector in creating a stakeholder liaison group.



The following were identified as next steps:

• Create draft vision statement, goals, example objectives, and actions for RPB consideration prior to releasing for public comment and review
• Finalize charter for RPB review by Nov. 1 and distribute for signature by Nov. 15
• Efforts to be made to further develop concept for a MARCO-brokered Stakeholder Liaison Committee as well as other engagement mechanisms; RPB to continue a suite of proposed engagement options and explore the potential for establishing a Federal Advisory Committee in the long-term and the resources that a FACA would require
• RPB to explore potential for non-member ex officio or ombudsman position on RPB for stakeholders
• RPB embraces use of MARCO data portal for now, but further discussions may be needed to make sure it adequately supports the RPB
• RPB to explore how Governance Coordinating Committee could play a role in terms of local representation 
• RPB to address structure/expectations for RPB work groups
• Next RPB discussion likely to be an Oct. 8 teleconference

Groups in attendance that provided comments included the National Ocean Policy Coalition, Garden State Seafood Association, a submarine cable operator industry representative, two shipping industry representatives, a commercial fisherman, a paddler community representative, Natural Resources Defense Council, Surfrider Foundation, Clean Ocean Action, Morgan Gopnik (environmental policy consultant), Maryland Coastal Bay Program, Offshore Wind Development Coalition, and two private citizens.     

Further details on the meeting are provided below, and a full transcript and slides used during the meeting will be posted on the RPB’s website.

WELCOME

The meeting’s facilitator, Laura Cantral of the Meridian Institute ("facilitator"), began the proceedings by noting that the meeting is a jumping off point for regional ocean planning in the Mid-Atlantic.  After reviewing the meeting’s objectives (see page 1 ofagenda), the facilitator reiterated that the meeting is not about making decisions regarding regional ocean planning goals, but rather that it represents the beginning of a process for the development of goals and a process for doing so with stakeholders.  She later called the process fundamentally about the people and the future.

Monmouth University’s Urban Coast Institute Director Tony MacDonald welcomed the attendees to Monmouth and called it an important time for everyone to pull together in the Mid-Atlantic to gain a better understanding of what is occurring in the ocean.  Citing Superstorm Sandy, he said that there are many problems left to be addressed.

Tribal co-lead Gerrod Smith (Shinnecock Indian Nation) led a tribal blessing and referenced a presidential statement as to the RPB’s work, stating that ‘we do things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.’

RPB MEMBER INTROS

The following RPB members/alternates in attendance then introduced themselves and were asked to provide comments on why Mid-Atlantic regional ocean planning is important and to name their top desired hope/outcome:

• Ability to make better decisions through a streamlined process (State RPBmember, Sarah Cooksey, Delaware Coastal Programs Administrator)
• Collaborative, data-driven, and systematic approach to resource management; want to see how marine spatial planning can create a more resilient coast and coastal communities (State RPB alternate Martin Rosen, New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection)
• Streamline dialogue to preserve military training range use and start the dialogue to prevent conflicts down the road; as industry starts building in open areas, need to work together to share uses of such areas (Federal RPB member Joe Atangan, U.S. Navy/Joint Chiefs of Staff)
• Would like to see results from a wide conversation; greater understanding of regional needs and how feds can help with them (State RPB alternate Greg Capobianco, New York Dept. of State)
• Ensure marine transportation system functions well and maintain U.S. competitiveness (Federal RPB member John Walters, U.S. Coast Guard)
• Oceans provide significant food source, need to make sure that USDA actions don’t impact water quality (Federal RPB alternate Pedro Ramos, USDA/Natural Resource Conservation Service)
• Would like process to result in learning to manage oceans in a better way going forward, bringing balance back (Tribal co-lead Gerrod Smith, Shinnecock Indian Nation)
• Opportunity to be proactive before issues become a problem; 3-5 years from now would like to see government, industry, and others working as a group and promoting self-interests in a collective and coordinated way to achieve common objectives (State co-lead Gwynne Schultz, Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources)
• This is a changing world, with changing resources, lots of maritime commerce activity, and incredible demand; opportunity for dialogue across stovepipes in an environment of discussion rather than conflict; opportunity to know who to approach, and where to get information for more informed decision-making(Federal co-lead Maureen Bornholdt, U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management)
• Important for the states to be a part of the discussion and to determine the state’s role in this process; need to think about economics as well as environmental resources; want to be part of the discussion (State RPB member Andrew Zemba, Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection)
• An advocate for the marine transportation system (including shipyards, labor unions, ports); hopes that the body will compact and streamline regulations to preserve environmental qualities already in place (Federal RPB member Frank Mach, U.S. Maritime Administration)
• Must work together to address competing uses through a science-based approach that balances economics and environmental protection (Federal RPB member Douglas Pabst, EPA)
• We all need to commit to the process and go all-in; hope to have the RPB charter signed before January (Federal RPB member Thomas Bigford, NOAA)
• Ocean planning is important and the equivalent to what has been done on land with planning for years; grateful for National Ocean Policy, as it is opportunity to make historic difference in way we deal with the ocean, using best available knowledge and understanding; hope this forum is institutionalized, but limited window of time and funding (State RPB alternate Laura McKay, Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program)
• Effort is long overdue; hard to believe it didn’t happen 10-15 years ago; staggering we’ve ignored the ocean this way; ocean is shrinking in terms of uses taking place; look forward to working with stakeholders on a balance approach that allows DOD to accomplish its mission consistent with environmental resources (Federal RPB member David Noble, U.S. Navy)

OVERVIEW OF MID-ATLANTIC RPB ACTIVITIES TO DATE AND PROPOSED TIMELINE
 
The tribal, state, and federal co-leads began this discussion by sharing their thoughts about Mid-Atlantic regional ocean planning.  Tribal co-lead Smith called it an opportunity to better manage the ocean and obtain, share, and collect data for more efficient and streamlined decision-making.  Citing offshore wind, increased commercial fishing, Panama Canal expansion, and military activity, he added that uses are increasing and that this can be a forum for information coordination and a process that is informed by the public and interested stakeholders.
 
State co-lead Schultz noted her commitment to engaging in the regional ocean planning process and helping the region address future opportunities and challenges, prepare for expanded uses, protect the economy and the ecosystem, and achieve better informed decisions and efficient use of resources.  She also noted a commitment to ensuring actions meet goals shared by the public, and said that stakeholder engagement is key. 

Schultz noted that the National Ocean Policy is supported through this effort, which she said uses existing authorities to support better decisions.  She also noted that each agency takes actions under this process, not the RPB itself.  Calling this body a forum for collaborative discussions, Schultz added that it will assist agencies in carrying out their existing core missions.
 
