Gulf of Mexico Region (GOMR) Environmental Studies Program (ESP)

1. Gulf of Mexico Region (GOMR) Environmental Studies Program (ESP) Implementing Structured Decision Making (SDM) November 14, 2018 Lissa Lyncker National Academy of Sciences Committee on Offshore Science and Assessment

2. Overview Introduction GOMR ESP Fiscal Year 2019 Studies Evaluation Process using SDM SDM Lessons Learned GOMR Current and Future Application of SDM Other GOMR ESP Initiatives GOMR Collaboration within BOEM National Studies Program

3. Introduction GOMR: A Highly Productive Environmental Assessment Program Informed by Applied Science Environmental Assessment (EA) Workload • Pre-Lease NEPA • Post-Lease NEPA • Marine Minerals Program • Consultations Integral Role of the ESP • BOEM’s Environmental Studies Program (ESP) is mandated by Section 20 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) to conduct studies that will provide the information needed to assess and manage impacts on the human, marine, and coastal environments from offshore energy and marine mineral development.

4. Introduction Environmental Studies Program Principles • Remain use-inspired to apply results towards management decisions • Seek partnerships to leverage funds and maximize utility of results • Adhere to the utmost levels of scientific integrity and credibility • Engage regularly with stakeholders and public educational outreach for quality assurance, peer-review planning, and data dissemination Annually Subject Matter Experts develop profiles to address data needs to enhance GOMR management decisions. Those study profiles must undergo rigorous evaluation to ensure they meet current GOMR priorities and needs and ESP Principles.

5. GOMR FY 2019 NSL Studies Evaluation Process using SDM Reviewed the SDM Purpose Developed the Decision Context Developed Evaluation Criteria and Definitions that support the Decision Context Prioritized and Weighted 6 Evaluation Criteria Evaluated Current Assumptions Evaluated and Ranked Studies by 6 Evaluation Criteria Developed a List of Studies by Ranking Conducted Sensitivity Analyses Concluded with Proposed Studies for FY19 National Studies List

6. SDM Purpose Demonstrate thorough investigation of the studies proposed for FY 19. Clarify, articulate, and order or rank how well each proposed study meets BOEM’s mission and mandates and current BOEM GOMR Priorities and Needs Arrive at an ordered studies list and a recommended GOMR NSL (some studies may fall off from list now) The assembled team should depart confident that they have recommended the best value proposed studies list for the GOMR NSL. NOTE: this did not guarantee the Decisionmakerwould keep the recommended GOMR NSL as is. The Decisionmaker still had the discretion at the final National Studies List brief stage. This was a means to offer clarity among proposed studies given factors within EPS’ purview.

7. Decision Context BOEM’s Mandate, Mission, and Vision Environmental Studies Program Vision and Principles Current GOMR Issues (GOMR and ATL Oil and Gas): • NEPA and Consultation Streamlining • Pre- and post- lease (site-specific review) NEPA needs • AQ Regulation and Rulemaking • Decommissioning PEIS • Atlantic Region Lease Sale Preparation/Baseline Information

8. Evaluation Criteria that Support the Decision Context Supports BOEM’s OCS Program Needs Supports Environmental Needs Study Concept, Design and Methodology Time Cost Resource Leveraging

9. Evaluation Criteria Definitions Supports BOEM’s OCS Program needs- study results would support oil/gas, MMP and/or Renewables program needs to expeditiously develop the OCS, i.e., increase and/or sustain oil and gas exploration, development and production, increase/sustain access to hydrocarbon, renewable, mineral resources, Support environmental needs: study results would reduce effects to environmental (biological, physical and human) resources, further delineate areas to avoid, gather data to better disclose and mitigate effects via NEPA or Consultation (e.g., environmental baseline data, gather cumulative effects data, gather accidental events data), develop mitigation (avoid, minimize or mitigate potential effects of the program), environmental effects Study concept, design and methodology: All studies must provide a sound research concept (including questions asked), design, and methodology. Quality science is required. The study must be able to be implemented. Study logistics and implementability, and BOEM stance or politics on a study must be considered when prioritizing the study. The methods must be able to be implemented in a way that will result in answers to the study questions being asked, and with the resources requested for the study – is the study realistic in its questions and budget? Time: time it would take to get results and affect decisions, multi-year, single year (does it meet immediate needs?) All studies must articulate their relevance and importance to BOEM decision-making, and the level of need (timing of the need) must be considered in setting priority. This criterion accounts for the urgency of information and provides for a reasonable level of support across BOEM’s three programs: oil and gas, renewable energy, and marine minerals. Can the study be funded at a later date without consequence? Study funding instrument must be considered for this criterion and must be considered when considering program needs. Cost: the cost should match the value added from the study results, BOEM should get a return on investment. BOEM should share the costs when appropriate and applicable. The funding strategy should be considered and studies should be conducted in a manner to best meet Program and environmental needs for cost. Collaboration Potential: the studies should collaborate when possible. This criterion focuses on the ability to team up, share resource, data, and results across Programs, disciplines and with other Federal and State partners, supports more than one BOEM Program, etc. Interdisciplinary and multiple use is valued.

