Ocean Spatial Planning Body
Works Goals

CAMBRIDGE, MA — The Northeast Regional Planning Body (NRPB), a group developing recommendations for what it believes should be considered when National Ocean Policy regulations are formalized in 2015, met here on January 22 and 23 at the edge of the MIT campus. Membership in the group formed in 2012 is by federal appointment. The NRPB cannot receive funds, it is not a 501C for example, but operating funds come though NOAA and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

There were 30 members on the panel and about 45 audience members at the 2-day meeting.

The January meeting was an organizational meeting for formalizing the NRPB goals. The public was given an opportunity to speak briefly and 11 did on Thursday. Topics discussed by the NRPB were environmental, habitat preservation, tribal, and traditional user issues.

The health of the oceans has been publicized in recent years. Pollution, ocean acidity, water temperatures, rising sea levels, chemical contamination and eroding coastlines are a few of the problems facing the worlds oceans. But the amount of use and types of use of the oceans has been increasing. The department of energy is facilitating the development of offshore wind energy projects. New England is considered to have some of the best wind resources in the country. At the same time aquaculture, in particular open pen finfish aquaculture, research and development has been funded by congress for decades. These two commercial development projects need stable spatial foundations that a National Ocean Policy might provide to investors.

Commercial marine shipping, recreational boating, fishing and coastal building, marine protected areas and coastal erosion are also demanding more marine space every year. Ocean spatial planning is intended to organize and regulate all these uses. Commercial fishing, the oldest user group, has been sharing space with these newer users. The difference with wind energy facilities and aquaculture uses is that they are fixed in place. The area of the Gulf of Maine is also fixed, but the area suitable for fishing, where the fish are, is also fixed within that area.

The U.S. Department of Energy gave a presentation of what it’s intentions are for wind energy development in the Gulf of Maine. No specifics on the size of the areas or placement werd available.

During the public comment period Valery Nelson of Gloucester noted the importance of healthy oceans for healthy seafood. She suggested Senate appropriations for research be used to hire fishing boats and use indigenous knowledge in conducting marine research.

Maine NRPB member Kathleen Leyden said, “We haven’t done much data collection on state waters in Maine. We don’t have a lot on money. We could use some help.” The questions of enforcement authority, climate change and it’s evolving complications, such as fish stocks moving north, were brought up. Leyden said, “This piece alone is enough for the two years we have available to finish a plan. She went on to say, “We have not talked about resources and funding. I’m assuming someone is looking at that. Because we are raising expectations by saying this can be done.”

Discussions revolved around points to be made regarding several topics the group might agree on including in their final recommendations.

Representing the Passamaquoddy tribe in eastern Maine, Vera Francis noted that the day before “several points made very clear that habitat and ecological protection need to be a part of this process. “If we are promoting these industries (Offshore wind energy, aquaculture, recreation, etc.) we need to make it clear that that is what we are doing.”, said Francis. NROC Director John Weber was asked, “Is that clear?”. Weber responded , “Yes”. Leyden said, “Offshore wind and the displacement of fishermen can have a huge impact on fishermen, fishing families and communities. This is something to think about when putting a dollar value on these projects.”

The Planning Body appeared to be in the early stages of working out the language used in presenting their goals. At times the pace picked up with the interjection of an imperative or galvanizing statement. Paul Diodati from the Massachustts Department of Marine Fisheries called “ocean acidity a ticking time bomb.” Diodati also noted that what they were doing there, developing recommendations, would be going to the regulators. “The goals we are developing here will be a part of judicial decisions. Therefore we need to think about the goals that are set out here,” he said.

During the public comment period Paul Williamson, representing the Maine Ocean and Wind Energy Initiative said the Planning Body should be facilitating a dialogue among the interested stakeholders. “The energy interests should be talking with the fishing interests, mineral interests talking with the aquaculture interests, all stakeholders with each other, as they are all equally important,” he said.

The regulators who create the National Ocean Policy will be required to consider the NRPB recommendations in their decision making. In the context of this consideration a NRPB member noted that “we are entering a period when the marine environment is in a high state of flux. We are looking for the important environmental and ecological areas to address now. However, is this new state of change going to make identifying these areas more difficult than we know?” Another member said an informed position relies on the quality and amount of data available. However, it may be three to five years before that data is available.

In 2010 President Obama signed an Executive Order called the National Ocean Policy Act. As a part of that Executive Order, Regional Planning Bodies were called for in order to gather the regional knowledge, expertize and local needs to inform the development of a National Ocean Policy for the nine regions that would be included in it.

In 2005 the Northeast Regional Ocean Council (NROC) was established by the New England Governors Council. This council of volunteers in a state and local partnership met to to develop regional coastal and ocean polices. The NRPB has been built upon the six state foundation and experience of the NROC since it was established in 2012. The federal policy makers must adhere to the recommendations of the NRPB, but the recommendations will not supersede existing plans such as the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Smaller local meetings were held around New England in 2013 to discuss ocean spatial planning and gather public input. More local public input meetings may be held in the fall of 2014. Another large NRPB planning meeting will be held in June 2014. All meetings are open to the public and attendance is encouraged.

There is a lot of information on Ocean Spatial Planning at their Data Portal. The NROC website has a place for the public to enter comments as well as information.

The NROC has a Data Portal at http://northeastoceandata.org

The new NROC website is: neoceanplanning.org