As to RPB activities to date, federal co-lead Bornholdt referenced the April 2013workshop and initial input that was received there, and noted that RPB working groups have been preparing foundational documents for consideration.  She also encouraged use of the RPB’s website and email address.
 
State co-lead Schultz then spoke about the draft 5-year timeline presented for discussion, noting that it is a draft prepared for discussion purposes.  She noted that Phase I (2013-14) will involve trying to determine staffing availability and needs and how to create different advisory bodies.  Schultz also noted the timeline’s aggressive nature, with vision, goals, and actions defined by the end of 2014, asking whether it is achievable with adequate stakeholder engagement.  Other proposed Phase I actions include development of a work plan, regional assessment of ocean resources and uses, and capacity assessment, and further development of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean (MARCO) data portal. 
 
In discussing Phase II (2015-2016), Schultz reviewed proposed actions to complete regional and capacity assessments, and noted that a determination on whether additional products including an ocean plan should be pursued would be made during this phase under the proposed timeline.
 
After reviewing Phase III, and noting that all phases would be accompanied by continuous stakeholder engagement, data collection, sharing, and integration, and adaptation of planning products, Schultz opened the discussion for RPB comment.  The following observations were made:

• Measures of success/progress would be discussed as part of work plan (State co-lead Schultz, Maryland)
• Unclear how this could all fall into place without an ocean plan, asking what would be left without one in place (State RPB member Cooksey, Delaware)
• Key concept is whether the outcome will be a plan or a process, but plans have a tendency to be static and sit on a shelf; preference for pursuing a process to determine how we want resources and uses to shift over time (State RPB alternate McKay, Virginia); federal RPB member Pabst (EPA) agreed, noting he would lean toward something living versus a static plan
• Doesn’t have to be a plan or a process, but could be a combination of both; working toward a plan will help identify processes needed to achieve the contents of a plan; “let’s just move,” set a mark, proceed, and develop a process toward that mark; can figure it out later (Federal RPB member Atangan, U.S. Navy/Joint Chiefs of Staff)
• Agree with Atangan’s approach; public would benefit from a plan and a process because it will inform business plans (Federal RPB member Bigford, NOAA)
• National Ocean Council’s marine planning handbook might have guidance that could help the RPB move in the right direction; Northeast RPB charter could serve as a model for the Mid-Atlantic, and Mid-Atlantic RPB should work with other RPB’s(Federal RPB member Mach, MARAD)
• Good point on handbook; it contains a lot of guidance and advice, with a notion of flexibility (facilitator) 

The facilitator concluded the session by noting that the RPB seems comfortable with the notions that they prefer an ongoing living process to something that is static as well as the RPB being a forum for coordinating activities and carrying them out within existing authorities to meet agreed-upon goals, with such goals helping to determine the content of the eventual work plan and timeline.

 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RPB AND MARCO
 
State co-lead Schultz began the discussion about the relationship between the Mid-Atlantic RPB and Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean (MARCO) going forward, noting that by working together, opportunities will increase for greater and more effective government and private investment and the accomplishment of regional objectives. 
 
She then reviewed MARCO’s offer to provide its data portal for RPB use, working to ensure that data quality criteria are developed and adhered to, that additional relevant data is added, and that the portal and associated tools are made available to stakeholders.
 
Schultz next discussed stakeholder engagement, and MARCO’s close connections with local governments and coastal communities, and MARCO’s ability to help move the process forward by working on behalf of the RPB.

 

Lastly, she discussed the regional ocean assessment and MARCO’s work with a Monmouth University team to initiate preliminary work on it, noting that it will do so in consultation with the RPB and that the assessment will be made available to support ocean planning.
 
During the discussion that followed, the following observations were made:

• Makes sense for RPB to work closely with MARCO on portal rather than attempt to create a new one; unclear how RPB would interact with MARCO if the portal doesn’t meet all federal needs—would probably require infusion of funding; since portal seems to take more of the 30,000 ft. view, if we are talking about individual planning problems, we will need to identify what is needed for the portal to meet needs at the 500 ft. level (Federal RPB member Walters, USCG)
• May be worthwhile for MARCO to incorporate Coast Guard studies into data portal (Federal RPB member Mach, MARAD)
• Leveraging is key because we lack resources for new tools (Federal co-lead Bornholdt, BOEM
• Haven’t had other options presented beyond MARCO portal; MARCO primarily supported by CZM and regional ocean partnership funding (State RPB member Cooksey, Delaware)
• Appreciate MARCO efforts to move things along; if anything we can do on defense side re: resources, we will do it (Federal RPB member Atangan, U.S. Navy, Joint Chiefs of Staff)
• MARCO portal a terrific tool—let’s think about adding state-based data; regarding stakeholder engagement, states are in a good position to reach out to ensure meaningful engagement, but what is the structure/feedback loop? (State RPB alternate Capobianco, New York)
• Mid-Atlantic portal includes data needs/priorities and a feedback button; if data layer is missing, should provide feedback, and let’s then collect what the needs are; then MARCO can work with the RPB to find ways/funding to add those data layers (State RPB alternate McKay, Virginia)

INITIAL DRAFT REGIONAL OCEAN PLANNING GOALS

Karen Chytalo, State RPB alternate for New York (Dept. of Environmental Conservation) joined the meeting and noted that it’s high-time for ocean planning.  Stating that there is a lot of activity and a lot of users on the water, Chytalo said that the oceans cannot take all the activity and expressed hope for a shared vision with firm goals and a regional plan for the Mid-Atlantic.
 
Federal RPB member Pabst (EPA) then provided an overview of the draft ideas for regional ocean planning goals, as well as a discussion about planning terminology and possible next steps including development of a vision, principles for achieving goals, and objectives and actions following consensus on goals and objectives.  He added that hazard resilience needs to be built into all that the RPB is doing.
 