10. Supports BOEM’s OCS Program Needs- Sub Criteria How does this study support BOEM’s mission and vision and decisionmaking process based on the situational context (current issues facing BOEM GOMR)? • How does the study directly support a decision to be made or action to be authorized by BOEM in support of BOEM's mission and vision?  • How is the study relevant to the agency? Which regulatory or legal/litigation requirement? • Does the study support an active issue, e.g., streamline initiative? • Which program does the study support? Does it support more than one program (oil/gas, MMP, renewables, G&G)? • Would knowing this information change a BOEM decision on a permitted activity or BOEM action or authorization? Would the information allow BOEM to make a decision to allow or preclude activity in areas on the OCS? Could this information impact the decision to hold as lease sale? • What is the risk to the program (consequences) of not knowing this information or not doing the study?

11. Supports Environmental Needs – Sub Criteria How would this study benefit the environmental resources (natural, biological, and sociological)? • How would this study reduce effects to environmental (natural, biological, and sociological) resources? Does it further delineate areas to avoid? Does it gather data to better disclose and mitigate effects via NEPA or Consultation (e.g., environmental baseline data, gather cumulative effects data, gather accidental events data)? Does it develop or enhance mitigation (avoid, minimize or mitigate potential effects of the program)? • How would this study contribution to existing knowledge? Studies must be designed to contribute significantly to existing knowledge. • How will the proposed study fill gaps in information or improve, confirm, or challenge current understanding? • What is the risk to the resource of not knowing this information or not doing this study?

12. Study Concept, Design and Methodology - Sub Criteria Is there a sound research concept (use-inspired research) including questions asked, design, and methodology? • What questions are you asking? • What is the study design? • What is the methodology • Does this study use innovative technology or techniques? • Risks?

13. Time- Sub Criteria What is the urgency of the information from this study? • How long would the study take? • Does it meet immediate needs for the current decision context? • How is this relevant to addressing current needs and BOEM decision-making? • Is it critical that this study be done now or can this study be done later? • What is the study funding instrument and how does that effect the study timeline to obtain data for program and environmental needs? • Risks?

14. Cost- Sub Criteria How much will this study cost? • Is single or multiple year funding required? • Is the study cost effective? Do we get appropriate return on investment? Will the expense of a study result in equivalent significance level of results? (Spend a lot to get a little? Spend a little to get a lot? Spend a lot to get a lot, etc?) • Will the study require funding or exercising options in future years? • What is the funding strategy for the study? What is the annual distribution of funds and what effect can that have on the overall funding for the study? • Risks?

15. Resource Leveraging- Sub Criteria Ability to collaborate? Does this study explore opportunities for partnership in funding or other collaboration? • Does this study provide opportunity for public outreach and engagement (e.g., Citizen Science, involvement of aquariums or other non-profits, Collaboration with Native Americans, etc.) • Does the study support purely local programs? or multi-regionals or multi-programs? • Risks?

16. Criteria Priority 1 = Most Important ; 5 = Least Important Supports BOEM’s OCS Program Needs - 1 Supports Environmental Needs - 2 Study Concept, Design and Methodology - 4 Time - 3 Cost - 3 Resource Leveraging - 5

17. Criteria Priority & Weight

18. Studies Analysis Supports BOEM’s OCS Program Needs Scoring was on a scale of 1 to 10. More is more. Higher scores meant study better met the decision context.

19. Studies Analysis Supports Environmental Needs Scoring was on a scale of 1 to 10. More is more. Higher scores meant study better met the decision context.

20. Studies Evaluation Scoring Matrix – Raw Scores and Weights

21. Rank Order of Studies Understanding the Recreational Uses of OCS Infrastructure ($300k) An Analysis of Seafloor Impacts on the Gulf of Mexico OCS for Adaptive Management Strategies ($200k) Wind Tunnel Experiments for Oil Platform Downwash ($250k) Areal Distribution of Project-related Air Pollution Sources and the Distance at which They Must be Considered Related or Independent ($375k) Preliminary Study: GOMR Coastal Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program ($800k) OCS-Related Transportation Infrastructure in Louisiana and Texas ($350k) Meeting the Challenge: Developing Baseline Data Collection and Action Plans ($225k) BOEM's Nearshore Strategy: Anticipating Stakeholder Impacts for Streamlining Shoreline Infrastructure Realignment, Part 1 ($650k) Atlantic Coastal Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program ($2 M) Continuing Investigation of the Submerged Cypress Forest ($450k) Oil and Gas Atlas for the United States Outer Continental Shelf ($200k)