The ensuing discussion included the following observations:

• National Ocean Policy vision should be the overarching one; need for an additional vision unclear (Federal RPB member Atangan, U.S. Navy/Joint Chiefs of Staff)
• Hunch is that there’s not much appetite for visioning process; amplification of or addition to national vision might be reasonable way to proceed (facilitator)
• Use national vision as starting point, with opportunity for RPB to further drill down(Federal RPB member Pabst, EPA)
• Goals we have in mind have been discussed many times; they are broad and general enough (Federal RPB member Mach, MARAD)
• Make sure national vision is relevant to the Mid-Atlantic; recommend 2-page vision and process for public input (State co-lead Schultz, Maryland)
• Goal to facilitate responsible renewable energy development may be too limited; it’s all of the above; NY/NJ considering LNG potential, there’s potential fossil fuel development, and nuclear is coming online in coastal NJ (Federal RPB member Walters, USCG)
• Goal to facilitate responsible renewable energy development may be too limiting; Superstorm Sandy highlights another area: offshore sand resources for coastal restoration; perhaps broaden to “energy and minerals;” (Federal co-lead Bornholdt, BOEM)
• Not my personal view, but Virginia Governor wants offshore oil and gas development; election in 2 months and not sure where that will lead (State RPB alternate McKay, Virginia)
• Not all states share Virginia Governor’s position on offshore oil and gas (RPB participant)
• Goal to facilitate responsible renewable energy development is more in line with newer activities already presenting conflicts; just trying to lay out themes(Federal RPB member Pabst, EPA)
• Appreciate political winds regarding achievement of goals, but we need to look at things from non-political perspective; need to be somewhat flexible regarding articulation of goal statements; even if something is unpopular now, this is not a political process—it must be science-based in planning for future uses; opinions can change, so we must be flexible; maybe “ocean development” is better for first goal (Federal RPB member Atangan, U.S. Navy/Joint Chiefs of Staff)
• “Responsible” is the key word in goal to facilitate responsible renewable energy development; it’s rare that a new sector develops and that we have the opportunity to be responsible with it; need to be more responsible for anything in Mid-Atlantic (Federal RPB member Bigford, NOAA)
• Agree with Bigford comments above; sand resources are important as well (State RPB alternate Chytalo, New York)
• We have our own jobs and responsibilities; not interested in oil and gas in New York; focus on shared ocean issues; plenty that we can work on; offshore wind is challenge of the day, and this body can help it move forward; we’re looking to get something out of process, and it starts with development of goals and jobs from clean energy and relief/reduced timeframes for offshore wind development; need to take care of offshore habitat and canyons, because it will help protect and maintain jobs, and need to grow/facilitate commerce, navigation safety, shipping, etc.; goals are good start, and interested in what stakeholders think (State RPB alternate Capobianco, New York)
• Regarding second goal to “protect habitats and ecosystem functionality,” need to add “improve” and “restore;” and remove “e.g.” regarding the reference to fishing in the goal to ensure access for existing and traditional uses (e.g. fishing, recreation) (State RPB member Cooksey, Delaware)
• Agree with above comments by Cooksey (State RPB alternate Chytalo, New York) 
• Need to boil down; not interested in telling any state what they should do, or how feds should be spending resources; need to focus on shared goals (State RPB alternate Capobianco, New York)
• There is not currently a goal for resilience; favor goal on coastal hazards (State RPB alternate Rosen, New Jersey)
• Goal to ensure sufficient access to ports should be revised to ensure safe and efficient access to ports (Federal RPB member Walters, USCG)
• Encourage looking back at the thoughts about draft goals in the context of goals that benefit the entire region (State co-lead Schultz, Maryland)

GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS FOR OCEAN PLANNING
 
Federal RPB member Pabst (EPA) led the discussion on the initial ideas for the geographic focus for Mid-Atlantic ocean planning.  He began by reviewing the considerations that could guide decisions on the geographic scope of Mid-Atlantic ocean planning:

• Recognize ecological integrity
• Be consistent with current jurisdictional boundaries
• Leverage and build on existing planning efforts
• Focus on areas that would benefit the most from new intergovernmental ocean planning efforts
• Recognize resource constraints
• Identify manageable size and level of complexity

Pabst also noted that the initial ideas include the exclusion of terrestrial areas and nearshore estuarine areas like large bays, and the inclusion of state and federal waters from the VA/NC border in the south to the NY/CT/RI border in the north.  The ensuing discussion included the following comments:

• Pennsylvania agrees with the initial ideas for geographic focus; existing programs are sufficient, and there’s no need to go into estuaries; Pennsylvania can act as liaison as needed regarding excluded terrestrial areas (State RPB member Zemba, Pennsylvania)
• Question as to whether the initial idea would include smaller estuaries that are not subject to estuary programs (State co-lead Schultz, Maryland)
• Reference to estuaries left vague because there may be a bay to address(Federal RPB member Pabst, EPA)
• Leave flexibility because some ocean activities like offshore wind have intersects with coastal/upland areas (transmission) (Federal co-lead Bornholdt, BOEM)
• Let’s focus on what we can do with what we have; this is first salvo, and doesn’t preclude what we may address later (Federal RPB member Atangan, U.S. Navy/Joint Chiefs of Staff)
• Like excluding terrestrial and nearshore estuarine areas, but make sure that Chesapeake Bay and other programs are at the table (Federal RPB member Pabst, EPA)

The facilitator summed up the discussion by stating that it appeared that members wanted to see the RPB be a forum that could be engaged for coordination on estuarine/inland matters, but that they want to keep this as an ocean-focused effort with a need to be flexible.  She added that the initial ideas on the draft goals and geographic focus would be further vetted for subsequent public discussion and review.



PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION ON INITIAL IDEAS FOR DRAFT OCEAN PLANNING GOALS/GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS
 
The following organizations made comments during the meeting’s first public comment session:
 
National Ocean Policy Coalition: formal user group engagement through direct commercial and recreational RPB membership, or at minimum a formal Stakeholder Advisory Committee, is needed; proceeding in the absence of such a mechanism threatens to lead to inadequately-informed actions and adverse consequences; goals and principles to facilitate energy development and enhance siting efficiencies should not be limited to one type of energy; goals to ensure access for existing and traditional uses should also incorporate future potential uses; goals should address job creation, economic growth, and infrastructure revitalization; data must be based on sound science and comply with data quality laws and regulations; timelines must be based on availability of sound science, data, and information, and provide sufficient opportunities for user groups to actively and directly participate
Morgan Gopnik (environmental policy consultant): this is not stakeholder engagement; doesn’t provide useful opportunity; a lot of science and research has been done on engagement, and websites and 2-minute public comment periods are not the way to go; can stay within Federal Advisory Committee Act rules and still do a much better job with engagement; need a nested process, looking at specific places/areas to better understand what people are thinking; can’t even begin to draft vision and goals before that occurs—once those goals have been drafted and put out for comment, you’ve lost the chance to really engage the public
Natural Resources Defense Council: highlighted NOP Final Recommendations including requirement for development of a coastal and marine spatial plan
Maryland Coastal Bay Program: discussed need to include estuaries in geographic focus
Surfrider Foundation: discussed support for creation of a regional ocean plan and noted importance of stakeholder engagement
Clean Ocean Action: noted support for National Ocean Policy; discussed “us vs. them” stakeholder engagement structure, which they said is not helpful; said 5-year timeline is too long, with huge decisions coming in the very near future (citing LNG and seismic activity that they said will blast the eardrums of marine mammals in search of oil in all the wrong places); called initial ideas of draft goals very thin, especially compared to the Northeast’s draft goals which they said are more protective; added that having a new body is frustrating for the public and called on the RPB to bring them to the table; said to allow for shipping, sand, resiliency, renewable energy, and a clean ocean economy; in terms of geographic focus, said that if new LNG terminals are allowed that there would be an extraordinary increase of hydraulic fracturing activity with harmful impacts; said to look at upland impacts; called “Clean Ocean Zone” their idea of ocean zoning (that proposal would prohibit oil and gas production, "new sewage and pollution sources, and other harmful industrial uses of the ocean” from taking place in the NY-NJ Bight)
Garden State Seafood Association: developing something “measurable” and “achievable” is key; seems like a broad and vague approach; CMSP and Ecosystem-Based Management are broad and undefinable terms, not regulatory or even biological, and we lack the science and resources to do that; need to create the science and get the necessary information or not have that as a goal; need to start in estuarine environment if effort is to be successful
Offshore Wind Development Coalition: need to focus on facilitating development of offshore renewable energy, and wind in particular; risk in expanding to include other areas, particularly given limited resources; all 5 coastal states support offshore wind; principles should acknowledge that every use in every area may not be preserved, as that would be harmful for the ocean; can’t be stuck in past

 

POST-PUBLIC COMMENT DISCUSSION ON GOALS AND GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS
 
The facilitator summarized the earlier discussion by noting that members appeared to favor focusing on developing goals related to shared interests that the RPB states and federal agencies have, and look to where the RPB can have the best value and make the greatest contribution to the regional health and well-being.  Eventual goals drafted for public input and consideration would be flexible, science-based, and informed by expertise.  The facilitator noted that one practical next step would be creation of a simple vision statement that would set the predicate for the goals.  The vision statement would build on the National Ocean Policy vision and then be fine-tuned.
 
The ensuing discussion included the following comments:

• Goals may have been over-simplified; should prioritize; natural timeline for identifying areas for restoration (Federal RPB member Pabst, EPA)
• It’s about being ocean stewards; should be partners in ocean stewardship; cooperation and collaboration could help things work better (State RPB alternate Chytalo, New York)
• Orienting goals to the economy/jobs  might be good; in ensuring access for new uses, may want to ensure access to uses that allow us to have strong economy/coastal communities; think through goals, elevate, and be more generic(State co-lead Schultz)
• Keep goals as simple as possible; keep short and brief; will allow for flexibility(Federal RPB member Mach, MARAD)
• Nest primary goals, and lay over the process; identify priorities for now, recognizing the potential for new things, commensurate with available resources(State RPB member Cooksey, Delaware)
• Manage public expectations and look at what is feasible in 1-3 year time period(Federal RPB member Pabst, EPA)
• Include things we’re not sure will work (e.g. emerging issues); need perhaps a priority geographic focus area and a secondary area that includes estuaries, keeping the focus on the oceans; need to define “protect” (Federal RPB member Ramos, USDA)
• RPB membership already represents estuaries (Federal RPB member Mach, MARAD)

The facilitator concluded the discussion by noting that the initial ideas for draft goals would be revised for further discussion the next day, at which time the group may also discuss what objectives (actions) might look like before going to the public for comment and consideration. 

 
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
 
State RPB member Cooksey (Delaware) then reviewed the RPB working groupdocument on short-term goals and long-term aspirations on stakeholder engagement, including current mechanisms and options for the future. 
 
Following the review, RPB members/alternates made comments including the following:

• Regarding a stakeholder liaison committee, realize it’s not all we need to do; sectors can be based on geography, sector, or both; can be a little less formal than a Federal Advisory Committee; find a way to work with respect to FACA, not around it, adding that it’s critical that no sector gets left behind; have to be able to sustain the process, and stakeholders have to be able to support it (Federal RPB member Bigford, NOAA)
• Perhaps RPB members could attend meetings, representing RPB, such as maritime meetings and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council meetings where they could listen to comments from outside groups (Federal RPB member Walters, USCG)
• Having RPB member at relevant meetings is important; we should represent RPB’s various members when doing so (Federal RPB member Atangan, U.S. Navy/Joint Chiefs of Staff)
• Must try to leverage opportunities and find additional tools we can use—I could be at a meeting as BOEM regarding a Maryland Wind Energy Area, but I could hear something of interest for the RPB (Federal co-lead Bornholdt, BOEM)
• Acknowledge fine stakeholder work of MARCO in Mid-Atlantic and Northeast Regional Ocean Council in Northeast; don’t know that we have capacity to do what has been done in Northeast; will take time to get there (State RPB alternate Capobianco, New York)
• Important for RPB members to participate in meetings in their geographic area; I’m hearing that stakeholders want us to listen (Federal RPB member Atangan, U.S. Navy/Joint Chiefs of Staff)
• Let’s let stakeholders tell us what they want (Federal RPB member Ramos, USDA)
• Attend sector-organized meetings and also organize meetings on their turf where RPB is the agenda (Federal RPB member Bigford, NOAA)
• Asked by State RPB alternate from New York as to whether industry can be on the RPB, federal co-lead Bornholdt stated that this is not possible (Federal RPB member Bigford added that the exclusion is dictated by the National Ocean Policy), but that a stakeholder liaison committee with private sector representation is possible
• Stakeholder Liaison Committee sounds like best option in the short-term; also support attending meetings and other outreach (Federal RPB member Pabst, EPA)
• Some groups want a more formal process like FACA; smaller groups can talk to MARCO states who can communicate back to RPB without triggering FACA, but need federal agencies to meet half-way because states lack resources to do this themselves; even one stakeholder committee per state would be a lot, but we need to do more and we need help (State RPB member Cooksey, Delaware)
• Agree with Cooksey comments above regarding resources; this is a federal initiative and state resources are constrained (State RPB member Zemba, Pennsylvania)
• Not hearing anything against Stakeholder Liaison Committee idea; it’s the alternative on the table, so absent another proposal, "giddy up" (Federal RPB member Atangan, U.S. Navy/Joint Chiefs of Staff)
• Extremely impressed with stakeholder panel at April 2013 workshop; they have the resources and capacity to communicate with their constituencies and a very wide net and could be the beginnings of a Stakeholder Liaison Committee (State RPB alternate Capobianco, New York)

PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION ON STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
 
The following organizations made comments during the meeting’s second public comment session:
 