22. Sensitivity Analysis Does the final scoring pass the “common sense test?” Sensitivity analysis: (“Sampling”) Are any of the criteria overly weighted or otherwise scored such that a minor change disproportionately affects the final outcome? • changed weights – time up to 20%, cost down to 10% • changed weights – zero’ed out resource leveraging and increased program to 35% • Changed study score relative to other studies to zero for time criteria With each sensitivity analysis the revised rank order of studies was reviewed

23. Team Recommended GOMR/ATL Studies List Understanding the Recreational Uses of OCS Infrastructure ($300k) An Analysis of Seafloor Impacts on the Gulf of Mexico OCS for Adaptive Management Strategies ($200k) Wind Tunnel Experiments for Oil Platform Downwash ($250k) Preliminary Study: GOMR Coastal Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program ($800k)

24. GOMR FY19 ESP Matrix

25. SDM Lessons Learned GOMR ESP conducted a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) Analysis Strengths/Opportunities: Decision Focused Process with Mission/Regional Needs Kept Central – Keeps focus on decision at hand and helps avoid running down rabbit trails. Helps to put yourself in the decisionmakers’ shoes and understandwhat they need to be able to make a decision and provide that to them. Increased Objectivity - Increased transparency and consistency in the process by which studies were evaluated and proposed annually;removed perceived, sometimes not obvious, and unintended subjectivity when reporting on studies; Clearly laid out how each study ranked up to meeting priorities and needs –matrix; Succinctly laid out why studies were proposed over others; Laid out the consequences (what is lost) by not selecting a study. Inclusive and Team Building - More unified Studies SME team; reduced competition among disciplines. Increased communication and participation with staff and management throughout the decision making process – reviewed and contributed to all process input; SMES presented to management and among SME team members. Weaknesses/Threats: SDM is a science in and ofitself – Requires an experienced SDM facilitator to know the SDM process and be able to adapt it to each use. The facilitator must also learn enough about the application program to then be able to adapt the process to the application at hand and keep the process on track. Time intensive. The process requires a lot of planning and clear and consistent frequent communication of vision and work materials – a lot of work upfront to prepare communication and work materials; a lot of planning for meetings/meeting materials; a lot of step-wise planning for pre-meetings and meeting to have people prepared for each step of the process. This process is a great one because it is thorough, but that also means it takes time and long term planning over the course of the year to create a smooth process that does not yank people around or cause confusion. Requires change management. People have evaluation processes but usually not like this. People are hesitant to want to change. Can be difficult at times for participants to see the big picture and do not always understand the return on investment. The process looks like overkill to some, or some get bogged down in assigning weights, scoring the options, etc. The knowledgeable facilitator is key to communicating and keeping the process moving and demonstrating the value of the process.

26. GOMR Current and Future Application of SDM GOMR FY2020 ESP Studies Evaluation Process Department of Interior Reorganization – Mississippi Basin- Region 4 – GOMR Regional Director currently the Regional Facilitator • Recommendations for Inter-bureau facilitation opportunities and shared resources/services • Interior Regional Director office location analyses

27. Other GOMR ESP Initiatives Life Cycle of a Study Approach: • Phase 1: Study Idea Development (Idea Conception, Project Initiation) • Annual Studies Development Plan kick off – information/guidance dissemination • Structured decisionmaking 5-day training science informed decisions and decision informed science (chiefs/sups first, then staff) • Phase 2: Study Profile Development (Planning) • Profile development workshop • Communication/briefing workshop • Structured Literature review workshop • Decision Informed Science Analysis - determine if study would change the decision • Phase 3: Study Contract Procurement (Execution, Performance and Monitoring) • Procurement workshop (SOW, deliverables, schedule, coordinating with assessment, etc) • COR resume building to bring CORs from level 1 up to level 3. • Phase 4: Integrating study results into Assessment (Project Closure) • Project close-out workshop – integrating study results into assessment • Project Close-out reporting for each study (track study use/application, SWOT/lessons learned, did study inform decisions?, etc.)

28. GOMR Collaboration within BOEM National Studies Program Shared Materials Developed and Lessons Learned from GOMR Studies Evaluation Process GOMR Developing a Profile writing workshop – PICOC and Evaluation Criteria • NSP will support workshop development and be there to instruct National Studies Program • Developed a Decision Context • Utilized the Studies Matrix Format and Evaluation Criteria. • The Evaluation Criteria aligned closely with previously developed STR Ream Review questions

29. Lissa Lyncker lissa.lyncker@boem.gov 504 736 3259