National Ocean Policy Coalition: called for ensuring an adequate seat at the table for commercial and recreational user groups, with the RPB not conducting any further activities until formal mechanisms for engagement (including creation of a FACA) are implemented (assuming that such groups are not provided with RPB membership opportunities); less formal measures like Stakeholder Liaison Committees that preclude direct RPB engagement are inadequate; RPB must embrace rather than avoid applicability of FACA; if RPB lacks capacity to establish a FACA, then it lacks the ability and should not endeavor to undertake this effort
Surfrider Foundation: spoke regarding stakeholder engagement and the need to put documents out in advance
Clean Ocean Action: deference to MARCO for stakeholder engagement should be thought through, because their engagement has not been as great as it should be; questions about accountability and who is responsible if the public does not like the direction things are headed; lack of resources is troubling; unclear what role a liaison would have and how it would be incorporated into the RPB; specific mechanism for public to sit on body would be an option, and a real evening session would be important because of work schedules
Submarine Cable Operators Association: discussed importance of undersea cables and the need to maintain access for existing and new cable routes; have already been planning in coordination with various groups and happy to do that with RPB
Commercial Fisherman: have been under contract with Ocean Conservancy and like idea of Stakeholder Liaison Committee; regarding self-organizing of stakeholders, that doesn’t work well in fishing industry
Garden State Seafood Association: support NOPC comments on engagement; informal aspect can be just as important; must have specifics and details ready or engagement efforts will not be successful; we’re told RPB’s are not regulatory but Executive Order notes federal agencies are required to follow regional plans; if that’s the case, that’s what people want to know and RPB needs to be able to answer the question
Paddler Community Representative: we need stakeholder involvement; people have bought into the ideal and understand that conflicts will arise; not just one group should have a say; RPB effort needs to be proactive, but it’s not the end-all; public wants to get involved in push for extractive uses; expressed concern about location of a certain port; groups have not been rowdy so far because they feel supportive and a part of it



POST-PUBLIC COMMENT DISCUSSION ON STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

• Can always ask for a presentation; challenge is creating the appearance of an advisory role; have to see what do we need now and can we support it (Federal co-lead Bornholdt, BOEM)
• Still hearing groups recommend a FACA; if the answer is a Stakeholder Liaison Committee, unclear who is accountable for a response regarding how a comment is handled; what could FACA bring to the process that we want?; engagement needs to be robust; like idea of science advisory body (State RPB member Cooksey, Delaware)
• FACA takes 6 months to get started and is multi-year effort; would not seem to be in our interests to not do anything until a formal group is formed (State RPB member Schultz)
• Perhaps an ex-officio non-voting RPB membership spot would be appropriate for stakeholders (Federal RPB member Bigford) (facilitator said they can look into getting clarity as to whether that is a potential option)
• FACA could be in future, but this is evolutionary and don’t need to jump right in before goals are developed (Federal RPB member Mach, MARAD)
• Sounds like stakeholders want informal stakeholder liaison mechanism and a FACA; regarding representation on Regional Planning Body itself, my understanding is that can’t happen (State RPB alternate McKay, Virginia)  
• Think we can accommodate a lot of the comments (Federal RPB member Pabst, EPA)
• Not at point where we could get resources to support a FACA effort; understand there is concern about a FACA—don’t fully understand it; waiting/doing nothing until a FACA is established is not a good option; in the meantime, can develop a case for the funds required to establish a FACA (Federal RPB member Atangan, U.S. Navy/Joint Chiefs of Staff)
• Agree with Atangan comments above; start to establish a path for FACA, and in interim do other things like a Stakeholder Liaison Committee (State RPB alternate Chytalo, New York)
• A more informal process will still require a communications effort (State RPB member Rosen, New Jersey)

DAY 1 SUMMARY
 
Before adjourning, the facilitator summed up the first day of discussions.  She noted a desire for a more expansive stakeholder engagement effort that will require creativity.  The facilitator also noted that interest has been expressed for both informal and formal mechanisms, including the establishment of a FACA.  She went on to state that it is difficult to establish a FACA right away, and while the RPB looks into how to do that, efforts will be made to get things started with an interim Stakeholder Liaison Committee and other mechanisms for engagement and input.
 
The facilitator said that details need to be worked out regarding a Stakeholder Liaison Committee in terms of accountability and structure and incorporating science and technology expertise.  Other areas to be explored include the potential for an ex-officio or ombudsman role for stakeholders on the RPB (not as a member). 
 
In addition, she cited comments made about the RPB’s ongoing job to be clear regarding its role, assignment, and authority, and the need for mechanisms that acknowledge people’s trust and support.  She also noted that a revised slide and set of bullets for initial ideas on draft goals was to be prepared for Day 2 of the meeting.

 

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION
 
The second day of the meeting began with a follow-up discussion on stakeholder engagement.  During an informal gathering following the previous day’s meeting, the following common themes were said to have emerged: concern on waiting until 2017 for a plan, the need for examples of accomplishments to disprove fears of process being a regulatory or zoning tool, and the fact that ocean planning is only one of nine elements under the National Ocean Policy.
 
The facilitator then began the discussion by referencing the Stakeholder Liaison Committee suggestion and the need for the RPB to clearly acknowledge that MARCO should proceed with setting up such a structure.  The following comments ensued:

• MARCO should be directed to develop a plan for informal and formal engagement, as well as a work plan with financial ramifications (State RPB alternate Chytalo, New York)
• No quick answer; need to revisit budget and identify sectors (State co-lead Schultz, Maryland)
• Need to have it scoped out; opportunity for all of us to join in; need proposal(Federal co-lead Bornholdt, BOEM)
• Haven’t heard objection to idea, so we should proceed with vetting what would be required for a Stakeholder Liaison Committee; need more details on the resources and responsibilities that would be involved (Federal RPB member Atangan, U.S Navy/Joint Chiefs of Staff)

In summing up the discussion, the facilitator noted that the previous discussion touched on the implications, tradeoffs, and obstacles involved with FACA.  She said that the group has heard the idea for a FACA and is exploring it to see what is appropriate.  While it will be further developed as an idea for a potential engagement mechanism (as well as the possibility of including an RPB ombudsman), an engagement effort will be put in place in the meantime.
 

DATA AND INFORMATION
 
State RPB alternate McKay (Virginia) provided background and an update on the MARCO data portal, which includes seven data themes and has been offered to the RPB for its use.  She asked for assistance in getting everything right in the event that information is missing on the portal.
 
McKay also said that MARCO is continuing to improve the portal, with some funding available ($75,000 NOAA grant) for a regional ocean assessment that would support MARCO and RPB efforts.  The RPB was then asked how it would like to use the portal and what they would like to see covered in the regional ocean assessment.  The following observations ensued: 

• Use portal to achieve goals, make decisions, take actions, and achieve objectives(Federal RPB member Pabst, EPA)
• Case studies are important to address in the portal (State RPB member Rosen, New Jersey)
• MARCO portal team is looking at how to incorporate stories/case studies into the portal; want to have credible, transparent, and best available data; can’t wait forever for perfect data (State RPB alternate McKay, Virginia)
• User agreement language that explains what data implies and doesn’t imply is being worked on; how to include state data in portal is important matter (State RPB alternate Capobianco, New York)
• Support using industry standards for the data; potential for portal to assist us in decision-making by providing stakeholders with a common visual so everyone sees what it is; needs to be best available and scientific data; stick to industry standards (Federal RPB member Atangan, U.S. Navy/Joint Chiefs of Staff)
• Accept MARCO offer to use portal to support RPB activities; would prefer to have fully-informed decision at next meeting; also, try to do regional assessment and capacity assessment together (State RPB member Cooksey, Delaware)
• Portal not designed for route planning (operational level), it’s designed for ocean planning (State RPB alternate McKay, Virginia)
• Would be tremendous undertaking and would advise against expanding the portal to address operational considerations (Federal RPB member Atangan, U.S. Navy/Joint Chiefs of Staff)
• If agreement with MARCO for RPB to use portal, may need to modify current structure whereby MARCO Board makes decisions about what data sets get added (State RPB alternate Chytalo, New York)
• Data standards for MARCO portal have been drafted and shared with MARCO Board, think we’re close (State RPB alternate McKay, Virginia)
• Need to define what questions we’re trying to answer regarding the regional ocean assessment (State co-lead Schultz, Maryland)
• Assessment of what needs to be done on regional ocean assessment will be possible once goals, objectives, and actions have been decided (Federal RPB member Pabst, EPA)
• Hope we keep in mind what makes this region unique, including land-based elements, because what we do affects the ocean; do economic study as well(State RPB member Cooksey, Delaware)
• What we currently have is already in the portal; not clear if assessment would be a stand-alone or incorporated into portal; include more regarding the condition of resources/uses and expected future uses; global Ocean Health Index could be used as tool if adapted to Mid-Atlantic; funding is a challenge (State RPB member McKay, Virginia)
• Let’s have stand-alone regional ocean assessment and incorporate it into the portal (State RPB member Cooksey, Delaware)
• Address traditional knowledge in assessment (tribal, commercial fishers, paddlers, etc.) (Federal co-lead Bornholdt, BOEM)
• Regional ocean assessment would be based on existing information, not new data (State RPB member Rosen, New Jersey)
• Stakeholders have wealth of information on ocean conditions (State co-lead Schultz, Maryland)
• Select areas for trends analysis over the last 20 years (State RPB alternate Chytalo, New York)

In summing up the discussion on the data portal, the facilitator said that further discussion may be needed in making sure the MARCO portal supports the RPB (and what the alternatives are if not).  In the meantime, the portal would be embraced and the RPB would see how it evolves.
 

PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION ON DATA & INFORMATION
 
The following organizations made comments during the meeting’s third public comment session:
 
National Ocean Policy Coalition: any data and information used by RPB (including regional ocean assessments) must be based on sound science, comply with strict integrity safeguards, laws, protocols, and requirements, include the socioeconomic component, and ensure that all existing and future potential uses and resources are accounted for; regional ocean assessment must be based on priorities and objectives that are developed based on meaningful stakeholder engagement and the input and advice that comes from such engagement
Paddler Community Representative: MARCO portal is great; data is there, it just needs to be assembled; maximize partnerships
Morgan Gopnik: extremely supportive of RPB effort; great opportunity; regarding data, a bit of a danger when you start relying on a map, since things not on maps like social science data tend to be ignored
Surfrider Foundation: breakdown on FACA hurdles, costs, etc. would be helpful; working with NROC, MARCO, Monmouth, and Ecotrust, organization just completed 700 surveys with 3,000 data points; reaching out to other recreational groups
Natural Resources Defense Council: state data in portal would be helpful; avenue to add information to the portal; regional ocean assessment is important piece too
Commercial Shipping Representative: need to be careful regarding impacts to shipping; significant economic and environmental impacts of moving routes; keep routes open
Commercial Shipping Representative: Europe is a great model to look to regarding shipping lanes; to see where things didn’t work out well look at the Gulf of Mexico
Clean Ocean Action: a lot going on in ocean that is secret and that you might not be able to map; regarding economics, it’s hard to put a value on plankton, but needs to be assessed and considered; the lens through which one looks at data (e.g. most valued areas or areas that aren’t used as much) comes down to tradeoffs
Citizen: provide public with opportunity for notice and comment on additions to data portal

 

POST-PUBLIC COMMENT DISCUSSION ON DATA AND INFORMATION
 
RPB members and alternates made the following comments after the public comment session on data and information:

• Regarding the extent of activities covered in the MARCO portal, port data is coming into the portal and there is an opportunity to address land-based activities (State RPB alternate McKay, Virginia)
• Flyaway and wetland data could be added to the portal and used if there is a disaster like the one that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico that resulted in creation of temporary wetlands; soils/land use can affect sedimentation and shipping lanes(Federal RPB alternate Ramos, USDA)
• Given the magnitude of the effort, should start by focusing on ocean area without including areas like the Chesapeake/Delaware Bay and inland areas (State RPB member Zemba, Pennsylvania)
• Like idea of rolling ocean assessments meshing with a rolling plan (State RPB alternate McKay, Virginia)

In summing up the discussion on the regional ocean assessment, the facilitator said that a practical approach is needed, as there are limits as to what can be done and focused on.  In addition, a better understanding of the questions that need to be answered (based on goals, etc.) will inform the contents of the assessment.  The ocean assessment should be mindful of the region’s attributes and incorporate traditional knowledge.  Use of the global ocean health index may also be helpful, and the assessment would not be static or a stand-alone (would build on the data portal).

 

GOALS-VISION-TIMELINE FOLLOW UP DISCUSSION
 
The next session featured a followed up on the previous day’s discussion about initial ideas for draft goals, a vision, and a timeline for RPB activity.  A handout, which captures some of the thoughts shared in the previous day’s discussion, was distributed for discussion.  It covers possible elements of a vision statement, thoughts about draft goals and example objectives, possible revised goals with possible objectives, initial geographic focus, and a timeline for goals.
 
KEY THEMES
 
The facilitator said that key themes to emerge from Day 1 included the need to focus on shared interests (with RPB a value-add) and high-level goals (with details about specific sectors in the objectives) that are achievable and measurable.
 

POSSIBLE VISION STATEMENT
 
As to possible pieces of a vision statement, the handout sets out components of the National Ocean Policy as a starting point for a one-page vision for the region in 2025.  One suggested separating the first bullet into two separate components to emphasize the importance of both healthy ocean ecosystems as well as vibrant and resilient coastal and ocean economies (state RPB alternate Chytalo, New York).  Another suggested developing a vision as a statement rather than a lengthy document (federal RPB member Ramos, USDA). 
 
Others suggested simply adopting the National Ocean Policy vision (federal RPB member Mach, MARAD), asked who the vision statement is intended for (state RPB member Rosen, New Jersey), and recommended circulating the National Ocean Council’s vision statement among the RPB as a starting point and then making it more relevant for the Mid-Atlantic (state co-lead Schultz, Maryland).

 

FEEDBACK ON DRAFT GOALS AND POSSIBLE OBJECTIVES
 
Summing up feedback heard regarding draft goals and possible example objectives, the facilitator added that comments were heard about taking advantage of traditional and new economic opportunities, with a range of views expressed about ocean energy, and “responsible” being a key concept. 
 
In addition, some expressed a desire for a goal to protect, restore, and improve ecosystem health.  On that note, one noted that “protect,” “restore,” and “health” mean different things to different people, and cautioned the RPB to be realistic regarding restoration (federal RPB member Pabst, EPA).  Others responded by stating that restoration is a big part of what Delaware and NOAA are focused on (state RPB member Cooksey, Delaware and federal RPB member Bigford, NOAA). 
 
Lastly, addressing resiliency and climate change (including offshore sand) were mentioned as possibilities for draft goals.  One member supports the notion of a goal that pertains to ocean planning and resiliency (state RPB alternate Capobianco, New York), while another voiced support for addressing ocean acidification and climate change as a goal (federal RPB member Pabst, EPA). 

 

POSSIBLE REVISED GOALS WITH POSSIBLE EXAMPLE OBJECTIVES
 
Incorporating some of the feedback from Day 1, two possible revised goals and example objectives were teed up for discussion:

POSSIBLE REVISED GOAL: Stewardship, protect and restore ecosystem health and functionality, account for key habitat
POSSIBLE OBJECTIVES: Account for ecosystem value of the canyons, migratory corridors, wildlife, climate change
 
POSSIBLE REVISED GOAL: Take advantage of traditional and new economic opportunities to create jobs in a way that is responsible and account for future generations
POSSIBLE OBJECTIVES: Efficient and safe port access, facilitate responsible offshore wind development, ensure access to key fishing grounds, retain areas for military testing, training, and operations
 
As to the first possible goal, and as stated above, one noted that “protect,” “restore,” and “health” mean different things to different people, and cautioned the RPB to be realistic regarding restoration (federal RPB member Pabst, EPA).  Others responded by stating that restoration is a big part of what Delaware and NOAA are focused on (state RPB member Cooksey, Delaware and federal RPB member Bigford, NOAA). 
 
Regarding the second possible goal, one noted that they supported the inclusion of language addressing economic opportunities and jobs, and that a goal to address recreational access may be worthy (state RPB member Schultz, Maryland).  Another suggested expanding the objective regarding port access to address other maritime industries as well (state RPB alternate Capobianco, New York).
 
One also recommended including the context and rationale for goals, objectives, and actions that are developed (state RPB alternate Chytalo, New York). 
 
INITIAL GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS FOR NOW
 
Feedback from Day 1 regarding the initial geographic focus was then discussed.  Discussions indicated a desire to have a primary focus on state and federal waters offshore the coastal states represented on the RPB, excluding estuaries, bays, and terrestrial lands.  Key connections to estuaries, the coast, and terrestrial land would be made when needed and practical, and the process would be iterative and the geographic focus could change with the development of goals and evolving circumstances.
 
Responding to the summary, one called for re-visiting the geographic focus regarding bays (state RPB member Schultz, Maryland).

 

TIMELINE FOR GOALS
 
The revised draft timeline included the following proposed milestones regarding the development of goals, objectives, and a work plan:

• By January 2014, draft vision, goals, example objectives, and actions for public review
• From January through March 2014, engage in targeted stakeholder engagement and received robust public input on the draft vision, goals, example objectives, and actions
• In April 2014, unveil revised suite of ideas at RPB’s second meeting for review, aiming to finalize vision and goals at the meeting
• Through Summer 2014, seeking additional stakeholder input, continue developing detailed objectives and actions as part of draft work plan
• In September 2014, review draft work plan at RPB’s third meeting

Responding to the proposed timeline, one suggested that while they want to be aggressive, timelines should also be practical and ensure that stakeholder engagement opportunities are meaningful (federal RPB co-lead Bornholdt, BOEM).  Another suggested that waiting one year for a draft work plan seems too slow (federal RPB member Bigford, NOAA).

 

Responding to concerns about waiting until April for their next meeting, federal RPB co-lead Bornholdt noted that the group can have webinars and conference calls in the interim, adding that BOEM is currently in contractual negotiations with the Meridian Institute but that if the RPB is comfortable with how things are going the April meeting could be moved up.
 
Others expressed concern about who would be doing the underlying work necessary to meet the proposed deadlines and the need for specific tasks to be assigned (federal RPB member Atangan, U.S. Navy/Joint Chiefs of Staff), with one noting that only a portion of the RPB has been contributing to the effort so far (federal RPB member Bigford, NOAA).  Another noted that there is a lot of work to do before January, and that the RPB will have to be able to explain what they are doing and why (state RPB alternate Capobianco, New York).
 

SUMMARY
 
Federal RPB co-lead Bornholdt noted that the group would start work on organizing a Stakeholder Liaison Committee and informal engagement mechanisms.  In addition, the facilitator said that other than the timeline, she sensed a general level of comfort regarding the revisions that were distributed and discussed.  She noted that comments supported the addition of a couple of goals (and objectives re: sand and port/maritime access), capturing the importance of recreational access, and assembling a shorter vision.
 
Going forward, the facilitator said that the full RPB would continue the discussion about goals and objectives and designing a process for stakeholder engagement.  Federal co-lead Bornholdt said that the RPB’s next discussion would take place during a potential teleconference on October 8.
 
REGIONAL PLANNING BODY CHARTER
 
Discussion then turned to the draft RPB charter.  Federal RPB member Atangan (U.S. Navy/Joint Chiefs of Staff) noted that in developing the draft, the RPB work group used the Northeast RPB charter as a starting point, and then incorporated the model charter that was included in the National Ocean Council’s marine planning handbook released in July.  He also noted that expected appendices to the charter could address operations and procedures, decision-making, and dispute resolution.
 
Input on the draft was welcomed, and it was noted that the group aims to finalize the charter for approval by November (final draft for review by Nov. 1 and distributed for signature by Nov. 15).
 
One noted that the introduction does not discuss the National Ocean Council, adding that clarification about its role would be helpful (state RPB member Zemba, Pennsylvania), with another adding that there should be more talk about the National Ocean Council and why the RPB is doing this in order to help explain ‘what’s in it for me’ (state RPB member Cooksey, Delaware).  Another noted use of the terms “ocean planning” and “marine planning” (state RPB co-lead Schultz, Maryland), with the facilitator noting that clarification on these terms would be sought.
 
As to the mission’s call for coordinating with stakeholders, scientific, business and technical experts, and the public, one conveyed concern about being too specific and leaving someone out (federal RPB member Pabst, EPA).
 
PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION ON OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
 
The following organizations made comments during the meeting’s final public comment session:
 
National Ocean Policy Coalition: cautioned against proceeding any further in the absence of direct commercial and recreational RPB representation or at minimum a formal Stakeholder Advisory Committee; if RPB lacks resources for such a mechanism then it lacks the capacity and should not set out to create a regional ocean plan or other products with potential adverse impacts; timelines and RPB decisions must account for time and resource demands on existing and future potential user groups and be based on sound science, data, and information and allow for adequate engagement; significant engagement and identification of goals and related actions must precede establishment of timelines; RPB charter should provide for direct commercial/recreational and local representation on RPB or at minimum a FACA; charter should make clear that a decision not to address a particular use does not indicate opposition to such use and that such omission should not be interpreted in any way that would restrict or prohibit such activity from being authorized to take place; charter also needs to address terms and processes under which funding would be accepted from outside groups, how marine planning would be carried out subject to the authority of existing statutes, regs, and authorized programs (and which statutes, regs, and programs would be implicated), and how exactly agencies would adhere to the plan and/or other RPB products
Natural Resources Defense Council: discussed importance of recreational access, support vision, called for engaging meaningful public input to be a goal, requested opening a public comment period in October rather than waiting until January (and then closing the comment period at the end of January), called on RPB to commit to try to meet quarterly and develop a regional ocean plan, said it’s not clear what is envisioned for the work plan, noted inconsistency between Executive Order’s requirement for federal agencies to participate to fullest extent and draft charter’s language about participating to the fullest extent “practicable”
Surfrider Foundation: discussed progress toward developing goals, noted confusion regarding when the RPB would go back to stakeholders and sought clarification as to what would happen in January, and discussed restoration
Paddler Community Representative: sought clarification on resiliency (what it means and what the RPB would be doing to address it), said mission and goals thus far do not reflect the crisis we’re in, and cited omission of ecosystem-based management (saying that EBM is necessary to make sure we don’t destroy what is left)
Clean Ocean Action: said goals are too limited, discussed importance of data and need to reflect economics of commercial and recreational fishing, called for clarity about role of MARCO, sought clarification on power of RPB co-leads, and requested definition of “general consensus” regarding RPB disputes
Submarine Cable Operators Association: discussed importance of submarine cables
Citizen: said you can’t have commercial activity and healthy ocean
Commercial Shipping Representative: voiced support for possible vision statement addressing lives and livelihoods and would like to see more discussion about economic impacts, need more time regarding a mission statement, bylaws are needed for RPB, RPB should form subcommittees, RPB needs to identify stakeholders, and suggested revised goals include efficient and safe port access
 

POST-PUBLIC COMMENT DISCUSSION ON OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
 
There seemed to be general support for 2-year terms for RPB co-leads (as recommended by the National Ocean Council), with options for consecutive terms.  Federal co-lead Bornholdt strongly recommended that terms be staggered for continuity. 
 
One asked whether RPB members were representing merely their agencies or entire federal departments and how long RPB members serve on the body (federal RPB member Walters, USCG).  In response, one said that the draft charter would address the representation question and that the length of service is up to the federal entity (federal RPB member Atangan, U.S. Navy/Joint Chiefs of Staff).  Atangan also noted a lack of clarity in the draft charter regarding the transition of the federal co-lead.
 
As to expected appendices, Atangan said that areas which could be addressed include the establishment of operational procedures, decision-making and dispute resolution, and clarification of the relationship between the RPB and MARCO. 
 
One also expressed a desire to go back to the MARCO Board for a discussion on how RPB guidance could be helpful and how formal or informal the MARCO-RPB arrangement should be (state co-lead Schultz, Maryland).

 

Members also discussed the need for the charter’s language to be flexible enough to allow for changes without requiring an amendment (state co-lead Schultz, Marylandand federal RPB member Ramos, USDA).
 
Another suggested revising the draft charter to reference the ex-officio/ombudsman non-government RPB position if the group decides to move forward with that idea.  They also recommended treating local officials as another sector in developing a stakeholder liaison group (state RPB alternate Chytalo, New York). 

In response, one voiced support for looking at local officials as a stakeholder sector (state RPB alternate McKay, Virginia), while another said that given their experience in the Northeast local officials would likely disfavor such an approach (federal RPB member Atangan, U.S. Navy/Joint Chiefs of Staff).  Others called for referencing the Governance Coordinating Committee in the charter (state RPB member Cooksey, Delaware).

 

In terms of next steps, the facilitator said that the RPB’s next round of discussions would address a proposal from the co-leads regarding what the structure and expectations should be for the RPB’s work groups, as well as goal development and stakeholder engagement. 

As to stakeholder engagement, the facilitator referenced support for MARCO’s offer to further develop the concept of a Stakeholder Liaison Committee as one engagement mechanism, adding that the RPB would consider a suite of proposed engagement structures.
 
In addition, the facilitator noted support for use of the MARCO portal and the development of a regional ocean assessment that serves as a living document, and said that the group will explore how the Governance Coordinating Committee could play a helpful role in terms of local representation. 

II. GULF OF MEXICO ALLIANCE ANNOUNCES “MARINE PLANNING MEETING”
 
The Gulf of Mexico Alliance has announced that it will host a “Marine Planning Meeting” from 1:00 – 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 14 at the Mississippi State Coastal Research and Extension Center in Biloxi, MS.
 
The Gulf of Mexico Alliance is an existing regional ocean partnership initiated in 2004 by the states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.
 
According to the announcement, the meeting’s objective is “